Digital technologies change the healthcare environment, with several studies suggesting barriers and facilitators to using digital interventions by healthcare professionals (HPs). We consolidated the evidence from existing systematic reviews mentioning barriers and facilitators for the use of digital health technologies by HP. Electronic searches were performed in five databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase^®, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE^®, and Scopus) from inception to March 2023. We included reviews that reported barriers or facilitators factors to use technology solutions among HP. We performed data abstraction, methodological assessment, and certainty of the evidence appraisal by at least two authors. Overall, we included 108 reviews involving physicians, pharmacists, and nurses were included. High-quality evidence suggested that infrastructure and technical barriers (Relative Frequency Occurrence [RFO] 6.4% [95% CI 2.9–14.1]), psychological and personal issues (RFO 5.3% [95% CI 2.2–12.7]), and concerns of increasing working hours or workload (RFO 3.9% [95% CI 1.5–10.1]) were common concerns reported by HPs. Likewise, high-quality evidence supports that training/educational programs, multisector incentives, and the perception of technology effectiveness facilitate the adoption of digital technologies by HPs (RFO 3.8% [95% CI 1.8–7.9]). Our findings showed that infrastructure and technical issues, psychological barriers, and workload-related concerns are relevant barriers to comprehensively and holistically adopting digital health technologies by HPs. Conversely, deploying training, evaluating HP’s perception of usefulness and willingness to use, and multi-stakeholders incentives are vital enablers to enhance the HP adoption of digital interventions.

A growing body of literature on the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is becoming available, but a synthesis of available data has not been conducted. We performed a scoping review of currently available clinical, epidemiological, laboratory, and chest imaging data related to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS from 01 January 2019 to 24 February 2020. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis were conducted using the clinical and laboratory data, and random-effects models were applied to estimate pooled results. A total of 61 studies were included (59,254 patients). The most common disease-related symptoms were fever (82%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 56%–99%; n = 4410), cough (61%, 95% CI 39%–81%; n = 3985), muscle aches and/or fatigue (36%, 95% CI 18%–55%; n = 3778), dyspnea (26%, 95% CI 12%–41%; n = 3700), headache in 12% (95% CI 4%–23%, n = 3598 patients), sore throat in 10% (95% CI 5%–17%, n = 1387) and gastrointestinal symptoms in 9% (95% CI 3%–17%, n = 1744). Laboratory findings were described in a lower number of patients and revealed lymphopenia (0.93 × 10⁹/L, 95% CI 0.83–1.03 × 10⁹/L, n = 464) and abnormal C-reactive protein (33.72 mg/dL, 95% CI 21.54–45.91 mg/dL; n = 1637). Radiological findings varied, but mostly described ground-glass opacities and consolidation. Data on treatment options were limited. All-cause mortality was 0.3% (95% CI 0.0%–1.0%; n = 53,631). Epidemiological studies showed that mortality was higher in males and elderly patients. The majority of reported clinical symptoms and laboratory findings related to SARS-CoV-2 infection are non-specific. Clinical suspicion, accompanied by a relevant epidemiological history, should be followed by early imaging and virological assay.

Clinical question What are the benefits and harms of thyroid hormones for adults with subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH)? This guideline was triggered by a recent systematic review of randomised controlled trials, which could alter practice. Current practice Current guidelines tend to recommend thyroid hormones for adults with thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels >10 mIU/L and for people with lower TSH values who are young, symptomatic, or have specific indications for prescribing. Recommendation The guideline panel issues a strong recommendation against thyroid hormones in adults with SCH (elevated TSH levels and normal free T4 (thyroxine) levels). It does not apply to women who are trying to become pregnant or patients with TSH >20 mIU/L. It may not apply to patients with severe symptoms or young adults (such as those ≤30 years old). How this guideline was created A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The evidence The systematic review included 21 trials with 2192 participants. For adults with SCH, thyroid hormones consistently demonstrate no clinically relevant benefits for quality of life or thyroid related symptoms, including depressive symptoms, fatigue, and body mass index (moderate to high quality evidence). Thyroid hormones may have little or no effect on cardiovascular events or mortality (low quality evidence), but harms were measured in only one trial with few events at two years’ follow-up. Understanding the recommendation The panel concluded that almost all adults with SCH would not benefit from treatment with thyroid hormones. Other factors in the strong recommendation include the burden of lifelong management and uncertainty on potential harms. Instead, clinicians should monitor the progression or resolution of the thyroid dysfunction in these adults. Recommendations are made actionable for clinicians and their patients through visual overviews. These provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of thyroid hormones in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available in MAGIC (https://app.magicapp.org/) to support shared decisions and adaptation of this guideline.

Background: Navigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic. Methods: Nine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO’s Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes. Results: Eighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as “critically low”. Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82–95%), cough with or without sputum (58–72%), dyspnea (26–59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29–51%), sore throat (10–13%), headache (8–12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5–9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%. Conclusions: In this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was “critically low”. Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.

With the advances in technology and data science, machine learning (ML) is being rapidly adopted by the health care sector. However, there is a lack of literature addressing the health conditions targeted by the ML prediction models within primary health care (PHC) to date. To fill this gap in knowledge, we conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines to identify health conditions targeted by ML in PHC. We searched the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Elsevier, BioRxiv, Association of Computing Machinery (ACM), and IEEE Xplore databases for studies published from January 1990 to January 2022. We included primary studies addressing ML diagnostic or prognostic predictive models that were supplied completely or partially by real-world PHC data. Studies selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the prediction model study risk of bias assessment tool were performed by two investigators. Health conditions were categorized according to international classification of diseases (ICD-10). Extracted data were analyzed quantitatively. We identified 106 studies investigating 42 health conditions. These studies included 207 ML prediction models supplied by the PHC data of 24.2 million participants from 19 countries. We found that 92.4% of the studies were retrospective and 77.3% of the studies reported diagnostic predictive ML models. A majority (76.4%) of all the studies were for models’ development without conducting external validation. Risk of bias assessment revealed that 90.8% of the studies were of high or unclear risk of bias. The most frequently reported health conditions were diabetes mellitus (19.8%) and Alzheimer’s disease (11.3%). Our study provides a summary on the presently available ML prediction models within PHC. We draw the attention of digital health policy makers, ML models developer, and health care professionals for more future interdisciplinary research collaboration in this regard.