Public Health Ontario

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

The PRISMA 2020 statement includes a checklist of 27 items to guide reporting of systematic reviews In this article we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews We hope that uptake of the PRISMA 2020 statement will lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews, thus facilitating evidence based decision making on 1 September

The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions<i>.</i>

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to describe the updated methodological guidance for conducting a JBI scoping review, with a focus on new updates to the approach and development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (the PRISMA-ScR). INTRODUCTION: Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to informing decision-making and research based on the identification and examination of the literature on a given topic or issue. Scoping reviews draw on evidence from any research methodology and may also include evidence from non-research sources, such as policy. In this manner, scoping reviews provide a comprehensive overview to address broader review questions than traditionally more specific systematic reviews of effectiveness or qualitative evidence. The increasing popularity of scoping reviews has been accompanied by the development of a reporting guideline: the PRISMA-ScR. In 2014, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group developed guidance for scoping reviews that received minor updates in 2017 and was most recently updated in 2020. The updates reflect ongoing and substantial developments in approaches to scoping review conduct and reporting. As such, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align with the current state of knowledge and reporting standards in evidence synthesis. METHODS: Between 2015 and 2020, the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group expanded its membership; extensively reviewed the literature; engaged via annual face-to-face meetings, regular teleconferences, and email correspondence; sought advice from methodological experts; facilitated workshops; and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to updated guidance for scoping reviews published in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The updated chapter was endorsed by JBI's International Scientific Committee in 2020. RESULTS: The updated JBI guidance for scoping reviews includes additional guidance on several methodological issues, such as when a scoping review is (or is not) appropriate, and how to extract, analyze, and present results, and provides clarification for implications for practice and research. Furthermore, it is aligned with the PRISMA-ScR to ensure consistent reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The latest JBI guidance for scoping reviews provides up-to-date guidance that can be used by authors when conducting a scoping review. Furthermore, it aligns with the PRISMA-ScR, which can be used to report the conduct of a scoping review. A series of ongoing and future methodological projects identified by the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are planned.

The propensity score is a subject's probability of treatment, conditional on observed baseline covariates. Conditional on the true propensity score, treated and untreated subjects have similar distributions of observed baseline covariates. Propensity-score matching is a popular method of using the propensity score in the medical literature. Using this approach, matched sets of treated and untreated subjects with similar values of the propensity score are formed. Inferences about treatment effect made using propensity-score matching are valid only if, in the matched sample, treated and untreated subjects have similar distributions of measured baseline covariates. In this paper we discuss the following methods for assessing whether the propensity score model has been correctly specified: comparing means and prevalences of baseline characteristics using standardized differences; ratios comparing the variance of continuous covariates between treated and untreated subjects; comparison of higher order moments and interactions; five-number summaries; and graphical methods such as quantile-quantile plots, side-by-side boxplots, and non-parametric density plots for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups. We describe methods to determine the sampling distribution of the standardized difference when the true standardized difference is equal to zero, thereby allowing one to determine the range of standardized differences that are plausible with the propensity score model having been correctly specified. We highlight the limitations of some previously used methods for assessing the adequacy of the specification of the propensity-score model. In particular, methods based on comparing the distribution of the estimated propensity score between treated and untreated subjects are uninformative.

Background: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did and what they found. Over the last decade, there have been many advances in systematic review methodology and terminology, which have necessitated an update to the guideline.Objectives: To develop the PRISMA 2020 statement for reporting systematic reviews.Methods: We reviewed 60 documents with reporting guidance for systematic reviews to generate suggested modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement. We sought feedback on the suggested modifications through an online survey of 110 systematic review methodologists and journal editors. The results of the review and survey were discussed at a 21-member in-person meeting. Following the meeting, drafts of the PRISMA 2020 checklist, abstract checklist, explanation and elaboration and flow diagram were generated and refined iteratively based on feedback from co-authors and a convenience sample of 15 systematic reviewers.Results: In this statement paper, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. The checklist includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement.Conclusions: The PRISMA 2020 statement is intended to facilitate transparent, complete and accurate reporting of systematic reviews. Improved reporting should benefit users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, health care providers, patients and other stakeholders. In order to achieve this, we encourage authors, editors and peer-reviewers to adopt the guideline.

