Background Identifying new, eligible studies for integration into living systematic reviews and maps usually relies on conventional Boolean updating searches of multiple databases and manual processing of the updated results. Automated searches of one, comprehensive, continuously updated source, with adjunctive machine learning, could enable more efficient searching, selection and prioritisation workflows for updating (living) reviews and maps, though research is needed to establish this. Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) is a potentially comprehensive single source which also contains metadata that can be used in machine learning to help efficiently identify eligible studies. This study sought to establish whether: (a) MAG was a sufficiently sensitive single source to maintain our living map of COVID-19 research; and (b) eligible records could be identified with an acceptably high level of specificity. Methods We conducted an eight-arm cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the costs, recall and precision of semi-automated workflows, incorporating MAG with adjunctive machine learning, for continually updating our living map. Resource use data (time use) were collected from information specialists and other researchers involved in map production. Our systematic review software, EPPI-Reviewer, was adapted to incorporate MAG and associated machine learning workflows, and also used to collect data on recall, precision, and manual screening workload. Results The semi-automated MAG-enabled workflow dominated conventional workflows in both the base case and sensitivity analyses. At one month our MAG-enabled workflow with machine learning, active learning and fixed screening targets identified 469 additional, eligible articles for inclusion in our living map, and cost £3,179 GBP per week less, compared with conventional methods relying on Boolean searches of Medline and Embase. Conclusions We were able to increase recall and coverage of a large living map, whilst reducing its production costs. This finding is likely to be transferrable to OpenAlex, MAG’s successor database platform.

Background:Identifying new, eligible studies for integration into living systematic reviews and maps usually relies on conventional Boolean updating searches of multiple databases and manual processing of the updated results. Automated searches of one, comprehensive, continuously updated source, with adjunctive machine learning, could enable more efficient searching, selection and prioritisation workflows for updating (living) reviews and maps, though research is needed to establish this. Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) is a potentially comprehensive single source which also contains metadata that can be used in machine learning to help efficiently identify eligible studies. This study sought to establish whether: (a) MAG was a sufficiently sensitive single source to maintain our living map of COVID-19 research; and (b) eligible records could be identified with an acceptably high level of specificity.Methods:We conducted an eight-arm cost-effectiveness analysis to assess the costs, recall and precision of semi-automated workflows, incorporating MAG with adjunctive machine learning, for continually updating our living map. Resource use data (time use) were collected from information specialists and other researchers involved in map production. Our systematic review software, EPPI-Reviewer, was adapted to incorporate MAG and associated machine learning workflows, and also used to collect data on recall, precision, and manual screening workload.Results:The semi-automated MAG-enabled workflow dominated conventional workflows in both the base case and sensitivity analyses. At one month our MAG-enabled workflow with machine learning, active learning and fixed screening targets identified 469 additional, eligible articles for inclusion in our living map, and cost £3,179 GBP per week less, compared with conventional methods relying on Boolean searches of Medline and Embase.Conclusions:We were able to increase recall and coverage of a large living map, whilst reducing its production costs. This finding is likely to be transferrable to OpenAlex, MAG's successor database platform.

High prevalence of risk behaviours may exacerbate existing poor health in disadvantaged groups. We aimed to identify and bring together systematic reviews with a focus on reducing risk behaviours in disadvantaged groups and highlight where evidence is lacking. We searched MEDLINE and Embase up to October 2020, with supplementary searching in Epistemonikos and Health Systems Evidence. We included systematic reviews that reported behavioural outcomes and targeted smoking, excessive alcohol use, unhealthy diet, or physical inactivity in groups with the following characteristics: low income or low socio-economic status (SES), unemployed people, homeless people, care leavers, prisoners, refugees or asylum seeker, Gypsies, Travellers, or Roma, people with learning disabilities and people living in disadvantaged areas. Reviews that included primary studies from any high-income country were eligible. Reviews were mapped based on the disadvantaged group(s) and behaviour(s) targeted. Ninety-two reviews were included, with the majority (n = 63) focusing on people with low income or low SES. We identified gaps in the evidence for care leavers; Gypsies, Travellers, and Roma and limited evidence for refugees and unemployed people. Few reviews targeted alcohol use. There was limited evidence on barriers and facilitators to behaviour change. This suggests there is insufficient evidence to inform policy and practice and new reviews or primary studies may be required.

