Citations

ABSTRACT Background and Objective Despite growing interest in mindfulness‐based interventions for adolescents with chronic pain, the data have not been systematically summarized. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analyses to estimate the effect of mindfulness‐based interventions on pain intensity, catastrophizing, acceptance and interference; functioning, quality of life, and anxiety and depression in youth with chronic pain. Databases and Data Treatment Electronic databases CINAHL, CCTR, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science were systematically searched to January 2, 2025. Studies were included if they were in English, included > 5 patients, were not part of intensive interdisciplinary pain treatment and included pre‐post outcomes from mindfulness‐based interventions delivered to adolescents with chronic pain. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results Fourteen studies including a total of 323 adolescents were identified. There were significant within group improvements in pain intensity, pain catastrophizing, pain acceptance, pain interference, functioning, depression, anxiety, and quality of life, with results maintained or increased at follow‐up effect sizes at follow‐up were moderate to large (e.g., quality of life SMD = 0.33; pain intensity SMD = −0.73; pain interference SMD = −1.44). Heterogeneity of results was generally moderate to high. Compared to standardized long interventions, variable length interventions showed greater pre‐post changes in functioning, pain intensity, and pain catastrophizing. The certainty in the estimates was generally low, due to risk of bias and pre‐post designs. Conclusions Although adolescents with chronic pain report improvements after participating in mindfulness‐based interventions, rigorous RCTs are needed to substantiate these results. Significance Statement Chronic pain in youth is common and difficult to treat. Previous interventions have largely been based on cognitive‐behavioural therapy and not successful for all. This is the first systematic review and meta‐analysis in paediatric chronic pain to focus on mindfulness‐based interventions, highlighting an alternative and potentially effective intervention approach. This study informs clinicians about an effective intervention approach and assists researchers in identifying gaps for further research.

Objectives This study aims to compare the reliability and accuracy of three large language models (LLMs) (Claude, Gemini and GPT) in assessing the risk of bias of nonrandomised studies using the ROBINS-I tool. Methods and analysis We conducted a secondary analysis of 171 nonrandomised studies previously assessed with Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool by two independent human review teams. Only studies with concordant human domain-level ratings were included. Each study was independently assessed twice by Claude, Gemini and Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) using agent-based structured implementations of the ROBINS-I tool. Reliability (agreement between two runs of the same LLM) was evaluated using percent agreement and Gwet’s AC1. Accuracy (agreement with human reviewers) was assessed only for studies with consistent LLM ratings, using the same metrics. Results Claude demonstrated high reliability across all domains (79.5–98.0% agreement, AC1=0.729–0.975). Gemini showed moderate-to-high reliability (agreement 76.7–100%, AC1=0.680–1.0). GPT exhibited lower reliability overall, though domain-level agreement ranged from 70.9–95.6% (AC1=0.596–0.944). In terms of accuracy, Claude showed overall poor agreement with human reviewers (14.4–68.5% agreement; low AC1 values). Gemini demonstrated moderate-to-high accuracy in several domains, including deviations from intended interventions (79.6%, AC1=0.848) and measurement of outcomes (73.9%, AC1=0.702), with the highest overall agreement (40.0%, AC1=0.672). GPT showed variable accuracy, with the highest in measurement of outcomes (62.8%, AC1=0.571) and classification of interventions (57.8%, AC1=0.498), but poor performance in selection (14.3%, AC1 = −0.041) and overall agreement (23.0%, AC1=0.267). Conclusions Claude was internally consistent but poorly aligned with human reviewers. Gemini achieved both high reliability and moderate-to-high accuracy, whereas GPT had lower reliability and mixed accuracy. Current off-the-shelf LLMs cannot reliably perform ROBINS-I risk of bias assessments.

