scholarly journals The effects of radiofrequency exposure on male fertility and adverse reproductive outcomes: A protocol for two systematic reviews of human observational studies with meta-analysis

2022 ◽  
Vol 158 ◽  
pp. 106968
Author(s):  
Ryan P.W. Kenny ◽  
Evelyn Barron Millar ◽  
Adenike Adesanya ◽  
Catherine Richmond ◽  
Fiona Beyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Male Fertility ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reproductive Outcomes

scholarly journals A Mixed-Methods Approach to Synthesizing Evidence on Mediators of Intervention Effects

2011 ◽  
Vol 33 (7) ◽  
pp. 870-900 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Leeman ◽  
YunKyung Chang ◽  
Corrine I. Voils ◽  
Jamie L. Crandell ◽  
Margarete Sandelowski
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Behavioral Change ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Intervention Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intervention Effects ◽  
Mediation Effects ◽  
Mixed Methods Approach ◽  
Using Data

Greater understanding of the mechanisms (mediators) by which behavioral-change interventions work is critical to developing theory and refining interventions. Although systematic reviews have been advocated as a method for exploring mediators, this is rarely done. One challenge is that intervention researchers typically test only two paths of the mediational model: the effect of the intervention on mediators and on outcomes. The authors addressed this challenge by drawing information not only from intervention studies but also from observational studies that provide data on associations between potential mediators and outcomes. They also reviewed qualitative studies of participants’ perceptions of why and how interventions worked. Using data from intervention ( n = 37) and quantitative observational studies ( n = 55), the authors conducted a meta-analysis of the mediation effects of eight variables. Qualitative findings ( n = 6) contributed to more in-depth explanations for findings. The methods used have potential to contribute to understanding of core mechanisms of behavioral-change interventions.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 6. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies

2008 ◽  
Vol 5;12 (5;9) ◽  
pp. 819-850
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Confounding Bias ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

Observational studies provide an important source of information when randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cannot or should not be undertaken, provided that the data are analyzed and interpreted with special attention to bias. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) stresses the examination of evidence from clinical research and describes it as a shift in medical paradigm, in contrast to intuition, unsystematic clinical experience, and pathophysiologic rationale. While the importance of randomized trials has been created by the concept of the hierarchy of evidence in guiding therapy, much of the medical research is observational. The reporting of observational research is often not detailed and clear enough with insufficient quality and poor reporting, which hampers the assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the study and the generalizability of the mixed results. Thus, in recent years, progress and innovations in health care are measured by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, “the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, clinical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic.” Meta-analysis usually is the final step in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are labor intensive, requiring expertise in both the subject matter and review methodology, and also must follow the rules of EBM which suggests that a formal set of rules must complement medical training and common sense for clinicians to integrate the results of clinical research effectively. While expertise in the review methods is important, the expertise in the subject matter and technical components is also crucial. Even though, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, specifically of RCTs, have exploded, the quality of the systematic reviews is highly variable and consequently, the opinions reached of the same studies are quite divergent. Numerous deficiencies have been described in methodologic assessment of the quality of the individual articles. Consequently, observational studies can provide an important complementary source of information, provided that the data are analyzed and interpreted in the context of confounding bias to which they are prone. Appropriate systematic reviews of observational studies, in conjunction with RCTs, may provide the basis for elimination of a dangerous discrepancy between the experts and the evidence. Steps in conducting systematic reviews of observational studies include planning, conducting, reporting, and disseminating the results. MOOSE, or Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, a proposal for reporting contains specifications including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the MOOSE checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analysis for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision-makers. This manuscript describes systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Authors frequently utilize RCTs and observational studies in one systematic review; thus, they should also follow the reporting standards of the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement, which also provides a checklist. A combined approach of QUOROM and MOOSE will improve reporting of systematic reviews and lead to progress and innovations in health care. Key words: Observational studies, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, metaanalysis, randomized trials, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, confounding bias, QUOROM, MOOSE

scholarly journals REGISTERING AND REPORTING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 122-126
Author(s):  
Pallavi Patro ◽  
Durga Prasanna Misra
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Literature Searches ◽  
Review Question ◽  
Based Medicine