BACKGROUNDChronic heart failure is a debilitating condition that accounts for an annual NHS spend of £2.3B. Low levels of endogenous coenzyme Q10 may exacerbate chronic heart failure. Coenzyme Q10 supplements might improve symptoms and slow progression. As statins are thought to block the production of coenzyme Q10, supplementation might be particularly beneficial for patients taking statins.OBJECTIVESTo assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of coenzyme Q10 in managing chronic heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction.METHODSA systematic review that included randomised trials comparing coenzyme Q10 plus standard care with standard care alone in chronic heart failure. Trials restricted to chronic heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction were excluded. Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched up to March 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (version 5.2). A planned individual participant data meta-analysis was not possible and meta-analyses were mostly based on aggregate data from publications. Potential effect modification was examined using meta-regression. A Markov model used treatment effects from the meta-analysis and baseline mortality and hospitalisation from an observational UK cohort. Costs were evaluated from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective and expressed in Great British pounds at a 2019/20 price base. Outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at a 3.5% annual rate.RESULTSA total of 26 trials, comprising 2250 participants, were included in the systematic review. Many trials were reported poorly and were rated as having a high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Meta-analysis suggested a possible benefit of coenzyme Q10 on all-cause mortality (seven trials, 1371 participants; relative risk 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.03). The results for short-term functional outcomes were more modest or unclear. There was no indication of increased adverse events with coenzyme Q10. Meta-regression found no evidence of treatment interaction with statins. The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis produced incremental costs of £4878, incremental quality-adjusted life-years of 1.34 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3650. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that at thresholds of £20,000 and £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year coenzyme Q10 had a high probability (95.2% and 95.8%, respectively) of being more cost-effective than standard care alone. Scenario analyses in which the population and other model assumptions were varied all found coenzyme Q10 to be cost-effective. The expected value of perfect information suggested that a new trial could be valuable.LIMITATIONSFor most outcomes, data were available from few trials and different trials contributed to different outcomes. There were concerns about risk of bias and whether or not the results from included trials were applicable to a typical UK population. A lack of individual participant data meant that planned detailed analyses of effect modifiers were not possible.CONCLUSIONSAvailable evidence suggested that, if prescribed, coenzyme Q10 has the potential to be clinically effective and cost-effective for heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. However, given important concerns about risk of bias, plausibility of effect sizes and applicability of the evidence base, establishing whether or not coenzyme Q10 is genuinely effective in a typical UK population is important, particularly as coenzyme Q10 has not been subject to the scrutiny of drug-licensing processes. Stronger evidence is needed before considering its prescription in the NHS.FUTURE WORKA new independent, well-designed clinical trial of coenzyme Q10 in a typical UK heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction population may be warranted.STUDY REGISTRATIONThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018106189.FUNDINGThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Identification of those at risk of more severe psoriasis and/or associated morbidities offers opportunity for early intervention, reduced disease burden and more cost‐effective healthcare. Prognostic biomarkers of disease progression have thus been the focus of intense research, but none are part of routine practice.

Background People with severe mental illness die 15–20 years earlier than the general population. Reasons why include that people with severe mental illness are more likely to smoke and be physically inactive as a result of social inequalities. Objectives (1) Evaluate the clinical effectiveness of multiple risk behaviour interventions on behaviour change (e.g. smoking abstinence), and outcomes affected by behaviours (e.g. weight loss). (2) Compare the clinical effectiveness of interventions targeting multiple and single risk behaviours. (3) Examine the factors affecting outcomes (e.g. intervention content). (4) Assess the factors affecting experiences of interventions (e.g. barriers and facilitators). Data sources The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE™ (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), MEDLINE, PsycInfo® (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA) and Science Citation Index (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA) were searched from inception to October 2018, and an updated search was conducted in March 2020. An Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) search and an updated Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials search were undertaken in September 2020. Study selection Randomised controlled trials targeting single or multiple health risk behaviours among people with severe mental illness were included. Qualitative evidence on factors affecting the effectiveness of risk behaviour interventions