Neurotechnology is a rapidly emerging field with vast potential within healthcare, but also has inherent concerns. There is, therefore, a need to ensure the responsible and ethical development and regulation of these technologies. This horizon scan aimed to provide an overview of neurotechnologies in development and those approved by the FDA as of June 2024 for a range of conditions relating to mental health, healthy ageing, and physical disability. Searches of clinical trials, conferences, journals, and news were performed in March 2024. Relevant technologies were identified through a process of screening, data extraction and synthesis. A total of 81 unique neurotechnologies were identified, with 23 relating to mental health, 31 to healthy ageing, and 42 to physical disability. A total of 79% percent did not yet have FDA approval and 77.4% were at earlier stages of development (pilot/feasibility studies), with 22.6% at pivotal or post-market stages. Digital elements were common features of the technologies, including software, apps, and connectivity to other devices; however, there were only three technologies with an identifiable AI component. A complex regulatory landscape and unique ethical and safety concerns associated with neurotechnology could pose challenges to innovators, though the emerging nature of the field also provides an opportunity to pre-emptively address potential issues.

BACKGROUND Unmet health and care needs in severe conditions are often intensified by delayed recognition and barriers to timely, appropriate care. Netnography, an adaptation of ethnography for online communities, offers a low-burden methods of examining how such needs are experienced and articulated in naturally occurring online interactions, including among populations facing stigma or complex care pathways. However, netnography is often inconsistently applied and ethical procedures are not always transparently reported. Furthermore, how this approach compares to other, more established methods is not well understood. OBJECTIVE To assess the feasibility of non-participatory netnography for identifying health and care needs of people in the United kingdom affected by advanced liver disease (ALD) and their caregivers, and to compare netnography-derived insights with a scoping review of recent UK-based literature. METHODS We conducted a non-participatory netnography of a UK-based ALD forum selected for relevance, sustained activity, and depth of discussion on care experiences. Posts and replies from May to September 2024 relating to health and care needs were analyzed using an iterative framework approach combining inductive and deductive coding. In parallel, we undertook a scoping review following JBIe guidance to identify UK-based studies published in English between January 2019 and October 2024 across major databases and selected grey literature sources. Findings from both methods were charted into a shared framework of needs domains to examine convergence and divergence. Ethical approval was obtained; administrator consent was secured; and privacy protections included removal of identifiers, minimal paraphrasing of quotations, and non-disclosure of the forum name. RESULTS For the netnography, 535 posts and 4,250 replies were identified, of which 155 posts/replies were relevant to ALD-related needs. Three primary domains were identified: medical, emotional and psychological, and financial. Forum users described unresolved symptoms; difficulties accessing timely appointments, procedures, and specialist support; diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty; limited dietary and self-management guidance; emotional distress; caregiver burden; alcohol-related stigma and relapse concerns; and financial strain related to employment disruption, benefits navigation, and, less commonly, seeking private care to bypass waiting times. The scoping review included 28 reports of 26 UK-based studies and corroborated many medical and emotional needs but reported comparatively fewer financial needs. It additionally highlighted behavioral/lifestyle regulation needs and selected social and cultural influences. CONCLUSIONS Non-participatory netnography appears feasible for identifying a broad range of ALD-related health and care needs and provided complementary patient and caregiver-framed insights that both aligned with and extended the recent UK evidence base. CLINICALTRIAL NA

Background: Pain during dressing changes is a major concern for individuals with chronic wounds, such as venous leg ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers and pressure sores. These procedures, often performed in community settings, can cause significant physical and emotional distress. Despite widespread recognition of this issue, there has been no comprehensive synthesis of evidence to guide effective pain management strategies during dressing changes. Objective: This mixed-methods systematic review aimed to evaluate interventions designed to reduce pain during dressing changes for chronic wounds and to explore the experiences of patients and healthcare professionals. Methods: Twenty-nine studies were included: 8 effectiveness studies, 11 surveys and 10 qualitative studies. Data were sourced from six electronic databases and analysed using a convergent segregated approach. Quantitative data were summarised using synthesis without meta-analysis guidance, while qualitative and survey data were analysed thematically. Findings were integrated using the preventing pain at dressing change pathway, a framework developed with stakeholder input to map interventions across the dressing change process. Results: Pain was found to be highly variable and influenced by wound type, healing stage and previous experiences. Non-adhesive and ibuprofen-releasing foam dressings consistently reduced pain, while gauze dressings were frequently associated with increased discomfort. Topical treatments, such as eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics cream and morphine gel, showed promise. Patients valued skilled, communicative nursing care and involvement in their own treatment. Distraction techniques and post-dressing pain relief were identified as important but under-researched. Pain assessment practices were inconsistent, and formal tools were rarely used. Limitations: The broad scope of eligible interventions increases the risk of missing relevant studies. Most studies were small and at moderate to high risk of bias. Future work: Future research should focus on evaluating underused interventions (e.g. distraction, patient involvement), improving pain assessment practices, and addressing equity gaps in pain management. Investment in nurse training and consistent care protocols is essential. Conclusions: Effective pain management during dressing changes requires a holistic, patient-centred approach. While some interventions show promise, many commonly used strategies lack robust evidence. The preventing pain at dressing change pathway offers a practical framework for guiding future practice, research and policy development. Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR131023.

Conference abstracts are commonly included in systematic reviews of evidence. Due to limitations in word count, conference abstracts often lack data or information. This causes issues for the assessment of risk of bias (RoB). We therefore aimed to compare the RoB rating, using the Cochrane RoB tool, for abstracts and full texts. This was accomplished using previously published Cochrane reviews and comparing RoB ratings for included studies originally included as an abstract and later as full text. To accomplish this, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for reviews with updates across numerous disciplines (depression, anxiety, surgical, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and musculoskeletal disease). We identified 29 reviews, with 52 randomized controlled trials included, which had an abstract and subsequent full text available. If abstracts and full texts were not assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool, we obtained the texts and performed the assessment ( n = 32). To assess the likelihood of changing the domain assessment rating (low, unclear, or high) from conference abstract to full text, we performed a Bayesian categorical multinomial model for each domain (i.e., signaling question) of the Cochrane tool. At the abstract assessment stage, the most common decision was unclear. Using unclear as the reference level in the model led to increased odds of being rated high at full text, compared to abstract assessment, for domains 2 (allocation concealment: odds ratio [OR] = 3.09, 95% credible intervals (CrI) 1.01 to 9.84) and 3 (blinding: OR = 5.09, 95% CrI 1.67 to 16.20). Domain 2 also had odds of being rated low (OR: 2.93, 95% CrI: 1.13 to 7.87). This suggests an impact of changing conference abstract to full text assessments on RoB. The numerous unclear ratings observed at the abstract assessment were usually due to a lack of reporting. While the findings of this study should be interpreted within the context of small numbers, the evidence still suggests that, in some instances, such as allocation concealment and blinding, it is likely that the decision could change based on full‐text assessment. This also has implications for the certainty of the evidence, which is impacted by the RoB assessments, with having abstracts only or full texts available potentially changing the overall certainty. Current RoB tools may not be suitable for assessing conference abstracts.