scholarly journals Does an increased intake of added sugar affect appetite in overweight or obese adults, when compared with lower intakes? A systematic review of the literature

2018 ◽  
Vol 121 (2) ◽  
pp. 232-240
Author(s):  
Kayla Thornhill ◽  
Karen Charlton ◽  
Yasmine Probst ◽  
Elizabeth Neale
Keyword(s):  
Energy Intake ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Sugar Consumption ◽  
Obese Adults ◽  
Added Sugar ◽  
Sugar Intake ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractChanges in added sugar intake have been associated with corresponding changes in body weight. Potential mechanisms, particularly the impact of added sugar intake on appetite, warrant exploration. A systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials investigated the association between added sugar consumption and appetite in overweight and obese adults. A systematic search of Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science and CINAHL included studies that examined the relationship between added sugar intake and appetite markers, in comparison with a group with lower added sugar intake. A total of twenty-one articles describing nineteen studies were included in the review. The effect of added sugar on appetite was explored separately by reported comparisons of added sugar type and their effect to three study outcomes: energy consumption (n20 comparisons); satiety (n18); and appetite hormones, leptin (n4) or ghrelin (n7). Increased added sugar consumption did not impact subsequent energy intake (n9), nor did it influence satiety (n12) or ghrelin levels (n4). Differences in the total daily energy intake were comparable with the differences in energy values of tested products (n3). Added sugar intake was reported to increase leptin levels (n3). This review did not find a consistent relationship between added sugar intake and appetite measures, which may be partially explained by variations in study methodologies. There is a need for randomised controlled trials examining a range of added sugar sources and doses on appetite in overweight and obese adults to better understand implications for weight gain.

scholarly journals Recruiting hard-to-reach pregnant women at high psychosocial risk: strategies and costs from a randomised controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice MacLachlan ◽  
Karen Crawford ◽  
Shona Shinwell ◽  
Catherine Nixon ◽  
Marion Henderson
Keyword(s):  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Recruitment Strategies ◽  
Recruitment Activities ◽  
Research Nurses ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Recruiting participants to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often challenging, particularly when working with socially disadvantaged populations who are often termed ‘hard-to-reach’ in research. Here we report the recruitment strategies and costs for the Trial for Healthy Relationship Initiatives in the Very Early years (THRIVE), an RCT evaluating two group-based parenting interventions for pregnant women. Methods THRIVE aimed to recruit 500 pregnant women with additional health and social care needs in Scotland between 2014 and 2018. Three recruitment strategies were employed: (1) referrals from a health or social care practitioner or voluntary/community organisation (practitioner-led referral), (2) direct engagement with potential participants by research staff (researcher-led recruitment) and (3) self-referral in response to study advertising (self-referral). The number of referrals and recruited participants from each strategy is reported along with the overall cost of recruitment. The impact of recruitment activities and the changes in maternity policy/context on recruitment throughout the study are examined. Results THRIVE received 973 referrals: 684 (70%) from practitioners (mainly specialist and general midwives), 273 (28%) from research nurses and 16 (2%) self-referrals. The time spent in antenatal clinics by research nurses each month was positively correlated with the number of referrals received (r = 0.57; p < 0.001). Changes in maternity policies and contexts were reflected in the number of referrals received each month, with both positive and negative impacts throughout the trial. Overall, 50% of referred women were recruited to the trial. Women referred via self-referral, THRIVE research nurses and specialist midwives were most likely to go on to be recruited (81%, 58% and 57%, respectively). Key contributors to recruitment included engaging key groups of referrers, establishing a large flexible workforce to enable recruitment activities to adapt to changes in context throughout the study and identifying the most appropriate setting to engage with potential participants. The overall cost of recruitment was £377 per randomised participant. Conclusions Recruitment resulted from a combination of all three strategies. Our reflections on the successes and challenges of these strategies highlight the need for recruitment strategies to be flexible to adapt to complex interventions and real-world challenges. These findings will inform future research in similar hard-to-reach populations. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number Registry ISRCTN21656568. Retrospectively registered on 28 February 2014

scholarly journals Vitamin D deficiency and depression in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