Objective: The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the agreement rate on judgments made using the Murad tool by different systematic review teams. Introduction: Evaluating the methodological quality of case reports and case series is challenging but some tools do exist for this purpose. We leveraged the presence of studies that have been evaluated by different systematic review teams to assess the inter-consensus agreement among different teams on Murad tool domains. Methods: Using a back-citation method, we identified systematic reviews that used the Murad tool and retrieved all the included primary studies. We selected studies that were assessed by more than 1 systematic review team. We calculated observed agreement and Gwet’s agreement coefficient on judgments made about each signaling question. Results: We identified 982 systematic reviews that cited the Murad tool and collectively cited 59,080 references. The final data comprised of 81 duplicated case reports and series assessed by more than 1 systematic review team. Overall, the signaling questions had very high observed agreement with 5 of the 8 questions having agreement over 75%. The signaling questions with the highest agreement addressed the adequacy of the ascertainment of the exposure (coefficient 0.959), ascertainment of the outcome (coefficient 0.829), presence of a dose-response gradient (perfect agreement), and clarity of reporting (coefficient 0.755). Conclusion: The current study demonstrates overall high agreement among different systematic review teams that used the Murad tool for appraisal of the same case series and case reports. Leveraging duplicated studies across systematic reviews is a feasible way to retrospectively assess the reliability of the tool.

Abstract Background Partial breast irradiation (PBI) is an effective treatment for early-stage breast cancer. However, evidence comparing different PBI modalities is limited. Methods This trial emulation uses electronic health records from a multi-state large tertiary health system. Three PBI modalities were compared: proton radiation therapy, photon radiation therapy, and applicator-based brachytherapy. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to balance confounders. The primary outcome was ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR). Results Between 2013 and 2023, 1041 women with early-stage breast cancer were treated with PBI. Of these, 1026 patients were included in the analyses. The median age was 66 years; 22.51% had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 97.56% were estrogen receptor positive. With median follow-up of 38.2 months, the rate of IBR in the overall group was 3.05% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.99% to 4.65%) at 3 years. After IPW, compared with photon PBI, the hazard ratio for IBR for proton PBI was 2.11 (95% CI = 0.70 to 6.33) and for brachytherapy, 3.86 (95% CI = 1.39 to 10.69). Compared with proton PBI, the hazard ratio for IBR for brachytherapy was 1.83 (95% CI = 0.88 to 3.81). IBR risk was similar across PBI modalities for patients with tumor size ≤ 10 mm and in patients treated for DCIS. Among patients with tumor size >10 mm, the hazard ratio for IBR for brachytherapy was 7.64 (95% CI = 1.64 to 35.58) and 3.59 (95% CI = 1.22 to 10.56) relative to photons and protons, respectively. Conclusion PBI with applicator-based brachytherapy was associated with higher IBR than photon or proton PBI in patients with tumor size > 10 mm, suggesting the need for more careful PBI patient selection for this modality.

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.

Importance Suicide is a leading cause of death among young people and an escalating public health crisis. Objective To assess the effectiveness and harms of available treatments for suicidal thoughts and behaviors among youths at heightened risk for suicide. Evidence Review A systematic review was conducted searching databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and various gray literature sources from January 1, 2000, to September 26, 2024. We included randomized clinical trials, comparative observational studies, and before-after studies of psychosocial interventions, pharmacologic interventions, neurotherapeutics, emerging therapies, and combination therapies. Eligible patients were youths (aged 5-24 years) with heightened risk for suicide, adolescents from racial and ethnic minority groups known to be at increased risk of suicide, or those exposed to crime or violence. Pairs of independent reviewers selected and appraised studies. Findings This review included 65 studies (33 randomized clinical trials, 13 comparative observational studies, and 19 before-after studies) reporting on 14 534 patients (median age, 15.1 years; 75.1% female patients). Psychosocial interventions comprised psychotherapy interventions (33 studies; cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavioral therapy, collaborative assessment and management of suicidality, dynamic deconstructive psychotherapy, attachment-based family therapy, and family-focused therapy), acute (ie, 1-4 sessions or contacts) psychosocial interventions (19 studies; safety planning, family-based crisis management, motivational interviewing crisis interventions, continuity of care after crisis, and brief adjunctive treatments), and school- or community-based psychosocial interventions (13 studies; social network interventions, school-based skills interventions, suicide awareness or gatekeeper programs, and community-based, culturally tailored adjunct programs). Dialectical behavior therapy showed moderate strength of evidence for reducing suicidal ideation. Other categories of psychosocial treatments showed insufficient to low strength of evidence for reducing suicidal outcomes. None of the studies evaluated adverse events. The evidence base on pharmacologic treatment for youths at risk of suicide was largely nonexistent. Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review found that the current evidence on available interventions targeting youths at heightened risk of suicide is uncertain. Medication, neurotherapeutics, and emerging therapies remain unstudied among this population. The limited evidence base calls for the development of novel, developmentally and trauma-informed treatments, as well as multilevel interventions to target the increasing suicide risk among youths.

