An abnormal composition of gut bacteria along with alterations in microbial metabolites and reduced gut barrier integrity has been associated with the pathogenesis of chronic autoimmune and inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs). The aim of the systematic review, for which this protocol is presented, is to evaluate the clinical benefits and potential harms of therapies targeting the intestinal microbiota and/or gut barrier function in AIRDs to inform clinical practice and future research.

This protocol used the reporting guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol. We will search Embase (Ovid), Medline (Ovid) and the Cochrane Library (Central) for reports of randomised controlled trials of patients diagnosed with an AIRD. Eligible interventions are therapies targeting the intestinal microbiota and/or gut barrier function including probiotics, synbiotics, faecal microbiota transplantation, live biotherapeutic products and antibiotics with the intent to modify disease activity in AIRDs. The primary outcome of the evidence synthesis will be based on the primary endpoint of each trial. Secondary efficacy outcomes will be evaluated and selected from the existing core domain sets of the individual diseases and include the following domains: disease control, patient global assessment, physician global assessment, health-related quality of life, fatigue, pain and inflammation. Harms will include the total number of withdrawals, withdrawals due to adverse events, number of patients with serious adverse events, disease flares and deaths. A meta-analysis will be performed for each outcome domain separately. Depending on the type of outcome, the quantitative synthesis will encompass both ORs and standardised mean differences with corresponding 95% CIs.

No ethics approval will be needed for this systematic review. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to disseminate the study results through a peer-reviewed publication.

CRD42025644244.

Many people with long-term conditions such as pain and arthritis struggle with their health and well-being. To support better self-management, a new peer-delivered coaching intervention (Health Connect Coaching) was set up at a National Health Service integrated care organisation in Southwest England. Based on principles of personalised care and supported goal setting, the one-to-one coaching programme, targeting patients with low activation, delivered coaching sessions in a step-down approach over 6 months. A randomised controlled feasibility trial (fRCT) of Health Connect Coaching was conducted to inform the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial. This article reports the embedded qualitative component of the fRCT, describing the experiences of coaches, peers and staff of implementing and participating in the intervention and trial that ultimately struggled to recruit sufficient peers.

Semi-structured online interviews were conducted with coaches (n=16) and peers (n=6), and informal discussions held with staff (n=7). Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and summaries of informal discussions were made. Data were analysed using thematic framework analysis.

Four themes were identified from the interview and discussion data: (1) motivation for participation, (2) balance, (3) flexibility and (4) connection and building relationships.

One-to-one peer coaching demonstrates potential as an intervention to enable people to better manage their chronic health condition. However, in people with low activation, programmes and effectiveness studies need to pay close attention in their design to the motivation of peers, flexible delivery models that enable connection but can accommodate fluctuating needs and facilitating links between coaching services and clinical teams.

ISRCTN12623577.

To evaluate and map research examining clinical associations with the Duffy-null variant.

Scoping review of the existing literature.

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science for studies published in English between 1 January 2000 and 25 June 2024.

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they examined associations relevant to current standard clinical practice and met our protocol’s inclusion criteria.

We extracted the following information from included studies: study year(s), patient population, sample size, study design, primary outcome and primary findings. Studies were grouped by outcome and synthesised in tabular and qualitative formats.

A total of 2737 studies were screened, and 44 met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were observational, and the most common research question examined was the association with resistance to Plasmodium vivax malaria (9/44). Overall, we observed that the association between the Duffy-null variant and asymptomatic lower absolute neutrophil count (ANC) is demonstrated in large prospective cohort studies. The association with resistance to P. vivax malaria is primarily supported by large cross-sectional studies. There were no studies examining the practical applications of these findings, for example, optimal Duffy-genotype adjusted ANC thresholds for clinical decision-making in patients receiving chemotherapy. Finally, we observed that 19 different associations with this trait have been explored, several in conditions with no clear link to the Duffy trait, for example, progression rates in HIV/AIDS, risk of diabetes, etc.

We found established associations between the Duffy-null variant and asymptomatic lower ANC and with resistance to P. vivax malaria but a lack of data for the practical utilisation of these findings in clinical care. Future studies, such as those examining safe ANC values for entry into clinical trials and for ANC nadir for Duffy-null patients receiving medications associated with increased risk of neutropenia, for example, clozapine, are needed. We observed numerous reported associations of unclear clinical utility. Studies investigating associations with the Duffy trait should be guided by biologic plausibility and clinical utility of positive findings.

