Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

2,480 records · Page 11Linked to original sources
PubMed2026

Effectiveness of exercise-based prehabilitation on pre and postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing cardiac surgery-An umbrella review of systematic reviews.

AIMS: Individuals undergoing cardiac surgery are becoming older, frailer, and less mobile. Prehabilitation has shown to improve postoperative outcomes by optimizing preoperative physical function. This umbrella review aims to pool the systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of exercise-based prehabilitation in cardiac surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: The review followed the PRIOR checklist. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane library, Scopus, Web of science, ProQuest NAHD, ProQuest HMC, Open Grey and MedNar were searched using relevant keywords from inception to 16th December, 2024. Two reviewers screened and extracted data from the included reviews and assessed primary study overlap with the corrected covered area. Methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated with the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 scale. Certainty of evidence was assessed using a previously developed criteria for overview of reviews. Six systematic reviews with 30 unique trials and 6705 participants were included. The interventions assessed included breathing exercises, inspiratory muscle training, and exercise training. Prehabilitation reduced length of hospital stay, postoperative pulmonary complications, and clinically improved functional capacity with a very low to moderate certainty of evidence. However, there was uncertainty regarding the effects pertaining to adverse events and quality of life. The methodological quality of all reviews was critically low. The primary trials scored poorly in the domains of selection and detection bias. CONCLUSION: Exercise-based prehabilitation might reduce length of hospital stay and postoperative complications, and improve functional capacity. However, the quality of evidence is poor, and individual discretion is required before implementing them into practice. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42023480100.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

What's the meta now? More updates on the problems with systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are intended to provide trustworthy evidence synthesis, yet previous iterations of this living review have identified numerous recurring problems in their conduct and reporting. This article presents the third version and second update of the living systematic review examining issues raised across the academic literature. METHODS: Using consistent eligibility criteria and methods from earlier versions, literature searches were updated to May 2025. Eligible meta-research and editorial articles describing problems with systematic reviews were analyzed to identify emerging themes. Additionally, four basic indicators of methodological quality of the included meta-research were presented across review versions. RESULTS: The update included 209 additional articles. Critically low methodological quality and absence of protocols remained among the most frequently reported issues in systematic reviews across disciplines and journals but notably in evidence underpinning clinical practice guidelines. Spin in abstracts and conflicts of interest continued to be common. Apparent improvements in reporting quality were inconsistent, with modest gains in some full-text reporting but persistent deficiencies in abstracts. Authorship diversity of systematic reviews improved in gender representation but remained geographically concentrated in high-income countries, and primary research included in reviews similarly lacked global representativeness. The issue of misalignment between systematic review evidence bases and global burden of disease bring the total number of problems with systematic reviews to 69. Emerging use of automation and artificial intelligence was variably reported. Descriptive comparison of meta-research articles over the three versions of this living review suggests a greater proportion meeting basic quality indicators in more recent updates. CONCLUSION: Across successive updates, problems with systematic reviews remain widespread and consistent rather than isolated. Incremental reporting improvements coexist with persistent concerns about transparency, bias, and representativeness. Future efforts should prioritize evaluating interventions and aligning research incentives to support genuinely trustworthy evidence synthesis.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Suicidality risk of cancer caregivers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: The increase in the number of global cancer cases is expected to lead to a greater caregiving burden. However, few studies have investigated the risk of suicidality among cancer caregivers. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to explore the risk of suicidality among cancer caregivers. METHODS: For this systematic review, a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science databases, PsycINFO and Scopus databases was conducted from inception to 16 July 2025. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the odds ratios (ORs) for case-control and cross-sectional studies and the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for cohort studies. RESULTS: Seven studies were included (four cohort studies, one case-control study and two cross-sectional studies), and 638,188 study subjects and 4,203,957 nonexposed subjects. The meta-analyses revealed that the ORs was 1.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46-2.49) in the case-control study, cross-sectional studies, and one cohort study which reported ORs, and the aHRs was 1.32 (95% CI: 1.16-1.50) in the three cohort studies. Caregivers of patients with highly aggressive cancers had a greater risk of suicidality (aHR = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.48-1.86). Within the first 7 years following a patient's cancer diagnosis, the risk of suicidality among caregivers remained elevated (aHR = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.04-1.94). CONCLUSION: The results indicate the need for both clinical and societal awareness to reduce the risk of suicidality among cancer caregivers, especially those with highly aggressive cancers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered prospectively in PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) with the registration number (PROSPERO CRD420251011926) and date of registration(15/03/2025).

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Thymosin-ɑ1 for people with chronic hepatitis B.