was included. Study appraisal Network meta-analyses were conducted to compare the effectiveness of multiple and single risk behaviour interventions. The mean differences were estimated for continuous outcomes; if this was not possible, standardised mean differences were calculated. Thematic syntheses of qualitative studies were conducted. Results A total of 101 studies (67 randomised controlled trials and 34 qualitative studies) were included. Most outcomes were smoking abstinence, weight and body mass index. Just over half of studies were rated as having a high overall risk of bias. Trials focusing on smoking alone led to greater abstinence than targeting smoking and other behaviours. However, heterogeneity means that other explanations cannot be ruled out. For weight loss and body mass index, single risk behaviour (e.g. physical activity alone) and multiple risk behaviour (e.g. diet and physical activity) interventions had positive but modest benefits. For example, any risk behaviour intervention led to a 2 kg greater weight loss (–2.10 kg, 95% credible interval –3.14 to –1.06 kg) and approximately half a point (i.e. 0.5 kg/m2) greater body mass index reduction (–0.49 kg/m2, 95% credible interval –0.97 to –0.01 kg/m2) than treatment as usual. There were potential synergies for targeting multiple health behaviours for reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure. No evidence was found of a deterioration in mental health for people with severe mental illness engaging in interventions to reduce health risk behaviours. Qualitative studies found that people with severe mental illness favoured interventions promoting physical and mental health together, and that took their condition into account. However, trials focused mainly on promoting physical health. Limitations Most quantitative studies focused on weight and body mass index; few assessed behavioural outcomes. Qualitative studies often addressed different aims. Conclusions Multiple and single risk behaviour interventions were associated with positive but modest benefits on most outcomes. Interventions seeking to promote physical health were not associated with deterioration in mental health. There was a lack of overlap between quantitative and qualitative studies. Future work Further research is needed to investigate whether or not health behaviour changes are maintained long term; tailoring weight-loss interventions for people with severe mental illness; and in terms of methods, co-production and mixed-methods approaches in future trials. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018104724. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND:Responses to the systemic treatments commonly used to treat psoriasis vary. Biomarkers that accurately predict effectiveness and safety would enable targeted treatment selection, improved patient outcomes and more cost-effective healthcare. OBJECTIVES:To perform a scoping review to identify and catalogue candidate biomarkers of systemic treatment response in psoriasis for the translational research community. METHODS:A systematic search of CENTRAL, Embase, LILACS and MEDLINE was performed for relevant articles published between 1990 and December 2021. Eligibility criteria were studies involving patients with psoriasis (any age, n ≥ 50) reporting biomarkers associated with systemic treatment response. The main outcomes were any measure of systemic treatment efficacy or safety. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second; studies meeting minimal quality criteria (use of methods to control for confounding) were formally assessed for bias. Candidate biomarkers were identified by an expert multistakeholder group using a majority voting consensus exercise and mapped to relevant cellular and molecular pathways. RESULTS:Of 71 included studies (67 studying effectiveness outcomes and eight safety outcomes; four studied both), most reported genomic or proteomic biomarkers associated with response to biologics (48 studies). Methodological or reporting limitations frequently compromised the interpretation of findings, including inadequate control for key covariates, lack of adjustment for multiple testing, and selective outcome reporting. We identified candidate biomarkers of efficacy to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors [variation in CARD14, CDKAL1, IL1B, IL12B and IL17RA loci, and lipopolysaccharide-induced phosphorylation of nuclear factor (NF)-κB in type 2 dendritic cells] and ustekinumab (HLA-C*06:02 and variation in an IL1B locus). None were supported by sufficient evidence for clinical use without further validation studies. Candidate biomarkers were found to be involved in the immune cellular crosstalk implicated in psoriasis pathogenesis, most notably antigen presentation, T helper (Th)17 cell differentiation, positive regulation of NF-κB, and Th17 cell activation. CONCLUSIONS:This comprehensive catalogue provides a key resource for researchers and reveals a diverse range of biomarker types and outcomes in the included studies. The candidate biomarkers identified require further evaluation in methodologically robust studies to establish potential clinical utility. Future studies should aim to address the common methodological limitations highlighted in this review to expedite discovery and validation of biomarkers for clinical use. What is already known about this topic? Responses to the systemic treatments commonly used to treat psoriasis vary. Biomarkers that accurately predict effectiveness and safety would enable targeted treatment selection, improved patient outcomes and more cost-effective healthcare. What does this study add? This review provides a comprehensive catalogue of investigated biomarkers of systemic treatment response in psoriasis. A diverse range of biomarker types and outcomes was found in the included studies, serving as a key resource for the translational research community.

