Mesenchymal stromal cells for COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo determine the impact of mesenchymal stromal cells outcomes important to patients with COVID-19.DesignThis is the protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question.We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of mesenchymal stromal cells versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating other coronavirus infections, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case we find no direct evidence from randomised trials, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO RegistrationSubmitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).

Download Full-text

Vitamin C for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review

10.1101/2020.04.28.20083360 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Eduard Baladia ◽

Ana Beatriz Pizarro ◽

Gabriel Rada

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Vitamin C ◽

Direct Evidence ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Randomised Trials ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Web Based ◽

Central Register

ABSTRACTObjectiveThis living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of vitamin C in the treatment of patients with COVID-19.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question.We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of vitamin C, as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs, versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating vitamin C in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomised trials is found, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO RegistrationSubmitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).

Download Full-text

Lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

10.1101/2020.04.11.20062109 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Francisca Verdugo-Paiva ◽

Ariel Izcovich ◽

Martín Ragusa ◽

Gabriel Rada

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Direct Evidence ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Randomised Trials ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Web Based ◽

Central Register ◽

Review Protocol ◽

Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.DesignThis is the protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question.We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir— as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs — versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating lopinavir/ritonavir in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomised trials is found, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO RegistrationSubmitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).

Download Full-text

Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

10.1101/2020.04.03.20052530 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Rocío Bravo-Jeria ◽

María Ximena Rojas Reyes ◽

Juan Víctor Ariel Franco ◽

María Paz Acuña ◽

Luz Ángela Torres López ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Direct Evidence ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Randomised Trials ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Central Register ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo determine the relative impact of the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine on outcomes important to patients with COVID 19.DesignThis is the protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), trial registries, grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe will follow a common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews, already published and submitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).We will include randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine — as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs — versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomised trials is found, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.

Download Full-text

Macrolides for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

10.31219/osf.io/rvp59 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Catalina Verdejo ◽

Laura Vergara-Merino ◽

Natalia Carvajal-Juliá ◽

Nicolás Meza ◽

Eva Madrid ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Direct Evidence ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Randomised Trials ◽

Web Based ◽

Central Register ◽

Registration Number ◽

Review Protocol

ObjectiveThis living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of macrolides for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.Data sources We will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of macrolides — as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs — versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating macrolides in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case we find no direct evidence from randomised trials, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates.Ethics and dissemination No ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO Registration number CRD42020181032

Download Full-text

Oxymetazoline for the treatment of rosacea-associated persistent facial erythema. Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

10.1101/2020.05.25.20111344 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Geovanna Cárdenas ◽

Francisco Novillo ◽

Shuheng Lai ◽

Héctor Fuenzalida ◽

Francisca Verdugo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Facial Erythema ◽

Central Register ◽

The Impact

ABSTRACTObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review is to assess the impact of oxymetazoline in patients with moderate to severe rosacea.Data SourcesWe will conduct a comprehensive search in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Lilacs, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and grey literature, to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press and in progress).Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of oxymetazoline in patients with moderate to severe rosacea. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, data extraction, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE [1] system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.Ethics and DisseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.Protocol and RegistrationThis protocol was adapted to the specificities of the question assessed in this review and registered to PROSPERO with the ID CRD42020150262.

Download Full-text

Deprescribing fall-risk increasing drugs (FRIDs) for the prevention of falls and fall-related complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035978 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. e035978

Author(s):

Justin Lee ◽

Ahmed Negm ◽

Ryan Peters ◽

Eric K C Wong ◽

Anne Holbrook

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Fall Risk ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Financial Burden ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

The Impact

ObjectivesPrevention of falls and fall-related injuries is a priority due to the substantial health and financial burden of falls on patients and healthcare systems. Deprescribing medications known as ‘fall-risk increasing drugs’ (FRIDs) is a common strategy to prevent falls. We conducted a systematic review to determine its efficacy for the prevention of falls and fall-related complications.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL and grey literature from inception to 1 August 2020.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials of FRID withdrawal compared with usual care evaluating the rate of falls, incidence of falls, fall-related injuries, fall-related fractures, fall-related hospitalisations or adverse effects related to the intervention in adults aged ≥65 years.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently performed citation screening, data abstraction, risk of bias assessment and certainty of evidence grading. Random-effects models were used for meta-analyses.ResultsFive trials involving 1305 participants met eligibility criteria. Deprescribing FRIDs did not change the rate of falls (rate ratio (RaR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.51), the incidence of falls (risk difference 0.01, 95% CI −0.06 to 0.09; relative risk 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.26) or rate of fall-related injuries (RaR 0.89, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.39) over a follow-up period of 6–12 months. No trials evaluated the impact of deprescribing FRIDs on fall-related fractures or hospitalisations.ConclusionThere is a paucity of robust high-quality evidence to support or refute that a FRID deprescribing strategy alone is effective at preventing falls or fall-related injury in older adults. Although there may be other reasons to deprescribe FRIDs, our systematic review found that it may result in little to no difference in the rate or risk of falls as a sole falls reduction strategy.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016040203.