2013 ◽  
Vol 202 (2) ◽  
pp. 100-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca E. S. Anglin ◽  
Zainab Samaan ◽  
Stephen D. Walter ◽  
Sarah D. McDonald
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Vitamin D ◽  
Vitamin D Deficiency ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cross Sectional Studies ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Relationship

BackgroundThere is conflicting evidence about the relationship between vitamin D deficiency and depression, and a systematic assessment of the literature has not been available.AimsTo determine the relationship, if any, between vitamin D deficiency and depression.MethodA systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomised controlled trials was conducted.ResultsOne case-control study, ten cross-sectional studies and three cohort studies with a total of 31 424 participants were analysed. Lower vitamin D levels were found in people with depression compared with controls (SMD = 0.60,95% Cl 0.23–0.97) and there was an increased odds ratio of depression for the lowest v. highest vitamin D categories in the cross-sectional studies (OR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.0–1.71). The cohort studies showed a significantly increased hazard ratio of depression for the lowest v. highest vitamin D categories (HR=2.21, 95% CI 1.40–3.49).ConclusionsOur analyses are consistent with the hypothesis that low vitamin D concentration is associated with depression, and highlight the need for randomised controlled trials of vitamin D for the prevention and treatment of depression to determine whether this association is causal.

scholarly journals The impact of psychosocial interventions on condom and contraceptive use in LMICs: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 1182-1199
Author(s):  
Elena M. C. Riedel ◽  
David T. Turner ◽  
Loulou Hassan Kobeissi ◽  
Eirini Karyotaki ◽  
Lale Say ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Contraceptive Use ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Psychosocial Interventions ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews

BMJ ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 340 (feb15 1) ◽  
pp. c365-c365 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. J Kirkham ◽  
K. M Dwan ◽  
D. G Altman ◽  
C. Gamble ◽  
S. Dodd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Reporting Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Outcome Reporting Bias ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Cannulation Technique of Vascular Access in Haemodialysis and the Impact on the Arteriovenous Fistula Survival: Protocol of Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (23) ◽  
pp. 12554
Author(s):  
Ricardo Peralta ◽  
Luís Sousa ◽  
António Filipe Cristóvão
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Arteriovenous Fistula ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Primary Patency ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cannulation Technique ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Background: Based on a literature review of various studies, comparisons between BH and RL are inconclusive regarding some outcomes. However, in the last 5 years, some studies have been published that may contribute to clarifying which cannulation technique (CT) allows better fistula survival. Aim: To review which cannulation technique allows better primary patency of the arteriovenous fistula in haemodialysis patients. Methods: We will include all randomised controlled trials and observational studies that include comparisons among CTs and thus define the benefits and risks of each CT. A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed in accordance with the quality and homogeneity of studies. A comprehensive search strategy will be applied to the CINAHL, MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from January 2000 to September 2021. The primary outcome is the arteriovenous fistula primary patency. To assess the risk of bias in randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies, we will use the tool Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB 2). For nonrandomised studies, the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) will be used. Discussion: The evidence generated from this systematic review of current evidence could inform the design and implementation of continuous quality improvement programs in cannulation techniques in haemodialysis patients, as well as contributing to improving the curricula within haemodialysis courses. This protocol was registered with the National Institute for Health Research PROSPERO database prior to commencement (registration number CRD42021237050).

