OBJECTIVES Given the continuous advances in the biomedical sciences, health care professionals need to develop the skills necessary for lifelong learning. Self-directed learning (SDL) is suggested as the methodology of choice in this context.Thepurposeof this systematicreviewisto determine the effectiveness of SDL in improving learning outcomes in health professionals. METHODSWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC and PsycINFO through to August 2009. Eligible studies were comparative and evaluated the effect of SDL interventions on learning outcomes in the domains of knowledge, skills and attitudes. Two reviewers working independently selected studies and extracted data. Standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated from each study and pooled using randomeffects meta-analysis.RESULTS The final analysis included 59 studies that enrolled 8011 learners. Twentyfive studies (42%) were randomised. The overall methodological quality of the studies was moderate. Compared with traditional teaching methods, SDL was associated with a moderate increase in the knowledge domain (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.67), a trivial and non-statistically significant increase in the skills domain (SMD 0.05, 95% CI ) 0.05 to 0.22), and a non-significant increase in the attitudes domain (SMD 0.39, 95% CI ) 0.03 to 0.81). Heterogeneity was significant in all analyses. When learners were involved in choosing learning resources, SDL was more effective. Advanced learners seemed to benefit more from SDL.CONCLUSIONS Moderate quality evidence suggests that SDL in health professions education is associated with moderate improvement in the knowledge domain compared with traditional teaching methods and may be as effective in the skills and attitudes domains.

Very low quality evidence suggests that sex reassignment that includes hormonal interventions in individuals with GID likely improves gender dysphoria, psychological functioning and comorbidities, sexual function and overall quality of life.

Background The availability of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic testing has rapidly increased. Current assays use a variety of technologies, measure different classes of immunoglobulin or immunoglobulin combinations and detect antibodies directed against different portions of the virus. The overall accuracy of these tests, however, has not been well-defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct best practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA. Objective IDSA’s goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests in a variety of settings. We also highlight important unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, public health surveillance, vaccine development and the selection of convalescent plasma donors. Methods A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. Results The panel agreed on eight diagnostic recommendations. Conclusions Information on the clinical performance and utility of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests are rapidly emerging. Based on available evidence, detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be useful for confirming the presence of current or past infection in selected situations. The panel identified three potential indications for serologic testing including: 1) evaluation of patients with a high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 when molecular diagnostic testing is negative and at least two weeks have passed since symptom onset; 2) assessment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children; and 3) for conducting serosurveillance studies. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for either diagnosis or epidemiology was, however, graded as very low to moderate.