SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “certainty of evidence”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

2,993 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Understanding and Usefulness of Effect Size and Certainty of Evidence: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Evidence-Based Practice Competencies Among US Registered Dietitians.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding of absolute and relative effect estimates, and determining effect size and certainty of evidence corresponding to effect estimates, represent fundamental evidence-based practice competencies that promote informed clinical decision-making. While research has been conducted in the medical profession, based on our literature review there is no published research on these competencies in the nutrition and dietetics profession. METHODS: Among registered dietitians, our main objectives were to assess (1) their understanding and perceived usefulness of three absolute and two relative effect estimate approaches to determine effect size, (2) their perceived usefulness of certainty of evidence, and (3) factors influencing their understanding and perceived usefulness. We conducted a web-based, cross-sectional survey by recruiting dietitians from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (United States). Participants received effect estimates based on hypothetical dietary interventions vs. usual diet for reducing myocardial infarction risk. RESULTS: Of the 11,050 dietitians who received the survey link, 210 participated, and only completers (n = 114) were included in our analysis. Participants demonstrated a similar understanding of the relative (27.6%) and absolute (27.5%) effect estimates, with Risk Difference being the best understood approach and Number Needed to Treat being the least (30.7% vs. 24.6% correct responses). While perceived usefulness scores were similar between five approaches, they were highest when data was presented as Relative Risk [mean (SD): 4.82 (1.50)]. Dietitians rated the usefulness of certainty of evidence favorably [mean (SD): 5.07 (1.83), on a 7-point scale], and no factors were associated with correct understanding. CONCLUSION: Dietitians may have limited understanding of effect size thresholds presented in our survey, a finding mostly consistent with surveys of other health professionals. To optimize informed decision-making between dietitians and clients, dietetic programs and continuing education platforms should consider additional training on effect estimate approaches (relative and absolute), and determining effect sizes and certainty of evidence for effect estimates.

Clinical nutrition↗

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

Cardiorespiratory training for people with stroke.

RATIONALE: Low levels of cardiorespiratory fitness are common after stroke and are associated with post-stroke disability and increased risk of secondary stroke. Cardiorespiratory training interventions aim to increase cardiorespiratory fitness, improve physical function, reduce disability, and help prevent future strokes. Clinical guidelines recommend exercise as part of lifestyle modification for secondary prevention, and strongly recommend exercise for rehabilitation. This review is one of three reviews that were originally a single review on physical fitness training for stroke. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to determine whether cardiorespiratory training after stroke has an effect on death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function when compared to a non-exercise control. SEARCH METHODS: In April 2025, we searched nine bibliographic databases and two trials registers to identify studies for inclusion in the review. We checked reference lists, tracked citations, and contacted experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing cardiorespiratory training interventions with usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in people with stroke. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function, assessed at the end of the intervention and the end of the longest follow-up. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. SYNTHESIS METHODS: The studies evaluated different comparisons (e.g. cardiorespiratory training versus no intervention/waiting list control or versus attention control or versus usual care), which we synthesised into a single comparison: cardiorespiratory training versus control. We used random-effects meta-analysis on arm-level data (risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). For outcome data that we did not meta-analyse, we followed Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for critical outcomes. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 53 studies (2672 participants, with an average age of 61.9 years). Most studies recruited ambulatory participants in the early subacute (7 days to 3 months) or chronic (> 6 months) phases of recovery. Exercise duration recommendations were met in 49 studies, and frequency recommendations in 48. Twenty-eight studies lacked balanced exposure between groups. Programme duration was 12 weeks or more in 16 studies (maximum: 24 weeks). Sixteen studies had a post-intervention follow-up period (12 weeks to 12 months from baseline). One study planned a six-month follow-up but did not report it. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease deaths at the end of intervention (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 36 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence) or the end of follow-up (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 10 studies, 713 participants; high-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of disability slightly at the end of intervention (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; 17 studies, 1073 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressed using the Barthel Index (0 to 20), the equivalent effect is MD 1.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.74. It is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is +1.85). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.08; 5 studies, 347 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease the incidence of secondary cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events at the end of intervention (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; 8 studies, 544 participants; high-certainty evidence) and probably does not affect them at the end of follow-up (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04; 4 studies, 412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether cardiorespiratory training affects systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at the end of intervention (MD -2.12, 95% CI -5.81 to 1.57; 9 studies, 535 participants; very low-certainty evidence) (MCID -2 mmHg) or follow-up (MD 0.93, 95% CI -4.30 to 6.16; 3 studies, 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence); the 95% CIs include the MCID. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 ml/kg/min) at the end of intervention (MD 2.37, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.36; 13 studies, 608 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); it is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (MCID +3.5 ml/kg/min). The effect may be similar at the end of follow-up (MD 2.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.16; 5 studies, 237 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis favoured longer interventions. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight increase in comfortable walking speed (metres per second) at the end of intervention (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.12; 16 studies, 647 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but the effect is not clinically meaningful (MCID +0.13). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 3 studies, 182 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of balance at the end of intervention (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.47; 18 studies, 772 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressing using the Berg Balance Scale, the equivalent effect is MD 2.09, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.07; and it is unclear if it is clinically meaningful (MCID of +2). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.90, 95% CI -1.32 to 3.12; 6 studies, 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Overall, our certainty about the evidence is limited for most outcomes by imprecision (small number of studies and participants) or risks of bias (e.g. imbalanced exposure doses) or both. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cardiorespiratory training after stroke does not affect mortality or the incidence of secondary events at the end of the aerobic exercise training programme or end of follow-up. It may increase fitness, reduce disability, increase walking speed, and improve balance at the end of intervention, but it is unclear if these improvements are clinically meaningful. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to fully understand the potential benefits and long-term effects of cardiorespiratory training and the optimal exercise prescription. FUNDING: No dedicated funding REGISTRATION: Protocol (and previous versions) available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003316.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