Background This systematic overview was commissioned by England’s Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to assess the evidence on direct (previously ‘novel’) oral anticoagulants (OACs), compared with usual care, in adults, to prevent stroke related to atrial fibrillation (AF), and to prevent and treat venous thromboembolism (VTE). Specifically, to assess efficacy and safety, genotyping, self-monitoring, and patient and clinician experiences of OACs. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, ASSIA, and CINAHL, in October, 2017, updated in November 2021. We included systematic reviews, published from 2014, in English, assessing OACs, in adults. We rated review quality using AMSTAR2 or the JBI checklist. Two reviewers extracted and synthesised the main findings from the included reviews. Results We included 49 systematic reviews; one evaluated efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness, 17 assessed genotyping, 23 self-monitoring or adherence, and 15 experiences (seven assessed two topics). Generally, the direct OACs, particularly apixaban (5 mg twice daily), were more effective and safer than warfarin in preventing AF-related stroke. For VTE, there was little evidence of differences in efficacy between direct OACs and low-molecular-weight heparin (prevention), warfarin (treatment), and warfarin or aspirin (secondary prevention). The evidence suggested that some direct OACs may reduce the risk of bleeding, compared with warfarin. One review of genotype-guided warfarin dosing assessed AF patients; no significant differences in stroke prevention were reported. Education about OACs, in patients with AF, could improve adherence. Pharmacist management of coagulation may be better than primary care management. Patients were more adherent to direct OACs than warfarin. Drug efficacy was highly valued by patients and most clinicians, followed by safety. No other factors consistently affected patients’ choice of anticoagulant and adherence to treatment. Patients were more satisfied with direct OACs than warfarin. Conclusions For stroke prevention in AF, direct OACs seem to be more effective and safer than usual care, and apixaban (5 mg twice daily) had the best profile. For VTE, there was no strong evidence that direct OACs were better than usual care. Education and pharmacist management could improve coagulation control. Both clinicians and patients rated efficacy and safety as the most important factors in managing AF and VTE. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42017084263—one deviation; efficacy and safety were from one review.

This individual participant data meta-analysis is the most intensive possible evaluation of the effectiveness of early intensive applied behaviour analysis–based interventions for pre-school autistic children compared with treatment as usual/eclectic interventions. Data from 491 participants (originally collected in 10 studies) were included. Children receiving early intensive applied behaviour analysis–based interventions improved more on the Vineland adaptive behaviour scale (MD = 7.00; 95% confidence interval = 1.95–12.06) and cognitive ability (intelligence quotient) (MD = 14.13; 95% confidence interval = 9.16–19.10) relative to comparators at 2 years; though effects varied considerably across studies. Evidence for other outcomes was inconclusive due to insufficient evidence and there were few data on longer-term effects. All studies were at risk of bias across several domains, often due to the lack of randomisation or blinding of outcome assessors. Given the emerging evidence of modest, albeit short term, effects of a range of pre-school autism interventions and the limitations of the quality of evaluation studies to date, future research should investigate which supports and interventions are most effective for children and families prioritising outcomes measures that are meaningful for the autism community and longer-term follow-up. Further systematic reviews of the existing evidence are unlikely to add to the findings presented here. Lay abstract Early intensive applied behaviour analysis–based interventions are designed to support young autistic children’s learning and development. Unfortunately, the available evidence about the effectiveness of these interventions remains unclear. Several reviews have focused on the published findings rather than contacting the authors to collect and analyse data about the individual participants in the original studies. Also, most of the studies were carried out by groups involved in delivering the interventions leading to the potential bias in interpreting the results. Our research team (supported by an international advisory group) carried out an independent individual patient data review by collecting the original participant data from the authors of the studies, to examine the effectiveness of these interventions. The results suggested that early intensive applied behaviour analysis–based interventions might lead to some changes in children’s cognitive ability (intelligence quotient) and everyday life skills after 2 years, compared with standard treatments. However, all the studies had problems with the way they were designed. Also, few of the studies looked at outcomes that have been described as most important to autistic people or followed children beyond 2 years. We think that further systematic reviews of the existing evidence are unlikely to add to the findings of our review. Furthermore, we recommend that future research should investigate which types of supports and interventions are most effective for children and families, prioritising outcomes measures that are meaningful for the autism community and include, wherever possible, longer-term follow-up.

