scholarly journals Evidenzbasierte Alkoholprävention – Was empfiehlt die Wirksamkeitsforschung?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anneke Bühler ◽  
Johannes Thrul ◽  
Elena Gomes de Matos
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Systematische Literatursuche ◽  
Soziale Kompetenzen

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Der riskante Alkoholkonsum einer substanziellen Gruppe von Jugendlichen und jungen Erwachsenen weist auf einen alkoholpräventiven Handlungsbedarf hin. Die BZgA-Expertise zur Suchtprävention 2020 liefert das wissenschaftliche Wissen zur Wirksamkeit von suchtpräventivem Handeln mit jungen Menschen. Fragestellung Welche Ansätze haben in den jeweiligen Handlungsfeldern der Suchtprävention alkoholpräventive Effekte? Methode Eine systematische Literatursuche im Juni 2017 in 7 internationalen Datenbanken resultierte in 28.949 Treffern. Einschlusskriterien waren: Studientyp Review oder Metaanalyse, Erscheinungsdatum 2012–2017, Zielgruppe universell oder selektiv und Alter bis 25 Jahre, Zielverhalten Alkoholkonsum. Ausschlusskriterien waren: Zielgruppe Menschen mit diagnostizierten Störungen, Zielverhalten Risikofaktoren. 34 alkoholbezogene Arbeiten wurden von den 3 Autoren systematisch ausgewertet und mittels AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) methodisch bewertet. Im Konsensverfahren wurden Schlussfolgerungen und Empfehlungen formuliert. Ergebnisse Basierend auf 53 Schlussfolgerungen zur Wirksamkeit von Alkoholprävention lassen sich je nach Handlungsfeld (Familie, Schule, Hochschule, Medien, Gesundheitssystem, Kommune) und Zielgruppe u. a. empfehlen: Familienprogramme und Elterntrainings, verhaltensbezogene Programme, die bestimmte personale und soziale Kompetenzen fördern, Kurzinterventionen mit Feedback, Mentorenprogramme. Neuere Arbeiten zu verhältnispräventiven alkoholpolitischen Maßnahmen auf kommunaler oder nationaler Ebene konnten nicht identifiziert werden. Diskussion Verhaltensbezogene Alkoholprävention ist wirksam. Je nach Handlungsfeld und Zielgruppe empfiehlt sich ein sehr differenziertes Vorgehen. Benötigt wird ein Konsens, mit welcher Art von Evidenz die kausale Wirksamkeit von Verhältnisprävention nachgewiesen werden kann.

scholarly journals Appraisal of systematic reviews on interventions for postpartum depression: systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Chow ◽  
Eileen Huang ◽  
Allen Li ◽  
Sophie Li ◽  
Sarah Y. Fu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Postpartum Depression ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool

Abstract Background Postpartum depression (PPD) is a highly prevalent mental health problem that affects parental health with implications for child health in infancy, childhood, adolescence and beyond. The primary aim of this study was to critically appraise available systematic reviews describing interventions for PPD. The secondary aim was to evaluate the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews and their conclusions. Methods An electronic database search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2020 was conducted to identify systematic reviews that examined an intervention for PPD. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews was utilized to independently score each included systematic review which was then critically appraised to better define the most effective therapeutic options for PPD. Results Of the 842 studies identified, 83 met the a priori criteria for inclusion. Based on the systematic reviews with the highest methodological quality, we found that use of antidepressants and telemedicine were the most effective treatments for PPD. Symptoms of PPD were also improved by traditional herbal medicine and aromatherapy. Current evidence for physical exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy in treating PPD remains equivocal. A significant, but weak relationship between AMSTAR score and journal impact factor was observed (p = 0.03, r = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.43) whilst no relationship was found between the number of total citations (p = 0.27, r = 0.12; 95% CI, − 0.09 to 0.34), or source of funding (p = 0.19). Conclusion Overall the systematic reviews on interventions for PPD are of low-moderate quality and are not improving over time. Antidepressants and telemedicine were the most effective therapeutic interventions for PPD treatment.

scholarly journals Psychological resilience during COVID-19: a meta-review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e051417
Author(s):  
Katie Seaborn ◽  
Mark Chignell ◽  
Jacek Gwizdka
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Psychological Resilience ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Meta Review ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Protocol

