Background Knowledge translation (KT) platforms are organisations, initiatives and networks that focus on supporting evidence-informed policy-making at least in part about the health-system arrangements that determine whether the right programmes, services and products get to those who need them. Many descriptions and evaluations of KT platforms in low- and middle-income countries have been produced but, to date, they have not been systematically reviewed. Methods We identified potentially relevant studies through a search of five electronic databases and a variety of approaches to identify grey literature. We used four criteria to select eligible empirical studies. We extracted data about seven characteristics of included studies and about key findings. We used explicit criteria to assess study quality. In synthesising the findings, we gave greater attention to themes that emerged from multiple studies, higher-quality studies and different contexts. Results Country was the most common jurisdictional focus of KT platforms, EVIPNet the most common name and high turnover among staff a common infrastructural feature. Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues were the activities/outputs that were the most extensively studied and viewed as helpful, while rapid evidence services were the next most studied but only in a single jurisdiction. None of the summative evaluations used a pre–post design or a control group and, with the exception of the evaluations of the influence of briefs and dialogues on intentions to act, none of the evaluations achieved a high quality score. Conclusions A large and growing volume of research evidence suggests that KT platforms offer promise in supporting evidence-informed policy-making in low- and middle-income countries. KT platforms should consider as next steps expanding their current, relatively limited portfolio of activities and outputs, building bridges to complementary groups, and planning for evaluations that examine ‘what works’ for ‘what types of issues’ in ‘what types of contexts’.

Systemic corticosteroids, ciclosporin, infliximab and canakinumab had the most evidence in treating PG. However, current literature is limited to small and lower-quality studies with substantial heterogeneity.

Introduction: Many international guidelines for management of psoriasis exist and most have variations in grading evidence quality, strength of recommendations, and dosing. The objective of our review is to compare international guidelines published in the United Kingdom, Canada, Europe, and the United States for the management of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Methods: We conducted a literature review on systemic therapies and phototherapy for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in adult patients. The British, Canadian, European, and American guidelines served as the key comparators in our review. To identify relevant supporting clinical trials not referenced in the guidelines, we conducted literature searches in PubMed and EMBASE. Two authors independently extracted data on indications, dosing, efficacy, evidence grade, and strength of clinical recommendation for each therapy. Results: Monoclonal antibodies directed toward tumour necrosis factor and interleukin (IL)-12/23 received the strongest recommendations for treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, supported by robust, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Newer agents such as IL-17 and IL-23 inhibitors are not referenced in most guidelines. There are fewer RCTs for conventional therapies and few head-to-head comparisons with biologics, making it difficult to draw direct comparisons. Among older agents, methotrexate is most strongly recommended for long-term maintenance and cyclosporine is recommended for short-term control of flares. Conclusion: Physicians should individualize psoriasis-management strategies based on medication tolerance, efficacy, safety, patient comorbidities, availability of the medication, and patient preference.

IntroductionThe evolution in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) management has been summarized in three iterations of the European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society (ESC/ERS) guidelines. No study has assessed whether changes in management, as reflected in the changing guidelines, has translated to improved long-term survival in PAH.MethodsMixed retrospective/prospective analysis of treatment naïve, incident PAH patients (n=392) diagnosed at three major centers in Canada from 2009–2021. Patients were divided into two groups based on their diagnosis date and in accordance with three ESC/ERS guideline iterations: 2009 and 2015. Overall survival was assessed based on date of diagnosis and initial treatment strategy (i.e. mono versus combination).ResultsIn Canada, there was a shift towards more aggressive upfront management with combination therapy after the publication of the 2015 guidelines (10.4% and 30.8% in 2009–2015 patients, and 36.0% and 57.4% in 2016–2021 patients, for baseline and 2-year follow-up respectively). A key factor associated with combination therapy after 2015 was higher pulmonary vascular resistance (p=0.009). The 1, 3 and 5 year survival rates in Canada were 89.2%, 75.6%. and 56.0%, respectively. Despite changes in management, there was no improvement in long-term survival before and after publication of the 2015 ESC/ERS guideline (p=0.53).ConclusionsThere was an increase in the use of initial and sequential combination therapy in Canada after publication of the 2015 ESC/ERS guidelines, which was not associated with improved long-term survival. These data highlight the continued difficulties of managing this aggressive pulmonary disease in an era without a cure.

IntroductionEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is performed to diagnose and manage conditions of the biliary and pancreatic ducts. Though effective, it is associated with common adverse events (AEs). The purpose of this study is to systematically review ERCP AE rates and report up-to-date pooled estimates.Methods and analysisA comprehensive electronic search will be conducted of relevant medical databases through 10 November 2020. A study team of eight data abstracters will independently determine study eligibility, assess quality and abstract data in parallel, with any two concordant entries constituting agreement and with discrepancies resolved by consensus. The primary outcome will be the pooled incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis, with secondary outcomes including post-ERCP bleeding, cholangitis, perforation, cholecystitis, death and unplanned healthcare encounters. Secondary outcomes will also include rates of specific and overall AEs within clinically relevant subgroups determined a priori. DerSimonian and Laird random effects models will be used to perform meta-analyses of these outcomes. Sources of heterogeneity will be explored via meta-regression. Subgroup analyses based on median dates of data collection across studies will be performed to determine whether AE rates have changed over time.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this study as it is a planned meta-analysis of previously published data. Participant consent is similarly not required. Dissemination is planned via presentation at relevant conferences in addition to publication in peer-reviewed journals.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020220221.