This overview describes the principles of the 4th edition of the European Code against Cancer and provides an introduction to the 12 recommendations to reduce cancer risk. Among the 504.6 million inhabitants of the member states of the European Union (EU28), there are annually 2.64 million new cancer cases and 1.28 million deaths from cancer. It is estimated that this cancer burden could be reduced by up to one half if scientific knowledge on causes of cancer could be translated into successful prevention. The Code is a preventive tool aimed to reduce the cancer burden by informing people how to avoid or reduce carcinogenic exposures, adopt behaviours to reduce the cancer risk, or to participate in organised intervention programmes. The Code should also form a base to guide national health policies in cancer prevention. The 12 recommendations are: not smoking or using other tobacco products; avoiding second-hand smoke; being a healthy body weight; encouraging physical activity; having a healthy diet; limiting alcohol consumption, with not drinking alcohol being better for cancer prevention; avoiding too much exposure to ultraviolet radiation; avoiding cancer-causing agents at the workplace; reducing exposure to high levels of radon; encouraging breastfeeding; limiting the use of hormone replacement therapy; participating in organised vaccination programmes against hepatitis B for newborns and human papillomavirus for girls; and participating in organised screening programmes for bowel cancer, breast cancer, and cervical cancer.

The evaluation of imprecision is a key dimension of the grading of the confidence in the estimate. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) gives recommendations on how to downgrade evidence for imprecision, but authors vary in their use. Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) has been advocated for a more reliable assessment of imprecision. We aimed to evaluate reporting of and adherence to GRADE and to compare the assessment of imprecision of intervention effects assessed by GRADE and TSA in Cochrane systematic reviews. In this cross-sectional study, we included 100 Cochrane reviews irrespective of type of intervention with a key dichotomous outcome meta-analyzed and assessed by GRADE. The methods and results sections of each review were assessed for adequacy of imprecision evaluation. We re-analyzed imprecision following the GRADE Handbook and the TSA Manual. Overall, only 13.0% of reviews stated the criteria they applied to assess imprecision. The most common dimensions were the 95% width of the confidence intervals and the optimal information size. Review authors downgraded 48.0% of key outcomes due to imprecision. When imprecision was re-analyzed following the GRADE Handbook, 64% of outcomes were downgraded. Agreement between review authors’ assessment and assessment by the authors of this study was moderate (kappa 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23 to 0.58). TSA downgraded 69.0% outcomes due to imprecision. Agreement between review authors’ GRADE assessment and TSA, irrespective of downgrading levels, was moderate (kappa 0.43, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.57). Agreement between our GRADE assessment following the Handbook and TSA was substantial (kappa 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.79). In a sample of Cochrane reviews, methods for assessing imprecision were rarely reported. GRADE according to Handbook guidelines and TSA led to more severe judgment of imprecision rather than GRADE adopted by reviews’ authors. Cochrane initiatives to improve adherence to GRADE Handbook are warranted. TSA may transparently assist in such development.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are emerging educational tools for students in healthcare science. However, assessing their accuracy is essential prior to adoption in educational settings. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of predicting the correct answers from three AI chatbots (ChatGPT-4, Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini) in the Italian entrance standardized examination test of healthcare science degrees (CINECA test). Secondarily, we assessed the narrative coherence of the AI chatbots’ responses (i.e., text output) based on three qualitative metrics: the logical rationale behind the chosen answer, the presence of information internal to the question, and presence of information external to the question. Methods: An observational cross-sectional design was performed in September of 2023. Accuracy of the three chatbots was evaluated for the CINECA test, where questions were formatted using a multiple-choice structure with a single best answer. The outcome is binary (correct or incorrect). Chi-squared test and a post hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction assessed differences among chatbots performance in accuracy. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A sensitivity analysis was performed, excluding answers that were not applicable (e.g., images). Narrative coherence was analyzed by absolute and relative frequencies of correct answers and errors. Results: Overall, of the 820 CINECA multiple-choice questions inputted into all chatbots, 20 questions were not imported in ChatGPT-4 (n = 808) and Google Gemini (n = 808) due to technical limitations. We found statistically significant differences in the ChatGPT-4 vs Google Gemini and Microsoft Copilot vs Google Gemini comparisons (p-value < 0.001). The narrative coherence of AI chatbots revealed “Logical reasoning” as the prevalent correct answer (n = 622, 81.5%) and “Logical error” as the prevalent incorrect answer (n = 40, 88.9%). Conclusions: Our main findings reveal that: (A) AI chatbots performed well; (B) ChatGPT-4 and Microsoft Copilot performed better than Google Gemini; and (C) their narrative coherence is primarily logical. Although AI chatbots showed promising accuracy in predicting the correct answer in the Italian entrance university standardized examination test, we encourage candidates to cautiously incorporate this new technology to supplement their learning rather than a primary resource. Trial registration: Not required.

