Citations

Introduction Many clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) claim to use Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, but its implementation varies. This suggests that CPG developers, methodologists and users would benefit from an instrument to evaluate the extent to which CPGs adhere to GRADE approach. Such a structured instrument is currently unavailable. Accordingly, this study will develop an evaluation instrument for assessing guideline adherence to the GRADE approach, which we have named ‘GRADE-Check’. The goal is to target items to which CPGs fail to adhere and that potentially have serious consequences resulting in inaccuracies in certainty of evidence and inappropriate direction or strength of recommendations, thereby discriminating across CPGs in issues of importance. Methods and analysis The panel will include up to 25 individuals with specific knowledge and expertise, including experienced authors, educators and methodologists on CPGs methodology and GRADE approach from relevant organisations. The instrument will focus on the key elements of GRADE, aiming for clarity for GRADE experts and non-GRADE experts to apply. The development process for GRADE-Check will consist of the following five phases: (1) recruitment of a panel of GRADE experts; (2) development of objectives and scope for the development of GRADE-Check and criteria for item selection; (3) generation of candidate items through a literature review and panel consultation; (4) panellist discussion to construct the initial draft and extended explanation manual and (5) user testing. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University (no. (2025047K)). Our research findings will be published in peer-reviewed journal articles and presented at academic conferences. Additionally, the dissemination plan will include considerations for the development of implementation manuals, a dedicated project website and training tools.

Background and Aims: With rapid changes in the management landscape of chronic hepatitis B (CHB), this technical systematic review addresses 4 critical Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) questions to provide guidance to the formulation of recommendations to the 2025 AASLD practice guideline for management of CHB. Approach: The review was reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes were evaluated across 4 key PICOs: (1) antiviral therapy for prevention of horizontal HBV transmission in high-risk groups, (2) antiviral therapy versus observation for persons in the immune-tolerant phase, (3) discontinuation versus continuation of nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy in HBeAg-negative individuals with undetectable HBV DNA, and (4) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance in non-cirrhotic individuals with HBsAg clearance or co-infections with HCV, HDV, or HIV. Results: For PICO 1, limited evidence suggests antiviral therapy may reduce horizontal transmission risk, though with low certainty. PICO 2 analyses reveal uncertain benefits of treating persons in the immune-tolerant phase, with very low certainty due to heterogeneity and bias. PICO 3 analyses demonstrate that discontinuing antiviral therapy in persons who are HBeAg negative with undetectable HBV DNA increases HBsAg loss rates (OR: 12.65, 95% CI: 1.58–101.51) but carries moderate risks of virologic relapse (OR: 47.17, 95% CI: 2.79–797.35) and clinical flares. PICO 4 analyses on several cohort studies showed that in patients co-infected with HCV, HBV, or HIV, the annual incidence of HCC was higher than the level where screening becomes cost-effective, suggesting that regular liver cancer screening could be beneficial for these patients. Conclusions: Despite low certainty, the findings support shared decision-making in high-risk horizontal transmission scenarios or in treating individuals in the immune tolerance phase, caution in discontinuing antiviral therapy in virologically suppressed individuals without HBsAg loss, and tailored HCC surveillance for those with co-infection or cirrhosis.

Background and Aims: Accumulating data related to prevention, surveillance and treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) provided the impetus for this updated guideline, using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Methods: The guideline was developed in compliance with the National Academy of Medicine standards. The guideline panel developed structured questions following the Population, Intervention Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework. The panel addressed 6 PICO questions covering prevention (maternal to infant transmission and horizontal transmission), surveillance for liver cancer (among hepatitis B surface antigen positive (HBsAg) persons co-infected with hepatitis C virus, hepatitis D virus and/or human immunodeficiency viruses and after HBsAg loss) and treatment (HBsAg positive persons in immune-tolerant or indeterminate phases as well as withdrawal of antiviral therapy), providing evidence-based recommendations on these topics. Four systematic reviews of the literature were conducted, and two existing systematic reviews were utilized to support the recommendations in this practice guideline. Conclusions: This evidence-based guideline provides updated recommendations to optimize the care of persons with CHB.