Systematic reviews are considered as the highest rung in the ladder of evidence-based medicine. They are bound by a pre-defined structure and requirement for extensive literature searches, when compared with the more liberal format of narrative reviews. Systematic review protocols should ideally be pre-registered to avoid duplication or redundancy. After defining clear review question(s), thorough literature searches form the basis of systematic reviews. Presentation of results should be qualitative or quantitative (meta-analysis) if the data is homogenous enough to permit pooling across multiple studies. Quality of individual studies by Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool for interventional studies and other suitable scales for observational studies, as well as appropriate assessment of publication bias are recommended. Certainty of outcomes should be assessed by the GRADE profiler. Finally, systematic reviews should conclude with recommendations for future research, based on their findings.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Percutaneous Adhesiolysis in Managing Chronic Central Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (22;6) ◽  
pp. E523-E550
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Background: Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is a condition affecting a growing number of individuals resulting in significant disability and pain, leading to a multitude of interventions ranging from simple over the counter medication to opioids, and, finally, to complex surgical fusions. After failure of conservative treatment with drug therapy, physical therapy, and other conservative modalities including epidural injections, percutaneous adhesiolysis with targeted delivery of drugs into the epidural space can be offered in lumbar central spinal stenosis prior to minimally invasive surgical options or complex surgical fusions. To date there has been only one systematic review which has assessed the role of percutaneous adhesiolysis in treating central spinal stenosis, compared to post lumbar surgery syndrome which has multiple systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Study Design: A systematic review of RCTs and observational studies assessing the role of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing lumbar central spinal stenosis. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing central lumbar spinal stenosis, utilizing currently available literature. Methods: This systematic review was performed utilizing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for literature search, Cochrane review criteria, Interventional Pain Management techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPMQRB), and Interventional Pain Management Techniques – Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) to assess methodologic quality assessment and qualitative analysis utilizing best evidence synthesis principles, and meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1966 through June 2019. The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of the best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome or hard endpoint was defined as the proportion of patients with 50% pain relief and improvement in functionality, whereas the secondary outcome measures or soft endpoints were pain relief and/or improvement in functionality. Short-term effectiveness was defined as improvement of 6 months or less, whereas long-term effectiveness was defined as more than 6 months. Results: Based on search criteria, 9 manuscripts were identified and considered for inclusion with final inclusion of 2 RCTs and 4 observational studies in this systematic review and 5 studies for single arm meta-analysis. The results showed Level II evidence for short-term and long-term improvement in pain and function with application of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing central lumbar spinal stenosis. Limitations: There was a significant paucity of evidence assessing the role of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing lumbar central spinal stenosis, leading to Level II or moderate evidence.Conclusion: Overall, the present analysis shows Level II (moderate) evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing lumbar central spinal stenosis based on relevant high quality RCTs and observational studies. Key Words: Lumbar central spinal stenosis, percutaneous adhesiolysis, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, neuroplasty

scholarly journals Asociación de riesgo entre periodontitis y preeclampsia. una revisión sistemática retrospectiva

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e422101019200
Author(s):  
Andrés Santiago Cáceres Alvear ◽  
Damián Alejandro Garcés García ◽  
Cristina Paola Carpio Cedillo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Revisión Sistemática

Objetivo. La presente revisión sistemática tiene como finalidad evaluar la literatura disponible sobre la asociación de riesgo entre periodontitis y preeclampsia. Metodología. Se realizó una búsqueda de artículos científicos que estudiaron la asociación entre periodontitis y preeclampsia, se utilizaron como motores de búsqueda las plataformas MEDLINE (PubMed) y Scopus, se seleccionaron estudios de tipo caso-control que reportaron resultados como el OR (Odds ratio), definiciones claras y criterios de diagnóstico adecuados para periodontitis y preeclampsia. La revisión se realizó de acuerdo con las directrices PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta analysis). Además, para controlar la calidad de los estudios incluidos se utilizó la declaración STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology). Resultados. Aplicados los criterios de inclusión y exclusión se obtuvieron 15 estudios caso-control que fueron incluidos en la revisión. De los 15 estudios incluidos, 13 (86,67%) transmisión una asociación positiva entre la periodontitis y el desarrollo de preeclampsia. La edad, la paridad y el tabaquismo fueron las variables más controladas en cada estudio. Conclusión. La periodontitis fue un factor de riesgo para preeclampsia, enfatizando la importancia de la atención periodontal en los programas prenatales. Registro de revisión sistemática: PROSPERO CRD42020205855.

