Systematic review of the magnitude of change in prevalence and quantity of Salmonella after administration of pathogen reduction treatments on pork carcasses

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah C. Totton ◽  
Julie M. Glanville ◽  
Rungano S. Dzikamunhenga ◽  
James S. Dickson ◽  
Annette M. O'Connor

AbstractObjective:In this systematic review, we summarized change in Salmonella prevalence and/or quantity associated with pathogen reduction treatments (washes, sprays, steam) on pork carcasses or skin-on carcass parts in comparative designs (natural or artificial contamination).Methods:In January 2015, CAB Abstracts (1910–2015), SCI and CPCI–Science (1900–2015), Medline® and Medline® In-Process (1946–2015) (OVIDSP), Science.gov, and Safe Pork (1996–2012) were searched with no language or publication type restrictions. Reference lists of 24 review articles were checked. Two independent reviewers screened 4001 titles/abstracts and assessed 122 full-text articles for eligibility. Only English-language records were extracted.Results:Fourteen studies (5 in commercial abattoirs) were extracted and risk of bias was assessed by two reviewers independently. Risk of bias due to systematic error was moderate; a major source of bias was the potential differential recovery of Salmonella from treated carcasses due to knowledge of the intervention. The most consistently observed association was a positive effect of acid washes on categorical measures of Salmonella; however, this was based on individual results, not a summary effect measure.Conclusion:There was no strong evidence that any one intervention protocol (acid temperature, acid concentration, water temperature) was clearly superior to others for Salmonella control.

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 95
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Margaret Stovold

A Review of: Perrier, L., Farrell, A., Ayala, A. P., Lightfoot, D., Kenny, T., Aaronson, E., . . . Weiss, A. ( 2014). Effects of librarian-provided services in healthcare settings: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 21(6), 1118-1124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002825 Abstract Objective – To assess the effects of librarian-provided services, in any healthcare setting, on outcomes important to patients, healthcare providers, and researchers. Design – Systematic review and narrative synthesis. Setting – MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, LISA, and CENTRAL databases; library-related websites, conference proceedings, and reference lists of included studies. Subjects – Twenty-five studies identified through a systematic literature search. Methods – In consultation with the review team, a librarian designed a search to be run in MEDLINE that was peer-reviewed against a published checklist. The team then conducted searches in the five identified databases, adapting the search as appropriate for each database. Authors also checked the websites of library and evidence based healthcare organisations, along with abstracts of relevant conference proceedings, to supplement the electronic search. Two authors screened the literature search results for eligible studies, and reached agreement by consensus. Studies of any librarian-delivered service in a healthcare setting, directed at either patients, clinicians of any type, researchers, or students, along with studies reporting outcomes relevant to clinicians, patients, or researchers, were eligible for inclusion. The authors assessed results initially on the titles and abstracts, and then on the full-text of potentially relevant reports. The data from included studies were then extracted into a piloted data extraction form, and each study was assessed for quality using the Cochrane EPOC risk of bias tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The results were synthesised narratively. Main Results – The searches retrieved a total of 25 studies that met the inclusion criteria, comprised of 22 primary papers and 3 companion reports. Authors identified 12 randomised trials, 4 controlled before-and-after studies, 3 cohorts, 2 non-randomised trials, and 1 case-control study. They identified three main categories of intervention: librarians teaching search skills; providing literature searching as a service; and a combination of the teaching and provision of search services. The interventions were delivered to a mix of trainees, clinicians, and students. None of the studies examined services delivered directly to patients or to researchers. The quality assessment found most of the studies had a mid- to high-risk of bias due to factors such as lack of random sequence generation, a lack of validated tools for data collection, or a lack of statistical analysis included in the study. Two studies measured patient relevant outcomes and reported that searches provided by librarians to clinicians had a positive impact on the patient’s length of stay in hospital. Five studies examined the effect of librarian provided services on outcomes important to clinicians, such as whether a literature search influenced a clinical decision. There was a trend towards a positive effect, although two studies found no significant difference. The majority of studies investigated the impact of training delivered to trainees and students on their literature search skills. Twelve of these studies found a positive effect of training on the recipients’ search skills, while three found no difference. The secondary outcomes considered by this review were satisfaction with the service (8 studies), relevance of the answers provided by librarians (2), and cost (3). The majority reported good satisfaction, and relevance. A cost benefit was found in 2 of 3 studies that reported this outcome. Conclusion – Authors report a positive effect of training on the literature search skills of trainees and students, and identified a benefit in the small number of studies that examined librarian services to clinicians. Future studies should use validated data collection tools, and further research should be conducted in the area of services provided to clinicians. Research is needed on the effect of librarian-provided services to patients and researchers as no studies meeting the inclusion criteria examining these two groups were identified by the literature search.