High-Flow Nasal Oxygen and the Risk of Gastric Insufflation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Supplemented by Narrative Synthesis.

High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) generates positive airway pressure, raising concerns about gastric insufflation and aspiration risk. Although most studies report minimal or no gastric distension, some suggest significant changes. This systematic review and meta-analysis applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to evaluate the effect of HFNO on gastric insufflation and related markers across clinical settings. We searched Medline, Embase, Emcare, and CINAHL through August 2025 for studies reporting qualitative or quantitative markers of gastric insufflation during HFNO use, including comet-tail artifacts, antral cross-sectional area, and gastric volume. Eligible designs included randomized trials, observational and volunteer studies, and case reports. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and certainty of evidence was rated with GRADE. Meta-analysis was performed for outcomes reported in two or more studies. Six randomized trials, five observational studies, two volunteer studies, one case series, and two case reports were included. Observational studies primarily assessed outcomes before and after HFNO intervention. Pooled analysis of four randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 375) showed HFNO significantly reduced gastric insufflation compared with face-mask ventilation during elective peri-intubation (risk ratios [RR] = 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-0.52; P < .00001; I 2 = 0%), rated moderate-certainty. For antral cross-sectional area, pooled analysis of three RCTs (n = 318) found no significant difference between HFNO and face-mask ventilation (MD -0.33 cm 2 ; 95% CI, -0.72 to 0.05; P = .09; I 2 = 74%), rated moderate-certainty. Observational studies assessing pre- and post-HFNO changes showed no significant increase in antral cross-sectional area (MD 0.08 cm 2 ; 95% CI, -0.29 to 0.45; P = .67; I 2 = 0%) and no significant change in gastric liquid volume (MD -0.01 ml/kg; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.06; P = .80; I 2 = 0%), both rated low certainty. Nonpooled data suggested possible increases in critically ill patients, but the evidence was of very low certainty. A single study assessing microaspiration found HFNO reduced gastroesophageal reflux and prevented microaspiration compared with face-mask ventilation. No clinically significant aspiration events were reported across studies. Moderate-certainty evidence supports HFNO as safe regarding gastric insufflation and antral cross-sectional area in most elective and procedural contexts. Low-certainty evidence suggests no increase in gastric volume. Caution is warranted due to limited, low-to-very-low-certainty evidence at higher flow rates and among critically ill patients. Larger multicenter trials and robust observational studies are necessary to confirm safety in these settings.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Telmisartan-based monotherapy and combination regimens for blood pressure control in adults with hypertension: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and GRADE assessment.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and certainty of evidence for telmisartan-based antihypertensive regimens in adults with hypertension. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA 2020. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception to 2026. Eligible studies enrolled adults with hypertension and compared telmisartan monotherapy or telmisartan-containing combinations with placebo, usual care, non-telmisartan antihypertensive agents, or alternative telmisartan-based regimens. Continuous outcomes were pooled as mean differences (MDs) and dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using random-effects models, with additional subgroup analyses conducted by comparator type. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. RESULTS: Twenty-five included reports (24 unique trials, since two reports present secondary outcomes from the same underlying trial) involving 6,521 participants were included, spanning placebo-controlled, usual-care-controlled, active-comparator, and telmisartan-combination-versus-telmisartan-monotherapy designs. Telmisartan-based therapy significantly reduced office systolic blood pressure (MD - 6.39 mm Hg; 95% CI - 7.86 to - 4.93; low certainty) and office diastolic blood pressure (MD - 4.88 mm Hg; 95% CI - 6.67 to - 3.09; low certainty), although the magnitude of effect was comparator-dependent. Based on only two trials, 24-h ambulatory systolic blood pressure (MD - 7.16 mm Hg; 95% CI - 10.61 to - 3.72) and ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (MD - 4.42 mm Hg; 95% CI - 6.36 to - 2.48) were reduced with moderate certainty. Telmisartan-based regimens improved blood pressure response (RR 1.68; 95% CI 1.31 to 2.16; moderate certainty) but not blood pressure control achievement (RR 1.44; 95% CI 0.92 to 2.24; very low certainty). Overall adverse events, dizziness, and headache were comparable (very low to low certainty), while edema was less frequent with telmisartan-based therapy (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.73; moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Telmisartan-based regimens, particularly fixed-dose and multidrug combinations, effectively reduce office and ambulatory blood pressure and improve blood pressure response, with broadly comparable short-term safety and less edema. These effect sizes are comparator-dependent, and certainty of evidence for absolute blood pressure control achievement and for major adverse events is very low; heterogeneity, limited long-term data, and a predominance of Asian-population trials warrant cautious interpretation pending larger, higher-quality, and more geographically diverse confirmatory studies.

