Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews最新文献

{"title":"Progestagens for pain symptoms associated with endometriosis.","authors":"Innie Chen, Sari Kives, Andrew Zakhari, Dong Bach Nguyen, Hanna R Goldberg, Abdul J Choudhry, Ai-Lien Le, Emilie Kowalczewski, Jeppe Bennekou Schroll","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD002122.pub3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002122.pub3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endometriosis is a hormone-sensitive inflammatory condition affecting between 5% and 10% of reproductive-aged women and an unknown number of gender-diverse individuals. It is often associated with debilitating pelvic pain symptoms. Various formulations of progestagens (e.g. oral, depot, implantable) have been studied as potential treatments for endometriosis because they induce atrophy of endometrial tissue.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the benefits and harms of progestagens in the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain symptoms.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO on 29 October 2024 without language restrictions.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing progestagens for symptomatic endometriosis against placebo, other medications, or different doses of progestagens. Studies assessing the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device were ineligible, as a separate Cochrane review covers this intervention. Participants were of reproductive age with a laparoscopic diagnosis of endometriosis and associated pain symptoms. Primary outcomes included endometriosis-associated pain symptoms (overall pain, pelvic pain, and dysmenorrhoea). Secondary outcomes included quality of life, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>At least two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We reported dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs), each with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). The meta-analysis employed a fixed-effect model, and we assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I<sup>2</sup> statistic. We used GRADE to assess evidence certainty.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>We included 33 RCTs involving 5059 participants with symptomatic, laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis. We judged 13 studies at overall low risk of bias. The following comparisons are limited by the small number of studies reporting each outcome. Pain outcomes, quality of life, and patient satisfaction were measured at six months unless otherwise specified. Oral progestagens versus placebo or no treatment (8 studies) Oral progestagens compared with placebo probably reduce overall pain measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS; MD -2.58, 95% CI -3.13 to -2.03; moderate certainty), and probably reduce dysmenorrhoea at three months (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.70, moderate certainty), but may have little to no effect on pelvic pain at three months (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.69; low certainty). Oral progestagens improve quality of life (SF-36 score; MD 4.11, 95% CI 2.41 to 5.82, high certainty). There is probably little to no difference between the interventions in study withdrawal due to adverse effects (RR 2.36, CI 0.74 to 7.52, moderate certainty) and cumu","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"10 ","pages":"CD002122"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145250081","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Pharmacotherapy for hypertension in adults 60 years or older.","authors":"Vijaya M Musini, Aaron M Tejani, Ken Bassett, Lorri Puil, Wade Thompson, James M Wright","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD000028.pub4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000028.pub4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>This is the third update of a review that was originally published in 1998 and updated in 2009 and 2019. Hypertension increases with age, most rapidly over age 60. It is important to know the benefits and harms of antihypertensive treatment for hypertension in this age group, as well as separately for people 60 to 79 years old and for people 80 years or older.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Primary objective • To assess the effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment on all-cause mortality for people 60 years and older with hypertension defined as systolic blood pressure (SBP) > 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > 90 mmHg, or both. Secondary objectives • To assess the effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment on cardiovascular-specific morbidity and mortality in people 60 years and older with hypertension defined as SBP > 140 mmHg or DBP > 90 mmHg, or both. • To assess the rate of withdrawal due to adverse effects of antihypertensive drug treatment as compared with placebo or no treatment in people 60 years and older with hypertension defined as SBP > 140 mmHg or DBP > 90 mmHg, or both.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to June 2024: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>RCTs of at least one year's duration comparing antihypertensive drug therapy versus placebo or no treatment and providing morbidity and mortality data for people 60 years and older with hypertension defined as blood pressure greater than 140/90 mmHg.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality, coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality, and withdrawal due to adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>We used RevMan for data synthesis and analyses. We based quantitative analyses of outcomes on intention-to-treat results. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to combine outcomes across trials using a fixed-effect model.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>This update identified no new trials and no ongoing trials. Overall, 16 trials (N = 26,795) in healthy ambulatory adults 60 years or older (mean age 73.8 years) with moderate to severe systolic and/or diastolic hypertension (average 182/95 mmHg) met the inclusion criteria. Most of these trials evaluated firs","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"10 ","pages":"CD000028"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145250094","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Intraperitoneal chemotherapy for gastric cancer.","authors":"Mingchun Mu, Zhaolun Cai, Yajun Hu, Xueting Liu, Bo Zhang, Zhixin Chen, Jiankun Hu, Kun Yang","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD015698.pub2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015698.pub2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis carries a poor prognosis and is considered incurable. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IPC) has been explored for preventing and treating peritoneal metastasis, but clinical trials show conflicting results and guidelines provide inconsistent recommendations. A comprehensive evaluation of intraperitoneal chemotherapy effects in gastric cancer is needed.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the benefits and harms of IPC in gastric cancer for: (1) prophylactic IPC plus radical surgery versus radical surgery alone in people at high risk of peritoneal metastasis; and (2) therapeutic IPC plus cytoreductive surgery (CRS) versus CRS alone in people with confirmed peritoneal metastasis.