scholarly journals The prevalence and risk factors of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among adults in Ethiopia: a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsiwaye Gebreyesus ◽  
Kalkidan Nigussie ◽  
Moges Gashaw Getnet ◽  
Balamurugan Janakiraman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽  
Musculoskeletal Pain ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Work Related Musculoskeletal Disorders

Abstract Background: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders imposes a significant and most often underappreciated burden to the individual, nation, healthcare system, and society as a whole. A preliminary literature search suggests that there are at present no reliable estimates on the total prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in Ethiopia. Further, in Ethiopia, the cloud of infectious and other non-communicable diseases has led to a lack of attention towards work-related musculoskeletal disorders, empirical under-representation, and possible human capital loss. The objective of this protocol is to present a transparent process for how to review the existing literature on the prevalence rates and determinant factors of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in Ethiopia.Method: The proposed methodology is based on Preferred Reporting Systematic Reviews and Protocols (PRISMA-P) statements on the conduct of systematic review and meta-analysis and the MOOSE guidelines for Meta-analysis and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies. The electronic databases MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, Science Direct index, SCOPUS, PEDro, PsyINFO, Embase, Ebsco, and Google Scholar will be systematically searched. Besides, the grey literature resources such as databases or websites of dissertations and theses will be searched. The reference list of screened articles will also be hand searched. All observational studies reporting on the prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal pain of any bodily region among adult Ethiopians will be included. Random and quality effects models will be used to calculate pooled prevalence with a 95 % confidence interval. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed. Publication bias and heterogeneity between the included studies will also be assessed and reported.Discussion: The proposed systematic review and meta-analysis will provide valid insight into the pooled prevalence of multi-regional work-related musculoskeletal pain and factors associated. The consensus of data from this review will surely help the policymakers in occupational health and health care sectors in identifying priority areas for interventions in work-related musculoskeletal disorders and will also serve as a baseline for the decision-making processes of musculoskeletal health promotion, work exposure implementations, and prevention programs in workplaces.

scholarly journals Effect of Nicotine Replacement Therapy on Mortality, Delirium, and Duration of Therapy in Critically Ill Smokers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 556-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. T. Ng ◽  
M. Gillies ◽  
D. M. Griffith
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Replacement Therapy ◽  
Nicotine Replacement Therapy ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Icu Mortality ◽  
Nicotine Replacement

Nicotine replacement therapy is widely used in critically ill smokers and its effect on delirium, mortality and duration of intensive care unit (ICU) admission is unknown. The aims of this review were to determine whether the management of nicotine withdrawal with nicotine replacement therapy reduces delirium, mortality or length of stay in critically ill smokers in ICU. The primary outcome was incidence of author-defined ICU delirium. Secondary outcomes were ICU or hospital mortality, ICU-free days at day 28, and ICU or hospital length of stay. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for randomised controlled trials and observational studies. Clinical trials, observational studies and systematic reviews comparing nicotine replacement therapy with placebo or no treatment were included. Case reports, case series, non-systematic reviews and studies that involved children were excluded. Eight studies were eligible (n=2,636) for inclusion in the data synthesis. In a meta-analysis of observational studies, nicotine replacement therapy was associated with increased delirium (three studies; n=908; I2=0%; finite element method: odds ratio 4.03 [95% confidence interval 2.64, 6.15]; P <0.001). There was no difference in ICU mortality (three studies; n=1,309; P=0.10, I2=44%; finite element method: odds ratio 0.58; 95% confidence intervals 0.31– 1.10) and hospital mortality or 28-day ICU-free days. In the absence of high-quality data, nicotine replacement therapy cannot currently be recommended for routine use to prevent delirium or to reduce hospital or ICU mortality in critically ill smokers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document