Bone marrow versus peripheral blood allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for haematological malignancies in adults.

Allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is an established treatment option for many malignant and non-malignant haematological disorders. Peripheral blood stem cells represent the main stem cell source in malignant diseases due to faster engraftment and practicability issues compared with bone marrow stem cells. Since the early 2000s, there have been many developments in the clinical field. Allo-HSCT using haploidentical family donors (haplo-HSCT) has emerged as an alternative for people who do not have human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched siblings or unrelated donors. In addition, the introduction of new methods and strategies in allo-HSCT, such as the use of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PT-Cy), better donor selection, the more frequent administration of anti-thymocyte globulins (ATGs), but also improved management of side effects such as graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) and infection, have impacted outcomes after allo-HSCT. In addition, as transplant indications and strategies continue to adapt in line with novel research findings, the effect of the stem cell source on post-transplant outcomes is unclear. For our analysis, we considered peripheral blood stem cells as the standard graft source for adults with haematological malignancies. This is an update of a review first published in 2014. To assess the effect of bone marrow transplantation versus peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in adults with haematological malignancies with regard to overall survival, disease-free survival, incidence of non-relapse or transplant-related mortality, incidence of extensive chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD), incidence of acute GvHD grades III to IV, incidence of overall chronic GvHD, and quality of life. For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registries on 2 November 2022 with no language restrictions. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bone marrow transplantation (BMT) with peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT) in adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with haematological malignancies. Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We evaluated risk of bias using the original Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 1), and we evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The updated search identified no new studies for inclusion. We found two additional reports relating to a previously included study; they provided new data on quality of life and infection rates after transplantation. As these are clinically relevant outcomes, quality of life was added to the summary of findings table (replacing acute GvHD II to IV), and rate of infection was added to our list of secondary outcomes. We included nine RCTs with a total of 1521 participants. Overall, the risk of bias in the included studies was low. Median participant age across studies ranged from 21 to 45 years, and studies took place in Canada, the USA, New Zealand, Brazil, Australia, Egypt, and across Europe. Bone marrow transplantation (BMT) compared with peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT) likely results in little to no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause death 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25; 6 studies, 1330 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between BMT and PBSCT in terms of disease-free survival (HR for disease recurrence or all-cause death 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.21; 6 studies, 1225 participants; low-certainty evidence) and non-relapse or transplant-related mortality (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.28; 3 studies, 758 participants; low-certainty evidence). BMT compared with PBSCT likely results in lower rates of extensive chronic GvHD (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.90; 4 studies, 765 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and overall chronic GvHD (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.85; 4 studies, 1121 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). BMT compared with PBSCT may reduce the incidence of acute GvHD grades III to IV, although the 95% CI of the HR is also compatible with no effect (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.02; 3 studies, 925 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence from two trials that used different quality of life assessment instruments suggests that BMT compared with PBSCT may be associated with higher quality of life five years after transplantation. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests little to no difference in overall survival following allo-HSCT using bone marrow versus peripheral blood stem cells (the current clinical standard stem cell source). Low-certainty evidence suggests little to no difference between the stem cell sources in terms of disease-free survival and non-relapse or transplant-related survival. BMT likely reduces the risk of extensive chronic GvHD and overall chronic GvHD compared with PBSCT. Evidence from two RCTs suggests that BMT compared with PBSCT may result in higher long-term quality of life, possibly due to the lower chronic GvHD incidence. With this update, we aimed to supply the most recent data on the choice of stem cell source for allo-HSCT in adults by including new evidence published up to November 2022. We identified no new ongoing studies and no new RCTs with published results. Further research in this field is warranted.

Kiene S ，Albrecht M ，Theurich S ，Scheid C ，Skoetz N ，Holtick U ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Antioxidants for female subfertility.