2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 150
Author(s):  
Joanne L. Jordan

A Review of: Westphal, A., Kriston, L., Hölzel, L.P., Härter, M., & von Wolff, A. (2014). Efficiency and contribution of strategies for finding randomized controlled trials: a case study from a systematic review on therapeutic interventions of chronic depression. Journal of Public Health Research, 3(2), 177. doi: 10.4081/jphr.2014.177 Abstract Objective – To evaluate the efficiency and contribution of additional searching strategies for finding randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review. Design – A methodological case study. Setting – Biomedical literature. Methods – A sensitive search (defined as “the ratio of the number of relevant reports identified to the total number of relevant reports in existence”) was conducted of electronic databases, Cochrane CENTRAL database, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, BIOSIS, and Web of Science databases (Science and Social Science Citation Indexes). The following additional searching strategies were conducted: hand-searching contents of relevant journals (Archives of General Psychiatry, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, and Journal of Affective Disorders), citation tracking (forwards tracking using Social Science and Science Citation Index and backwards tracking by looking through reference lists of included studies), screening reference lists of relevant systematic reviews, searching clinical trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP registers), and contacting first authors of included studies to find any similar unpublished studies. The number of articles identified by each of these methods was recorded and screened for inclusion in the systematic review. The authors calculated what they labelled as the ‘efficiency’ of each searching strategy (the number of included studies identified by the search method as a proportion of the full text articles screened) and the ‘contribution’ of the search strategies (the ratio of included studies identified by that method to the final number of included studies in the systematic review). The methodological quality of each included study was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, which is a critical appraisal checklist used to judge the study’s value in the systematic review. The meta-analysis in the systematic review was conducted with and without the studies identified by the additional searching strategies to assess their impact on the review’s findings. Main Results – In total 50 studies were identified, 42 from electronic database searches and 8 from additional search strategies. As illustrated by the results in Table 1, the most useful additional search strategy was screening reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. Journal hand-searching and contacting authors also contributed to the review. Of the eight studies identified by the additional search strategies none were judged to have a low risk of bias (four had high risk of bias and four were unclear). Of the 42 included studies from electronic searches only 11 were judged to have a low risk of bias, whereas 9 studies had a high risk of bias and 22 were unclear. Excluding the eight studies retrieved from additional search strategies in the systematic review meta-analysis did not influence the results on the effectiveness of the different interventions for chronic depression. These studies were found to be indexed correctly on the electronic databases, but were not identified in the initial search. Conclusion – Additional search strategies, especially screening reference lists of systematic reviews and hand-searching relevant journals, retrieved a substantial number of relevant studies for a systematic review of interventions for treating chronic depression. However, results of the review’s meta-analysis did not differ when these additional studies (rated as either high or unclear risk of bias) were not included and search methods were time consuming. It might be reasonable to rely on electronic searching strategies when resources for conducting a systematic review are limited or when doing a “rapid review.” The benefits and limitations of additional search strategies should be considered particularly when resources or time for conducting a systematic review are limited. If the electronic database search is sensitive and includes the Cochrane CENTRAL database additional search strategies may not be necessary, but these findings should be tested in other research areas.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahbubeh Tabatabaeichehr ◽  
Hamed Mortazavi

BACKGROUND: Aromatherapy as an alternative and complementary medicine is a well-known method for reducing the symptoms of various physiological processes such as labor experience. The aim of this study was to systematically review the currently available evidences evaluating the use of aromatherapy for management of labor pain and anxiety.METHODS: In a systematic review, 5 databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Scientific Information Database [SID]) were searched, from database inception up to December 2019. Keywords used included (aromatherapy OR "“essential oil” OR "aroma*") AND (pain OR anxiety) AND (labor OR delivery). Using the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' method; the risk of bias in the included studies was evaluated.RESULTS: A total of 33 studies were verified to meet our inclusion criteria. Most of the included studies were conducted in Iran. Aromatherapy was applied using inhalation, massage, footbath, birthing pool, acupressure, and compress. The most popularly used essential oil in the studies was lavender (13 studies), either as a single essential oil or in a combination with other essential oils. Most of included studies confirmed the positive effect of aromatherapy in reducing labor pain and anxiety.CONCLUSION: The evidences from this study suggest that aromatherapy, as a complementary and alternative modality, can help in relieving maternal anxiety and pain during labor. 


