Background: Although regulatory changes towards correcting the underrepresentation of women in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) occurred (National Institutes of Health 1994), concerns exist about whether an improvement is taking place. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to assess the inclusion rates of women in recent RCTs and to explore the potential barriers for the enrollment of women. Methods: RCTs published in 2017 examining any type of intervention in adults were searched in PubMed and Cochrane Library. The following predefined medical fields were included: cardiovascular diseases, neoplasms, endocrine system diseases, respiratory tract diseases, bacterial and fungal infections, viral diseases, digestive system diseases, and immune system diseases. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers, and an equal number of studies was randomly selected per calendric month. The primary outcome was the enrollment rate of women, calculated as the number of randomized women patients divided by the total number of randomized patients. Rates were weighted by their inverse variance; statistical significance was tested using general linear models (GLM). Results: Out of 398 RCTs assessed for eligibility, 300 RCTs were included. The enrollment rate of women in all the examined fields was lower than 50%, except for immune system diseases [median enrollment rate of 68% (IQR 46 to 81)]. The overall median enrollment rate of women was 41% (IQR 27 to 54). The median enrollment rate of women decreased with older age of the trials’ participants [mean age of trials’ participants ≤ 45 years: 47% (IQR 30–64), 46–55 years: 46% (IQR 33–58), 56–62 years: 38% (IQR 27–50), ≥ 63 years: 33% (IQR 20–46), p < 0.001]. Methodological quality characteristics showed no significant association with the enrollment rates of women. Out of the 300 included RCTs, eleven did not report on the number of included women. There was no significant difference between these studies and the studies included in the analysis. Conclusions: Women are being inadequately represented, in the selected medical fields analyzed in our study, in recent RCTs. Older age is a potential barrier for the enrollment of women in clinical trials. Low inclusion rates of elderly women might create a lack of crucial knowledge in the adverse effects and the benefit/risk profile of any given treatment. Factors that might hinder the participation of women should be sought and addressed in the design of the study.

To describe long-COVID symptoms among older adults and to assess the risk factors for two common long-COVID symptoms: fatigue and dyspnea. This is a multicenter, prospective cohort study conducted in Israel, Switzerland, Spain, and Italy. Individuals were included at least 30 days after their COVID-19 diagnosis. We compared long-COVID symptoms between elderly (aged >65 years) and younger individuals (aged 18-65 years) and conducted univariate and multivariable analyses for the predictors of long-COVID fatigue and dyspnea. A total of 2333 individuals were evaluated at an average of 5 months (146 days [95% confidence interval 142-150]) after COVID-19 onset. The mean age was 51 years, and 20.5% were aged >65 years. Older adults were more likely to be symptomatic, with the most common symptoms being fatigue (38%) and dyspnea (30%); they were more likely to complain of cough and arthralgia and have abnormal chest imaging and pulmonary function tests. Independent risk factors for long-COVID fatigue and dyspnea included female gender, obesity, and closer proximity to COVID-19 diagnosis; older age was not an independent predictor. Older individuals with long-COVID have different persisting symptoms, with more pronounced pulmonary impairment. Women and individuals with obesity are at risk. Further research is warranted to investigate the natural history of long-COVID among the elderly population and to assess possible interventions aimed at promoting rehabilitation and well-being.

Background: Population external validity is the extent to which an experimental study results can be generalized from a specific sample to a defined population. In order to apply the results of a study, we should be able to assess its population external validity. We performed an investigator-initiated randomized controlled trial (RCT) (AIDA study), which compared colistin-meropenem combination therapy to colistin monotherapy in the treatment of patients infected with carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria. In order to examine the study’s population external validity and to substantiate the use of AIDA study results in clinical practice, we performed a concomitant observational trial. Methods: The study was conducted between October 1st, 2013 and January 31st, 2017 (during the RCTs recruitment period) in Greece, Israel and Italy. Patients included in the observational arm of the study have fulfilled clinical and microbiological inclusion criteria but were excluded from the RCT due to receipt of colistin for > 96 h, refusal to participate, or prior inclusion in the RCT. Non-randomized cases were compared to randomized patients. The primary outcome was clinical failure at 14 days of infection onset. Results: Analysis included 701 patients. Patients were infected mainly with Acinetobacter baumannii [78.2% (548/701)]. The most common reason for exclusion was refusal to participate [62% (183/295)]. Non-randomized and randomized patients were similar in most of the demographic and background parameters, though randomized patients showed minor differences towards a more severe infection. Combination therapy was less common in non-randomized patients [31.9% (53/166) vs. 51.2% (208/406), p = 0.000]. Randomized patients received longer treatment of colistin [13 days (IQR 10–16) vs. 8.5 days (IQR 0–15), p = 0.000]. Univariate analysis showed that non-randomized patients were more inclined to clinical failure on day 14 from infection onset [82% (242/295) vs. 75.5% (307/406), p = 0.042]. After adjusting for other variables, non-inclusion was not an independent risk factor for clinical failure at day 14. Conclusion: The similarity between the observational arm and RCT patients has strengthened our confidence in the population external validity of the AIDA trial. Adding an observational arm to intervention studies can help increase the population external validity and improve implementation of study results in clinical practice. Trial registration: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01732250 on November 22, 2012.

Background: Prolonged shifts in residency contribute to physician fatigue, cognitive decline, and increased medical errors. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate how reducing shift length affects patient-physician safety, physician well-being, and residency training, addressing the ongoing challenge of balancing resident welfare, patient outcomes, and educational standards across varied implementation settings. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and opengrey.eu was performed from database inception to January 2024. Eligible studies assessed the effects of duty hour limitations (≤ 24 h) on clinical, educational, or systemic outcomes. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included. Meta-analyses used random-effects models. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. Subgroup analyses were performed by specialty, shift duration, and publication period. Sensitivity analyses excluded studies with extended timeframes. Results: A total of 108 studies (8 RCTs, 100 observational) were included. Shift shortening was associated with improved resident well-being, including reduced fatigue and work-life balance. Patient safety remained stable, with a significant reduction in 30-day mortality for shifts ≤ 16 h (pooled OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.79–0.89). No significant effect on complications or adverse events was observed. Operative experience showed mixed results, with a non-significant reduction in case volume (pooled std. mean difference 0.65, 95% CI -0.04 to 1.34, P = 0.07), while test scores exhibited minimal changes. Effect directions remained consistent across publication periods. High heterogeneity and risk of bias were observed across most included studies. Conclusions: Shortening shifts to 24 h or less appears to improve residents’ satisfaction and work-life balance while maintaining patient safety outcomes. Educational outcomes were mixed; operative experience was preserved in some settings, while effects on non-surgical training remain less clear. These findings underscore the importance of tailoring reforms to specialty needs and training contexts. Future research should examine unstudied outcomes, such as residency attrition or shifts to less demanding specializations, and system-wide implementation costs. A stepped wedge cluster randomized trial is recommended for future policy evaluations. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023390197

In the recently published meta-analysis titled “Colistin Monotherapy versus Colistin plus Meropenem Combination Therapy for the Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii Infection: A Meta-Analysis”, Huang et al. compared the efficacy and safety of treatment with colistin monotherapy versus colistin plus meropenem combination therapy in patients with drug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infection