Aims Native vertebral osteomyelitis (NVO) and infective endocarditis (IE) are increasingly seen as interconnected conditions, sharing similar risk factors — such as advanced age and immunosuppression — and overlapping microbial profiles, notably Staphylococcus aureus and streptococci. When these infections occur together, they present distinct challenges in diagnosis and treatment, which can obscure clear outcomes and mortality estimates. Therefore, we aimed to systematically assess the combined mortality associated with concurrent NVO and IE and to detail the clinical characteristics of affected patients. Methods We conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA framework, searching MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus for relevant studies published between 1970 and October 2023. Studies included were those reporting mortality outcomes for at least ten adult patients with both NVO and IE. Two independent reviewers screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated study quality using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We then performed a random-effects meta-analysis to pool in-hospital, 1-month, 1-year, and 3-year mortality rates. Results A total of 16 studies (12 retrospective, 3 prospective, and 1 mixed design) involving 641 patients (mean age 67.1 years) with concomitant NVO and IE were included. The pooled in-hospital mortality rate was 10.0% (95% CI: 5.2–14.7%), with mortality rates of 5.6% (95% CI: 2.2–9.0%) at 1 month, 12.1% (95% CI: 5.3–18.8%) at 1 year, and 14.5% (95% CI: 4.3–24.8%) at 3 years. There was significant heterogeneity among studies (I² ranging from 46% to 86%). Common comorbidities included diabetes (24.6%), renal failure (17.3%), and immunosuppression (11.1%). The predominant pathogens identified were streptococci (31.3%), S. aureus (27.3%), and enterococci (13.7%). Approximately 40.6% of patients underwent surgical intervention, though its effect on mortality remains inconclusive. Overall, the certainty of the estimates was limited by imprecision and impossibility of perform subgroup analysis. Conclusion The coexistence of NVO and IE is associated with significant mortality, emphasizing the need for earlier diagnosis, coordinated multidisciplinary management, and standardized treatment protocols. Future prospective, high-quality studies are crucial to determine optimal diagnostic and surgical strategies for managing this complex clinical scenario.

Abstract Disclosure: A. Al Nofal: None. K. Benkhadra: None. M. Nduwimana: None. A. Mohammad: None. A. Abbas: None. Z. Wang: None. M. Murad: None. Background: Hybrid closed-loop (HCL) systems for automated insulin delivery are increasingly used in diabetes management. However, their safety and efficacy in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 diabetes remain uncertain. Aim: To assess the safety and effectiveness of HCL systems in pregnant women with pre-existing type 1 diabetes compared to current standard of care. Methods: A comprehensive search of several databases was conducted from inception to January 3rd, 2024. Pairs of independent reviewers screened abstracts. Abstracts included by at least one reviewer were reviewed in full text by a pair of independent reviewers. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method was used to pool effect sizes across the included studies. Results: Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 274 pregnant women with type I diabetes met the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between HCL and standard of care regarding overall time in range (TIR), time above range (TAR), and time below range (TBR). However, overnight, women using HCL showed significantly higher TIR (mean difference: 10.18%, CI 7.42-12.94%) and lower TBR (mean difference: -0.67%, CI -0.91 to -0.43%) compared to those using standard care. Additionally, there were no significant differences between HCL and standard of care in term of LGA, SGA, neonatal hypoglycemia, and maternal severe hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. Conclusion: HCL systems for management of pre-existing type I diabetes during pregnancy are associated with similar outcomes without increased risk of complications when compared to standard of care. This is derived from limited number of RCTs with low risk of bias but significant imprecision, which warrant low confidence. Presentation: Sunday, July 13, 2025

Abstract Background and Aims Although the choice of dialysis technique is based on several factors, patient survival is undoubtedly one of the most relevant. In a context where randomization to either peritoneal dialysis (PD) or hemodialysis (HD) proved to be extremely challenging, previous meta-analyses were greatly limited due to the inclusion of historical studies. Method We performed a systematic review by searching multiple databases up to April 22nd, 2022. We included studies meeting the following criteria: adult patients (>18 years) with end-stage kidney disease on dialysis; comparison of PD versus HD; reporting mortality data via intention-to-treat analysis; initiation of dialysis after 2000; patient classification by dialysis modality at 90 days post-initiation; and ≥50 patients per group (Figs 1 and 2). The primary outcome was the association between dialysis modality (PD vs HD) and mortality assessed via hazard ratios (HR) [Fig. 3]. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity, including sex, age, diabetes, dialysis vintage, geographical location, HD access, and study cohort inclusion period [Figs 4 and 5]. Results Database search yielded 5317 citations, from which, 27 observational studies met the eligibility criteria, including 1 033 362 incident dialysis patients [Figs 1 and 2]. The pooled mortality HR for PD versus HD was 1.01 (95% CI 0.93–1.10 [Fig. 3]). Heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 94%) and was largely explained by different baseline features of the included populations. A statistically significant subgroup effect was demonstrated for age (>65 vs.<65 years; P = 0.01), geographical location of the studies (Oceania vs. Europe vs. Asia vs. North America; P < 0.01), and HD vascular access (central venous catheter vs. arteriovenous fistula; P < 0.01, only one study included) [Figs 4 and 5]. Conclusion This meta-analysis suggests that overall PD and incentre HD likely carry equivalent survival benefits. However, differences were detected among subgroups based on age, geographic location, HD access type, but not on sex, diabetes status, dialysis vintage and study cohort inclusion period.

