Background:Clinical guidelines (CGs) need to be updated to ensure the ongoing validity of recommendations. Aims and objectives:This systematic review identified and described the most recent CG update processes, including prioritisation methods, used by international or national groups who provide methodological guidance for developing and updating CGs. Methods:Methodological handbooks were identified by searching a predefined list of national and international organisations, and by grey literature searching. A systematic literature search (2011–2021) of Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify peer-reviewed articles that described the development and or evaluation of update processes. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Quality assessment was conducted independently by two reviewers. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. Findings:In total, 16 handbooks from 11 organisations and three peer-reviewed articles were included. Few handbooks provided comprehensive details beyond whether an update was indicated, with processes for prioritisation of updates and required resources generally lacking; terminology and definitions differed across organisations. In general, evidence synthesis methods used to update CGs were the same as those used to develop CGs de novo. Discussion and conclusion:Updating CGs is critical to support policy and practice. It is an iterative process that is both resource-intensive and time-consuming. International or national groups who provide methodological guidance for developing and updating CGs should consider providing more comprehensive guidance and standardising the terminology used to facilitate optimal updating of CGs and prioritisation of CGs for updating.
Dear editor, COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic in March 2020. To prevent transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus on 23rd March 2020 the UK government issued guidance that all citizens should stay at home, and only leave their house for essential medical care, shopping for food and medicine and for one period of exercise (National Health Service, 2020). The impact of following the guidance on health-related behaviours is largely unknown. With people spending large periods of time indoors, screen time (e.g. watching TV, using computers, tablets etc) is likely to increase. Excessive screen time use has been shown to be associated with a range of negative mental health outcomes (Allen et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2020; Teychenne et al., 2015). Therefore, we aimed to investigate levels and correlates of screen time during COVID-19 self-isolation in a sample of the UK public, and its association with mental health.
EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/R008345/1) with the support of BREATHE—The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004), which is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. Additional support has been provided through Public Health Scotland and the Scottish Government's director-general of Health and Social Care. FDRH acknowledges part support from the National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research, the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. We thank Dave Kelly from Albasoft for his support with making primary care data available, and James Pickett, Wendy Inglis-Humphrey, Vicky Hammersley, Maria Georgiou, and Laura Gonzalez Rienda for their support with project management and administration. SVK acknowledges funding from an NRS Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/2), and Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU13). ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF
EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/R008345/1) with the support of BREATHE—The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004), which is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. Additional support has been provided through Public Health Scotland and the Scottish Government's director-general of Health and Social Care. FDRH acknowledges part support from the National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research, the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. SVK acknowledges funding from an NRS Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/2), and Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU13). ; Background The BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer–BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines have shown high efficacy against disease in phase 3 clinical trials and are now being used in national vaccination programmes in the UK and several other countries. Studying the real-world effects of these vaccines is an urgent requirement. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between the mass roll-out of the first doses of these COVID-19 vaccines and hospital admissions for COVID-19. Methods We did a prospective cohort study using the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19—EAVE II—database comprising linked vaccination, primary care, real-time reverse transcription-PCR testing, and hospital admission patient records for 5·4 million people in Scotland (about 99% of the population) registered at 940 general practices. Individuals who had previously tested positive were excluded from the analysis. A time-dependent Cox model and Poisson regression models with inverse propensity weights were fitted to estimate effectiveness against COVID-19 hospital admission (defined as 1–adjusted rate ratio) following the first dose of vaccine. Findings Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 22, 2021, a total of 1 331 993 people were vaccinated over the study period. The mean age of those vaccinated was 65·0 years (SD 16·2). The first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was associated with a vaccine effect of 91% (95% CI 85–94) for reduced COVID-19 hospital admission at 28–34 days post-vaccination. Vaccine effect at the same time interval for the ChAdOx1 vaccine was 88% (95% CI 75–94). Results of combined vaccine effects against hospital admission due to COVID-19 were similar when restricting the analysis to those aged 80 years and older (83%, 95% CI 72–89 at 28–34 days post-vaccination). Interpretation Mass roll-out of the first doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 vaccines was associated with substantial reductions in the risk of hospital admission due to COVID-19 in Scotland. There remains the possibility that some of the observed effects might have been due to residual confounding. Funding UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK. ; proof ; Peer reviewed
EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/R008345/1) with the support of BREATHE—The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004), which is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. Additional support has been provided through Public Health Scotland and the Scottish Government's director-general of Health and Social Care. FDRH acknowledges part support from the National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research, the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Oxford, and the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. SVK acknowledges funding from an NRS Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/2), and Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU13). ; Background The BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer–BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford–AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines have shown high efficacy against disease in phase 3 clinical trials and are now being used in national vaccination programmes in the UK and several other countries. Studying the real-world effects of these vaccines is an urgent requirement. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between the mass roll-out of the first doses of these COVID-19 vaccines and hospital admissions for COVID-19. Methods We did a prospective cohort study using the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19—EAVE II—database comprising linked vaccination, primary care, real-time reverse transcription-PCR testing, and hospital admission patient records for 5·4 million people in Scotland (about 99% of the population) registered at 940 general practices. Individuals who had previously tested positive were excluded from the analysis. A time-dependent Cox model and Poisson regression models with inverse propensity weights were fitted to estimate effectiveness against COVID-19 hospital admission (defined as 1–adjusted rate ratio) following the first ...
Funding: This research is part of the Data and Connectivity National Core Study, led by Health Data Research UK in partnership with the Office for National Statistics and funded by UK Research and Innovation (HDRUK2020.146). EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (MC_PC_19075) and supported by the Scottish Government. This work is supported by BREATHE - The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004). BREATHE is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. ConCOV is supported by the Medical Research Council (MR/V028367/1); Health Data Research UK (HDR-9006) which receives its funding from the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation (BHF) and the Wellcome Trust; and Administrative Data Research UK which is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant ES/S007393/1). ; Introduction : The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which emerged in December 2019, has caused millions of deaths and severe illness worldwide. Numerous vaccines are currently under development of which a few have now been authorised for population-level administration by several countries. As of 20 September 2021, over 48 million people have received their first vaccine dose and over 44 million people have received their second vaccine dose across the UK. We aim to assess the uptake rates, effectiveness, and safety of all currently approved COVID-19 vaccines in the UK. Methods and analysis : We will use prospective cohort study designs to assess vaccine uptake, effectiveness and safety against clinical outcomes and deaths. Test-negative case–control study design will be used to assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) against laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Self-controlled case series and retrospective cohort study designs will be carried out to assess vaccine safety against mild-to-moderate and severe adverse events, respectively. Individual-level pseudonymised data from primary care, secondary care, laboratory test and death records will be linked and analysed in secure research environments in each UK nation. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models will be carried out to estimate vaccine uptake levels in relation to various population characteristics. VE estimates against laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection will be generated using a generalised additive logistic model. Time-dependent Cox models will be used to estimate the VE against clinical outcomes and deaths. The safety of the vaccines will be assessed using logistic regression models with an offset for the length of the risk period. Where possible, data will be meta-analysed across the UK nations. Ethics and dissemination : We obtained approvals from the National Research Ethics Service Committee, Southeast Scotland 02 (12/SS/0201), the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage independent Information Governance Review Panel project number 0911. Concerning English data, University of Oxford is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation and the National Health Service (NHS) Digital Data Security and Protection Policy. This is an approved study (Integrated Research Application ID 301740, Health Research Authority (HRA) Research Ethics Committee 21/HRA/2786). The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub meets NHS Digital's Data Security and Protection Toolkit requirements. In Northern Ireland, the project was approved by the Honest Broker Governance Board, project number 0064. Findings will be made available to national policy-makers, presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. ; Publisher PDF ; Peer reviewed