2019 ◽  
Vol 161 (2) ◽  
pp. 218-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ethan Frank ◽  
Bradley Carlson ◽  
Amanda Hu ◽  
Derrick R. Randall ◽  
Shanalee Tamares ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo qualitatively assess practices of periprocedural pain assessment and control and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for pain during in-office procedures reported in the otolaryngology literature through a systematic review.Data SourcesPubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science searches from inception to 2018.Review MethodsEnglish-language studies reporting qualitative or quantitative data for periprocedural pain assessment in adult patients undergoing in-office otolaryngology procedures were included. Risk of bias was assessed via the Cochrane Risk of Bias or Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tools as appropriate. Two reviewers screened all articles. Bias was assessed by 3 reviewers.ResultsEighty-six studies describing 32 types of procedures met inclusion criteria. Study quality and risk of bias ranged from good to serious but did not affect assessed outcomes. Validated methods of pain assessment were used by only 45% of studies. The most commonly used pain assessment was patient tolerance, or ability to simply complete a procedure. Only 5.8% of studies elicited patients’ baseline pain levels prior to procedures, and a qualitative assessment of pain was done in merely 3.5%. Eleven unique pain control regimens were described in the literature, with 8% of studies failing to report method of pain control.ConclusionMany reports of measures and management of pain for in-office procedures exist but few employ validated measures, few are standardized, and current data do not support any specific pain control measures over others. Significant opportunity remains to investigate methods for improving patient pain and tolerance of in-office procedures.


2020 ◽  
pp. flgastro-2020-101529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony K Akobeng ◽  
Ciaran Grafton-Clarke ◽  
Ibtihal Abdelgadir ◽  
Erica Twum-Barimah ◽  
Morris Gordon

ObjectivesTo summarise the published evidence on the gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 in children and to determine the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and the WHO’s database of publications on novel coronavirus. We included English language studies that had described original demographic and clinical characteristics of children diagnosed with COVID-19 and reported on the presence or absence of gastrointestinal symptoms. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. The pooled prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms was expressed as proportion and 95% CI.ResultsThe search identified 269 citations. Thirteen studies (nine case series and four case reports) comprising data for 284 patients were included. Overall, we rated four studies as having a low risk of bias, eight studies as moderate and one study as high risk of bias. In a meta-analysis of nine studies, comprising 280 patients, the pooled prevalence of all gastrointestinal symptoms was 22.8% (95% CI 13.1% to 35.2%; I2=54%). Diarrhoea was the most commonly reported gastrointestinal symptom followed by vomiting and abdominal pain.ConclusionsNearly a quarter of children with COVID-19 have gastrointestinal symptoms. It is important for clinicians to be aware of the gastrointestinal manifestation of COVID-19.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020177569.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Gratz ◽  
Marion Wiegele ◽  
Mathias Maleczek ◽  
Harald Herkner ◽  
Herbert Schöchl ◽  
...  

Background: Early during the course of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, reports suggested alarmingly high incidences for thromboembolic events in critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, the clinical relevance of these events was not reported in several studies. Additionally, more recent research showed contradictory results and suggested substantially lower rates of venous thromboembolism. Thus, the aim of the present study was to summarize evidence on the incidence of clinically relevant venous thromboembolism (VTE)—defined as VTE excluding isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (PE) and distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT)—in adult critically ill patients with COVID-19.Methods: We performed a systematic review of studies reporting the incidence of clinically relevant PE and/or DVT in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Scientific reports published in the English language between January and October 2020 were included. We conducted a random-effects model meta-analysis to calculate incidence estimates of clinically relevant VTE and bleeding events. We also performed exploratory meta-regression and subgroup analyses of different diagnostic approaches and additional factors that possibly influenced the incidence of these outcomes.Results: Fifty-four articles (5,400 patients) fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria, of which 41 had a high risk of bias. The majority of included patients were male, > 60 years, and overweight. Twenty-one studies reported the use of prophylactic doses of heparin. Pooled incidences for clinically relevant PE were estimated at 8% (95% CI, 4–11%), for proximal DVT at 14% (95% CI, 9–20%), and—after exclusion of studies with a high risk of bias—for the composite outcome of VTE at 18% (95% CI, 13–24%). Clinically relevant bleeding occurred at a rate of 6% (95% CI, 2–9%).Conclusions: We summarized currently available data on the rate of clinically relevant VTE in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Pooled incidence estimates were lower than those reported by previous review articles. In the absence of evidence-based anticoagulation guidelines for critically ill patients with COVID-19, the results of our study provide clinically important information for an individual risk-benefit assessment in this context.Registration: The study protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO on June 22, 2020 (CRD42020193353; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero).


Author(s):  
Danúbia da Cunha De Sá-Caputo ◽  
Ana Carolina Coelho-Oliveira ◽  
Anelise Sonza ◽  
Laisa Liane Paineiras-Domingos ◽  
Redha Taiar ◽  
...  