M.G. Showell, R. Mackenzie‐Proctor, V. Jordan, and R.J. Hart, “Antioxidants for Female Subfertility,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 8 (2020): CD007807, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007807.pub4 This Editorial Note is for the above article, published online on August 27, 2020, in Cochrane Library (cochranelibrary.com), and has been issued by the Publisher, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, in agreement with Cochrane. The Editorial note has been agreed due to concerns discovered by the Cochrane managing editor regarding the retraction of six studies in the Review (Badawy et al. 2006, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.02.097; El Refaeey et al. 2014, 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.03.011; El Sharkwy & Abd El Aziz 2019a, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12902; Gerli et al. 2007, https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202309_33752, full text: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/18074942; Ismail et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.008; Hashemi et al. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1372413). In addition, expressions of concern have been published for two studies (Jamilian et al. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1236-3; Zadeh Modarres 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1148-2). The retracted studies will be moved to the Excluded Studies table, and their impact on the review findings will be investigated and acted on accordingly in a future update. Initial checks indicate that removal of the six retracted studies did not make an appreciable difference to the results. Likewise, the studies for which Expressions of Concern were issued will be moved to the Awaiting classification table; they did not report any review outcomes, so removal will have no impact on the review findings. A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility. To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women. We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2019), with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and searched the trial registers. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events. We included 63 trials involving 7760 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including: combinations of antioxidants, N-acetylcysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant. Only 27 of the 63 included trials reported funding sources. Due to the very low-quality of the evidence we are uncertain whether antioxidants improve live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.43; P < 0.001, I2 = 29%; 13 RCTs, 1227 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 24% and 36%. Low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may improve clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.89; P < 0.001, I2 = 63%; 35 RCTs, 5165 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 25% and 30%. Heterogeneity was moderately high. Overall 28 trials reported on various adverse events in the meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that the use of antioxidants makes no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.55; P = 0.46, I2 = 0%; 24 RCTs, 3229 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.56; P = 0.99, I2 = 0%; 9 RCTs, 1886 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10; P = 0.47, I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 343 women; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed that there was also no difference between the groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.20; P = 0.69, I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs, 404 women). In the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, low-quality evidence shows no difference in a lower dose of melatonin being associated with an increased live-birth rate compared with higher-dose melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live-birth rate of 24%, the rate among women using a lower dose of melatonin compared to a higher dose would be between 12% and 40%. Similarly with clinical pregnancy, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates between a lower and a higher dose of melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). Three trials reported on miscarriage in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison (two used doses of melatonin and one compared N-acetylcysteine versus L-carnitine). There were no miscarriages in either melatonin trial. Multiple pregnancy and gastrointestinal disturbances were not reported, and ectopic pregnancy was reported by only one trial, with no events. The study comparing N-acetylcysteine with L-carnitine did not report live birth rate. Very low-quality evidence shows no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.00; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). Low quality evidence shows no difference in miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.67; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report multiple pregnancy, gastrointestinal disturbances or ectopic pregnancy. The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency. In this review, there was low- to very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may benefit subfertile women. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, multiple births, gastrointestinal effects or ectopic pregnancies, but evidence was of very low quality. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.

