Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] -10·2%, 95% CI -11·5 to -7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD -14·3%, -15·9 to -10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12-16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD -10·6%, 95% CI -12·5 to -7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. World Health Organization.

Background and objectives: The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the incidences of cytomegalovirus and BK polyoma virus infections in renal transplant recipients receiving a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTOR)–based regimen compared with a calcineurin inhibitor–based regimen. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: We conducted a comprehensive search for randomized, controlled trials up to January of 2016 addressing our objective. Other outcomes included acute rejection, graft loss, serious adverse events, proteinuria, wound-healing complications, and eGFR. Two review authors selected eligible studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: We included 28 randomized, controlled trials with 6211 participants classified into comparison 1: mTOR inhibitor versus calcineurin inhibitor and comparison 2: mTOR inhibitor plus reduced dose of calcineurin inhibitor versus regular dose of calcineurin inhibitor. Results showed decreased incidence of cytomegalovirus infection in mTOR inhibitor–based group in both comparison 1 (risk ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.72), with high quality of evidence, and comparison 2 (risk ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.24 to 0.80), with moderate quality of evidence. The available evidence neither confirmed nor ruled out a reduction of BK polyoma virus infection in mTOR inhibitor–based group in both comparisons. Secondary outcomes revealed more serious adverse events and acute rejections in mTOR inhibitor–based group in comparison 1 and no difference in comparison 2. There was no difference in graft loss in both comparisons. eGFR was higher in the mTOR inhibitor–based group in comparison 1 (mean difference =4.07 ml/min per 1.73 m²; 95% confidence interval, 1.34 to 6.80) and similar to the calcineurin inhibitor–based group in comparison 2. More proteinuria and wound-healing complications occurred in the mTOR inhibitor–based groups. Conclusions: We found moderate- to high-quality evidence of reduced risk of cytomegalovirus infection in renal transplant recipients in the mTOR inhibitor–based compared with the calcineurin inhibitor–based regimen. Our review also suggested that a combination of a mTOR inhibitor and a reduced dose of calcineurin inhibitor may be associated with similar eGFR and rates of acute rejections and serious adverse events compared with a standard calcineurin inhibitor–based regimen at the expense of higher incidence of proteinuria and wound-healing complications.

This living systematic review examines evidence about the benefits and harms of alternative noninvasive and invasive ventilation strategies in acute hypoxic respiratory failure in patients infected... Background: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Purpose: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of v...

This paper is the initial Position Statement of Evidence Synthesis International, a new partnership of organizations that produce, support and use evidence synthesis around the world. The paper (i) argues for the importance of synthesis as a research exercise to clarify what is known from research evidence to inform policy, practice and personal decision making; (ii) discusses core issues for research synthesis such as the role of research evidence in decision making, the role of perspectives, participation and democracy in research and synthesis as a core component of evidence ecosystems; (iii) argues for 9 core principles for ESI on the nature and role of research synthesis; and (iv) lists the 5 main goals of ESI as a coordinating partnership for promoting and enabling the production and use of research synthesis.

Multiple risk-assessment models (RAMs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized medical patients have been developed. To inform the 2018 American Society of Hematology (ASH) guidelines on VTE, we conducted an overview of systematic reviews to identify and summarize evidence related to RAMs for VTE and bleeding in medical inpatients. We searched Epistemonikos, the Cochrane Database, Medline, and Embase from 2005 through June 2017 and then updated the search in January 2020 to identify systematic reviews that included RAMs for VTE and bleeding in medical inpatients. We conducted study selection, data abstraction and quality assessment (using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews [ROBIS] tool) independently and in duplicate. We described the characteristics of the reviews and their included studies, and compared the identified RAMs using narrative synthesis. Of 15 348 citations, we included 2 systematic reviews, of which 1 had low risk of bias. The reviews included 19 unique studies reporting on 15 RAMs. Seven of the RAMs were derived using individual patient data in which risk factors were included based on their predictive ability in a regression analysis. The other 8 RAMs were empirically developed using consensus approaches, risk factors identified from a literature review, and clinical expertise. The RAMs that have been externally validated include the Caprini, Geneva, IMPROVE, Kucher, and Padua RAMs. The Padua, Geneva, and Kucher RAMs have been evaluated in impact studies that reported an increase in appropriate VTE prophylaxis rates. Our findings informed the ASH guidelines. They also aim to guide health care practitioners in their decision-making processes regarding appropriate individual prophylactic management.