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

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

Psychological skills training for sport-related outcomes: An umbrella review of evidence credibility and methodological quality.

Psychological skills training (PST) is widely used in sport, but review-level evidence remains fragmented across interventions, populations, outcomes, and methodological standards. This umbrella review synthesized evidence on PST-related interventions for sport-related outcomes, including athletic performance, psychological outcomes, cognitive performance, and sports injury, and evaluated evidence credibility, certainty, and methodological quality. A systematic literature search was conducted on 21 May 2025 in MEDLINE, PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus, SportDiscus, Web of Science, and CINAHL Complete. Overall, 61 reviews involving 42,106 participants were included; 35 meta-analyses involving 28,076 participants were eligible for quantitative synthesis, and 26 reviews or meta-analyses involving 14,030 participants were summarized qualitatively. Quantitative findings showed generally positive point estimates for mindfulness-based interventions, imagery practice, music-based interventions, neurofeedback, perceptual-cognitive training, and multiple PST interventions, but most findings were weak or non-significant and certainty was generally very low. Qualitative evidence suggested potential benefits, but conclusions varied according to intervention definition, delivery, outcome measurement, and methodological quality. Evidence was more developed for athletic performance and psychological outcomes than for cognitive performance and sports injury. Overall, PST-related interventions may benefit sport-related outcomes, but conclusions should remain cautious because of low certainty, methodological heterogeneity, and limited evidence credibility.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