Showell MG ，Mackenzie-Proctor R ，Jordan V ，Hart RJ ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Chemotherapy alone versus chemotherapy plus radiotherapy for adults with early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma in adults is commonly treated with combined modality treatment of chemotherapy followed by radiotherapy. The role of radiotherapy has been questioned due to potential long-term adverse effects. To assess the effects of chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy plus radiotherapy in adults with early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma. We updated all previous searches for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial, MEDLINE and Embase, in trial registries and in relevant conference proceedings until November 2023. We included RCTs comparing chemotherapy alone with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy in adults with early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma and excluded trials with more than 20% of participants with advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma. We considered immunotherapy in addition to chemotherapy eligible if both were applied similarly in the comparator groups, but did not identify such trials. For our comparisons, we separated RCTs with the same number of chemotherapy cycles in both arms and RCTs with a different number of cycles, when the chemotherapy regimens were the same. We separated RCTs which compared participants with a favourable, mixed or unfavourable risk profile. Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed the quality of included trials. A third review author resolved discrepancies. We analysed time-to-event outcomes (overall survival, progression-free survival) as hazard ratios (HR) and binary outcomes (adverse events) as risk ratios (RR). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. We included nine comparisons of eight RCTs involving 3840 participants in this updated review. Same number of chemotherapy cycles in both trial arms Favourable disease For overall survival in individuals with favourable Hodgkin's lymphoma, the evidence is uncertain and inconclusive (HR 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 7.92; 2 RCTs, 1245 participants; very low-certainty evidence due to study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision). Additional radiotherapy to chemotherapy is likely to improve progression-free survival (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.68; 2 RCTs, 1245 participants; moderate-certainty evidence due to study limitations). The evidence was uncertain and inconclusive for second-cancer-related mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.01 to 74.24; 2 RCTs, 1245 participants; very low-certainty evidence due to study limitations, inconsistency and substantial imprecision) and suggests little to no difference in cardiac disease-related mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 14.16; 1 RCT, 667 participants; low-certainty evidence due to substantial imprecision). There were no data on infection-related mortality or infertility. Mixed population For a population of mixed risk profile, the evidence on overall survival is uncertain and inconclusive (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.13 to 4.80; 2 RCTs, 572 participants; very low-certainty evidence due to study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision). It indicates that additional radiotherapy may lead to an improvement in progression-free survival (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.17; 2 RCTs, 572 participants; low-certainty evidence due to study limitations and imprecision). The evidence is uncertain and inconclusive for infection-related mortality (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 10.87; 2 RCTs, 572 participants) and second-cancer-related mortality (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.98; 2 RCTs, 572 participants) (both very low-certainty evidence due to study limitations and substantial imprecision), but suggests that additional radiotherapy may increase cardiac disease-related mortality (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.92; 1 RCT, 420 participants; low-certainty evidence due to substantial imprecision). There were no data on infertility. Unfavourable disease For individuals with unfavourable disease, the evidence on overall survival is uncertain and inconclusive (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.44; 2 RCTs, 688 participants; very low-certainty evidence due to study limitations and substantial imprecision), but additional radiotherapy probably improves progression-free survival (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.60; 1 RCT, 651 participants; moderate-certainty evidence due to imprecision). The evidence was uncertain and inconclusive for cardiac disease-related mortality (RR 2.85, 95% CI 0.12 to 65.74; 1 RCT, 37 participants; very low-certainty evidence due to study limitations and substantial imprecision). There were no data on infection-related mortality, second-cancer related mortality or infertility. Different number of chemotherapy cycles in both trial arms Favourable disease The evidence for overall survival in individuals with favourable disease treated with different numbers of chemotherapy cycles in both arms is uncertain and inclusive (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.38; 1 RCT, 357 participants; very low-certainty evidence due to study limitations and substantial imprecision), yet it suggests a likely improvement in progression-free survival with additional radiotherapy (HR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.32; 1 RCT, 357 participants; moderate-certainty evidence due to study limitations). For second-cancer-related mortality, the evidence is uncertain and inconclusive (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.34; 1 RCT, 465 participants; very low-certainty evidence due to study limitations and substantial imprecision). There were no data on infection-related mortality and infertility and data for cardiac disease-related mortality were not estimable (no events in either group). Unfavourable disease For individuals with an unfavourable risk profile, additional radiotherapy may decrease overall survival slightly (HR 1.66, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.90; 2 RCTs, 698 participants; low-certainty evidence due to study limitations and imprecision), but may slightly improve progression-free survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.33; 2 RCTs, 698 participants; low-certainty evidence due to study limitations and imprecision). The evidence is uncertain and inconclusive for infection-related mortality (RR 6.90, 95% CI 0.36 to 132.34; 1 RCT, 276 participants), second-cancer-related mortality (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.77 to 6.19; 2 RCTs, 870 participants) and cardiac disease-related mortality (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.31 to 8.22; 2 RCTs, 870 participants) (all very low-certainty evidence due to study limitations and substantial imprecision). There were no data on infertility. The chemotherapy regimens in the trials differed and data for regimens commonly used today were limited. Additional radiotherapy may slightly improve progression-free survival. The available data for overall survival and adverse events were of low and very low certainty, and we were unable to draw conclusions about the effects of additional radiotherapy on these outcomes. No studies evaluated infertility. High-quality, longer-term follow-up data are required and data on fertility are needed.

