Objective: There has been an unprecedented rise in infant mortality associated with deprivation in recent years in the United Kingdom (UK) and Republic of Ireland. A healthy pregnancy can have significant impacts on the life chances of children. The objective of this review was to understand the association between individual-level and household-level measures of socioeconomic status and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: Nine databases were searched (Medline, Embase, Scopus, ASSIA, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BNI, MIDRIS and Google Scholar) for articles published between 1999 and August 2019. Grey literature searches were also assessed. Study selection criteria: Studies reporting associations between individual-level or household socioeconomic factors on pregnancy outcomes in the UK or Ireland. Results: Among the 82 353 search results, 53 821 titles were identified and 35 unique studies met the eligibility criteria. Outcomes reported were neonatal, perinatal and maternal mortality, preterm birth, birth weight and mode of delivery. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. There were significantly increased odds of women from lower levels of occupation/social classes compared with the highest level having stillbirth (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.59, I ² 98.62% ), neonatal mortality (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.57, I ² 97.09% ), perinatal mortality (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.57, I ² 98.69% ), preterm birth (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.50, I ² 70.97% ) and low birth weight (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.61, I ² 99.85% ). Limitations relate to available data, unmeasured confounders and the small number of studies for some outcomes. Conclusions: This review identified consistent evidence that lower occupational status, especially manual occupations and unemployment, were significantly associated with increased risk of multiple adverse pregnancy outcomes. Strategies to improve pregnancy outcomes should incorporate approaches that address wider determinants of health to provide women and families with the best chances of having a healthy pregnancy and baby and to decrease pregnancy-related health inequalities in the general population. PROSPERO registration number: PROSPERO CRD42019140893.

Self-management can improve clinical and psychosocial outcomes in cancer survivors. Which intervention characteristics and components are beneficial is unclear, hindering implementation into practice. We systematically searched six databases from inception to 17 November 2021 for studies evaluating self-management interventions for adult cancer survivors post-treatment. Independent reviewers screened for eligibility. Data extraction included population and study characteristics, intervention characteristics (TIDieR) and components (PRISMS), (associations with) quality of life (QoL), self-efficacy, and economic outcomes. Study quality was appraised, and narrative synthesis was conducted. We identified 53 papers reporting 32 interventions. Studies had varying quality. They were most often randomised controlled trials (n = 20), targeted at survivors of breast (n = 10), prostate (n = 7), or mixed cancers (n = 11). Intervention characteristics (e.g., provider, location) varied considerably. On average, five (range 1–10) self-management components were delivered, mostly “Information about condition and its management” (n = 26). Twenty-two studies reported significant QoL improvements (6 also reported significant self-efficacy improvements); these were associated most consistently with combined individual and group delivery. Economic evaluations were limited and inconclusive. Self-management interventions showed promise for improving QoL, but study quality was variable, with substantial heterogeneity in intervention characteristics and components. By identifying what to adapt from existing interventions, these findings can inform development and implementation of self-management interventions in cancer.

Background: Malnutrition worsens the health of frail older adults. Current treatments for malnutrition may include prescribed oral nutritional supplements, which are multinutrient products containing macronutrients and micronutrients. Objective: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral nutritional supplements (with or without other dietary interventions) in frail older people who are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and grey literature were searched from inception to 13 September 2021. Review methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral nutritional supplements in frail older people (aged ≥ 65 years) who are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition (defined as undernutrition as per National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines). Meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were undertaken, where feasible, along with a narrative synthesis. A cost-effectiveness review was reported narratively. A de novo model was developed using effectiveness evidence identified in the systematic review to estimate the cost-effectiveness of oral nutritional supplements. Results: Eleven studies (n = 822 participants) were included in the effectiveness review, six of which were fully or partly funded by industry. Meta-analyses suggested positive effects of oral nutritional supplements compared with standard care for energy intake (kcal) (standardised mean difference 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 1.88; very low quality evidence) and poor mobility (mean difference 0.03, p < 0.00001, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.04; very low quality evidence) but no evidence of an effect for body weight (mean difference 1.31, 95% confidence interval –0.05 to 2.66; very low quality evidence) and body mass index (mean difference 0.54, 95% confidence interval –0.03 to 1.11; very low quality evidence). Pooled results for other outcomes were statistically non-significant. There was mixed narrative evidence regarding the effect of oral nutritional supplements on quality of life. Network meta-analysis could be conducted only for body weight and grip strength; there was evidence of an effect for oral nutritional supplements compared with standard care for body weight only. Study quality was mixed; the randomisation method was typically poorly reported. One economic evaluation, in a care home setting, was included. This was a well-conducted study showing that oral nutritional supplements could be cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that oral nutritional supplements may only be cost-effective for people with lower body mass index (< 21 kg/m²) using cheaper oral nutritional supplements products that require minimal staff time to administer. Limitations: The review scope was narrow in focus as few primary studies used frailty measures (or our proxy criteria). This resulted in only 11 included studies. The small evidence base and varied quality of evidence meant that it was not possible to determine accurate estimates of the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of oral nutritional supplements. Furthermore, only English-language publications were considered. Conclusions: Overall, the review found little evidence of oral nutritional supplements having significant effects on reducing malnutrition or its adverse outcomes in frail older adults. Future work: Future research should focus on independent, high-quality, adequately powered studies to investigate oral nutritional supplements alongside other nutritional interventions, with longer-term follow-up and detailed analysis of determinants, intervention components and cost-effectiveness. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020170906. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 51. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Diagnostic testing remains the backbone of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) response, supporting containment efforts to mitigate the outbreak. The severity of this crisis and increasing capacity issues associated with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based testing, accelerated the development of diagnostic solutions to meet demands for mass testing. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Innovation Observatory is the national horizon scanning organization in England. Since March, the Innovation Observatory has applied advanced horizon scanning methodologies and tools to compile a diagnostic landscape, based upon data captured for molecular (MDx) and immunological (IDx) based diagnostics (commercialized/in development), for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. In total we identified and tracked 1608 diagnostics, produced by 1045 developers across 54 countries. Our dataset shows the speed and scale in which diagnostics were produced and provides insights into key periods of development and shifts in trends between MDx and IDx solutions as the pandemic progressed. Stakeholders worldwide required timely and detailed intelligence to respond to major challenges, including testing capacity and regulatory issues. Our intelligence assisted UK stakeholders with assessing priorities and mitigation options throughout the pandemic. Here we present the global evolution of diagnostic innovations devised to meet changing needs, their regulation and trends across geographical regions, providing invaluable insights into the complexity of the COVID-19 phenomena.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is bringing together evidence on radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure in relation to health outcomes, previously identified as priorities for research and evaluation by experts in the field, to inform exposure guidelines. A suite of systematic reviews have been undertaken by a network of topic experts and methodologists to collect, assess and synthesise data relevant to these guidelines. Following the WHO handbook for guideline development and the COSTER conduct guidelines, we systematically reviewed the evidence on the potential effects of RF-EMF exposure on male fertility in human observational studies. We conducted a broad and sensitive search for potentially relevant records within the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE; Embase; Web of Science and EMF Portal. We also conducted searches of grey literature through relevant databases including OpenGrey, and organisational websites and consulted RF-EMF experts. We hand searched reference lists of included study records and for citations of these studies. We included quantitative human observational studies on the effect of RF-EMF exposure in adult male participants on infertility: sperm concentration; sperm morphology; sperm total motility; sperm progressive motility; total sperm count; and time to pregnancy. Titles and abstracts followed by full texts were screened in blinded duplicate against pre-set eligibility criteria with consensus input from a third reviewer as required. Data extraction from included studies was completed by two reviewers, as was risk of bias assessment using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) tool. We conducted a dose-response meta-analysis as possible and appropriate. Certainty of the evidence was assessed by two reviewers using the OHAT GRADE tool with input from a third reviewer as required. We identified nine studies in this review; seven were general public studies (with the general public as the population of interest) and two were occupational studies (with specific workers/workforces as the population of interest). General public studies. Duration of phone use: The evidence is very uncertain surrounding the effects of RF-EMF on sperm concentration (10/6 mL) (MD (mean difference) per hour of daily phone use 1.6 10⁶/mL, 95 % CI -1.7 to 4.9; 3 studies), sperm morphology (MD 0.15 percentage points of deviation of normal forms per hour, 95 % CI -0.21 to 0.51; 3 studies), sperm progressive motility (MD -0.46 percentage points per hour, 95 % CI -1.04 to 0.13; 2 studies) and total sperm count (MD per hour -0.44 10⁶/ejaculate, 95 % CI -2.59 to 1.7; 2 studies) due to very low-certainty evidence. Four additional studies reported on the effect of mobile phone use on sperm motility but were unsuitable for pooling; only one of these studies identified a statistically significant effect. All four studies were at risk of exposure characterisation and selection bias; two of confounding, selective reporting and attrition bias; three of outcome assessment bias and one used an inappropriate statistical method. Position of phone: There may be no or little effect of carrying a mobile phone in the front pocket on sperm concentration, total count, morphology, progressive motility or on time to pregnancy. Of three studies reporting on the effect of mobile phone location on sperm total motility and, or, total motile count, one showed a statistically significant effect. All three studies were at risk of exposure characterisation and selection bias; two of confounding, selective reporting and attrition bias; three of outcome assessment bias and one used inappropriate statistical method. RF-EMF Source: One study indicates there may be little or no effect of computer or other electric device use on sperm concentration, total motility or total count. This study is at probably high risk of exposure characterisation bias and outcome assessment bias. Occupational studies. With only two studies of occupational exposure to RF-EMF and heterogeneity in the population and exposure source (technicians exposed to microwaves or seamen exposed to radar equipment), it was not plausible to statistically pool findings. One study was at probably or definitely high risk of bias across all domains, the other across domains for exposure characterisation bias, outcome assessment bias and confounding. The majority of evidence identified was assessing localised RF-EMF exposure from mobile phone use on male fertility with few studies assessing the impact of phone position. Overall, the evidence identified is very uncertain about the effect of RF-EMF exposure from mobile phones on sperm outcomes. One study assessed the impact of other RF-EMF sources on male fertility amongst the general public and two studies assessed the impact of RF-EMF exposure in occupational cohorts from different sources (radar or microwave) on male fertility. Further prospective studies conducted with greater rigour (in particular, improved accuracy of exposure measurement and appropriate statistical method use) would build the existing evidence base and are required to have greater certainty in any potential effects of RF-EMF on male reproductive outcomes. Prospero Registration: CRD42021265401 (SR3A).