Mistreatment and obstetric violence constitute significant human rights violations with profound implications for maternal mental health. These detrimental practices persist globally, particularly in contexts where underfunded health systems, workforce shortages and entrenched gender inequalities intersect, depriving women of adequate psychosocial support and culturally sensitive mental healthcare. Although awareness of the immediate harms of mistreatment is increasing, its cumulative effects throughout the maternal care continuum remain insufficiently understood. This review will synthesise evidence on the impact of mistreatment on perinatal mental health, identify critical gaps and advocate for systemic change.

This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol complies with the guidelines set forth by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. A thorough literature search will be executed across multiple electronic databases, including CINAHL—Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase via Ovid, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus, as well as other significant or specialised databases and grey literature. The review will incorporate only non-randomised study types and observational studies (cohort, cross-sectional, case-control), along with mixed-method and qualitative studies. Abstract and full-text screening will be performed by two reviewers using Covidence. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies, the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Statistical heterogeneity will be evaluated using the Higgins test. Meta-analysis will be conducted using R statistical software V.4.4.4, employing random effects models to determine the weights. The study results will be reported sequentially, beginning with primary outcomes, followed by secondary outcomes and significant subgroup outcome analyses.

Ethical approval is not required as no original data will be collected. The findings of this review will be disseminated through publication and conference presentations.

CRD420251044379.

Effective community-based disease management is essential for public health. In low- and middle-income countries, sustainable strategies for timely diagnosis and treatment are a research priority. This study aims to assess the feasibility of a non-invasive saliva self-sampling method, paired with digitally linked molecular point-of-care diagnostics, for detecting respiratory infections among paediatric patients in the Tshwane District, South Africa.

A field study will be conducted at Steve Biko Academic Hospital to compare saliva collection using the CandyCollect lollipop device and standard mouth swabs. The spiral groove of the lollipop device captures pathogens, which are stored in DNA/RNA preservation media and later analysed using quantitative PCR and commercially available rapid antigen tests. The multiplex respiratory pathogen panel, based on TaqMan real-time PCR technology, targets key paediatric pathogens including Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza A/B. Nucleic acids will be extracted using standard viral extraction kits and analysed following manufacturer protocols. Internal controls will be included in each qPCR run, and samples with CT values below defined thresholds will be considered positive. Rapid antigen tests will detect common pathogens such as influenza A/B, RSV and SARS-CoV-2 for comparative analysis. User experience and acceptability will be assessed via child-friendly and caregiver surveys following sample collection. The study will be implemented in two phases: diagnostic performance evaluation and user feedback assessment. The protocol is aligned with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials 2013 checklist.

Ethical approval has been granted by the University of Pretoria (509/2023) and the Gauteng Department of Health (GP_202406_032). The study is registered in the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR202411743094783). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and stakeholder briefings. The study complies with South Africa’s Protection of Personal Information Act. Data collection is scheduled from November 2024 to February 2025, with project completion expected within 1 year.

Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR202411743094783).

This study aims to assess how implementing a checklist for managing extremely preterm or extremely low birth weight infants can reduce mortality rates and morbidities.

A quasi-experimental, before-and-after study.

Neonatal intensive care unit at Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital, a national referral hospital in Indonesia.

86 infants were born at

Implementation of a modified Canberra Health Services extremely preterm-early management checklist during the initial management of extremely preterm or low birth weight infants, including humidified gas resuscitation, thermal management, early surfactant administration and standardised first-hour care protocols.

The primary outcome was the mortality rate. Secondary outcomes included comorbidities such as hypothermia, hypoglycaemia, acidosis, intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), periventricular leukomalacia (PVL) and retinopathy of prematurity (ROP).

A total of 86 extremely premature and/or extremely low birth weight infants were enrolled, 48 neonates prior to and 38 neonates after the use of the checklist. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups (median gestational age 27 weeks in both groups, median birth weight 795 g vs 868.5 g, p=0.09). Mortality at discharge showed a non-significant reduction from 52.1% to 47.4% (p=0.664, 0.91, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.30). Significant reductions were observed in IVH (79.2% to 28.9%, p

Implementation of a systematic checklist was associated with significant reductions in IVH and ROP, though mortality reduction was not statistically significant. These findings suggest potential benefits of structured early care protocols, but the observational design limits causal inference.