RATIONALE: Chronic hepatitis B is a global public health concern. It is caused by infection with the hepatitis B virus (HBV). The goal of treating chronic HBV infection is to prevent progression to chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, liver failure, hepatocellular carcinoma, and death. Individual studies have evaluated various immunomodulatory therapies with inconsistent results. Thymosin-ɑ1 is known to have antiviral effects; however, results of randomised clinical trials on the effects of thymosin-α1 as a potential treatment for people with chronic HBV have been inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of thymosin-ɑ1 therapy in people with chronic hepatitis B. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases and six trials registers, in addition to reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors to identify trials for inclusion. The latest search date was 10 June 2026. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated thymosin-α1 at any dose, route of administration, or formulation type, in people with chronic hepatitis B regardless of age, sex, or ethnicity. Thymosin-α1 could have been administered as monotherapy, in combination with an additional drug, or in addition to standard medical treatment and compared with placebo, no intervention, the same additional drug, or the same standard medical treatment. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Among our important outcomes were HBV-related morbidity, HBV-related mortality, non-serious adverse events, and the proportion of people without histological improvements. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2) to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We followed Cochrane methods. We conducted meta-analyses for predefined outcomes using data from the longest follow-up period, irrespective of the risk of bias judgements. We presented dichotomous outcome results as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcome results as mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at their longest follow-ups. We used the random-effects model for our primary analyses. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 10 RCTs conducted in Bangladesh, China, Italy, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, with 1349 randomised participants (range: 12 to 690; 1045 (77.5%) were male). Among the trials reporting age, none included participants younger than 17 years (age range: 17 to 75 years). The trials were published between 1991 and 2018, and assessed thymosin-ɑ1 in adults with chronic hepatitis B infection, with or without comorbidities. Only two trials mentioned comorbidities (cirrhosis and acute-on-chronic liver failure). The trials compared thymosin-ɑ1, with or without a cointervention, with placebo or no intervention, or with the same cointervention. The control interventions were placebos in two trials and no intervention in two. The remaining six trials administered co-interventions, such as interferon, pegylated interferon, lamivudine, and standard medical therapy (entecavir or tenofovir), and entecavir. Follow-ups ranged from six months to five years after the end of treatment (median: 12 months). Four trials were funded by industry, five by research grants, and one provided no information. All 10 trials (11 records) provided data on at least one outcome in our review. We identified no ongoing trials. Sixteen studies are awaiting assessment due to incomplete reporting. We received no responses to our enquiries. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Thymosin-ɑ1, compared with the control interventions, may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 1056 participants; low-certainty evidence), HBV-related mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence), non-serious adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.83; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 300 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and may have little to no effect on health-related quality of life (MD 0.70, 95% CI -2.55 to 3.95; I² not applicable; 1 study, 161 participants; very low-certainty evidence; score range: 0 to 100; the higher the score, the better) and on histological improvement (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.06; I² = 74%; 2 studies, 702 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of thymosin-ɑ1 on hepatitis B-related morbidity (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; I² = 3%; 3 studies, 854 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low for serious adverse events and very low for the remaining outcomes. Reasons for downgrading were mainly due to study limitations, including overall high or some concerns for risk of bias; imprecision of the pooled effect estimates (including wide or very wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect, and small participant numbers); and inconsistency due to substantial heterogeneity (I² = 74%). The test for subgroup differences provided no evidence of differences in effect according to thymosin‑α1 administration for any outcome (P ≥ 0.05). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for all outcomes except for serious adverse events (low). Therefore, we are not sure whether thymosin-α1 monotherapy versus placebo or no intervention, or with the same co-interventions, reduces all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, HBV-related mortality, and non-serious adverse events, nor whether it has any effect on quality of life (based on one trial) and histological improvement. The effect of thymosin-ɑ1 on HBV-related morbidity is very uncertain. We observed no statistically significant differences between trials with and without cointerventions. We found no ongoing trials. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014610.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Study of prescription-indication of antivirals for herpesviruses in a Colombian population: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: To describe the utilization patterns and therapeutic indications of antivirals used for herpesvirus infections in Colombian patients. RESEARCH DESIGN/METHODS: A cross-sectional study on the use of antivirals for treating outpatients with herpesviruses between November 2023 and January 2024 in a Colombian population database. The Micromedex® database was used to identify Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications, off-label uses, and potentially inappropriate indications. RESULTS: A total of 14,816 individuals were included (median age:53.0 years [IQR:35.0-65.0]; 60.5% women). Acyclovir was the most frequently prescribed antiviral (oral:77.3%; topical:43.4%). Overall, 56.1% received oral therapy only, 25.2% combined oral and topical therapy, and 18.7% topical therapy only. FDA-approved indications accounted for 29.1% of use (herpes zoster), off-label use for 26.9% (mainly prophylaxis in immunocompromised patients), and potentially inappropriate use for 25.3% (primarily topical treatment of herpes zoster). Acyclovir use (OR:5.93; 95%CI:4.60-7.64) and specialist care (OR:2.17; 95%CI:1.73-2.71) were associated with off-label use. CONCLUSIONS: Antiviral prescribing for herpesvirus infections in a group of patients in Colombia is largely driven by acyclovir, with a substantial proportion of off-label and potentially inappropriate use, particularly involving topical therapies for herpes zoster. These findings highlight significant gaps in adherence to evidence-based recommendations and underscore the need for targeted interventions to optimize prescribing practices.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Simultaneous determination of imiquimod and terbinafine in skin permeation studies: Validation of a liquid chromatography method with fluorescence detection.