The Impact of Upper Extremity Rehabilitation on Fatigue in Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Although numerous interventions have been investigated to alleviate fatigue in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS), evidence regarding the effects of upper extremity rehabilitation on fatigue remains limited. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to evaluate and synthesize the available evidence on the effects of upper extremity rehabilitation interventions on fatigue in PwMS. METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database. A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus was performed up to August 2026. Studies were eligible if they investigated the effects of upper extremity rehabilitation interventions on fatigue in PwMS. The risk of bias of randomized controlled trials was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2), and the certainty of the evidence was appraised using the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Nine studies including 250 participants (136 intervention, 114 control) met the inclusion criteria. The included studies evaluated a range of technology-assisted, exercise-based, home-based, and task-oriented upper extremity rehabilitation approaches, with some interventions incorporating more than one therapeutic or technological component. Fatigue outcomes were measured using the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS). Risk of bias was low in three randomized controlled trials, with some concerns in two and high in two; among the two crossover studies, one was rated as low risk and one as high risk. GRADE assessment showed low certainty of evidence for studies using the FSS and very low certainty for those using the MFIS, indicating an overall low certainty of the available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is insufficient to draw definitive conclusions regarding the effects of upper extremity rehabilitation on fatigue in PwMS. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are required.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effectiveness of different anaesthetic techniques, agents and adjunctive interventions in handling pain during dental treatment of MIH-affected teeth: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Molar incisor hypomineralisation (MIH) is frequently associated with hypersensitivity, dental anxiety and reduced efficacy of local anaesthesia, complicating pain control during dental treatment in children. AIM: To evaluate, based exclusively on randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the effectiveness of different local anaesthetic techniques, agents and adjunctive interventions in reducing pain during dental treatment of MIH-affected teeth in children. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251150485). MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, ScienceDirect, SCOPUS, EBSCO, and LILACS were searched up to September 2025. Eligible studies were RCTs involving children and adolescents (6 - 18 years-of-age) with MIH, assessing pain outcomes during dental procedures. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Eight RCTs were included. Low-certainty evidence suggested that intraosseous anaesthesia and 4% articaine may reduce intra-operative pain compared with conventional techniques or 2% lidocaine. Adjunctive cryotherapy and pre-emptive ibuprofen showed potential benefits, but evidence was of very low certainty and limited to single trials. Findings for photobiomodulation were inconsistent across studies. Most trials were judged to be at high risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding and reliance on subjective pain outcomes. CONCLUSION: Current evidence supporting specific pain management strategies for MIH-affected teeth is limited and of low certainty. Whilst 4% articaine and intraosseous anaesthesia appear promising, well-designed, adequately powered RCTs with standardised pain outcomes are required to inform robust clinical recommendations.

Local anaesthesia↗

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

Do adherence-focused interventions in low back pain have an impact on rehabilitation outcomes? A systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Exercise-based interventions are effective, but adherence remains suboptimal. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of strategies designed to enhance adherence to exercise-based interventions in individuals with LBP in terms of adherence as well as pain and functionality. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials including adults with non-specific LBP were eligible if they compared exercise-based interventions incorporating adherence-enhancing strategies versus exercise alone or usual care. Primary outcome was adherence; secondary outcomes were pain and functionality. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, and PEDro up to May 2026. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using standardized mean differences. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Fourteen randomized controlled trials including 1233 participants were included. Risk of bias was low in six studies, with the remainder showing some concerns or high risk. For adherence outcomes, evidence showed no clear effect of adherence-enhancing strategies on either device-measured physical activity (SMD = 0.21, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.43; 3 trials, 320 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or questionnaire-based adherence (SMD = 0.33, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.89; 4 trials, 377 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For pain and functionality, moderate certainty of evidence indicated small improvements favoring intervention groups in the medium term. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to enhance adherence to exercise in LBP show uncertain effects on adherence but may provide small improvements in clinical outcomes in the medium term. Higher-quality trials are needed to strengthen the evidence base.