AIMS:This systematic review places a recently completed multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT), UK FROST, in the context of existing randomized evidence for the management of primary frozen shoulder. UK FROST compared the effectiveness of pre-specified physiotherapy techniques with a steroid injection (PTSI), manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) with a steroid injection, and arthroscopic capsular release (ACR). This review updates a 2012 review focusing on the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, hydrodilatation, and PTSI. METHODS:MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, Science Citation Index, Clinicaltrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry were searched up to December 2018. Reference lists of included studies were screened. No language restrictions applied. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, PTSI, and hydrodilatation against each other, or supportive care or no treatment, for the management of primary frozen shoulder. RESULTS:Nine RCTs were included. The primary outcome of patient-reported shoulder function at long-term follow-up (> 6 months and ≤ 12 months) was reported for five treatment comparisons across four studies. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were: ACR versus MUA: 0.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.42), ACR versus supportive care: -0.13 (95% CI -1.10 to 0.83), and ACR versus PTSI: 0.33 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.59) and 0.25 (95% CI -0.34 to 0.85), all favouring ACR; MUA versus supportive care: 0 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.44) not favouring either; and MUA versus PTSI: 0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to 0.37) favouring MUA. None of these differences met the threshold of clinical significance agreed for the UK FROST and most confidence intervals included zero. CONCLUSION:The findings from a recent multicentre RCT provided the strongest evidence that, when compared with each other, neither PTSI, MUA, nor ACR are clinically superior. Evidence from smaller RCTs did not change this conclusion. The effectiveness of hydrodilatation based on four RCTs was inconclusive and there remains an evidence gap. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):773-784.

Aims This systematic review places a recently completed multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT), UK FROST, in the context of existing randomized evidence for the management of primary frozen shoulder. UK FROST compared the effectiveness of pre-specified physiotherapy techniques with a steroid injection (PTSI), manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) with a steroid injection, and arthroscopic capsular release (ACR). This review updates a 2012 review focusing on the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, hydrodilatation, and PTSI. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, PEDro, Science Citation Index, Clinicaltrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry were searched up to December 2018. Reference lists of included studies were screened. No language restrictions applied. Eligible studies were RCTs comparing the effectiveness of MUA, ACR, PTSI, and hydrodilatation against each other, or supportive care or no treatment, for the management of primary frozen shoulder. Results Nine RCTs were included. The primary outcome of patient-reported shoulder function at long-term follow-up (> 6 months and ≤ 12 months) was reported for five treatment comparisons across four studies. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were: ACR versus MUA: 0.21 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.00 to 0.42), ACR versus supportive care: -0.13 (95% CI -1.10 to 0.83), and ACR versus PTSI: 0.33 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.59) and 0.25 (95% CI -0.34 to 0.85), all favouring ACR; MUA versus supportive care: 0 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.44) not favouring either; and MUA versus PTSI: 0.12 (95% CI -0.14 to 0.37) favouring MUA. None of these differences met the threshold of clinical significance agreed for the UK FROST and most confidence intervals included zero. Conclusion The findings from a recent multicentre RCT provided the strongest evidence that, when compared with each other, neither PTSI, MUA, nor ACR are clinically superior. Evidence from smaller RCTs did not change this conclusion. The effectiveness of hydrodilatation based on four RCTs was inconclusive and there remains an evidence gap. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):773–784.