Abstract Context Primary aldosteronism (PA) is a leading endocrine cause of secondary hypertension. Objective To support the development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on managing PA. Data Source MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and others were searched on October 4, 2024. Study Selection Studies were selected by pairs of independent reviewers. Data Extraction Data were extracted and appraised by pairs of independent reviewers. Data Synthesis We included 95 studies (7 randomized trials and 88 observational studies). We did not identify trials that evaluated the outcomes of PA screening. One observational study suggested that screening was associated with higher rates of using PA-specific medical therapies and better blood pressure control. Patients managed with adrenal venous sampling (vs computed tomography alone) may have a better post-adrenalectomy biochemical cure rate, but with an increased risk of adrenal hemorrhage. Two small observational studies suggested that PA-specific medical or surgical therapy was likely associated with better blood pressure control than nonspecific therapy. Small randomized trials suggested that surgical therapy may be associated with better blood pressure control than medical therapy, with a lower number and dosage of antihypertensive medications. Compared to eplerenone, spironolactone may be associated with better control of hypokalemia and a lower number and dosage of antihypertensive agents. Unsuppressed plasma renin activity was associated with better control of hypokalemia, while suppression was associated with higher risk of mortality, atrial fibrillation, and stroke (very low certainty). Conclusion This systematic review addresses various aspects of managing PA and will support the development of the Endocrine Society guidelines.

Abstract Introduction Case reports and series are critical to guide initial decision-making in a pandemic, but may have lower rigor because of the need to publish them quickly. This meta-epidemiologic study compares the methodological quality of case series that described the acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020 versus those that described long-haul cases. Methods We conducted a systematic review in multiple databases for long-haul case series and reports. We identified early cases of acute COVID-19 synthesized in published systematic reviews. We evaluated the methodological quality by pairs of independent reviewers using a tool dedicated for appraising case series. Results We included 239 original case series (81 published in the first year of the pandemic and 158 published later describing long-haul COVID). The methodological quality of both groups of case series was very good (80–100% of series satisfying quality items) except for two items, the selection approach of cases included in the series and ruling out other causes that can explain the main finding described in the series. The appraisal tool demonstrated high agreement and reliability between reviewers. Conclusion The methodological quality of modern case series is high, except for two quality items that represent an area for potential for improvement for authors of case series describing future pandemics.

Abstract Introduction Effective pain and anxiety management during the perioperative phase remains a challenge for patients undergoing surgeries and other invasive procedures. The current standard of care involves prescribing analgesics to treat these conditions; however, there has been recent interest in applying multimodal strategies that limit the use of these medications. One such modality is meditation, which has been shown to be effective in alleviating various physical and psychological symptoms in other settings. This systematic review aims to assess how current meditative practices affect perioperative pain and anxiety. Methods We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, APA PsycINFO, EBM Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science for all available dates. Our primary outcomes of interest were patient‐reported pain and anxiety scores using the Visual Analog Scale, the Brief Pain Inventory, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, the State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). For the HADS and STAI scales, only the anxiety and anxiety‐state subgroups were reported, respectively. Results The literature search yielded 1746 articles. A total of 286 full‐text articles were screened, and 16 studies were included in this systematic review. A total of eight studies assessed pain scores after invasive procedures; five reported improvements in pain scores, and three reported no change after meditative practices. Ten studies assessed anxiety outcomes after invasive procedures: nine reported a decrease in overall anxiety levels as a result of meditation practices while one study reported no change in anxiety scores. Conclusion Data from this limited literature suggests that different meditation practices could be effective in alleviating pain and anxiety within the perioperative phase for patients undergoing various types of invasive procedures. Future prospective studies are needed to determine whether routine meditation in the perioperative setting is effective in mitigating perioperative pain and anxiety.