Adult↗

PubMed2026

Disparities in guideline-adherent cardiovascular preventive care for people with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines offer guidance on delaying the progression of cardiovascular disease in people living with diabetes. We sought to determine whether guideline-recommended cardiovascular preventive care for people living with diabetes differs according to sociodemographic indicators, globally. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies that compared the sociodemographic characteristics of people diagnosed with type 1 or 2 diabetes who received cardiovascular preventive care as recommended by guidelines to those who did not. Sociodemographic predictors were defined by PROGRESS+ (an equity framework). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and APA PsychInfo from 2010 to January 21, 2026. Studies were screened independently by two people. One person assessed the risk of bias and extracted data, and another verified. We pooled results using a random-effects model and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included. Meta-analyses showed female, Black, and Hispanic individuals had slightly lower odds of receiving guideline-recommended prescriptions for lipid-lowering medication compared to Male, and White individuals, respectively (OR:0.89, 95%CI:0.79,1.00, moderate certainty; OR:0.78, 95%CI:0.74,0.81, high certainty; OR:0.86, 95%CI:0.59,1.26, low certainty). Individuals aged 18-45 years had moderately lower odds (OR:0.33, 95%CI:0.19,0.57, moderate certainty), no observed association for Asian individuals. Asian individuals had moderately lower odds of antihypertensive medication prescription (OR:0.42, 95%CI:0.38,0.46, high certainty). Evidence suggests likely no association between HbA1c testing and sex/gender or between sex/gender and lipid panel testing. CONCLUSIONS: Some disparities in guideline-recommended cardiovascular preventive care among people living with diabetes were found. These results are consistent with previous reviews and highlight the need to ensure guidelines consider equity and with improved dissemination.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Interventions to improve school attendance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Poor school attendance adversely affects youth behaviour and health trajectories. We reviewed and synthesised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions to improve school attendance. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis updates the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) 2022 review on attendance interventions. We synthesised RCT data to inform recommendations. We searched ERIC (via EBSCOhost), PsycINFO, Web of Science and Google Scholar for publications 1 January 2020-16 October 2024 to identify attendance interventions delivered to students, parents/guardians or school staff. We also extracted and analysed RCTs identified in the EEF review. Two reviewers independently extracted data from published articles and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, GRADE assessment). We synthesised and meta-analysed data per our protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42024610037). RESULTS: We screened 9366 titles and abstracts and included 61 articles (2000-2024): 43 articles published 2020-2024 plus 18 articles from the previous review (2000-2020), reporting 57 trials of 54 interventions. Pooled mean difference and 95% CIs for days of school attended was 0.63 (-0.34 to 1.61), I2=64.0%, low certainty, for mentoring interventions and 0.43 (0.10 to 0.76), I2=91.9%, moderate certainty, for parental engagement interventions. Other intervention areas including targeted approaches, behavioural programmes and social-emotional interventions had smaller, heterogeneous evidence bases. Risk of bias was moderate-to-low in most trials. CONCLUSION: A large range of interventions exist to address the diverse causes of school absence. Parental engagement demonstrated a small positive effect on attendance, particularly among younger age groups. Most trials were from the USA; implementation and evaluation in other countries will inform effectiveness.

CHILD↗

PubMed2026

Effects of exercise snacking on neuromuscular performance in insufficiently active adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of exercise snacking (ES) on neuromuscular performance in insufficiently active adults. METHODS: Six databases were searched from inception to July 17, 2026. Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions involving insufficiently active adults undertaking ES interventions were included. Outcomes were functional performance, muscular strength, and muscular power. A three-level random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 or ROBINS-I, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. RESULTS: Nine studies (13 reports) involving 313 participants were included. In the primary three-level model, ES showed a small positive overall effect on neuromuscular performance (g = 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.58, p = 0.001), which remained supported under trial-clustered robust inference with small-sample adjustment. Domain-specific estimates for muscular power/velocity, functional performance, and muscular strength were positive but imprecise and were not statistically supported after small-sample robust adjustment. Robust moderator tests provided no evidence of between-subgroup differences, and the certainty of evidence was low for all outcomes. CONCLUSION: Current low-certainty evidence suggests that ES may produce a small improvement in overall neuromuscular performance. However, domain-specific effects remain uncertain because of the limited number of independent trials, and the overall prediction interval crossed zero, indicating uncertainty across future populations and settings. Larger, preregistered randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these preliminary findings.

Adult↗

PubMed2026

Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate for the treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia.