BACKGROUND:QAngio® XA 3D/QFR® (three-dimensional/quantitative flow ratio) imaging software (Medis Medical Imaging Systems BV, Leiden, the Netherlands) and CAAS® vFFR® (vessel fractional flow reserve) imaging software (Pie Medical Imaging BV, Maastricht, the Netherlands) are non-invasive technologies to assess the functional significance of coronary stenoses, which can be alternatives to invasive fractional flow reserve assessment.OBJECTIVES:The objectives were to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR.METHODS:We performed a systematic review of all evidence on QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR, including diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness, implementation and economic analyses. We searched MEDLINE and other databases to January 2020 for studies where either technology was used and compared with fractional flow reserve in patients with intermediate stenosis. The risk of bias was assessed with quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy were performed. Clinical and implementation outcomes were synthesised narratively. A simulation study investigated the clinical impact of using QAngio XA 3D/QFR. We developed a de novo decision-analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR relative to invasive fractional flow reserve or invasive coronary angiography alone. Scenario analyses were undertaken to explore the robustness of the results to variation in the sources of data used to populate the model and alternative assumptions.RESULTS:Thirty-nine studies (5440 patients) of QAngio XA 3D/QFR and three studies (500 patients) of CAAS vFFR were included. QAngio XA 3D/QFR had good diagnostic accuracy to predict functionally significant fractional flow reserve (≤ 0.80 cut-off point); contrast-flow quantitative flow ratio had a sensitivity of 85% (95% confidence interval 78% to 90%) and a specificity of 91% (95% confidence interval 85% to 95%). A total of 95% of quantitative flow ratio measurements were within 0.14 of the fractional flow reserve. Data on the diagnostic accuracy of CAAS vFFR were limited and a full meta-analysis was not feasible. There were very few data on clinical and implementation outcomes. The simulation found that quantitative flow ratio slightly increased the revascularisation rate when compared with fractional flow reserve, from 40.2% to 42.0%. Quantitative flow ratio and fractional flow reserve resulted in similar numbers of subsequent coronary events. The base-case cost-effectiveness results showed that the test strategy with the highest net benefit was invasive coronary angiography with confirmatory fractional flow reserve. The next best strategies were QAngio XA 3D/QFR and CAAS vFFR (without fractional flow reserve). However, the difference in net benefit between this best strategy and the next best was small, ranging from 0.007 to 0.012 quality-adjusted life-years (or equivalently £140-240) per patient diagnosed at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.LIMITATIONS:Diagnostic accuracy evidence on CAAS vFFR, and evidence on the clinical impact of QAngio XA 3D/QFR, were limited.CONCLUSIONS:Quantitative flow ratio as measured by QAngio XA 3D/QFR has good agreement and diagnostic accuracy compared with fractional flow reserve and is preferable to standard invasive coronary angiography alone. It appears to have very similar cost-effectiveness to fractional flow reserve and, therefore, pending further evidence on general clinical benefits and specific subgroups, could be a reasonable alternative. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CAAS vFFR are uncertain. Randomised controlled trial evidence evaluating the effect of quantitative flow ratio on clinical and patient-centred outcomes is needed.FUTURE WORK:Studies are required to assess the diagnostic accuracy and clinical feasibility of CAAS vFFR. Large ongoing randomised trials will hopefully inform the clinical value of QAngio XA 3D/QFR.STUDY REGISTRATION:This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019154575.FUNDING:This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 56. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Lifestyle risk behaviours are associated with an increased risk of non-communicable disease and mortality. There are socio-economic inequalities in these behaviours, with some behaviours being more prevalent in particular groups, such as prisoners, homeless people and Gyspies, Travellers and Roma. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and bring together existing evidence from systematic reviews on reducing risk behaviours in disadvantaged groups and highlight where there is insufficient evidence to inform policy. Methods MEDLINE and Embase were searched up to October 2020 for English language reviews, with supplementary searching in Epistemonikos and Health Systems Evidence. Systematic reviews reporting behavioural outcomes of interventions targeting smoking, excessive alcohol use, unhealthy diet or physical inactivity in low income or socio-economic status (SES), unemployed people, homeless people, care leavers, prisoners, refugees or asylum seekers, Travellers, Gypsies or Roma, people with learning disabilities or deprived areas or communities were eligible. Reviews of population-level policies reporting differential effects for disadvantaged groups and qualitative reviews exploring barriers or facilitators to behaviour change were also included. The literature was mapped based on the group and behaviour targeted. Results In total 9,336 records were screened, 262 full texts retrieved and 92 systematic reviews included. The majority of reviews included studies of people with low income or SES (n=68), with diet and low income the most frequently addressed combination. There were fourteen reviews on prisoners, 12 on deprived areas, ten on homeless people and nine on people with learning disabilities. Only three reviews included unemployed people and two included refugees or asylum seekers (both focusing on barriers and facilitators to healthy eating). No reviews were identified on care leavers or Gypsies, Travellers and Roma. In total there were 11 reviews targeting alcohol use. Sixteen qualitative reviews explored participants’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to changing their behaviour. Conclusion A large number of systematic reviews were identified but we found some evidence gaps where new syntheses or primary studies may be needed to guide policy, for example on care leavers, Gypsies, Travellers and Roma and refugees and asylum seekers. Other useful contributions might include an overview bringing together different interventions in low-income populations and an overview of the perceptions of disadvantaged groups about behaviour change, allowing common barriers to be identified as well as factors that are unique to specific groups.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted life worldwide and presented unique challenges in the health evidencesynthesis space. The urgent nature of the pandemic required extreme rapidity for keeping track of research, andthis presented a unique opportunity for long-proposed automation systems to be deployed and evaluated. Wecompared the use of novel automation technologies with conventional manual screening; and Microsoft AcademicGraph (MAG) with the MEDLINE and Embase databases locating the emerging research evidence. We foundthat a new workflow involving machine learning to identify relevant research in MAG achieved a much higherrecall with lower manual effort than using conventional approaches.