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two Chinese databases, three trials registries, and gray literature sources. We also checked references and contacted study authors. The latest search was conducted on 12 June 2025.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>We included parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IPC with no IPC for prophylactic and therapeutic use. We excluded studies without postoperative systemic chemotherapy. We assessed trial trustworthiness using the trustworthiness of randomized controlled trials (TRACT) checklist.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Our outcomes were overall survival, serious adverse events (SAEs), surrogate endpoints for overall survival including disease-free survival (DFS) for prophylactic IPC and progression-free survival (PFS) for therapeutic IPC, quality of life (QOL), total adverse events (AEs), anastomotic leakage, and intra-abdominal abscess.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We assessed the risk of bias (RoB) for outcomes reported in the summary of findings tables using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>We synthesized results for each outcome using meta-analysis, by calculating hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for survival outcomes and dichotomous outcomes. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we summarized results narratively. We used GRADE to assess evidence certainty.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>We identified nine parallel RCTs involving 829 participants that met eligibility criteria. Seven studies (656 participants) evaluated prophylactic IPC and two studies (173 participants) evaluated therapeutic IPC. Among the included studies, seven studies were conducted in China. Follow-up ranged from 0.2 months to 83.5 months. We assessed most outcomes to have some concerns or a high risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>We are very uncertain about all results due to very low certainty evidence, downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision for each outcome. Comparison 1: prophylactic IPC plus radical surgery versus radical surgery alone in participants at high risk of p","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"10 ","pages":"CD015698"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145250004","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Acupuncture for the treatment of infantile colic.","authors":"Elin Lööf, Barbro H Skogman, Rita Cabano, Robin Sylvan, Matteo Bruschettini","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016305","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD016305","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of acupuncture for the treatment of infantile colic.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"10 ","pages":"CD016305"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145250032","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Work-break interventions for preventing musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders in healthy workers.","authors":"Tessy Luger, Stefan A Ferenchak, Monika A Rieger, Benjamin Steinhilber","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD012886.pub3","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD012886.pub3","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rationale: &lt;/strong&gt;Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are amongst the leading causes of occupational sick leave worldwide and account for a high share of absenteeism. For example, in the UK in 2021 to 2022, musculoskeletal disorders were estimated to account for around 27% of all work-related illnesses and result in 6.6 million lost working days. Several workplace interventions are available for reducing the high prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. We focused on work-breaks as an organisational intervention for primary prevention. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2019.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To assess the effects of different work-break interventions for preventing work-related musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders in healthy workers, when compared to conventional or alternative work-break interventions.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Search methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We searched for randomised controlled trials in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP, up to 31 May 2024.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eligibility criteria: &lt;/strong&gt;We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of work-break interventions at workplaces for preventing work-related musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders amongst workers. The studies were eligible for inclusion if they intervened on work-break frequency, duration, or type, compared to conventional or alternative work-break interventions, and when the investigated population included healthy adult workers who were free of musculoskeletal complaints during study enrolment, without any restrictions on sex or occupation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Outcomes: &lt;/strong&gt;Our critical outcomes were newly diagnosed musculoskeletal disorders or symptoms, and intensity of musculoskeletal symptoms (including pain, discomfort, or physiological fatigue). Our important outcomes were productivity or work performance, and workload as a measure of strain.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Risk of bias: &lt;/strong&gt;We judged the risk of bias in the outcomes of the included studies using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Synthesis methods: &lt;/strong&gt;Two review authors independently screened search records or full texts for study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional data where required. We used the random-effects model for meta-analyses, producing risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes. We rated the certainty of evidence using GRADE.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Included studies: &lt;/strong&gt;We included nine RCTs (three of which were new in this update) with 626 workers (at least 75% of whom were female, and 98% of whom were office workers). The trials were conducted in high-income or higher-middle-income countries. Four of the RCTs used a parallel design; two used a cross-over design; one was a mixture of parallel and cross-over; and two were clu","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"10 ","pages":"CD012886"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12506968/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145250053","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Artificial intelligence-based algorithms for the diagnosis of retinopathy of prematurity.","authors":"Paul Chong, Benjamin K Young, Stephen McNamara, Sueko M Ng, Su-Hsun Liu, Tianjing Li, J Peter Campbell, Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer, Praveer Singh","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016047","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD016047","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (diagnostic). The objectives are as follows: To assess the diagnostic performance of AI-based algorithms in comparison to the established reference standard of clinical diagnosis labels for ROP. Secondary objectives To undertake a critical examination of potential sources of heterogeneity influencing model performance by conducting subgroup analysis by: demographics of the study population (race or ethnicity); type of input data (images only, clinical variables only, or a combination of both); the fundamental methodologies adopted by the AI algorithms (CNN or DNN); and scanner type (Retcam, Forus, or Pheonix ICON).