RATIONALE: A range of surgical options is available for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), including holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP). The evidence is unclear regarding differences in functional, perioperative, and morbidity outcomes between these modalities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate compared with other surgical treatments for lower urinary tract symptoms in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched multiple databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, LILACS, and the International HTA database), trial registries, and conference abstracts through April 08, 2026. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We only included randomized trials of men over 40 years of age with a prostate volume of at least 20 mL (assessed by digital rectal examination, ultrasound, or conventional imaging) who exhibited lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) defined by an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of eight or greater undergoing surgical interventions for BPH. OUTCOMES: The critical outcomes measured were the urologic symptoms score, the quality-of-life score, and major adverse events. The important outcomes measured were: re-treatment, erectile function, ejaculatory function, transfusions, acute urinary retention, indwelling urinary catheter duration, and hospital stay duration. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 1) to assess for potential sources of bias on a study and outcome level basis. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We pooled outcome data using the random-effects model and performed meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method. We assessed statistical heterogeneity in the pooled data by visually inspecting forest plots and using the I2 statistic to quantify it. We used the GRADE framework to assess the certainty of evidence. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 52 trials that included 6242 participants that compared HoLEP to other surgical interventions for benign prostatic hyperplasia. The median age of participants across the studies ranged from 65 to 74 years. The baseline prostate volume ranged from 30 cc to 142 cc. Baseline IPSS scores ranged from 19.6 to 28.6 (range 0-35). SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: We prioritized comparing HoLEP with transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) at short-term follow-up (up to 12 months), because TURP is the long-standing reference standard and the predominant comparator in randomized surgical trials. Findings for the four remaining comparisons (laser ablation, alternative energy source enucleation, other minimally invasive therapies, and simple prostatectomy), for long-term follow-up, and for all remaining outcomes are reported in full in the review. Compared to TURP, at short-term follow-up: Critical outcomes - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term urologic symptom scores measured using the IPSS (range 0 to 35; lower values reflect fewer symptoms) (MD -0.67, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.14; I² = 93%; 14 studies, 1666 participants, low-certainty evidence). - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term quality of life (range 0 to 6; lower values reflect better quality of life) (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.15; I² = 73%; 6 studies, 876 participants, low-certainty evidence). - HoLEP may result in little to no difference in short-term major adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.58; I² = 0%; 10 studies, 1147 participants, low-certainty evidence). Important outcomes - HoLEP likely results in little to no difference in re-treatment (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.50; I² = 0%; 8 studies, 813 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). - HoLEP likely results in little to no difference in erectile function (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.42; I² = 0%; 3 studies, 518 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). - Ejaculatory function: we did not find any data for this outcome. - HoLEP likely reduces the need for blood transfusion (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.42; I² = 0%; 15 studies, 1755 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TURP, HoLEP may achieve similar relief of urologic symptoms, similar quality of life, and similar rates of major adverse events in the first 12 months after surgery, and probably similar re-treatment rates and erectile function. HoLEP likely reduces the need for blood transfusion; this is the only advantage of HoLEP that the randomized evidence, as summarized here, supports as clinically important. There was insufficient evidence to assess outcomes in the subset of individuals with larger prostates or on anticoagulation. Future research should prioritize long-term trials reporting sexual function and urinary incontinence outcomes, recruit men with very large prostates (≥ 150 cc) or on anticoagulation therapy, and evaluate cost-effectiveness and training requirements. FUNDING: No external funding was received for this review. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review was published in the Cochrane Database 2019 (https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013291).

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Patient-reported outcome measures for depression or anxiety symptoms in patients with cardiovascular disease: A COSMIN systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are common in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the measurement quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in this population remains unclear. This review aimed to evaluate the methodological quality, measurement properties, and certainty of evidence for depression and anxiety PROMs in adults with CVD and to inform instrument selection. METHODS: Following COSMIN and PRISMA guidance, four databases were searched from inception to February 2026. Studies assessing measurement properties of PROMs in adults with CVD were included. Methodological quality was evaluated using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist, and certainty of evidence was graded using an adapted GRADE approach. RESULTS: Sixty-six studies assessing 38 PROMs were included, comprising 29 generic and 9 CVD-specific instruments. Six PROMs met COSMIN Category A criteria: Cardiac Depression Scale-Short Form, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Beck Depression Inventory-II, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, and Major Depression Inventory. Four instruments were classified as Category C because of insufficient structural validity. Content-validity evidence was largely indeterminate or of limited certainty. Only 24 studies used confirmatory factor analysis or Rasch analysis, and no study assessed measurement error or responsiveness. Cross-cultural validity evidence was scarce. CONCLUSIONS: Six PROMs met Category A criteria, but selection should remain purpose- and context-specific. Particular attention should be given to somatic symptom overlap and intended clinical use. Further validation should prioritize content validity, measurement invariance, responsiveness, measurement error, and clinimetric performance.

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; I² 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; I² 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; I² = 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; I² 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‑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↗