Background: The first histology-independent marketing authorisation in Europe was granted in 2019. This was the first time that a cancer treatment was approved based on a common biomarker rather than the location in the body at which the tumour originated. This research aims to explore the implications for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. Methods: Targeted reviews were undertaken to determine the type of evidence that is likely to be available at the point of marketing authorisation and the analyses required to support National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. Several challenges were identified concerning the design and conduct of trials for histology-independent products, the greater levels of heterogeneity within the licensed population and the use of surrogate end points. We identified approaches to address these challenges by reviewing key statistical literature that focuses on the design and analysis of histology-independent trials and by undertaking a systematic review to evaluate the use of response end points as surrogate outcomes for survival end points. We developed a decision framework to help to inform approval and research policies for histology-independent products. The framework explored the uncertainties and risks associated with different approval policies, including the role of further data collection, pricing schemes and stratified decision-making. Results: We found that the potential for heterogeneity in treatment effects, across tumour types or other characteristics, is likely to be a central issue for National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. Bayesian hierarchical methods may serve as a useful vehicle to assess the level of heterogeneity across tumours and to estimate the pooled treatment effects for each tumour, which can inform whether or not the assumption of homogeneity is reasonable. Our review suggests that response end points may not be reliable surrogates for survival end points. However, a surrogate-based modelling approach, which captures all relevant uncertainty, may be preferable to the use of immature survival data. Several additional sources of heterogeneity were identified as presenting potential challenges to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisal, including the cost of testing, baseline risk, quality of life and routine management costs. We concluded that a range of alternative approaches will be required to address different sources of heterogeneity to support National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. An exemplar case study was developed to illustrate the nature of the assessments that may be required. Conclusions: Adequately designed and analysed basket studies that assess the homogeneity of outcomes and allow borrowing of information across baskets, where appropriate, are recommended. Where there is evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effects and estimates of cost-effectiveness, consideration should be given to optimised recommendations. Routine presentation of the scale of the consequences of heterogeneity and decision uncertainty may provide an important additional approach to the assessments specified in the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence methods guide. Further research: Further exploration of Bayesian hierarchical methods could help to inform decision-makers on whether or not there is sufficient evidence of homogeneity to support pooled analyses. Further research is also required to determine the appropriate basis for apportioning genomic testing costs where there are multiple targets and to address the challenges of uncontrolled Phase II studies, including the role and use of surrogate end points. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 76. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Digital interventions (DIs) are increasingly being used in mental health care, despite limited evidence regarding their value for money. This study aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of DIs for generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), in comparison with alternative care options, from the perspective of the UK health care system. An open-source decision analytic cohort model was used to extrapolate the results of a network meta-analysis over a patient’s lifetime and estimate the costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years) of DIs and their comparators. The net monetary benefit (NMB) and probability of cost effectiveness was estimated for each comparator, and we conducted a Value of Information analysis to evaluate the scale and drivers of uncertainty. DIs were associated with lower NMB compared with medication and with group therapy, but greater NMB compared with non-therapeutic controls and with usual care. DIs that were supported by a clinician, an assistant or a lay person had higher delivery costs than purely patient-self-directed DIs, yielding a greater NMB when opportunity cost was above £3000/QALY. There was considerable uncertainty in the findings driven largely by uncertainty in the estimated treatment effects. The value of further research to establish the effectiveness of DIs for GAD was substantial, at least £12.9 billion. The high uncertainty about these results does not allow for recommendations based on the cost effectiveness of DIs. However, the analysis highlights areas for future research, and demonstrates that apparent cost savings associated with DIs can be offset by reduced effectiveness.