IntroductionThe global COVID-19 pandemic continues to have wide-ranging implications for health, including psychological well-being. A growing corpus of research reviews has emerged on the topic of psychological resilience in the context of the pandemic. However, this body of work has not been systematically reviewed for its quality, nor with respect to findings on the effectiveness of tools and strategies for psychological resilience. To this end, a meta-review protocol is proposed with the following objectives: (1) identify review work on the topic of psychological resilience during COVID-19; (2) assess the quality of this review work using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; (3) assess the risk of bias in this work; (4) generate a narrative summary of the key points, strengths and weaknesses; (5) identify the psychological resilience strategies that have been reviewed; (6) identify how these strategies have been evaluated for their effectiveness; (7) identify what outcomes were measured and (8) summarise the findings on strategies for psychological resilience so far, providing recommendations, if possible.Methods and analysisA systematic meta-review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews for Protocols and Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review guidelines. Electronic searches of general databases, especially Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed, will be conducted. Only results from January 2020 onwards will be considered, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. Only results in English will be included. Descriptive statistics, thematic analysis and narrative summaries describing the nature of the reviewed work and evaluation of psychological resilience strategies will be carried out.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not needed for systematic review protocols. The results of the meta-review will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. The raw and summarised data will be shared in the journal or other open venues.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021235288.

scholarly journals Published patterns of spin in biomedical literature: a protocol for a meta-research study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e043784
Author(s):  
Naichuan Su ◽  
Michiel van der Linden ◽  
Geert JMG van der Heijden ◽  
Stefan Listl ◽  
Stefan Schandelmaier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionSpin is defined as reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and create misleading conclusions by suggesting more favourable results. Such unjustifiable and misleading misrepresentation may negatively influence the development of further studies, clinical practice and healthcare policies. Spin manifests in various patterns in different sections of publications (titles, abstracts and main texts). The primary aim of this study is to identify reported spin patterns and assess the prevalence of spin in general, and the prevalence of spin patterns reported in biomedical literature based on previously published systematic reviews and literature reviews on spin.Methods and analysisPubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS will be searched to identify systematic or literature reviews on spin in biomedicine. To improve the comprehensiveness of the search, the snowballing method will be used to broaden the search. The data on spin-related outcomes and characteristics of the included studies will be extracted. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed with selective items of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 checklist. A new classification scheme for spin patterns will be developed if the classifications of spin patterns identified in the included studies vary. The prevalence of spin and spin patterns will be pooled based on meta-analyses if the classification schemes for spin are comparable across included studies. Otherwise, the prevalence will be described qualitatively. The seriousness of spin patterns will be assessed based on a Delphi consensus study.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam Ethics Review Committee (2020250). The study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.RegistrationOpen Science Framework: osf.io/hzv6e

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Published in Indexed Portuguese Medical Journals: Time Trends and Critical Appraisal.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luísa Prada ◽  
Ana Prada ◽  
Miguel Antunes ◽  
Ricardo Fernandes ◽  
João Costa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Electronic Search ◽  
Potential Impact

Abstract Introduction:Over the last years, the number of systematic reviews published is steadily increasing due to the global interest in this type of evidence synthesis. However, little is known about the characteristics of this research published in Portuguese medical journals. This study aims to evaluate the publication trends and overall quality of these systematic reviews.Material and Methods:Systematic reviews were identified through an electronic search up to August 2020, targeting Portuguese Medical journals indexed in MEDLINE. Systematic reviews selection and data extraction were done independently by three authors. The overall quality critical appraisal using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR II) was independently assessed by three authors. Disagreements were solved by consensus.Results:Seventy systematic reviews published in 5 Portuguese medical journals were included. Most (n=57; 81,4%) were systematic reviews without meta-analysis. Until 2010, the number of systematic reviews per year increased. Since then, the number of reviews published has not remained stable and no less than 3 SRs were published per year. According to the systematic reviews’ typology, most have been predominantly conducted to assess the effectiveness of health interventions (n=28; 40,0%). General and Internal Medicine (n=26; 37,1%) was the most addressed field. Most systematic reviews (n=45; 64,3%) were rated as being of “critically low-quality”.Conclusions:There were consistent flaws in the methodological quality report of the systematic reviews included, particularly in establishing a prior protocol and not assessing the potential impact of the risk of bias on the results.Through the years, the number of systematic reviews published increased, yet their quality is suboptimal. There is a need to improve the reporting of systematic reviews in Portuguese medical journals, which can be achieved by better adherence to quality checklists/tools.Systematic review registration: INPLASY202090105

