scholarly journals Evaluation of Quality Assessment Tools for Non-Randomised Controlled Trials Assessing Surgical Interventions: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. A722
Author(s):  
UB Nurmatov ◽  
T Xiong ◽  
MA Kroes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Pharmacotherapeutic Options for Managing Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Giulia Di Stefano ◽  
Andrea Di Lionardo ◽  
Giuseppe Di Pietro ◽  
Giorgio Cruccu ◽  
Andrea Truini
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Fatty Acid Amide Hydrolase ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Acid Amide ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Despite an increasing number of available therapies, the treatment of neuropathic pain remains a major issue. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses indicate that only a minority of patients with neuropathic pain have an adequate response to pharmacological treatment and that most drugs have dose-limiting side effects. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials published in the last five years. We searched for relevant papers within PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Clinical Trials database (ClinicalTrials.gov). Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, data extraction, and bias assessment. We identified 39 randomised controlled trials and included 16 in the meta-analysis. Trial outcomes were generally modest even for first-line drugs such as tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, and gabapentinoids. Many drugs acting on new pain targets are currently under development. Clinical data are currently available for sodium channel isoform-specific antagonists, anti-nerve growth factor molecules, and fatty acid amide hydrolase inhibitors.

scholarly journals Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomised controlled trials in diabetes and pregnancy: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e052506
Author(s):  
Christine Newman ◽  
Oratile Kgosidialwa ◽  
Louise Dervan ◽  
Delia Bogdanet ◽  
Aoife Maria Egan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Medical Subject Headings ◽  
Metabolic Complication ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionDiabetes mellitus is the most common metabolic complication of pregnancy and its prevalence worldwide is rising. The number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) being conducted in people with diabetes is also increasing. Many studies preferentially publish findings on clinical endpoints and do not report patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In studies that do include PROs, PRO reporting is often of poor quality.MethodsWe will conduct this systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Using a combination of medical subject headings and keywords (combined using Boolean operators), we will search web-based databases (PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE) for RCTs published in English between 2013 and 2021. Two reviewers will review titles and abstracts. We will review the full texts of any relevant abstracts and extract the following data: date of publication or recruitment period, journal of publication, country of study, multicentre or single centre, population and number of participants, type of intervention, frequency of PRO assessment and type of PRO (or PRO measurement) used. We will also record if the PRO was a primary, secondary or exploratory outcome. We will exclude reviews, observational studies, unpublished data for example, conference abstracts and trial protocols. Any published RCT that includes data on a PRO as a primary or secondary outcome will then be compared against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials—Patient-Reported Outcome extension checklist, a structured and approved framework for the publication of results of PROs.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval to conduct this study was obtained from the ethics committee at Galway University Hospitals on 24 March 2021 (CA 2592). We aim to publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present our findings at national and international conferences.Systematic review registrationThis systematic review was registered prospectively with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Registration number CRD42021234917.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of levetiracetam in children with epilepsy: protocol for an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. e029811 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Gan ◽  
Dan Ma ◽  
Tao Xiong
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Paediatric Epilepsy

IntroductionEpilepsy causes serious suffering in children and is associated with high morbidity and increased mortality. It impairs children’s quality of life and places a heavy burden on healthcare resources. Levetiracetam has been used to prevent and treat paediatric epilepsy for years. To date, a number of systematic reviews have been performed to assess the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam in a variety of clinical settings. Conflicting outcomes have been reported for the same clinical issues. Our objective is to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature for clinicians and policymakers via an umbrella review that assesses the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam in children with epilepsy.Methods and analysisWe will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute’s guidelines for umbrella reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. The following seven databases will be searched from 1990 to February 2019: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, JBISRIR, EPPI, Epistemonikos and PROSPERO. We will provide evidence from existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials regarding the use of levetiracetam in children with epilepsy. The intervention of interest is levetiracetam monotherapy and add-on therapies for prevention or treatment purposes. Studies will be individually selected and assessed by two reviewers. The primary outcomes of interest are epilepsy control, the efficacy of prophylaxis for provoked seizures and the mortality rate of children with epilepsy who received levetiracetam treatment. The secondary outcomes are adverse events and withdrawal rates due to adverse effects. The methodological quality of all reviews will be individually assessed by two reviewers using the ‘A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews’ instrument. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment will be applied to evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. A narrative description of an analysis of the systematic reviews will be tabulated to address objective and specific questions. Information from each review will be detailed in a table including the population, number of studies, total number of participants, year range of the trials, study designs of the primary trials, countries and settings of the trials, heterogeneity of results and assessment tools. Recommendations regarding each outcome of levetiracetam will be categorised based on a protocol.Ethics and disseminationThis umbrella review will inform clinical and policy decisions regarding the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam for preventing and treating paediatric epilepsy. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. Ethical approval is not required for this study.