To compare the quality and time efficiency of physician-written summaries with customised large language model (LLM)-generated medical summaries integrated into the electronic health record (EHR) in a non-English clinical environment.

Cross-sectional non-inferiority validation study.

Tertiary academic hospital.

52 physicians from 8 specialties at a large Dutch academic hospital participated, either in writing summaries (n=42) or evaluating them (n=10).

Physician writers wrote summaries of 50 patient records. LLM-generated summaries were created for the same records using an EHR-integrated LLM. An independent, blinded panel of physician evaluators compared physician-written summaries to LLM-generated summaries.

Primary outcome measures were completeness, correctness and conciseness (on a 5-point Likert scale). Secondary outcomes were preference and trust, and time to generate either the physician-written or LLM-generated summary.

The completeness and correctness of LLM-generated summaries did not differ significantly from physician-written summaries. However, LLM summaries were less concise (3.0 vs 3.5, p=0.001). Overall evaluation scores were similar (3.4 vs 3.3, p=0.373), with 57% of evaluators preferring LLM-generated summaries. Trust in both summary types was comparable, and interobserver variability showed excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.975). Physicians took an average of 7 min per summary, while LLMs completed the same task in just 15.7 s.

LLM-generated summaries are comparable to physician-written summaries in completeness and correctness, although slightly less concise. With a clear time-saving benefit, LLMs could help reduce clinicians’ administrative burden without compromising summary quality.

To integrate the quantitative and qualitative data collected as part of the PEACH (Procalcitonin: Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients) study, which evaluated whether procalcitonin (PCT) testing should be used to guide antibiotic prescribing and safely reduce antibiotic use among patients admitted to acute UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals.

Triangulation to integrate quantitative and qualitative data.

Four data sources in 148 NHS hospitals in England and Wales including data from 6089 patients.

A triangulation protocol was used to integrate three quantitative data sources (survey, organisation-level data and patient-level data: data sources 1, 2 and 3) and one qualitative data source (clinician interviews: data source 4) collected as part of the PEACH study. Analysis of data sources initially took place independently, and then, key findings for each data source were added to a matrix. A series of interactive discussion meetings took place with quantitative, qualitative and clinical researchers, together with patient and public involvement (PPI) representatives, to group the key findings and produce seven statements relating to the study objectives. Each statement and the key findings related to that statement were considered alongside an assessment of whether there was agreement, partial agreement, dissonance or silence across all four data sources (convergence coding). The matrix was then interpreted to produce a narrative for each statement.

To explore whether PCT testing safely reduced antibiotic use during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Seven statements were produced relating to the PEACH study objective. There was agreement across all four data sources for our first key statement, ‘During the first wave of the pandemic (01/02/2020-30/06/2020), PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing’. The second statement was related to this key statement, ‘During the first wave of the pandemic (01/02/2020-30/06/2020), PCT testing safely reduced antibiotic prescribing’. Partial agreement was found between data sources 3 (quantitative patient-level data) and 4 (qualitative clinician interviews). There were no data regarding safety from data sources 1 or 2 (quantitative survey and organisational-level data) to contribute to this statement. For statements three and four, ‘PCT was not used as a central factor influencing antibiotic prescribing’, and ‘PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing in the emergency department (ED)/acute medical unit (AMU),’ there was agreement between data source 2 (organisational-level data) and data source 4 (interviews with clinicians). The remaining two data sources (survey and patient-level data) contributed no data on this statement. For statement five, ‘PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing in the intensive care unit (ICU)’, there was disagreement between data sources 2 and 3 (organisational-level data and patient-level data) and data source 4 (clinician interviews). Data source 1 (survey) did not provide data on this statement. We therefore assigned dissonance to this statement. For statement six, ‘There were many barriers to implementing PCT testing during the first wave of COVID-19’, there was partial agreement between data source 1 (survey) and data source 4 (clinician interviews) and no data provided by the two remaining data sources (organisational-level data and patient-level data). For statement seven, ‘Local PCT guidelines/protocols were perceived to be valuable’, only data source 4 (clinician interviews) provided data. The clinicians expressed that guidelines were valuable, but as there was no data from the other three data sources, we assigned silence to this statement.

There was agreement between all four data sources on our key finding ‘during the first wave of the pandemic (01/02/2020-30/06/2020), PCT testing reduced antibiotic prescribing’. Data, methodological and investigator triangulation, and a transparent triangulation protocol give validity to this finding.

ISRCTN66682918.