Background: COVID-19 vaccine side effects have a fundamental role in public confidence in the vaccine and its uptake process. Thus far, the evidence on vaccine safety has exclusively been obtained from the manufacturer-sponsored studies; therefore, this study was designed to provide independent evidence on Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine side effects. Methods: A cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out between January and February 2021 to collect data on the side effects following the COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare workers in the Czech Republic. The study used a validated questionnaire with twenty-eight multiple-choice items covering the participants’ demographic data, medical anamneses, COVID-19-related anamneses, general, oral, and skin-related side effects. Results: Injection site pain (89.8%), fatigue (62.2%), headache (45.6%), muscle pain (37.1%), and chills (33.9%) were the most commonly reported side effects. All the general side effects were more prevalent among the ≤43-year-old group, and their duration was mainly one day (45.1%) or three days (35.8%) following the vaccine. Antihistamines were the most common drugs associated with side effects, thus requiring further investigation. The people with two doses were generally associated with a higher frequency of side effects. Conclusions: The distribution of side effects among Czech healthcare workers was highly consistent with the manufacturer’s data, especially in terms of their association with the younger age group and the second dose. The overall prevalence of some local and systemic side effects was higher than the manufacturer’s report. Further independent studies on vaccine safety are strongly required to strengthen public confidence in the vaccine.

Background: the increasing number of COVID-19 vaccines available to the public may trigger hesitancy or selectivity towards vaccination. This study aimed to evaluate the post-vaccination side effects of the different vaccines approved in Germany; Methods: a cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out using an online questionnaire validated and tested for a priori reliability. The questionnaire inquired about demographic data, medical and COVID-19-related anamneses, and local, systemic, oral, and skin-related side effects following COVID-19 vaccination; Results: out of the 599 participating healthcare workers, 72.3% were females, and 79.1% received mRNA-based vaccines, while 20.9% received a viral vector-based vaccine. 88.1% of the participants reported at least one side effect. Injection site pain (75.6%) was the most common local side effect, and headache/fatigue (53.6%), muscle pain (33.2%), malaise (25%), chills (23%), and joint pain (21.2%) were the most common systemic side effects. The vast majority (84.9%) of side effects resolved within 1–3 days post-vaccination; Conclusions: the mRNA-based vaccines were associated with a higher prevalence of local side effects (78.3% vs. 70.4%; Sig. = 0.064), while the viral vector-based vaccine was associated with a higher prevalence of systemic side effects (87.2% vs. 61%; Sig. < 0.001). Females and the younger age group were associated with an increased risk of side effects either after mRNA-based or viral vector-based vaccines. The gender- and age-based differences warrant further rigorous investigation and standardized methodology.

Since the introduction of anaesthesia by Morton in 1846, and as survivable abdominal surgery became more common, so did the incidence of incisional hernias. Since then, more than 4000 peer-reviewed articles have been published on the topic, many of which have tried to reduce the incidence or introduce techniques to improve outcomes from surgical repair. Despite this, the incidence of incisional hernias and the recurrence rates after repair remain high. A wide range of incisional hernia rates are reported^1–5. A meta-analysis including over 14 000 patients reported a weighted incidence of 12.8 per cent 2 years after a midline incision, and that one-third of patients with an incisional hernia undergo surgical repair⁶. Recurrence rates after repair of incisional hernia range between 23 and 50 per cent, with increasing rates of complications and re-recurrence after each subsequent failed repair⁷. Arguably, no other benign disease has seen so little improvement in terms of surgical outcome.

Systematic reviews are carried out to provide an answer to a clinical question based on all available evidence (published and unpublished), to critically appraise the quality of studies, and account for and explain variations between the results of studies. The Joanna Briggs Institute specializes in providing methodological guidance for the conduct of systematic reviews and has developed methods and guidance for reviewers conducting systematic reviews of studies of diagnostic test accuracy. Diagnostic tests are used to identify the presence or absence of a condition for the purpose of developing an appropriate treatment plan. Owing to demands for improvements in speed, cost, ease of performance, patient safety, and accuracy, new diagnostic tests are continuously developed, and there are often several tests available for the diagnosis of a particular condition. In order to provide the evidence necessary for clinicians and other healthcare professionals to make informed decisions regarding the optimum test to use, primary studies need to be carried out on the accuracy of diagnostic tests and the results of these studies synthesized through systematic review. The Joanna Briggs Institute and its international collaboration have updated, revised, and developed new guidance for systematic reviews, including systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. This methodological article summarizes that guidance and provides detailed advice on the effective conduct of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.

An evidence-based approach is considered the gold standard for health decision-making. Sometimes, a guideline panel might judge the certainty that the desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh its undesirable effects as high, but the body of supportive evidence is indirect. In such cases, the application of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach for grading the strength of recommendations is inappropriate. Instead, the GRADE Working Group has recommended developing ungraded best or good practice statement (GPS) and developed guidance under which circumsances they would be appropriate.Through an evaluation of COVID-1- related recommendations on the eCOVID Recommendation Map (COVID-19.recmap.org), we found that recommendations qualifying a GPS were widespread. However, guideline developers failed to label them as GPS or transparently report justifications for their development. We identified ways to improve and facilitate the operationalisation and implementation of the GRADE guidance for GPS.Herein, we propose a structured process for the development of GPSs that includes applying a sequential order for the GRADE guidance for developing GPS. This operationalisation considers relevant evidence-to-decision criteria when assessing the net consequences of implementing the statement, and reporting information supporting judgments for each criterion. We also propose a standardised table to facilitate the identification of GPS and reporting of their development. This operationalised guidance, if endorsed by guideline developers, may palliate some of the shortcomings identified. Our proposal may also inform future updates of the GRADE guidance for GPS.