The certainty of the evidence for interventions is the certainty or confidence that the true effect is within a particular range or relative to a threshold. In the new pyramid of evidence, systematic reviews represent the magnifying glass through which this certainty is evaluated. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach arises in response to the existence of multiple evidence classification systems, and it offers a transparent and structured process to develop and present summaries of evidence considering its certainty and, in a second step, the strength of the recommendations that they inform. The GRADE process begins with an explicit question that includes all important and critical outcomes explicitly. The main domains used to assess the certainty of the evidence are risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness of evidence, imprecision, and publication bias. The factors that can increase the certainty of the evidence are dose-response gradient, large magnitude of an effect, and effect of plausible residual confounding. Finally, the Summary of Findings tables summarize the process in a simplified way and with controlled language. This narrative review’s purpose is to address the GRADE approach’s theoretical and practical underlying concepts in a simplified way and with practical examples.

Objective: To assess the impact of post-covid-19 conditions among adults. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of health outcomes in controlled studies. Data sources: Two sources were searched from database inception to 20 October 2022: Cochrane covid‐19 study register (comprising Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, clinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv) and WHO's covid-19 research database. Eligibility criteria: Cohort studies recruiting more than 100 participants with a control group and a follow-up of at least 12 weeks were included. Adults who were documented to have SARS-CoV-2 infection based on clinical, imaging, or laboratory criteria were included. Data extraction and synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes included quality of life, functionality in daily activities, use of resources, recovery rates (cluster of symptoms), and the incidence of new medical diagnoses. Data were pooled using a random effects model. The risk of bias was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool for cohort studies. Results: We included 63 controlled cohort studies, encompassing more than 96 million participants. Based on five studies, we found a reduction in overall quality of life between individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection versus controls at six to 24 months follow-up, although heterogeneity was very high (mean difference in EQ-5D scale −5.28 (95% confidence interval −7.88 to 2.68; I²=93.81%). Evidence from ten studies, which could not be pooled in a meta-analysis, indicated that an increased rate of functional impairment associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Use of care increased compared with controls at six to 24 months follow-up at intensive care units (risk ratio 2.00 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 5.80), five studies, I²=91.96%) and in outpatient care (1.12 (1.01 to 1.24), seven studies, I²=99.51%). Regarding persistent symptoms, individuals with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection had an increased risk of having two or more persistent symptoms at follow-up, especially those related to neurological clusters (ie, risk ratio 1.51 (95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.93), I²=98.91%). Evidence also showed an increased incidence of a wide variety of metabolic, cardiovascular, neurological, respiratory, haematological and other incident diagnoses. Conclusion: Evidence suggests functional impairment after SARS-CoV-2 infection, in addition to a higher use of resources and a higher incidence of widely varying medical diagnoses. These results should be interpreted with caution, considering the high heterogeneity across studies and study limitations related to outcome measurement and attrition of participants. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework, osf.io/drm39

Lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia constitute a substantial burden, affecting the quality of life of those affected by this condition. While watchful waiting and medical management using a wide array of pharmaceuticals can be effective, surgery has been one of the most definite solutions for those highly affected by this condition. Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the gold standard surgical procedure, but other alternatives using laser (HoLEP and ThuLEP) and robotic water jets (Aquablation) are emerging treatments aimed at reducing postoperative morbidity. Minimally invasive procedures conducted in outpatient settings and under local anesthesia or sedation are increasingly being used, especially in those patients with high surgical risk due to comorbidities. These procedures include prostatic arterial embolization, water vapor thermal therapy (Rezum), prostatic urethral lift (Urolift), temporary implantable nitinol device (TIND/iTIND), and transurethral microwave thermotherapy (TUMT). The evidence supporting these treatments is growing, but some uncertainties remain as to what is the magnitude of their advantages and disadvantages compared to TURP. Innovations in the technologies involved in these new procedures may improve their profile for effectiveness and safety. Moreover, new devices are being investigated for marketing approval. Issues around costs and patients' preferences are also yet to be elucidated, thus their evolving role needs to be weighed against the aforementioned considerations.