Goldkuhle M ，Kreuzberger N ，von Tresckow B ，Eichenauer DA ，Specht L ，Monsef I ，Skoetz N ... -  《-》

Interventions to prevent surgical site infection in adults undergoing cardiac surgery.

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common type of hospital-acquired infection and affects up to a third of patients following surgical procedures. It is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. In the United Kingdom alone, it is estimated to add another £30 million to the cost of adult cardiac surgery. Although generic guidance for SSI prevention exists, this is not specific to adult cardiac surgery. Furthermore, many of the risk factors for SSI are prevalent within the cardiac surgery population. Despite this, there is currently no standard of care for SSI prevention in adults undergoing cardiac surgery throughout the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative periods of care, with variations in practice existing throughout from risk stratification, decontamination strategies and surveillance. Primary objective: to assess the clinical effectiveness of pre-, intra-, and postoperative interventions in the prevention of cardiac SSI. (i) to evaluate the effects of SSI prevention interventions on morbidity, mortality, and resource use; (ii) to evaluate the effects of SSI prevention care bundles on morbidity, mortality, and resource use. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid, from inception) and Embase (Ovid, from inception) on 31 May 2021. gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were also searched for ongoing or unpublished trials on 21 May 2021. No language restrictions were imposed. We included RCTs evaluating interventions to reduce SSI in adults (≥ 18 years of age) who have undergone any cardiac surgery. We followed the methods as per our published Cochrane protocol. Our primary outcome was surgical site infection. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, reoperation for SSI, hospital length of stay, hospital readmissions for SSI, healthcare costs and cost-effectiveness, quality of life (QoL), and adverse effects. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. A total of 118 studies involving 51,854 participants were included. Twenty-two interventions to reduce SSI in adults undergoing cardiac surgery were identified. The risk of bias was judged to be high in the majority of studies. There was heterogeneity in the study populations and interventions; consequently, meta-analysis was not appropriate for many of the comparisons and these are presented as narrative summaries. We focused our reporting of findings on four comparisons deemed to be of great clinical relevance by all review authors. Decolonisation versus no decolonisation Pooled data from three studies (n = 1564) using preoperative topical oral/nasal decontamination in all patients demonstrated an uncertain direction of treatment effect in relation to total SSI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). A single study reported that decolonisation likely results in little to no difference in superficial SSI (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.15; moderate-certainty evidence) and a reduction in deep SSI (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.77; high-certainty evidence). The evidence on all-cause mortality from three studies (n = 1564) is very uncertain (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.84; I2 = 49%; very low-certainty evidence). A single study (n = 954) demonstrated that decolonisation may result in little to no difference in hospital readmission for SSI (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.45; low-certainty evidence). A single study (n = 954) reported one case of temporary discolouration of teeth in the decolonisation arm (low-certainty-evidence. Reoperation for SSI was not reported. Tight glucose control versus standard glucose control Pooled data from seven studies (n = 880) showed that tight glucose control may reduce total SSI, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.85; I2 = 29%; numbers need to treat to benefit (NNTB) = 13; very-low certainty evidence). Pooled data from seven studies (n = 3334) showed tight glucose control may reduce all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). Based on four studies (n = 2793), there may be little to no difference in episodes of hypoglycaemia between tight control vs. standard control, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 2.12, 95% CI 0.51 to 8.76; I2 = 72%; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported superficial/deep SSI, reoperation for SSI, or hospital readmission for SSI. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) versus standard dressings NPWT was assessed in two studies (n = 144) and it may reduce total SSI, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.97; I2 = 0%; NNTB = 10; very low-certainty evidence). A single study (n = 80) reported reoperation for SSI. The relative effect could not be estimated. The certainty of evidence was judged to be very low. No studies reported superficial/deep SSI, all-cause mortality, hospital readmission for SSI, or adverse effects. Topical antimicrobials versus no topical antimicrobials Five studies (n = 5382) evaluated topical gentamicin sponge, which may reduce total SSI (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.84; I2 = 48%; NNTB = 32), superficial SSI (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.98; I2 = 69%), and deep SSI (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.96; I2 = 5%; low-certainty evidence. Four studies (n = 4662) demonstrated that topical gentamicin sponge may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.42; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). Reoperation for SSI, hospital readmission for SSI, and adverse effects were not reported in any included studies. This review provides the broadest and most recent review of the current evidence base for interventions to reduce SSI in adults undergoing cardiac surgery. Twenty-one interventions were identified across the perioperative period. Evidence is of low to very low certainty primarily due to significant heterogeneity in how interventions were implemented and the definitions of SSI used. Knowledge gaps have been identified across a number of practices that should represent key areas for future research. Efforts to standardise SSI outcome reporting are warranted.

