The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is a consortium of 31 Australian health professional organisations developing living, evidence-based guidelines for care of people with COVID-19, which are updated weekly. This article describes the methods used to develop and maintain the guidelines. The guidelines use the GRADE methods and are designed to meet Australian NHMRC standards. Each week, new evidence is reviewed, current recommendations are revised, and new recommendations made. These are published in MAGIC and disseminated through traditional and social media. Relevant new questions to be addressed are continually sought from stakeholders and practitioners. For prioritized questions, the evidence is actively monitored and updated. Evidence surveillance combines horizon scans and targeted searches. An evidence team appraises and synthesizes evidence and prepares evidence-to-decision frameworks to inform development of recommendations. A guidelines leadership group oversees the development of recommendations by multidisciplinary guidelines panels and is advised by a consumer panel. : The Taskforce formed in March 2020, and the first recommendations were published 2 weeks later. The guidelines have been revised and republished on a weekly basis for 24 weeks, and as of October 2020, contain over 90 treatment recommendations, suggesting that living methods are feasible in this context. The Australian guidelines for care of people with COVID-19 provide an example of the feasibility of living guidelines and an opportunity to test and improve living evidence methods.

Super-refractory status epilepticus (SRSE) is defined as status epilepticus (SE) that continues or recurs 24 hours or more after the onset of anesthetic therapy, including those cases where SE recurs on the reduction or withdrawal of anesthesia (usually propofol, midazolam, or pentobarbital/thiopental).¹ Despite substantial improvements in the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of nonrefractory SE, SRSE is still considered an evidence-free area.²

Currently, melatonin is used to treat children and adolescents with insomnia without knowing the full extent of the short-term and long-term consequences. Our aim was to provide clinicians and guideline panels with a systematic assessment of serious—and non-serious adverse events seen in continuation of melatonin treatment and the impact on pubertal development and bone health following long-term administration in children and adolescents with chronic insomnia. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and PsycINFO via Ovid, up to March 17, 2023, for studies on melatonin treatment among children and adolescents (aged 5–20 years) with chronic insomnia. The language was restricted to English, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. Outcomes were non-serious adverse events and serious adverse events assessed 2–4 weeks after initiating treatment and pubertal development and bone health, with no restriction on definition or time of measurement. Observational studies were included for the assessment of long-term outcomes, and serious and non-serious adverse events were assessed via randomised studies. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The protocol is registered with the Danish Health Authority. We identified 22 randomised studies with 1350 patients reporting on serious—and non-serious adverse events and four observational studies with a total of 105 patients reporting on pubertal development. Melatonin was not associated with serious adverse events, yet the number of patients experiencing non-serious adverse events was increased (Relative risk 1.56, 95% CI 1.01–2.43, 17 studies, I² = 47%). Three studies reported little or no influence on pubertal development following 2–4 years of treatment, whereas one study registered a potential delay following longer treatment durations (>7 years). These findings need further evaluation due to several methodological limitations. Children who use melatonin are likely to experience non-serious adverse events, yet the actual extent to which melatonin leads to non-serious adverse events and the long-term consequences remain uncertain. This major gap of knowledge on safety calls for caution against complacent use of melatonin in children and adolescents with chronic insomnia and for more research to inform clinicians and guideline panels on this key issue. The Danish Health Authority. The 10.13039/100014547 Parker Institute , Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, supported by the 10.13039/100001275 Oak Foundation .

Based on epidemiological and animal studies, the rationale for using polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) as a treatment for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) seems promising. Here, the objective was to systematically identify and critically assess the evidence from clinical trials. The primary outcome was ADHD core symptoms. The secondary outcomes were behavioral difficulties, quality of life, and side effects. We performed a systematic search in Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PsycInfo, and the Cochrane Library up to June 2020. The overall certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). We identified 31 relevant randomized controlled trials including 1755 patients. The results showed no effect on ADHD core symptoms rated by parents (k = 23; SMD: −0.17; 95% CI: −0.32, −0.02) or teachers (k = 10; SMD: −0.06; 95% CI: −0.31, 0.19). There was no effect on behavioral difficulties, rated by parents (k = 7; SMD: −0.02; 95% CI: −0.17, 0.14) or teachers (k = 5; SMD: −0.04; 95% CI: −0.35, 0.26). There was no effect on quality of life (SMD: 0.01; 95% CI: −0.29, 0.31). PUFA did not increase the occurrence of side effects. For now, there seems to be no benefit of PUFA in ADHD treatment; however, the certainty of evidence is questionable, and thus no conclusive guidance can be made. The protocol is registered in PROSPERO ID: CRD42020158453.

Melatonin prescriptions for children and adolescents have increased substantially during the last decade. Existing clinical recommendations focus on melatonin as a treatment for insomnia related to neurodevelopmental disorders. To help guide clinical decision-making, we aimed to construct a recommendation on the use of melatonin in children and adolescents aged 5–20 years with idiopathic chronic insomnia. A systematic search for guidelines, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCT) were performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, Cinahl, Guidelines International Network, Trip Database, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, American Academy of Sleep Medicine, European Sleep Research Society and Scandinavian Health Authorities databases. A search for adverse events in otherwise healthy children and adolescents was also performed. The latest search for guidelines, systematic reviews, and adverse events was performed on March 18, 2023. The latest search for RCTs was performed on to February 6, 2023. The language was restricted to English, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish. Eligible participants were children and adolescents (5–20 years of age) with idiopathic chronic insomnia, in whom sleep hygiene practices have been inadequate and melatonin was tested. There were no restrictions on dosage, duration of treatment, time of consumption, or release formula. Primary outcomes were quality of sleep, daytime functioning and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included total sleep time, sleep latency, awakenings, drowsiness, quality of life, all-cause dropouts, and non-serious adverse events. Outcomes were assessed at different time points to assess short-term and long-term effects. Meta-analysis was performed using inverse variance random-effects model and risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. If possible, funnel plots would be constructed to investigate publication bias. Heterogeneity was calculated via I² statistics. A multidisciplinary guideline panel formulated the recommendation according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The certainty of evidence was considered either high, moderate, low or very low depending on the extent of risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, or publication bias. The evidence-to-decision framework was subsequently used to discuss the feasibility and acceptance of the constructed recommendation alongside the impact on resources and equity. The protocol is registered with the Danish Health Authority. We included eight RCTs with 419 children and adolescents with idiopathic chronic insomnia. Melatonin led to a moderate increase in total sleep time by 30.33 min (95% confidence interval (CI) 18.96–41.70, 4 studies, I² = 0%) and a moderate reduction in sleep latency by 18.03 min (95% CI −26.61 to −9.44, 3 studies, I² = 0%), both as assessed by sleep diary. No other beneficial effects were found. None of the studies provided information on serious adverse events, yet the number of participants experiencing non-serious adverse events was increased (Relative risk 3.44, 95% CI 1.25–9.42, 4 studies, I² = 0%). Funnel plots were not constructed due to the low number of studies. The certainty of evidence was very low on the quality of sleep and low for daytime functioning. Evidence of very low certainty shows that benefits are limited and unwanted events are likely when melatonin is used to treat otherwise healthy children and adolescents with chronic insomnia. Melatonin should never be the first choice of treatment for this particular population, yet carefully monitored short-term use may be considered if sleep hygiene practices and non-pharmacological interventions have proven inadequate, and only if daytime function is compromised. The Danish Health Authority and the 10.13039/100014547 Parker Institute , Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital supported by the 10.13039/100001275 Oak Foundation .