Chromoblastomycosis is a chronic, neglected subcutaneous mycosis posing significant therapeutic challenges. A topical strategy combining terbinafine (TBF), an antifungal, with imiquimod (IMQ), a TLR-7/8 agonist immunomodulator, has emerged a promising alternative. However, no validated analytical method is currently available to simultaneously quantify both drugs in skin, which is crucial for novel formulation development. This study reports the development and validation of a simple HPLC method with fluorescence detection (excitation 236 nm, emission 340 nm) for the simultaneous determination of TBF and IMQ extracted from porcine skin. Separation was achieved on a C8 reversed-phase column (125 × 4.0 mm, 5 μm) using a mobile phase of methanol and water (60,40, v/v), both containing 0.1% formic acid at a flow rate of 0.8 mL/min. The method showed excellent linearity (r > 0.999) over 0.01-1.0 μg/mL for IMQ and 0.1-2.0 μg/mL for TBF. Intra- and inter-day precision demonstrated coefficients of variation below 5%, and recovery rates from skin (79-105%) confirmed accuracy. Limits of detection were 0.001 μg/mL for IMQ and 0.004 μg/mL for TBF, with quantification limits of 0.02 μg/mL and 0.16 μg/mL, respectively. This selective, sensitive, and reproducible method represents a valuable analytical tool for supporting the development and quality control of topical formulations for chromoblastomycosis and other fungal skin diseases.

Animals↗
PubMed2026

Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging. Identifying effective recruitment strategies would benefit health research: poor recruitment leads to underpowered trials, reducing the reliability of findings and increasing the risk of wasted resources, ethical concerns, and trial failure. Evidence to inform recruitment strategies is increasingly generated through Studies Within A Trial (SWATs), which are methodological studies embedded within host RCTs. This is an update of a review last published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to quantify the effects of strategies to improve recruitment of participants to RCTs. Secondary: to evaluate recruitment strategies' cost-effectiveness and impact on retention, and the equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) characteristics of recruited participants. SEARCH METHODS: We used MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases to identify the studies included in the review. We also sought unpublished recruitment SWATs through social media and targeted email dissemination to trial methodology networks. The latest search date was 16 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised SWATs evaluating trial recruitment strategies embedded in healthcare and non-healthcare trials. We excluded quasi-randomised, hypothetical, questionnaire-only, retention-only, or clinician incentive studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcome: proportion of eligible participants or centres recruited. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: cost-effectiveness, retention rates, and EDI characteristics of included participants. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis for strategies evaluated in at least two studies; otherwise, we synthesised results narratively. We reported effects as risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and assessed between-trial heterogeneity. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome. We expressed cost-effectiveness as the incremental cost per additional participant recruited in pounds sterling (GBP). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 91 eligible studies (53 new to this update), providing 94 comparisons and involving at least 176,747 participants. Eighty-one studies involved strategies aimed at trial participants, while 10 evaluated strategies aimed at recruiters. All were healthcare studies. We found 65 recruitment strategies; 49 were evaluated in a single study. Only five strategies were supported by high-certainty evidence according to GRADE criteria, and we focus on these strategies in the summary below. Open-label trials versus blinded, placebo trials. Open-label trials recruited more participants than blinded trials (RD 10%, 95% CI 8% to 12%; 3 studies, 9004 participants), corresponding to approximately 10 additional participants per 100 approached. The studies involved mostly women in the UK and Estonia. No cost or retention data were reported. Telephone reminder versus no telephone reminder. Telephone reminders to people who did not respond to an initial postal invitation boosted recruitment by 6% (95% CI 3% to 9%; 2 studies, 1450 participants), in trials with low underlying recruitment (we are less certain for trials with over 10% recruitment). The studies involved people with a mean age of 58 years in Canada and Norway. No cost or retention data were reported. Recruitment primer letter versus no letter. Pre-recruitment letters and leaflets designed to encourage participation made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 1%, 95% CI -1% to 2%; 2 studies, 5376 participants), and were associated with increased costs compared to not sending a primer (incremental cost: GBP 2.08). The studies involved mostly older white people in the UK and Ireland. Multimedia information via a digital link/QR code plus paper participant information leaflet (PIL) versus paper PIL alone. This made little or no difference to recruitment (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -1% to 1%; 7 studies, 11,612 participants) and retention (absolute improvement 0%, 95% CI -2% to 3%; 5 studies, 7403 participants), and increased costs compared to not including multimedia information (incremental cost: GBP 0.78). The studies involved people in the UK. Optimised, user-tested PIL versus standard PIL. Optimising participant information leaflets (e.g. through user-testing the leaflet with the target population to shape its content, format, and appearance) made little or no difference to recruitment: absolute improvement was 0% (95% CI 0% to 1%; 6 studies, 27,805 participants). The studies involved people in the UK. Only one study reported EDI data; participants were mostly older women. No cost or retention data were reported. We had moderate-certainty evidence for 13 other strategies; confidence was often reduced because the results came from single studies. Seven strategies involved changes to how potential participants received information; four involved changes to trial conduct; one targeted the recruiter or recruitment site; and one tested non-monetary incentives. We had much less confidence in the other 47 comparisons because the studies had design flaws, were single studies, or had very uncertain results. Costs were reported in only 17 of 91 studies. Strategy impact on retention was reported in 15 studies. All but one study (99%) were from high-income countries. The most reported demographics were age (49 studies), sex (32 studies), gender (27 studies), and education level (16 studies). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on strategies to improve trial recruitment remains broad but lacks depth. Of 65 strategies evaluated, only five were supported by high-certainty evidence. Open-label trial designs and telephone reminders to non-responders increased recruitment, while optimised participant information leaflets, recruitment primer letters, and multimedia information provided alongside a paper participant information leaflet had little or no effect. Reporting of participant characteristics was poor, limiting assessment of equity, diversity, and inclusion across most studies. Evidence is heavily skewed toward high-income countries. Future research must prioritise evaluations in low-to-middle-income settings and consistently report cost, retention, and EDI outcomes. We strongly urge the methodology research community to strengthen the evidence base by prioritising replications of existing strategies over the development and testing of new ones. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (Advanced Fellowship, Adwoa Parker, reference:NIHR302256). Health Research Board, Republic of Ireland, Evidence Synthesis Ireland (grant ESI-2021-001) REGISTRATION: This review updates an earlier Cochrane review, which was first published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2007, 2010, and 2018. Previous versions of the review and their protocols are available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub2 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub3 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub4 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub6.

Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2026

Pharmacological therapies for the prevention of fractures in men.

RATIONALE: Pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention usually target osteoporosis, a skeletal disorder characterised by compromised bone mass or quality (or both). As most participants in osteoporosis trials are women, a review of pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention in men was warranted. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of bisphosphonates, parathyroid (PTH) or parathyroid-related protein (PTHrP) analogues, denosumab, and romosozumab therapy for the prevention of fractures in men. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) until 14 October 2025, with no restrictions on date or language of publication. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared bisphosphonates, PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab (alone or with calcium or vitamin D, or both) with placebo, other drugs, or non-pharmacological therapies in men aged 50 years or older. Our primary comparison was bisphosphonates versus placebo. OUTCOMES: Critical outcomes were incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, other (not hip or vertebral) fractures, disability, participants with adverse events, study withdrawals due to adverse events, and participants with serious adverse events. Our primary time point was the final time point reported in the trials. RISK OF BIAS: We used Cochrane's RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis employing the Mantel-Haenszel approach, and the DerSimonian and Laird method to estimate between-trial variance. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: Seventeen trials (4132 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 52 to 73 years. Twelve trials used a placebo comparator versus bisphosphonate (7 trials, 2548 participants), PTH or PTHrP analogues (4 trials, 569 participants), denosumab (1 trial, 240 participants), and romosozumab (1 trial, 244 participants). For the other planned comparisons, a bisphosphonate was compared to vitamin D/vitamin D analogues (2 trials, 434 participants), to calcitonin (1 trial, 32 participants), to PTH or PTHrP analogues (1 trial, 19 participants), or to another bisphosphonate (1 trial, 301 participants), and one trial compared a bisphosphonate plus calcium to calcium tablets alone (46 participants). SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Placebo-controlled trials were largely susceptible to bias in selection of the reported result (83%), while most trials without a placebo control were also susceptible to bias arising from the randomisation process (100%) and in measurement of the outcome (80%). We are very uncertain about the effect of bisphosphonates on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to placebo at the final follow-up (up to two years). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, twice for imprecision (very low event rates), and once for suspected publication bias. The certainty of evidence for incidence of other fractures was further downgraded for indirectness, as it was unclear if hip fractures were also included in the outcome. At up to two years, 2/875 participants (2 per 1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported hip fractures compared with 2/760 (3 per 1000) in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 8.51; I² = 36%; 4 trials, 1635 participants); 5/1021 (4/1000) participants in the bisphosphonate group had a symptomatic vertebral fracture compared to 7/855 (8/1000) participants in the placebo group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.74; I² = 0%; 5 trials, 1876 participants); 25/1130 participants (16/1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to 19/913 participants (21/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.45; I² = 0%; 6 trials, 2043 participants). Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events: 1024/1374 participants (746/1000) receiving bisphosphonates reported adverse events compared to 826/1174 participants (704/1000) receiving placebo (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.19; I² = 75%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events: 329/1329 participants (272/1000) receiving bisphosphonate reported serious adverse events compared to 323/1128 participants (286/1000) receiving placebo (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.08; I² = 0%; 6 trials, 2457 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once due to potential bias for adverse events and serious adverse events. We are very uncertain if bisphosphonates result in more withdrawals due to adverse events: 41/1374 participants (25/1000) in the bisphosphonate group withdrew due to adverse events compared with 43/1174 participants (37/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.18; I² = 37%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. No trial reported disability. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab compared to placebo on fracture outcomes. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH/PTHrP analogues on total adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. Denosumab may not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events compared to placebo, while the evidence for withdrawals due to adverse events is very uncertain. Romosozumab probably does not increase the risk of adverse events and may not increase the risk of serious adverse events or result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain about the effects of bisphosphonates compared to placebo on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures in men at up to two years of use. Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events, and we are very uncertain if they result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for indirectness, imprecision (low event rate), and serious risk of bias in selection of the reported result, as it was unclear if all studies fully reported every fracture. We found similar results for PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab versus placebo. Larger, longer placebo-controlled studies are needed to determine whether pharmacological therapies are beneficial for reducing fractures in men. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol (2021): https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014707.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