Background: The facemasks use has been discussed to prevent respiratory disease due airborne contamination. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review about the face masks use to avoid airborne contamination during COVID-19 pandemic and related conditions, registered (PROSPERO-CRD42020198347) and performed according PRISMA. Methods: PubMed, Embase and Scopus databases were used to collect data. Observational studies, published in 2020, and English language, were included. Two reviewers independently identified records through database search and reference screening and disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Six studies were included. Results: The works investigated about the use of masks (different types) to prevent droplets dissemination with virus or bacterial suspension and decrease COVID-19 transmission routes, comfort, or temperature. The studies have moderate to critical risk of bias and the level of evidence is III-2. Conclusion: It is recommended facemask use to prevent droplets from escaping airborne and infecting other people, although there are different percentages of protection and can be possible a discomfort related the use. Further clinical trials to the effectiveness of face mask to avoid airborne contamination during the COVID-19 pandemic and the factors interfering with their effectiveness should be conducted.


Author(s):  
Tiago Rodrigues de Lima ◽  
Mikael Seabra Moraes ◽  
Priscila Custódio Martins ◽  
Vladimir Schuindt da Silva ◽  
Diego Augusto Santos Silva

Muscle strength (MS) is considered important indicative of global health regardless of age or clinical condition. The aim of this study was to summarize evidence from research carried out in Brazil that investigated MS in school children and adolescents, showing the objectives, tests, protocols and quantitative of youngsters who met the health criteria for MS. Systematic review conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Sportdiscus, LILACS and Scielo databases, with complementary searches in reference lists. In all articles, the risk of bias was analyzed. Of the 15,609 articles initially identified, 27 were included, comprising data from 29,604 children and adolescents. The 27 studies included presented moderate (37%) and low risk of bias (63%). Three out of four studies investigating MS in children and adolescents were carried out in southern and southeastern Brazil (77.7%). It was found that 65.9% of boys and 58.2% of girls had adequate levels of MS for health, with results varying from 14.8% to 66.0% in girls and from 20.4% to 76.9% in boys. Several MS measurement protocols were identified; however, horizontal jump was the most used test to evaluate MS (59.2%). MS is a physical valence searched in children and adolescents and a variety of protocols are used. In addition, it is necessary to propose MS cutoff points based on health criteria for the accurate estimation of this physical valence in children and adolescents in Brazil. 


2020 ◽  
pp. bjsports-2020-102967
Author(s):  
Jacqueline van Ierssel ◽  
Martin Osmond ◽  
Jemila Hamid ◽  
Margaret Sampson ◽  
Roger Zemek

ObjectiveWe aimed to examine the risk of concussion in children with a previous history of concussion.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis. The primary outcome was number of children with and without a previous lifetime history of concussion who sustained a diagnosed concussion within each study period. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random effects model was used to estimate a pooled risk ratio (RR) with corresponding 95% CIs; results were summarised in forest plots.Data sourcesFour electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus) and selected reference lists were searched (PROSPERO registration No CRD42019135462).Eligibility criteriaOriginal English language peer-reviewed publications that compared concussion risk in children aged 5–18 years with and without a previous concussion history in which risk estimates were reported or able to be calculated.ResultsOf 732 identified studies, 7 studies representing 23 411 children (risk of bias range, 7–9; maximum possible score=9) were included for meta-analysis. Pooled risk of sustaining a concussion was more than three times greater in children with a previous concussion compared with those with no previous concussion (RR=3.64; 95% CI: 2.68 to 4.96; p<0.0001; I2=90.55%). Unreported sex-stratified data precluded direct comparison of concussion risk in male versus female athletes.ConclusionPreviously concussed children have four times the risk of sustaining a concussion compared with those with no previous concussion history. This should be a consideration for clinicians in return to sport decision-making. Future studies examining subsequent recurrent concussion in youth sports must consider sex differences.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. e0253129
Author(s):  
Allison Langham-Putrow ◽  
Caitlin Bakker ◽  
Amy Riegelman

Aims Over the last two decades, the existence of an open access citation advantage (OACA)—increased citation of articles made available open access (OA)—has been the topic of much discussion. While there has been substantial research to address this question, findings have been contradictory and inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review to compare studies of citations to OA and non-OA articles. Methods A systematic search of 17 databases attempted to capture all relevant studies authored since 2001. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. We included studies with a direct comparison between OA and non-OA items and reported article-level citation as an outcome. Both randomized and non-randomized studies were included. No limitations were placed on study design, language, or publication type. Results A total of 5,744 items were retrieved. Ultimately, 134 items were identified for inclusion. 64 studies (47.8%) confirmed the existence of OACA, while 37 (27.6%) found that it did not exist, 32 (23.9%) found OACA only in subsets of their sample, and 1 study (0.8%) was inconclusive. Studies with a focus on multiple disciplines were significantly positively associated with finding that OACA exists in subsets, and are less associated with finding that OACA did not exist. In the critical appraisal of the included studies, 3 were found to have an overall low risk of bias. Of these, one found that an OACA existed, one found that it did not, and one found that an OACA occurred in subsets. Conclusions As seen through the large number of studies identified for this review, OACA is a topic of continuing interest. Quality and heterogeneity of the component studies pose challenges for generalization. The results suggest the need for reporting guidelines for bibliometrics studies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document