To inform radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure guidelines the World Health Organization (WHO) is bringing together evidence on RF-EMF in relation to health outcomes prioritised for evaluation by experts in this field. Given this, a network of topic experts and methodologists have conducted a series of systematic reviews collecting, assessing, and synthesising data of relevance to these guidelines. Here we present a systematic review of the effect of RF-EMF exposure on adverse pregnancy outcomes in human observational studies which follows the WHO handbook for guideline development and the COSTER conduct guidelines. We conducted a broad, sensitive search for potentially relevant records within the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE; Embase; and the EMF Portal. Grey literature searches were also conducted through relevant databases (including OpenGrey), organisational websites and via consultation of RF-EMF experts. We included quantitative human observational studies on the effect of RF-EMF exposure in adults' preconception or pregnant women on pre-term birth, small for gestational age (SGA; associated with intrauterine growth restriction), miscarriage, stillbirth, low birth weight (LBW) and congenital anomalies. In blinded duplicate, titles and abstracts then full texts were screened against eligibility criteria. A third reviewer gave input when consensus was not reached. Citation chaining of included studies was completed. Two reviewers' data extracted and assessed included studies for risk of bias using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) tool. Random effects meta-analyses of the highest versus the lowest exposures and dose-response meta-analysis were conducted as appropriate and plausible. Two reviewers assessed the certainty in each body of evidence using the OHAT GRADE tool. We identified 18 studies in this review; eight were general public studies (with the general public as the population of interest) and 10 were occupational studies (with the population of interest specific workers/workforces). General public studies. From pairwise meta-analyses of general public studies, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of RF-EMF from mobile phone exposure on preterm birth risk (relative risk (RR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.97-1.34, 95% prediction interval (PI): 0.83-1.57; 4 studies), LBW (RR 1.14, 95% CI: 0.96-1.36, 95% PI: 0.84-1.57; 4 studies) or SGA (RR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.02-1.24, 95% PI: 0.99-1.28; 2 studies) due to very low-certainty evidence. It was not feasible to meta-analyse studies reporting on the effect of RF-EMF from mobile phone exposure on congenital anomalies or miscarriage risk. The reported effects from the studies assessing these outcomes varied and the studies were at some risk of bias. No studies of the general public assessed the impact of RF-EMF exposure on stillbirth. Occupational studies. In occupational studies, based on dose-response meta-analyses, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of RF-EMF amongst female physiotherapists using shortwave diathermy on miscarriage due to very low-certainty evidence (OR 1.02 95% CI 0.94-1.1; 2 studies). Amongst offspring of female physiotherapists using shortwave diathermy, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of RF-EMF on the risk of congenital malformations due to very low-certainty evidence (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.32; 2 studies). From pairwise meta-analyses, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of RF-EMF on the risk of miscarriage (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; very low-certainty evidence), pre-term births (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.37; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence), and low birth weight (RR 2.90, 95% CI: 0.69 to 12.23; 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Results for stillbirth and SGA could not be pooled in meta-analyses. The results from the studies reporting these outcomes were inconsistent and the studies were at some risk of bias. Most of the evidence identified in this review was from general public studies assessing localised RF-EMF exposure from mobile phone use on female reproductive outcomes. In occupational settings, each study was of heterogenous whole-body RF-EMF exposure from radar, short or microwave diathermy, surveillance and welding equipment and its effect on female reproductive outcomes. Overall, the body of evidence is very uncertain about the effect of RF-EMF exposure on female reproductive outcomes. Further prospective studies conducted with greater rigour (particularly improved accuracy of exposure measurement and using appropriate statistical methods) are required to identify any potential effects of RF-EMF exposure on female reproductive outcomes of interest.