scholarly journals Efficacy of perioperative immunonutrition in visceral surgery: an umbrella review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e053851
Author(s):  
Karem Slim ◽  
Flora Badon ◽  
Charles-Hervé Vacheron ◽  
Chadli Dziri ◽  
Thomas Marquillier
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Surgical Site Infections ◽  
Visceral Surgery ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionImmunonutrition (IN) is generally used before major visceral surgery with the intent to reduce postoperative complications, especially infectious ones. However, the conclusions of published meta-analyses are conflicting. The purpose of this review is to synthesise the data of published systematic reviews on the effectiveness of IN.Methods and analysisThis protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols guidelines. This is an umbrella review of systematic reviews comparing IN (delivered orally 5–7 days preoperatively) with normal diet or isocaloric isonitrogenous feeding before visceral surgery performed on any of several viscera (colorectum, stomach, pancreas, liver, oesophagus). We search the systematic reviews included in the main bibliographic databases. To assess the efficacy of IN, several outcomes will be considered: the main outcome is infectious complications (surgical site infections, pulmonary infections or urinary infections) and secondary outcomes are overall morbidity, hospital length of stay and mortality. Identified reviews will be screened by two independent assessors. The methodological quality of relevant included reviews will be assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. The data extracted from included reviews will be synthesised using the r-Metafor package considering separate groups according to the viscus of interest. Publication bias will be evaluated, and subgroup analyses will be performed according to the quality of studies and preoperative nutritional status.Ethics and disseminationAn umbrella review based on published data from systematic reviews needs no ethical approval. Furthermore, no patient will be involved in the review. Once terminated, the review will be submitted for publication in an open access journal to ensure wide dissemination of the findings.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021255177.

A Systematic Review of Feeding Interventions for Infants with Cleft Palate

2021 ◽  
pp. 105566562110512
Author(s):  
Cameron Penny ◽  
Connor McGuire ◽  
Michael Bezuhly
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cleft Palate ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Delivery Systems ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
Feeding Difficulties ◽  
Feeding Interventions

Objective Various devices and techniques have been proposed to reduce feeding difficulties experienced by infants with cleft palate. The aim of this review is to identify and assess the scope and quality of evidence for these interventions. Methods A systematic review of published literature evaluating feeding interventions for infants with cleft palate (with or without cleft lip) from database inception to 2021 was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Quality appraisal of included studies was conducted using a methodological index for nonrandomized studies, Cochrane, or a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews 2 instruments, according to study type. Results Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria, with the majority (71%) of studies consisting of second-level evidence. Included interventions were specialty bottles (21%), alternative feeding delivery systems (14%), obturators (14%), and educational programs (14%). Specialty bottles and palatal obturators did not appear to offer any substantial growth advantages compared to traditional bottles or no intervention, respectively. Designated education programs for the mothers of infants with clefts had a positive impact on infant growth. Conclusions Overall evidence evaluating feeding interventions for infants with cleft palate was moderate to low. While it does not appear that specialized feeding delivery systems or palatal obturators significantly improve growth in infants with clefts compared to children without cleft conditions, education programs do appear to be beneficial.

scholarly journals Quality of the Evidence Supporting the Role of Oral Nutritional Supplements in the Management of Malnutrition: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Baldwin ◽  
Rosemary Smith ◽  
Michelle Gibbs ◽  
C Elizabeth Weekes ◽  
Peter W Emery
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Hospital Readmissions ◽  
Nutritional Supplement ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Oral Nutritional Supplements ◽  
Meta Analyses

ABSTRACT There is considerable heterogeneity across the findings of systematic reviews of oral nutritional supplement (ONS) interventions, presenting difficulties for healthcare decision-makers and patients alike. It is not known whether heterogeneity arises from differences in patient populations or relates to methodological rigor. This overview aimed to collate and compare findings from systematic reviews of ONSs compared with routine care in adult patients who were malnourished or at risk of malnutrition with any clinical condition and to examine their methodological quality. Three electronic databases were searched to July 2019, supplemented with hand-searching. Data on all outcomes were extracted and review methodological quality assessed using A MeaSurement Tool for Assessment of systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Twenty-two reviews were included, 11 in groups from mixed clinical backgrounds and 11 in specific clinical conditions. Ninety-one meta-analyses were identified for 12 different outcomes but there was discordance between results. Significant benefits of ONSs were reported in 4 of 4 analyses of energy intake, 7 of 11 analyses of body weight, 7 of 22 analyses of mortality, 10 of 17 analyses of complications (total and infectious), 1 of 3 analyses of muscle strength, 4 of 9 analyses of body composition/nutritional status, 2 of 14 analyses of length of stay, and 2 of 5 analyses of hospital readmissions. Ten reviews were high quality (AMSTAR scores 8–11), 9 moderate (AMSTAR scores 3–8), and 3 poor (AMSTAR scores 0–3). Methodological deficiencies were limitations to searches, poor reporting of heterogeneity, and failure to incorporate quality of evidence into any recommendations. Discordance between reviews was not markedly reduced when only high-quality reviews were considered. Evidence for the effects of ONS in malnourished patients or those who are at risk of malnutrition is uncertain, and discordance in results can arise from differences in clinical background of patients or the etiological basis of malnutrition.