ABSTRACT Background Bile acid diarrhoea, a common cause of diarrhoea‐predominant irritable bowel syndrome, has a similar prevalence to coeliac disease and inflammatory bowel diseases. The mainstay of treatment is bile acid sequestrants (BAS). The effectiveness of using bile acid‐targeted therapies remains unclear. Aim To compare BAS with placebo for bile acid diarrhoea. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing BAS to placebo using a comprehensive search of databases from inception to 8/1/2023. Inclusion required unequivocal diagnosis using serum or faecal biochemical parameters, or 75 SeHCAT. Co‐primary endpoints were ≥ 30% improvement in bowel movement consistency and frequency averaged over 7 days. Adverse effects were also summarised. Results Database search resulted in 1152 citations; 1 additional study was added. Ultimately, 6 trials (5 parallel arm, 1 crossover) involving 182 participants evaluated the effectiveness of BAS over 1–8 weeks. Participants were between the third and seventh decades of life and mostly female. The risk of bias was low except in one parallel and one crossover trial. Meta‐analysis of parallel‐design trials of sequestrants only showed a clinically significant reduction in stool consistency and frequency with pooled relative risks of 1.50 (95% CI: 1.14–1.96) and 2.80 (95% CI: 1.68–4.67), respectively. There was no observable heterogeneity ( I 2 = 0%), and the certainty of evidence was moderate. There was no statistically significant difference in adverse effects. Conclusions This study quantifies the significant and rapid improvement in both stool consistency and frequency with BAS in patients with objective diagnosis of bile acid diarrhoea. Sequestrants also appear well tolerated.

Objectives Aircrew are subject to thermal stress and heat-related illness (HRI). Published screening methods and safety thresholds remain limited. The objective of this review was to evaluate the available evidence, approaches and guidelines regarding HRI screening tools in aircrew and analogue occupational and athletic cohorts to create a broad compendium of relevant tools for aviation safety decision-makers which establish risk stratification. Design A systematic literature review was conducted through 28 July 2025, of manuscripts and technical documents that reported HRI risk screening approaches. Pairs of independent reviewers selected studies and appraised risk of bias. Data sources Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus were searched. Eligibility criteria Extrinsic and intrinsic factors checklists, protocols, diagrams, algorithms and screening approaches for HRI risk stratification and safety thresholds within occupational settings were included. Cohorts under 18 years of age and abstracts were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis 3472 reports were identified and 37 were included in the final analysis. Common approaches relied on wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT), workload assessment and personal protective equipment used. WBGT thresholds ranged 27–32°C for extreme risk and 23–31°C for high risk. Identified tools used 19 common domains to establish risk. Data were insufficient to identify a singular ideal screening approach. Conclusions This systematic review addresses knowledge gaps regarding occupational HRI risk screening protocols for use towards aviation workers. Limitations included lack of generalisability, risk definition variability and conflicting published author assumptions regarding intrinsic factors considered.

Background and Aims: Primary biliary cholangitis is a chronic cholestatic liver disease that may progress to cirrhosis and liver failure. For patients with inadequate response or intolerance to ursodeoxycholic acid, peroxisome proliferator–activated receptor (PPAR) agonists have emerged as second-line options. This study assessed the comparative effectiveness and safety of PPAR agonists in primary biliary cholangitis through a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Approach and Results: A systematic review identified randomized controlled trials evaluating PPAR agonists versus ursodeoxycholic acid, with or without placebo. A frequentist network meta-analysis assessed biochemical response (primary outcome) and ALP normalization (secondary outcome). Pairwise meta-analyses were performed for percentage change in ALP and total bilirubin, and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. Data were stratified by baseline ALP, and a random-effects model was used. Eight randomized controlled trials (727 participants) evaluating 4 PPAR agonists were included. All agents outperformed placebo in achieving biochemical response and ALP normalization. Bezafibrate ranked highest for the primary outcome; both bezafibrate and seladelpar ranked highest for the secondary outcome. Percentage ALP reduction did not vary by baseline ALP. Total bilirubin changes were similar across arms, and treatment discontinuations due to adverse events were infrequent. Conclusions: PPAR agonists are effective second-line therapies for primary biliary cholangitis. Treatment ranking differences likely reflect variations in outcomes, populations, and drug mechanisms. In the absence of head-to-head trials, network meta-analysis provides important insights into comparative effectiveness. Further studies are warranted to confirm long-term safety and improve the evaluation of patient-centered outcomes.