Cardiothoracic Interdisciplinary Research Network ，Rogers LJ ，Vaja R ，Bleetman D ，Ali JM ，Rochon M ，Sanders J ，Tanner J ，Lamagni TL ，Talukder S ，Quijano-Campos JC ，Lai F ，Loubani M ，Murphy GJ ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.

About 20-30% of older adults (≥ 65 years old) experience one or more falls each year, and falls are associated with substantial burden to the health care system, individuals, and families from resulting injuries, fractures, and reduced functioning and quality of life. Many interventions for preventing falls have been studied, and their effectiveness, factors relevant to their implementation, and patient preferences may determine which interventions to use in primary care. The aim of this set of reviews was to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) on fall prevention interventions. We undertook three systematic reviews to address questions about the following: (i) the benefits and harms of interventions, (ii) how patients weigh the potential outcomes (outcome valuation), and (iii) patient preferences for different types of interventions, and their attributes, shown to offer benefit (intervention preferences). We searched four databases for benefits and harms (MEDLINE, Embase, AgeLine, CENTRAL, to August 25, 2023) and three for outcome valuation and intervention preferences (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, to June 9, 2023). For benefits and harms, we relied heavily on a previous review for studies published until 2016. We also searched trial registries, references of included studies, and recent reviews. Two reviewers independently screened studies. The population of interest was community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years old. We did not limit eligibility by participant fall history. The task force rated several outcomes, decided on their eligibility, and provided input on the effect thresholds to apply for each outcome (fallers, falls, injurious fallers, fractures, hip fractures, functional status, health-related quality of life, long-term care admissions, adverse effects, serious adverse effects). For benefits and harms, we included a broad range of non-pharmacological interventions relevant to primary care. Although usual care was the main comparator of interest, we included studies comparing interventions head-to-head and conducted a network meta-analysis (NMAs) for each outcome, enabling analysis of interventions lacking direct comparisons to usual care. For benefits and harms, we included randomized controlled trials with a minimum 3-month follow-up and reporting on one of our fall outcomes (fallers, falls, injurious fallers); for the other questions, we preferred quantitative data but considered qualitative findings to fill gaps in evidence. No date limits were applied for benefits and harms, whereas for outcome valuation and intervention preferences we included studies published in 2000 or later. All data were extracted by one trained reviewer and verified for accuracy and completeness. For benefits and harms, we relied on the previous review team's risk-of-bias assessments for benefit outcomes, but otherwise, two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (within and across study). For the other questions, one reviewer verified another's assessments. Consensus was used, with adjudication by a lead author when necessary. A coding framework, modified from the ProFANE taxonomy, classified interventions and their attributes (e.g., supervision, delivery format, duration/intensity). For benefit outcomes, we employed random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach and a consistency model. Transitivity and coherence were assessed using meta-regressions and global and local coherence tests, as well as through graphical display and descriptive data on the composition of the nodes with respect to major pre-planned effect modifiers. We assessed heterogeneity using prediction intervals. For intervention-related adverse effects, we pooled proportions except for vitamin D for which we considered data in the control groups and undertook random-effects pairwise meta-analysis using a relative risk (any adverse effects) or risk difference (serious adverse effects). For outcome valuation, we pooled disutilities (representing the impact of a negative event, e.g. fall, on one's usual quality of life, with 0 = no impact and 1 = death and ~ 0.05 indicating important disutility) from the EQ-5D utility measurement using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model and explored heterogeneity. When studies only reported other data, we compared the findings with our main analysis. For intervention preferences, we used a coding schema identifying whether there were strong, clear, no, or