Matthew Page and co-authors describe PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

In a study comparing the effects of two treatments, the propensity score is the probability of assignment to one treatment conditional on a subject's measured baseline covariates. Propensity-score matching is increasingly being used to estimate the effects of exposures using observational data. In the most common implementation of propensity-score matching, pairs of treated and untreated subjects are formed whose propensity scores differ by at most a pre-specified amount (the caliper width). There has been a little research into the optimal caliper width. We conducted an extensive series of Monte Carlo simulations to determine the optimal caliper width for estimating differences in means (for continuous outcomes) and risk differences (for binary outcomes). When estimating differences in means or risk differences, we recommend that researchers match on the logit of the propensity score using calipers of width equal to 0.2 of the standard deviation of the logit of the propensity score. When at least some of the covariates were continuous, then either this value, or one close to it, minimized the mean square error of the resultant estimated treatment effect. It also eliminated at least 98% of the bias in the crude estimator, and it resulted in confidence intervals with approximately the correct coverage rates. Furthermore, the empirical type I error rate was approximately correct. When all of the covariates were binary, then the choice of caliper width had a much smaller impact on the performance of estimation of risk differences and differences in means.

The nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region is the formal fungal barcode and in most cases the marker of choice for the exploration of fungal diversity in environmental samples. Two problems are particularly acute in the pursuit of satisfactory taxonomic assignment of newly generated ITS sequences: (i) the lack of an inclusive, reliable public reference data set and (ii) the lack of means to refer to fungal species, for which no Latin name is available in a standardized stable way. Here, we report on progress in these regards through further development of the UNITE database (http://unite.ut.ee) for molecular identification of fungi. All fungal species represented by at least two ITS sequences in the international nucleotide sequence databases are now given a unique, stable name of the accession number type (e.g. Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus|GU586904|SH133781.05FU), and their taxonomic and ecological annotations were corrected as far as possible through a distributed, third-party annotation effort. We introduce the term 'species hypothesis' (SH) for the taxa discovered in clustering on different similarity thresholds (97-99%). An automatically or manually designated sequence is chosen to represent each such SH. These reference sequences are released (http://unite.ut.ee/repository.php) for use by the scientific community in, for example, local sequence similarity searches and in the QIIME pipeline. The system and the data will be updated automatically as the number of public fungal ITS sequences grows. We invite everybody in the position to improve the annotation or metadata associated with their particular fungal lineages of expertise to do so through the new Web-based sequence management system in UNITE.

Exposure to ambient fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) is a major global health concern. Quantitative estimates of attributable mortality are based on disease-specific hazard ratio models that incorporate risk information from multiple PM 2.5 sources (outdoor and indoor air pollution from use of solid fuels and secondhand and active smoking), requiring assumptions about equivalent exposure and toxicity. We relax these contentious assumptions by constructing a PM 2.5 -mortality hazard ratio function based only on cohort studies of outdoor air pollution that covers the global exposure range. We modeled the shape of the association between PM 2.5 and nonaccidental mortality using data from 41 cohorts from 16 countries—the Global Exposure Mortality Model (GEMM). We then constructed GEMMs for five specific causes of death examined by the global burden of disease (GBD). The GEMM predicts 8.9 million [95% confidence interval (CI): 7.5–10.3] deaths in 2015, a figure 30% larger than that predicted by the sum of deaths among the five specific causes (6.9; 95% CI: 4.9–8.5) and 120% larger than the risk function used in the GBD (4.0; 95% CI: 3.3–4.8). Differences between the GEMM and GBD risk functions are larger for a 20% reduction in concentrations, with the GEMM predicting 220% higher excess deaths. These results suggest that PM 2.5 exposure may be related to additional causes of death than the five considered by the GBD and that incorporation of risk information from other, nonoutdoor, particle sources leads to underestimation of disease burden, especially at higher concentrations.

COVID-19 has spread globally since its discovery in Hubei province, China in December 2019. A combination of computed tomography imaging, whole genome sequencing, and electron microscopy were initially used to screen and identify SARS-CoV-2, the viral etiology of COVID-19. The aim of this review article is to inform the audience of diagnostic and surveillance technologies for SARS-CoV-2 and their performance characteristics. We describe point-of-care diagnostics that are on the horizon and encourage academics to advance their technologies beyond conception. Developing plug-and-play diagnostics to manage the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak would be useful in preventing future epidemics.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic and health impact studies of fine particulate matter with diameter < 2.5 microm (PM2.5) are limited by the lack of monitoring data, especially in developing countries. Satellite observations offer valuable global information about PM2.5 concentrations. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we developed a technique for estimating surface PM2.5 concentrations from satellite observations. METHODS: We mapped global ground-level PM2.5 concentrations using total column aerosol optical depth (AOD) from the MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) and MISR (Multiangle Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellite instruments and coincident aerosol vertical profiles from the GEOS-Chem global chemical transport model. RESULTS: We determined that global estimates of long-term average (1 January 2001 to 31 December 2006) PM2.5 concentrations at approximately 10 km x 10 km resolution indicate a global population-weighted geometric mean PM2.5 concentration of 20 microg/m3. The World Health Organization Air Quality PM2.5 Interim Target-1 (35 microg/m3 annual average) is exceeded over central and eastern Asia for 38% and for 50% of the population, respectively. Annual mean PM2.5 concentrations exceed 80 microg/m3 over eastern China. Our evaluation of the satellite-derived estimate with ground-based in situ measurements indicates significant spatial agreement with North American measurements (r = 0.77; slope = 1.07; n = 1057) and with noncoincident measurements elsewhere (r = 0.83; slope = 0.86; n = 244). The 1 SD of uncertainty in the satellite-derived PM2.5 is 25%, which is inferred from the AOD retrieval and from aerosol vertical profile errors and sampling. The global population-weighted mean uncertainty is 6.7 microg/m3. CONCLUSIONS: Satellite-derived total-column AOD, when combined with a chemical transport model, provides estimates of global long-term average PM2.5 concentrations.