Background: Multiple studies regarding the use of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) in patients with non-compressible torso injuries and uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock were recently published. To date, the clinical evidence of the efficacy of REBOA is still debated. We aimed to conduct a systematic review assessing the clinical efficacy and safety of REBOA in patients with major trauma and uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock.Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and CENTRAL up to June 2020. All randomized controlled trials and observational studies that investigated the use of REBOA compared to resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) with/without REBOA or no-REBOA were eligible.We followed the PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Two authors independently extracted data and appraised the risk of bias of included studies. Effect sizes were pooled in a meta-analysis using random-effects models. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Primary outcomes were mortality, volume of infused blood components, health-related quality of life, time to haemorrhage control and any adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were improvement in haemodynamic status and failure/success of REBOA technique.Results: We included 11 studies (5866 participants) ranging from fair to good quality. REBOA was associated with lower mortality when compared to RT (aOR 0.38; 95% CI 0.20–0.74), whereas no difference was observed when REBOA was compared to no-REBOA (aOR 1.40; 95% CI 0.79–2.46). No significant difference in health-related quality of life between REBOA and RT (p= 0.766). The most commonly reported complications were amputation, haematoma and pseudoaneurysm. Sparse data and heterogeneity of reporting for all other outcomes prevented any estimate.Conclusions: Our findings on overall mortality suggest a positive effect of REBOA among non-compressible torso injuries when compared to RT but no differences compared to no-REBOA. Variability in indications and patient characteristics prevents any conclusion deserving further investigation. REBOA should be promoted in specific training programs in an experimental setting in order to test its effectiveness and a randomized trial should be planned.

Background: Several systematic reviews (SRs), with and without meta-analyses, have investigated the use of wearable devices to improve physical activity, and there is a need for frequent and updated syntheses on the topic. Objective: We aimed to evaluate whether using wearable devices increased physical activity and reduced sedentary behaviour in adults. Methods: We conducted an umbrella review searching PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, MedRxiv, Rxiv and bioRxiv databases up to February 5th, 2023. We included all SRs that evaluated the efficacy of interventions when wearable devices were used to measure physical activity in adults aged over 18 years. The primary outcomes were physical activity and sedentary behaviour measured as the number of steps per day, minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per week, and minutes of sedentary behaviour (SB) per day. We assessed the methodological quality of each SR using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2) and the certainty of evidence of each outcome measure using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations). We interpreted the results using a decision-making framework examining the clinical relevance and the concordances or discordances of the SR effect size. Results: Fifty-one SRs were included, of which 38 included meta-analyses (302 unique primary studies). Of the included SRs, 72.5% were rated as ‘critically low methodological quality’. Overall, with a slight overlap of primary studies (corrected cover area: 3.87% for steps per day, 3.12% for MVPA, 4.06% for SB) and low-to-moderate certainty of the evidence, the use of WDs may increase PA by a median of 1,312.23 (IQR 627–1854) steps per day and 57.8 (IQR 37.7 to 107.3) minutes per week of MVPA. Uncertainty is present for PA in pathologies and older adults subgroups and for SB in mixed and older adults subgroups (large confidence intervals). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the use of WDs may increase physical activity in middle-aged adults. Further studies are needed to investigate the effects of using WDs on specific subgroups (such as pathologies and older adults) in different follow-up lengths, and the role of other intervention components.

Background: Virtual reality (VR)-based rehabilitation is a promising approach for improving recovery in many conditions to optimize functional results, enhancing the clinical and social benefits of surgery. Objective: To assess the efficacy of an early rehabilitation performed by the VR-based rehabilitation versus the traditional rehabilitation provided by physical therapists after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: In this randomized controlled clinical trial, 85 subjects met the inclusion criteria and were randomized 3 to 4 days after TKA to an inpatient VR-based rehabilitation and a traditional rehabilitation. Participants in both groups received 60 minutes/day sessions until discharge (around 10 days after surgery). The primary outcome was the pain intensity. The secondary outcomes were: the disability knee, the health related quality of life, the global perceived effect, the functional independent measure, the drugs assumption, the isometric strength of quadriceps and hamstrings, the flexion range of motion, and the ability to perform proprioception exercises. Outcomes were assessed at baseline (3–4 days after TKA) and at discharge. Results: VR-based or traditional rehabilitation, with 13% of dropout rate, shown no statistically significant pain reduction between groups (P = .2660) as well as in all other outcomes, whereas a statistically significant improvement was present in the global proprioception (P = .0020), in favor of the VR-based rehabilitation group. Conclusions: VR-based rehabilitation is not superior to traditional rehabilitation in terms of pain relief, drugs assumptions and other functional outcomes but seems to improve the global proprioception for patients received TKA. Level of evidence: : Therapy, level 1b. CONSORT-compliant. Trial registration: : http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02413996.