scholarly journals Embedding qualitative research in randomised controlled trials to improve recruitment: findings from two recruitment optimisation studies of orthopaedic surgical trials.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arabella Scantlebury ◽  
Catriona McDaid ◽  
Stephen Brealey ◽  
Elizabeth Cook ◽  
Arun Ranganathan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Surgical Trials ◽  
Patient Pathways ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Recruitment of patients is one of the main challenges when designing and conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Trials of rare injuries, or those that include surgical interventions pose added challenges due to the small number of potentially eligible patients and issues with patient preferences and surgeon equipoise. We explore key issues to consider when recruiting to orthopaedic surgical trials from the perspective of staff and patients with the aim of informing the development of strategies to improve recruitment in future research. Design: Two qualitative process evaluations of a United Kingdom-wide orthopaedic surgical RCT (ACTIVE) and mixed methods randomised feasibility study (PRESTO). Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted and data was analysed thematically. Setting: NHS secondary care organisations throughout the United Kingdom. Interviews were undertaken via telephone. Participants: 37 trial recruiters (surgeons, physiotherapists, research nurses) and 22 patients were interviewed. Patients included those who agreed to participate in the ACTIVE and PRESTO studies and patients that declined participation in the ACTIVE study. Results: We used a mixed methods systematic review of recruiting patients to randomised controlled trials as a framework for reporting and analysing our findings. Our findings mapped onto those identified in the systematic review and highlighted the importance of equipoise, randomisation, communication, patient’s circumstances, altruism and trust in clinical and research teams. Our findings also emphasised the importance of considering how eligibility criteria are operationalised and the impact of complex patient pathways when recruiting to surgical trials. In particular, the influence of health professionals, who are not involved in trial recruitment, on patients’ treatment preferences by suggesting they would receive a certain treatment ahead of recruitment consultations should not be underestimated. Conclusions: A wealth of evidence exploring factors affecting recruitment to randomised controlled trials exists. A methodological shift is now required to ensure that this evidence is used by all those involved in recruitment and to ensure that existing knowledge is translated into methods for optimising recruitment to future trials. Trial registries: ACTIVE: (ISRCTN98152560) PRESTO: (ISRCTN12094890)

scholarly journals Impact of social distancing measures for preventing coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishna Regmi ◽  
Cho Mar Lwin
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
World Health ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
List Type ◽  
Social Distancing ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact

AbstractIntroductionSocial distancing measures (SDMs) protect public health from the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the impact of SDMs has been inconsistent and unclear. This study aims to assess the effects of SDMs (e.g. isolation, quarantine) for reducing the transmission of COVID-19.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review meta-analysis research of both randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied & Complementary Medicine, COVID-19 Research and WHO database on COVID-19 for primary studies assessing the effects of SDMs (e.g. isolation, quarantine) for reducing the transmission of COVID-19, and will be reported in accordance with PRISMA statement. The PRISMA-P checklist will be used while preparing this protocol. We will use Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines (JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists) to assess the methodological qualities and synthesised performing thematic analysis. Two reviewers will independently screen the papers and extracted data. If sufficient data are available, the random-effects model for meta-analysis will be performed to measure the effect size of SDMs or the strengths of relationships. To assess the heterogeneity of effects, I2 together with the observed effects (Q-value, with degrees of freedom) will be used to provide the true effects in the analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval and consent will not be required for this systematic review of the literature as it does not involve human participation. We will be able to disseminate the study findings using the following strategies: we will be publishing at least one paper in peer-reviewed journals, and an abstract will be presented at suitable national/international conferences or workshops. We will also share important information with public health authorities as well as with the World Health Organization. In addition, we may post the submitted manuscript under review to bioRxiv, medRxiv, or other relevant pre-print servers.Strengths and limitations of this studyTo our knowledge, this study will be the first systematic review to examine the impact of social distancing measures to reduce transmission of COVID-19.This study will offer highest level of evidence for informed decisions, drawing a broader framework.This protocol reduces the possibility of duplication, provides transparency to the methods and procedures that will be used, minimise potential biases and allows peer-review.This research is not externally funded, and therefore time and resource will be constrained.If included studies will be variable in sample size, quality and population, which may open to bias, and the heterogeneity of data will preclude a meaningful meta-analysis to measure the impact of specific SDMs

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document