HYPNOSA: Study protocol for a prospective observational cohort of patients with obstructive sleep apnea.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) is a common chronic disease that affects more than 20% of the adult population. One of the most frequent and characteristic symptoms of OSA is excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS). This symptom is typically treated in patients with OSA with the application of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), the gold-standard treatment for this disease. In some patients who are adequately treated with CPAP, residual excessive daytime sleepiness (REDS) persists. The prevalence, associations, and outcomes associated with REDS remain poorly understood. METHODS: Multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study including 1000 patients. Participants will undergo a sleep study for the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, clinical assessment, quality-of-life questionnaires, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and collection of biochemical variables and biological samples. Patients with OSA will receive standard care, and those prescribed continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) will be monitored for treatment adherence. OSA patients will be assessed at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months. DISSCUSION: We aim to establish a prospective observational cohort of patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) treated with CPAP, with and without REDS. The HYPNOSA project will create the largest available registry of patients with OSA and REDS using real-world data, providing accurate prevalence estimates and long-term outcomes. Biological samples will be analyzed to assess the role of specific biomarkers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. Identifer: NCT06514482.

Adult↗
PubMed2026

The relationship between composite dietary antioxidant index and odds of depression: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the association between the composite dietary antioxidant index (CDAI) score and depression has received special attention from researchers. However, this possible association has not been comprehensively examined. Thus, the present study aims to comprehensively assess the relationship between CDAI score and depression odds. METHODS: A thorough literature search was performed using Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science up to November 2025. Observational studies assessing the relationship between CDAI score and depression odds were included. The odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) reported in each study were extracted, and a pooled effect size was calculated using a random-effects model with inverse-variance weighting. RESULTS: Four observational studies were included in the current systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled effect size indicated that a higher CDAI score was associated with lower odds of depression (OR:0.62; 95%CI: 0.51-0.76, I2&#xa0;=&#xa0;48.5%; P-value&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.121). In an exploratory linear dose-response analysis based on two eligible studies, no significant association was observed between a one-unit increase in CDAI score and the odds of depression (OR&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.96; 95% CI: 0.91-1.02; I2&#xa0;=&#xa0;92.2%; P-value<0.001). Given the limited number of studies and substantial heterogeneity, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that higher CDAI scores, reflecting greater adherence to antioxidant-rich dietary patterns, are associated with lower odds of depression.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Long-term hormone therapy for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Hormone therapy is widely provided to control menopausal symptoms and has been used for the management and prevention of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis and dementia in older women. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term effects of prolonged use (at least one year) of hormone therapy on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, cancer, gallbladder disease, fractures and cognition in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases and two trial registers, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify the studies included in the review. The latest search date was 26 September 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind trials in which peri- or postmenopausal women took hormone therapy or placebo for at least one year. We included various oestrogen formulations, with or without progestogens. We focused on studies assessing hormone therapy's effects on long-term clinical outcomes, including death, coronary events and cancer. Hormone therapy's efficacy in managing menopausal symptoms was beyond the scope of this review, and is assessed in other Cochrane reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies - with two newly added in this update - involving 45,660 participants. We derived nearly 70% of the data from two well-conducted studies: the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS 1998) and the large, multi-component Women's Health Initiative research programme, which included two hormone therapy arms (WHI 1998). Across all the studies, most participants were postmenopausal American women with one or more comorbidities. The mean participant age in most studies was over 60 years. Only one included study focused on perimenopausal women. We present full results for all included studies with available data in the main review. The results presented below are drawn from WHI 1998, in which the combined hormone therapy arm and the oestrogen-only arm were run concurrently, with women assigned to the appropriate trial based on their uterus status. One study with 16,608 postmenopausal women with an intact uterus compared combined continuous hormone therapy (conjugated equine oestrogen and medroxyprogesterone acetate) to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of 5.6 years of follow-up. Based on this study, combined continuous hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of a coronary event (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase the risk of stroke (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.09; low-certainty evidence) and venous thromboembolism (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.55 to 6.64; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, combined continuous hormone therapy probably increases the risk of breast cancer (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.56; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably makes little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; moderate-certainty evidence). It may increase gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.06; 14,203 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.86; moderate-certainty evidence). One study including 10,739 postmenopausal women who had undergone a hysterectomy compared oestrogen-only (conjugated equine oestrogen) hormone therapy to placebo, and measured outcomes at an average of seven years' follow-up. Based on this study, oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to the risk of coronary events (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.13), venous thromboembolism (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.74) and breast cancer (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.01), all with moderate-certainty evidence. It may make little to no difference to the risk of lung cancer (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.48; low-certainty evidence). Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably increases the risk of stroke (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.67) and gallbladder disease requiring surgery (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.24), and probably reduces the risk of all clinical fractures (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.80), all with moderate-certainty evidence. We judged most included studies to have a low risk of bias for most domains. The overall certainty of evidence for the main comparisons was moderate. The main limitation was that only about 30% of women were 50 to 59 years old at baseline, the age group most likely to consider hormone therapy for vasomotor symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of women using hormone therapy suggests that the risk profiles vary between combined hormone therapy and oestrogen-only therapy. Oestrogen-only hormone therapy probably makes little to no difference to coronary events, and probably increases the risk of stroke and gallbladder disease. It probably makes little to no difference in the risk of breast cancer, and probably reduces the risk of all fractures. Combined hormone therapy may increase the risk of thromboembolism and probably increases the risk of breast cancer. These results should be interpreted with caution as they are based on one study using oral hormone therapy, which may not represent the risks of the hormone therapy currently used in clinical practice.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Cannabis and cannabinoids for the treatment of mental and substance use disorders and symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental and observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Interest in cannabinoids for mental and substance use disorders is increasing. We examined experimental and observational evidence for treating these disorders and their symptoms. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42023467536). We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO to May 2025 for studies of cannabinoids in adults (&#x2265;18 years) with ADHD, anxiety, depression, PTSD, psychosis or Tourette syndrome, or alcohol, cannabis, opioid or tobacco use disorders. Two reviewers screened, extracted and assessed quality using a risk-of-bias tool and GRADE. RESULTS: We included 82 experimental and 118 observational studies. In RCTs, cannabinoids reduced anxiety symptoms (SMD=-0.40; 95% CI: -0.57, -0.23; I&#xb2;=90%) and, in one small trial, PTSD symptoms (SMD=-2.60; 95% CI: -4.58, -0.62; n=20), with trivial-to-no effect on depression (SMD=-0.20; 95% CI: -0.43, 0.04; I&#xb2;=91.6%), ADHD, psychosis and Tourette syndrome. Much anxiety and depression evidence came from symptoms measured as secondary outcomes in other primary conditions. Cannabinoids worsened cannabis use disorder severity in one RCT (SMD=2.35; 95% CI: 1.49, 3.21), with no effect on craving or withdrawal; evidence for alcohol, opioid and tobacco use disorders was very limited. Observational studies suggested improvements but had high risk of bias. The only significant safety finding was increased withdrawals due to adverse events with THC (OR=2.78; 95% CI: 1.66, 4.65). Certainty was predominantly very low. DISCUSSION: The evidence base shows very low certainty, high heterogeneity and methodological limitations, and is insufficient to support cannabinoids as first-line treatment. Signals for anxiety and PTSD are limited by indirectness and low certainty; no benefit was evident for depression; THC-related safety signals warrant careful consideration.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Multisensory stimulation for promoting development and preventing morbidity in preterm infants.