</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"10 ","pages":"CD016047"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12502027/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145238461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Medical interventions for fungal keratitis.","authors":"Helen Burn, Nilo Vincent FlorCruz, Jeremy Hoffman","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016304","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD016304","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the benefits and harms of different antifungal drugs (both ocular and systemic) in the medical management of fungal keratitis.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"10 ","pages":"CD016304"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12492470/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145211809","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Continuous glucose monitoring systems for adolescents and adults living with type 2 diabetes mellitus.","authors":"Sachiko Y Kataoka, Takahiro Tsuge, Yuki Kataoka, Maria-Inti Metzendorf, Juan Va Franco, Norio Watanabe","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016111","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD016111","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the benefits (contributions to blood glucose control and prevention of various complications) and harms (skin-related problems and other adverse effects) of CGM compared to the standard of care, which includes measuring HbA1c, fructosamine, or glycated albumin, as well as conducting SMBG, in adolescents and adults living with type 2 diabetes. We will include real-time CGM, intermittently scanned CGM, and professional CGM. To evaluate health equity by assessing the effects across different generations, regions, and educational backgrounds.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"10 ","pages":"CD016111"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12492471/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145211853","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies inreducing COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths.","authors":"K M Saif-Ur-Rahman, Nadra Nurdin, Ani Movsisyan, Kavita Kothari, Ciara Gleeson, Thomas Conway, Marie Tierney, Eylul Taneri, Deirdre Mulholland, Andrea C Tricco, Jacqueline Dinnes, Declan Devane","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016192.pub2","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD016192.pub2","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Rationale: &lt;/strong&gt;Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has substantially affected daily life. Sustainable testing practices are essential to balance the resource demands of widespread testing with the need to reduce the health impacts of COVID-19. However, the effectiveness of specific testing strategies for symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals in reducing COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths remains uncertain.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objectives: &lt;/strong&gt;To evaluate the effectiveness of different SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies in reducing COVID-19 cases, hospitalisations, and deaths amongst suspected cases and asymptomatic individuals.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Search methods: &lt;/strong&gt;We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), Europe PMC, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also conducted reference checks, citation searches, and contacted study authors to identify eligible studies. The most recent search was conducted on 07 October 2024.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eligibility criteria: &lt;/strong&gt;We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBA), matched cohort studies, and observational studies with a comparison group involving suspected or asymptomatic individuals. Eligible studies compared testing strategy versus no testing or standard care or usual practice; one testing strategy with another, such as antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) versus nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT), including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR); home-based versus provider-administered testing; one-time testing versus repeated testing at different frequencies; and targeted testing versus widespread testing. Combinations of these components were also considered. In this review, we define 'SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy' as a complex intervention comprising multiple varying components, including test type (e.g. NAAT, antigen-detecting RDT), sample type (e.g. nasopharyngeal swab, saliva), target population (e.g. symptomatic, contacts), setting (e.g. home, clinic, congregate), frequency of testing (e.g. one-time, weekly, daily), and response protocol (e.g. isolation, confirmatory testing, treatment). We excluded single-arm studies, reviews, theses, editorials, letters, commentaries, studies reported solely in abstract form, laboratory or animal studies, mathematical modelling studies, and diagnostic test accuracy studies.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Outcomes: &lt;/strong&gt;Our critical outcomes were: COVID-19 cases avoided (reduction in new cases); COVID-19-related hospitalisations avoided (reduction in hospital admissions); COVID-19-related deaths avoided (reduction in mortality); and serious adverse events related to testing, including unnecessary interventions, employment impacts, isolation effects, and psychological harms.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Risk of bias: &lt;/strong","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"10 ","pages":"CD016192"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12489979/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145205758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Interventions for preventing dengue: a mapping review.","authors":"Leslie Choi, Bruno Guedes Alcoforado Aguiar, Susi Wisniewski, Ana Carolina F Modesto, Luis Phillipe Lopes, Jose Salvador Carrillo, Mariana Del Grossi Moura, Anna Noel-Storr, Roses Parker, Luciane C Lopes","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD016299","DOIUrl":"10.1002/14651858.CD016299","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (rapid). The objectives are as follows: To comprehensively identify the published literature on prevention strategies for dengue. To critically appraise secondary research. To present the findings of objectives 1 and 2 in a single evidence gap map. To identify critical knowledge gaps to inform future primary research and systematic reviews.</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"10 ","pages":"CD016299"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12489980/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145205752","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}