Scoping reviewers often face challenges in the extraction, analysis, and presentation of scoping review results. Using best-practice examples and drawing on the expertise of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group and an editor of a journal that publishes scoping reviews, this paper expands on existing JBI scoping review guidance. The aim of this article is to clarify the process of extracting data from different sources of evidence; discuss what data should be extracted (and what should not); outline how to analyze extracted data, including an explanation of basic qualitative content analysis; and offer suggestions for the presentation of results in scoping reviews.

) in the discovery GWAS were not genome-wide significant in the combined analysis, consistent with small effect sizes and limited power but also with genetic heterogeneity. In the combined analysis, 30 loci were genome-wide significant, including 20 newly identified loci. The significant loci contain genes encoding ion channels, neurotransmitter transporters and synaptic components. Pathway analysis revealed nine significantly enriched gene sets, including regulation of insulin secretion and endocannabinoid signaling. Bipolar I disorder is strongly genetically correlated with schizophrenia, driven by psychosis, whereas bipolar II disorder is more strongly correlated with major depressive disorder. These findings address key clinical questions and provide potential biological mechanisms for bipolar disorder.

Lists of authors and their affiliations appear in the online version of the paper Breast cancer risk is influenced by rare coding variants in susceptibility genes, such as BRCA1, and many common, mostly non-coding variants. However, much of the genetic contribution to breast cancer risk remains unknown. Here we report the results of a genome-wide association study of breast cancer in 122,977 cases and 105,974 controls of European ancestry and 14,068 cases and 13,104 controls of East Asian ancestry 1 . We identified 65 new loci that are associated with overall breast cancer risk at P < 5 10 -8 . The majority of credible risk single-nucleotide polymorphisms in these loci fall in distal regulatory elements, and by integrating in silico data to predict target genes in breast cells at each locus, we demonstrate a strong overlap between candidate target genes and somatic driver genes in breast tumours. We also find that heritability of breast cancer due to all single-nucleotide polymorphisms in regulatory features was 2-5-fold enriched relative to the genomewide average, with strong enrichment for particular transcription factor binding sites. These results provide further insight into genetic susceptibility to breast cancer and will improve the use of genetic risk scores for individualized screening and prevention.

Bipolar disorder is a heritable mental illness with complex etiology. We performed a genome-wide association study of 41,917 bipolar disorder cases and 371,549 controls of European ancestry, which identified 64 associated genomic loci. Bipolar disorder risk alleles were enriched in genes in synaptic signaling pathways and brain-expressed genes, particularly those with high specificity of expression in neurons of the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus. Significant signal enrichment was found in genes encoding targets of antipsychotics, calcium channel blockers, antiepileptics and anesthetics. Integrating expression quantitative trait locus data implicated 15 genes robustly linked to bipolar disorder via gene expression, encoding druggable targets such as HTR6, MCHR1, DCLK3 and FURIN. Analyses of bipolar disorder subtypes indicated high but imperfect genetic correlation between bipolar disorder type I and II and identified additional associated loci. Together, these results advance our understanding of the biological etiology of bipolar disorder, identify novel therapeutic leads and prioritize genes for functional follow-up studies.

The exceptionally rapid development of highly flexible, reusable artificial intelligence (AI) models is likely to usher in newfound capabilities in medicine. We propose a new paradigm for medical AI, which we refer to as generalist medical AI (GMAI). GMAI models will be capable of carrying out a diverse set of tasks using very little or no task-specific labelled data. Built through self-supervision on large, diverse datasets, GMAI will flexibly interpret different combinations of medical modalities, including data from imaging, electronic health records, laboratory results, genomics, graphs or medical text. Models will in turn produce expressive outputs such as free-text explanations, spoken recommendations or image annotations that demonstrate advanced medical reasoning abilities. Here we identify a set of high-impact potential applications for GMAI and lay out specific technical capabilities and training datasets necessary to enable them. We expect that GMAI-enabled applications will challenge current strategies for regulating and validating AI devices for medicine and will shift practices associated with the collection of large medical datasets. This review discusses generalist medical artificial intelligence, identifying potential applications and setting out specific technical capabilities and training datasets necessary to enable them, as well as highlighting challenges to its implementation.