RATIONALE: Multisensory stimulation is a structured, developmentally appropriate intervention that provides simultaneous or sequential stimulation of two or more senses (e.g. tactile, auditory, visual, or vestibular) in a controlled and non-stressful manner, with the aim of supporting early neurodevelopment in preterm infants. It has the potential to enhance physiological regulation in preterm infants by stabilizing key functions, such as respiratory patterns, heart rate, and oxygen saturation; reducing the need for respiratory support; and improving feeding performance and sleep regulation. Targeted multisensory interventions have also been associated with improved neurodevelopmental outcomes, including enhanced psychomotor development and visual function. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of multisensory stimulation compared to any single sensory intervention or standard care on major neurodevelopmental disability, mortality, and growth in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, two trial registries, and conference abstracts up to 28 November 2025. We checked reference lists of included trials, and systematic reviews on sensory interventions. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing multisensory stimulation in preterm infants with no intervention (placebo or standard care), and one RCT comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense stimulation (tactile stimulation). OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were major neurodevelopmental disability at 18 to 24 months: cerebral palsy (CP), developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, sensorineural deafness; death during initial hospitalization; and total weight gain (grams), assessed at discharge. When comparing multisensory stimulation with single-sense intervention, we also included weight gain during the intervention, an outcome added during the post-hoc analysis. Important outcomes were duration of hospital stay, of NICU stay, and of respiratory support; and time until full oral feeding. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane tool, RoB 2. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We conducted meta-analyses using fixed-effect models to calculate risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, each with its 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the I2 statistic when we included more than two trials in a meta-analysis. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 19 trials (1554 newborn infants): 18 studies compared multisensory stimulation with standard care; one compared multisensory stimulation with single-sensory stimulation (tactile). In 10 studies, the primary aim was to assess the neurobehavioral outcomes of multisensory stimulation on preterm neo-nates. The other nine studies aimed to assess the impact of multisensory stimulation on weight gain during the intervention, weight gain until hospital discharge, length of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) stay, length of hospital stay, time until full oral feeding, length of respiratory support, or a combination. In the abstract we report results for the critical outcomes only. We identified 13 ongoing studies. Four studies are awaiting assessment. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Multisensory stimulation compared to standard care No studies reported on these major neurodevelopmental disabilities, assessed at 18 to 24 months' corrected age (CA): developmental delay, intellectual impairment, blindness, or sensorineural deafness. One study reported on rates of CP at 12 months of age. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.58; I&#xb2; not applicable; 1 study, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in death during initial hospitalization (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.73; I&#xb2; not applicable; 1 study, 395 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation may increase total weight gain prior to discharge (MD 72.67, 95% CI 68.23 to 77.12; I&#xb2; = 0%; 3 studies, 474 participants; low-certainty evidence). Multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation No studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disability, assessed at 18 to 24 months' CA, or death during initial hospitalization. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to tactile stimulation on weight gain during the intervention (MD -175.00, 95% CI -376.60 to 26.60; I&#xb2; not applicable; 1 study, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The certainty of the evidence was low to very low across outcomes, primarily due to risk of bias, imprecision from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and in some cases, inconsistency. The evidence base was also limited by the lack of reporting of relevant outcomes and reliance on surrogate outcomes or shorter follow-up periods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence on multisensory stimulation in preterm infants is limited and of low to very low certainty. No included studies reported on major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, which represented a critical outcome for this review. Evidence regarding the effect of multisensory stimulation on CP is very uncertain, as it is based on a single small study reporting a surrogate outcome at 12 months. Multisensory stimulation may result in little to no difference in mortality during the initial hospitalization. It may increase total weight gain prior to discharge. However, the clinical significance of this finding is uncertain, particularly given the low certainty of the evidence and the multifactorial nature of growth in preterm infants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multisensory stimulation compared to single-sense (tactile) stimulation on weight gain during the intervention. The only included study did not report major neurodevelopmental disabilities at 18 to 24 months' CA, mortality during the initial hospitalization, or total weight gain prior to discharge, which represented the critical outcomes for this review. Overall, the current evidence does not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of multisensory stimulation in promoting development or preventing morbidity in preterm infants. Future studies on multisensory stimulation should use more rigorous designs, larger samples, and report interventions using the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist to ensure transparency. They should also report essential outcomes, such as neonatal death, major neurodevelopmental disabilities, length of hospital and NICU stay, time to full oral feeding, duration of respiratory support, and weight gain, to better assess the long&#x2011;term effects of multisensory stimulation in preterm infants. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD016073.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus.