scholarly journals Interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness during COVID-19 physical distancing measures: A rapid systematic review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0247139
Author(s):  
Christopher Y. K. Williams ◽  
Adam T. Townson ◽  
Milan Kapur ◽  
Alice F. Ferreira ◽  
Rebecca Nunn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Social Isolation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Social Distancing ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background A significant proportion of the worldwide population is at risk of social isolation and loneliness as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to identify effective interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness that are compatible with COVID-19 shielding and social distancing measures. Methods and findings In this rapid systematic review, we searched six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SCOPUS) from inception to April 2020 for systematic reviews appraising interventions for loneliness and/or social isolation. Primary studies from those reviews were eligible if they included: 1) participants in a non-hospital setting; 2) interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness that would be feasible during COVID-19 shielding measures; 3) a relevant control group; and 4) quantitative measures of social isolation, social support or loneliness. At least two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Downs and Black checklist. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020178654. We identified 45 RCTs and 13 non-randomised controlled trials; none were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The nature, type, and potential effectiveness of interventions varied greatly. Effective interventions for loneliness include psychological therapies such as mindfulness, lessons on friendship, robotic pets, and social facilitation software. Few interventions improved social isolation. Overall, 37 of 58 studies were of “Fair” quality, as measured by the Downs & Black checklist. The main study limitations identified were the inclusion of studies of variable quality; the applicability of our findings to the entire population; and the current poor understanding of the types of loneliness and isolation experienced by different groups affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions Many effective interventions involved cognitive or educational components, or facilitated communication between peers. These interventions may require minor modifications to align with COVID-19 shielding/social distancing measures. Future high-quality randomised controlled trials conducted under shielding/social distancing constraints are urgently needed.

scholarly journals Recruitment strategies in randomised controlled trials of men aged 50 years and older: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e025580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Bracken ◽  
Lisa Askie ◽  
Anthony C Keech ◽  
Wendy Hague ◽  
Gary Wittert
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Statistical Testing ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Recruitment Strategies ◽  
Cost Study ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo identify and review evaluations of strategies to recruit men aged 50 years and over to randomised controlled trials (RCTs).DesignSystematic review and narrative synthesis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and ORRCA databases were searched to 1 December 2017.Eligibility criteriaStudies using quantitative methods to evaluate recruitment strategies to RCTs of men aged 50 years and older.Data extraction and synthesisA single reviewer extracted data (for each strategy, number of participants approached, screened and randomised, and cost). Study quality was assessed using National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Quality Assessment Tools and considered study design, description of interventions, description and measurement of outcomes, completeness of outcome reporting, performance of statistical testing and consideration of confounders. Recruitment strategies were categorised by the recruitment stage they addressed.ResultsSixteen studies (n >14 000) were included: one good quality, ten fair quality and five poor quality. Studies evaluated strategies to identify prospective participants, and to improve the processes for assessing participant eligibility, providing participant information and seeking consent. In good and fair quality studies, the most effective strategies for identifying participants were referral from an affiliated health service provider (two studies), mass mailing (five studies) and media coverage (two studies). Community outreach activities such as displaying posters and attending local community events were not effective (two studies). Trial-specific training of site recruitment staff, developed using qualitative analysis of recruitment visits (two studies), and provision of study information to prospective participants at a multidisciplinary, group information session (one study) both improved recruitment.ConclusionImproved engagement of men aged 50 years and older in RCTs is needed. A gender-sensitised approach to RCT recruitment may help to address this need. We have identified several promising recruitment strategies that merit further evaluation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017060301.

Randomised controlled trials of homeopathy in humans: characterising the research journal literature for systematic review

Homeopathy ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 102 (01) ◽  
pp. 3-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Hacke ◽  
Jürgen Clausen ◽  
Ton Nicolai ◽  
David S. Riley ◽  
Peter Fisher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Journal Literature ◽  
Homeopathic Treatment ◽  
Research Journal ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Journal Papers

Introduction: A new programme of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in homeopathy will distinguish important attributes of RCT records, including: placebo controlled versus other-than-placebo (OTP) controlled; individualised versus non-individualised homeopathy; peer-reviewed (PR) versus non peer-reviewed (NPR) sources. Aims: (a) To outline the methods used to search and categorise the RCT literature; (b) to report details of the records retrieved; (c) to compare our retrieved records with those reported in two previous systematic reviews (Linde et al., 1997; Shang et al., 2005). Methods: Ten major electronic databases were searched for records published up to the end of 2011. A record was accepted for subsequent systematic review if it was a substantive report of a clinical trial of homeopathic treatment or prophylaxis in humans, randomised and controlled, and published in a PR or NPR journal. Results: 489 records were potentially eligible: 226 were rejected as non-journal, minor or repeat publications, or lacking randomisation and/or controls and/or a ‘homeopathic’ intervention; 263 (164 PR, 99 NPR) were acceptable for systematic review. The 263 accepted records comprised 217 (137 PR, 80 NPR) placebo-controlled RCTs, of which 121 were included by, 66 were published after, and 30 were potentially eligible for, but not listed by, Linde or Shang. The 137 PR records of placebo-controlled RCTs comprise 41 on individualised homeopathy and 96 on non-individualised homeopathy. Conclusion: Our findings clarify the RCT literature in homeopathy. The 263 accepted journal papers will be the basis for our forthcoming programme of systematic reviews.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document