scholarly journals Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: protocol for umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e033634
Author(s):  
Luigi Marano ◽  
Daniele Fusario ◽  
Vinno Savelli ◽  
Luigi Verre ◽  
Alessandro Neri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Laparoscopic Gastrectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Robotic Approach ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionLaparoscopic surgery has been adopted in some parts of the world as an innovative approach to the resection of gastric cancers. However, in the modern era of surgical oncology, to overcome intrinsic limitations of the traditional laparoscopy, the robotic approach is advocated as able to facilitate the lymph node dissection and complex reconstruction after gastrectomy, to assure oncologic safety also in advanced gastric cancer patients. Previous meta-analyses highlighted a lower complication rate as well as bleeding in the robotic approach group when compared with the laparoscopic one. This potential benefit must be balanced against an increased time of intervention. The aim of this umbrella review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature for surgeons and policymakers in order to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared with the laparoscopic approach for gastric cancer.Methods and analysisWe will perform a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for all articles published up to May 2019 and reference list of relevant publications for systematic review and meta-analyses comparing the outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. Studies will be selected by two independent reviewers based on prespecified eligibility criteria and the quality will be assessed according to AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) checklist. All information will be collected using piloted and standardised data-extraction forms in DistillerSR developed following the Joanna Briggs Institute’s recommended extraction items.Ethics and disseminationThis umbrella review will inform clinical and policy decisions regarding the benefits and harms of RG for treating gastric cancer. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and the popular press. Formal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019139906.

scholarly journals Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review

10.2196/19099 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. e19099
Author(s):  
Ben Patel ◽  
Arron Thind
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Validated Questionnaire ◽  
System Usability Scale ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Mhealth Apps

Background Mobile health (mHealth) apps are increasingly used postoperatively to monitor, educate, and rehabilitate. The usability of mHealth apps is critical to their implementation. Objective This systematic review evaluates the (1) methodology of usability analyses, (2) domains of usability being assessed, and (3) results of usability analyses. Methods The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews checklist was consulted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was adhered to. Screening was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers. All included studies were assessed for risk of bias. Domains of usability were compared with the gold-standard mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ). Results A total of 33 of 720 identified studies were included for data extraction. Of the 5 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), usability was never the primary end point. Methodology of usability analyses included interview (10/33), self-created questionnaire (18/33), and validated questionnaire (9/33). Of the 3 domains of usability proposed in the MAUQ, satisfaction was assessed in 28 of the 33 studies, system information arrangement was assessed in 11 of the 33 studies, and usefulness was assessed in 18 of the 33 studies. Usability of mHealth apps was above industry average, with median System Usability Scale scores ranging from 76 to 95 out of 100. Conclusions Current analyses of mHealth app usability are substandard. RCTs are rare, and validated questionnaires are infrequently consulted. Of the 3 domains of usability, only satisfaction is regularly assessed. There is significant bias throughout the literature, particularly with regards to conflicts of interest. Future studies should adhere to the MAUQ to assess usability and improve the utility of mHealth apps.

scholarly journals Eficacia de las intervenciones farmacológicas para el tratamiento de la COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-87
Author(s):  
Ana García Sura ◽  
Oscar Mauricio Caballero Calderón
Keyword(s):  
England Journal ◽  
New England ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Interferon Α2b

Introducción. A pesar de la elevada morbimortalidad por coronavirus 19 aún no existe un tratamiento eficaz para abordarla. Objetivo. Establecer la eficacia de las intervenciones farmacológicas en el tratamiento de adultos con diagnóstico de enfermedad por coronavirus en cualquier fase. Metodología. Mediante una revisión exploratoria, se examinaron publicaciones has-ta el 21 de enero de 2021 por una búsqueda en MEDLINE, Cochrane, me-dRxiv, New England Journal vía PubMed. Se analizaron fármacos reducto-res de la actividad viral, corticoides, terapia relacionada al sistema inmune para evaluar los desenlaces de supervivencia, ventilación mecánica, estan-cia hospitalaria y seguridad tras su aplicación a pacientes en fase leve, mo-derada y/o grave de la enfermedad. Se priorizaron ensayos clínicos contro-lados y aleatorizados, cuyo riesgo de sesgo se determinó con Newcastle-Ottawa y A measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2. Resultados. Se comprobó que el Interferon-α2b disminuye la duración de elimina-ción del virus y los marcadores inflamatorios. En la terapia autoinmune, el tocilizumab mostró leve eficacia al administrarlo de forma única, sin embar-go, combinado con dexametasona potencia su efecto. Conclusión. A un año de la pandemia por coronavirus 19 no hay evidencia concluyente sobre su terapia. Se ha comprobado cierta eficacia del Interferon-α2b inhalado, así como del tocilizumab y la dexametasona en administración única o combinada.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document