BACKGROUND: Magnesium sulphate is a common therapy in perinatal care. Its benefits when given to women at risk of preterm birth for fetal neuroprotection (prevention of cerebral palsy for children) were shown in a 2009 Cochrane review. Internationally, use of magnesium sulphate for preterm cerebral palsy prevention is now recommended practice. As new randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and longer-term follow-up of prior RCTs have since been conducted, this review updates the previously published version. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of magnesium sulphate as a fetal neuroprotective agent when given to women considered to be at risk of preterm birth. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 17 March 2023, as well as reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and cluster-RCTs of women at risk of preterm birth that assessed prenatal magnesium sulphate for fetal neuroprotection compared with placebo or no treatment. All methods of administration (intravenous, intramuscular, and oral) were eligible. We did not include studies where magnesium sulphate was used with the primary aim of preterm labour tocolysis, or the prevention and/or treatment of eclampsia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed RCTs for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and trustworthiness. Dichotomous data were presented as summary risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and continuous data were presented as mean differences with 95% CI. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (5917 women and their 6759 fetuses alive at randomisation). All RCTs were conducted in high-income countries. The RCTs compared magnesium sulphate with placebo in women at risk of preterm birth at less than 34 weeks' gestation; however, treatment regimens and inclusion/exclusion criteria varied. Though the RCTs were at an overall low risk of bias, the certainty of evidence ranged from high to very low, due to concerns regarding study limitations, imprecision, and inconsistency. Primary outcomes for infants/children: Up to two years' corrected age, magnesium sulphate compared with placebo reduced cerebral palsy (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89; 6 RCTs, 6107 children; number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 60, 95% CI 41 to 158) and death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; 6 RCTs, 6481 children; NNTB 56, 95% CI 32 to 363) (both high-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.13; 6 RCTs, 6759 children); major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.44; 1 RCT, 987 children); or death or major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 3 RCTs, 4279 children) (all moderate-certainty evidence). At early school age, magnesium sulphate may have resulted in little to no difference in death (fetal, neonatal, or later) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.02; 2 RCTs, 1758 children); cerebral palsy (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41; 2 RCTs, 1038 children); death or cerebral palsy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20; 1 RCT, 503 children); and death or major neurodevelopmental disability (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 503 children) (all low-certainty evidence). Magnesium sulphate may also have resulted in little to no difference in major neurodevelopmental disability, but the evidence is very uncertain (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.62; 2 RCTs, 940 children; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes for infants/children: Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in severe intraventricular haemorrhage (grade 3 or 4) (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.04; 6 RCTs, 6542 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may have resulted in little to no difference in chronic lung disease/bronchopulmonary dysplasia (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.10; 5 RCTs, 6689 infants; low-certainty evidence). Primary outcomes for women: Magnesium sulphate may have resulted in little or no difference in severe maternal outcomes potentially related to treatment (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.92; 4 RCTs, 5300 women; low-certainty evidence). However, magnesium sulphate probably increased maternal adverse effects severe enough to stop treatment (average RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.88 to 5.48; 3 RCTs, 4736 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes for women: Magnesium sulphate probably resulted in little to no difference in caesarean section (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.02; 5 RCTs, 5861 women) and postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.09; 2 RCTs, 2495 women) (both moderate-certainty evidence). Breastfeeding at hospital discharge and women's views of treatment were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The currently available evidence indicates that magnesium sulphate for women at risk of preterm birth for neuroprotection of the fetus, compared with placebo, reduces cerebral palsy, and death or cerebral palsy, in children up to two years' corrected age. Magnesium sulphate may result in little to no difference in outcomes in children at school age. While magnesium sulphate may result in little to no difference in severe maternal outcomes (death, cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest), it probably increases maternal adverse effects severe enough to stop treatment. Further research is needed on the longer-term benefits and harms for children, into adolescence and adulthood. Additional studies to determine variation in effects by characteristics of women treated and magnesium sulphate regimens used, along with the generalisability of findings to low- and middle-income countries, should be considered.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Approaches to observational study designs and analytical options to evaluate the safety of multi-dose vaccines: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Observational studies require careful considerations when evaluating the safety of multidose vaccines. We reviewed design and analytical approaches in observational studies evaluating the safety of multidose vaccines in the post-licensure phase. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Scopus (2018-2022) were searched for hypothesis-testing studies evaluating the safety of multidose vaccines. Key features from frequently used designs were extracted. RESULTS: Among 123 eligible studies, cohort (46%) and self-controlled case series (SCCS)/self-controlled risk interval (SCRI) (40%) followed by case-control (12%) were the most common designs, and 15% of studies used multiple designs. Among cohort studies evaluating multiple doses, vaccination date (36%) and cohort entry with time-updated exposure status (32%) were frequent approaches used to define time zero. Twenty-eight percent of cohort studies did not report time zero; all but one evaluated COVID-19 vaccine effect on post-delivery and fertility-related outcomes. For SCCS/SCRI, 64% of studies accounted for event-dependent exposures, mainly by including pre-exposure periods (53%) and modified SCCS model (48%), while 20% employed multiple correction strategies. Among studies using multiple designs, 68% reached consistent conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: SCCS/SCRI and cohort designs dominate multidose vaccine safety studies. Clear reporting on time zero in pregnancy and fertility-related cohort studies, and on addressing event-dependent exposures in SCCS/SCRI studies is needed, along with guidance on interpreting results from multiple designs.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Perioperative care for patients with opioid exposure and opioid use disorder: screening and treatment strategies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The prevalence of opioid tolerance, dependence, and use disorder is increasing among patients presenting for surgical care, yet perioperative management strategies for these patients remain inconsistent. This review examines the impact of preoperative opioid exposure on surgical outcomes, the scope of untreated opioid use disorder (OUD) among surgical patients, and advances in clinical and systems-level approaches to perioperative care. RECENT FINDINGS: Preoperative opioid exposure independently predicts worse surgical outcomes, including higher opioid consumption, readmissions, complications, and mortality, in a dose-dependent manner. Perioperative opioid exposure predicts persistent opioid use after surgery, with the duration of exposure a stronger predictor of subsequent OUD than daily dose. Data-driven prescribing guidelines and structured opioid tapering reduce overprescribing without compromising pain control. Among surgical patients with diagnosed OUD, approximately two-thirds do not receive medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), though treatment engagement and maintenance substantially improve outcomes. Evidence now clearly supports perioperative buprenorphine continuation over interruption. SUMMARY: Effective perioperative management of opioid-complex surgical patients requires systematic screening, evidence-based prescribing, MOUD continuation, and institutional infrastructure. The primary barrier is shifting from evidence generation to implementation.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Cardiovascular risks in psychiatric disorders and psychiatric risks in cardiovascular disorders: implications for prevention and clinical management - a large-scale umbrella review encompassing 76 meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric and cardiovascular disorders often co-occur, complicating their assessment and management. No umbrella review(UR) has summarized the meta-analytic evidence on the co-occurrence of psychiatric and cardiovascular disorders and assessed its credibility. METHODS: Meta-analytic systematic reviews of observational studies documenting the prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes associated with the co-occurrence of cardiovascular and psychiatric disorders, indexed from inception through March.16.2026, and meeting established diagnostic criteria, were included. Meta-analytic association and prevalence estimates were recalculated and graded based on established or adapted criteria. The AMSTAR-2 assessed the quality of the meta-analyses, while several subgroup analyses and meta-regressions aimed to explain the heterogeneity. RESULTS: We included 76 meta-analyses yielding 131 meta-analytic estimates. Based on pre-existing meta-analytic evidence, 22/24 prevalence estimates (91.7%) met moderate/strong credibility criteria. Strong credibility emerged for: orthostatic hypotension in Lewy body(58%;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;50-66%) and Alzheimer's dementias(28.0%&#xa0;=&#xa0;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;17.0-40.0%); pericardial effusion in anorexia nervosa(25.0%;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;17.0-34.0%); in heart failure(HF): major depressive disorder(MDD)(41.9%;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;36.7-47.1%), mild cognitive impairment(MCI)(41.4%;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;38.3-45.6%), anxiety(32.0%;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;26.5-37.6%), MDD&#xa0;+&#xa0;anxiety(24.7%;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;17.9-34.3%), and dementia(19.8%;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;12.9-27.8%); in atrial fibrillation(AF): MCI(26.0%;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;21.0-30.0%), anxiety in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation(PVI)(25.0%;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;12.0-46.0%), MDD in PVI patients (20.0%;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;13.0-29.0%); in coronary artery disease: MDD&#xa0;+&#xa0;anxiety(19.8%;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;16.0-24.6%): in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: clozapine-associated-cardiomyopathy(0.6%;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.2-2.3%); clozapine-associated-cardiomyopathy absolute death rates (0.0003;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.0001-0.0012); clozapine-associated-cardiomyopathy case fatality rate (0.078;95%C.I.&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.018-0.285). Several additional disorders were multimorbid in>5% of people, yet with a lower credibility rating. No re-pooled risk factors/outcomes reached strong credibility criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides an atlas of cardiovascular and psychiatric multimorbidity across varying levels of credibility, reinforcing the need for an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to patient care and for more research on actionable risk/protective factors and outcomes.

Humans↗