variable preferences within, and then across, studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using CINeMA for benefit outcomes and GRADE for all other outcomes. A total of 290 studies were included across the reviews, with two studies included in multiple questions. For benefits and harms, we included 219 trials reporting on 167,864 participants and created 59 interventions (nodes). Transitivity and coherence were assessed as adequate. Across eight NMAs, the number of contributing trials ranged between 19 and 173, and the number of interventions ranged from 19 to 57. Approximately, half of the interventions in each network had at least low certainty for benefit. The fallers outcome had the highest number of interventions with moderate certainty for benefit (18/57). For the non-fall outcomes (fractures, hip fracture, long-term care [LTC] admission, functional status, health-related quality of life), many interventions had very low certainty evidence, often from lack of data. We prioritized findings from 21 interventions where there was moderate certainty for at least some benefit. Fourteen of these had a focus on exercise, the majority being supervised (for > 2 sessions) and of long duration (> 3 months), and with balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions generally having the most outcomes with at least low certainty for benefit. None of the interventions having moderate certainty evidence focused on walking. Whole-body vibration or home-hazard assessment (HHA) plus exercise provided to everyone showed moderate certainty for some benefit. No multifactorial intervention alone showed moderate certainty for any benefit. Six interventions only had very-low certainty evidence for the benefit outcomes. Two interventions had moderate certainty of harmful effects for at least one benefit outcome, though the populations across studies were at high risk for falls. Vitamin D and most single-component exercise interventions are probably associated with minimal adverse effects. Some uncertainty exists about possible adverse effects from other interventions. For outcome valuation, we included 44 studies of which 34 reported EQ-5D disutilities. Admission to long-term care had the highest disutility (1.0), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Both fall-related hip (moderate certainty) and non-hip (low certainty) fracture may result in substantial disutility (0.53 and 0.57) in the first 3 months after injury. Disutility for both hip and non-hip fractures is probably lower 12 months after injury (0.16 and 0.19, with high and moderate certainty, respectively) compared to within the first 3 months. No study measured the disutility of an injurious fall. Fractures are probably more important than either falls (0.09 over 12 months) or functional status (0.12). Functional status may be somewhat more important than falls. For intervention preferences, 29 studies (9 qualitative) reported on 17 comparisons among single-component interventions showing benefit. Exercise interventions focusing on balance and/or resistance training appear to be clearly preferred over Tai Chi and other forms of exercise (e.g., yoga, aerobic). For exercise programs in general, there is probably variability among people in whether they prefer group or individual delivery, though there was high certainty that individual was preferred over group delivery of balance/resistance programs. Balance/resistance exercise may be preferred over education, though the evidence was low certainty. There was low certainty for a slight preference for education over cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group education may be preferred over individual education. To prevent falls among community-dwelling older adults, evidence is most certain for benefit, at least over 1-2 years, from supervised, long-duration balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions, whole-body vibration, high-intensity/dose education or cognitive-behavioral therapy, and interventions of comprehensive multifactorial assessment with targeted treatment plus HHA, HHA plus exercise, or education provided to everyone. Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk. Choice among effective interventions that are available may best depend on individual patient preferences, though when implementing new balance/resistance programs delivering individual over group sessions when feasible may be most acceptable. Data on more patient-important outcomes including fall-related fractures and adverse effects would be beneficial, as would studies focusing on equity-deserving populations and on programs delivered virtually. Not registered.

Pillay J ，Gaudet LA ，Saba S ，Vandermeer B ，Ashiq AR ，Wingert A ，Hartling L ... -  《Systematic Reviews》