Download Full-text

Protocol for a systematic review of research on HPV and cervical cancer in Ghana, up until the year 2017: informing research and policy direction on cervical cancer prevention in Ghana

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020183 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (7) ◽

pp. e020183

Author(s):

Adolf Kofi Awua ◽

Edna Dzifa Doe

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Cervical Cancer ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Cervical Cancer Prevention ◽

Specific Information ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Digital Collections ◽

The Status

IntroductionFor a country that lacks a national cervical cancer screening/prevention programme, there is the need to assess the volume of country-specific information, and the status of research on HPV and cervical cancer, in order to provide evidence that will inform policy and further research. The aim of this protocol is to plan an intended systematic review, which is to identify research gaps, prevent unnecessary duplication of work and enable collaboration.Methods and analysisThis protocol, developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols statement and registered by PROSPERO (CRD42017075583), will apply a 13-point eligibility criteria to screening and selecting peer-reviewed research articles and grey literature. These will be obtained from searches in databases, including, among others, those of the National Centre for Biotechnology Information, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar and the digital collections database of research publications of Universities in Ghana. Collected data will be aggregated and summarised according to emerging themes and simple descriptive statistics.Ethics and disseminationThe study will use publicly available data and will not identify authors of the publication by name. In light of these and as has been indicted, research ethics clearance is not required for evidence syntheses in such reviews. The review will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at local and internal conferences as the opportunity becomes available.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017075583.

Download Full-text

Mesenchymal stromal cells as a therapeutic intervention for COVID-19: a living systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-021-01803-5 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Aidan M. Kirkham ◽

Madeline Monaghan ◽

Adrian J. M. Bailey ◽

Risa Shorr ◽

Manoj M. Lalu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Mesenchymal Stromal Cells ◽

Stromal Cells ◽

Therapeutic Intervention ◽

Clinical Studies ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Case Series ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Isolation And Characterization

Abstract Background Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have significant immunomodulatory and tissue repair capabilities, mediated partly by conditioned media or through secreted extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs). Infection with SARS-CoV-2 can cause mild to life-threatening illness due to activated immune responses that may be dampened by MSCs or their secretome. Many clinical studies of MSCs have been launched since the beginning of the global pandemic, however, few have been completed and most lack power to assess efficacy. Repeated systematic searches and meta-analyses are needed to understand, in real time, the extent of potential benefit in different patient populations as the evidence emerges. Methods This living systematic review will be maintained to provide up-to-date information as the pandemic evolves. A systematic literature search of Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases will be performed. All clinical studies (e.g., randomized, pseudorandomized and non-randomized controlled trials, uncontrolled trials, and case series) employing MSCs or their secretome as a therapeutic intervention for COVID-19 will be included. Patients must have confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Study screening and data extraction will be performed in duplicate. Information concerning interventions, patient populations, methods of MSC isolation and characterization, primary and secondary clinical and/or laboratory outcomes, and adverse events will be extracted. Key clinical outcomes will be pooled through random-effects meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of MSCs and their secreted products for COVID-19. Discussion Our systematic review and subsequent updates will inform the scientific, medical, and health policy communities as the pandemic evolves to guide decisions on the appropriate use of MSC-related products to treat COVID-19. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD 42021225431

Download Full-text

Platelet-Rich Fibrin in third molar surgery. Systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

10.1101/2020.05.17.20099549 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Gaston Salas ◽

Shuheng Lai ◽

Francisca Verdugo-Paiva ◽

Roberto Requena

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Wound Healing ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Third Molar ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Third Molar Surgery ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Platelet Rich Fibrin

Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness and safety of platelet rich fibrin (PRF) in third molar surgery. Data sources: A comprehensive search strategy is meant to be used in an attempt to identify all relevant RCTs, ongoing investigation reported in specialty congresses and trials regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press, and in progress). Search will be conducted in The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PUBMED; Embase; Lilacs, and also conduct a search through trial registries of the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Word Health Organization (WHO) and the ClinicalTrials.gov, US National Institutes of Health (NIH), grey literature search and specialty congress will be reviewed. Eligibility criteria: We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of PRF on wound healing after third molar surgery. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias using Cochrane 'risk of bias' tool. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Ethics and dissemination: As researchers will not access information that could lead to the identification of an individual participant, obtaining ethical approval was waived. Keywords: platelet-rich fibrin; third molars; wound healing; systematic review

Download Full-text

Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Third Molar Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol

Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction ◽

10.1177/19433875211016203 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 194338752110162

Author(s):

Gaston A. Salas ◽

Shuheng A. Lai ◽

Francisca Verdugo-Paiva ◽

Roberto A. Requena

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Third Molar ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Third Molar Surgery ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Platelet Rich Fibrin

Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness and safety of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in third molar surgery. Data Sources: A comprehensive search strategy is meant to be used in an attempt to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), ongoing investigation reported in specialty congresses and trials regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press and in progress). Searches will be conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PUBMED, Embase, Lilacs, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov , US National Institutes of Health (NIH), grey literature and in specialized congresses and conferences. Eligibility Criteria: We will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of PRF on wound healing after third molar surgery. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, data extraction and risk of bias assessment using Cochrane “risk of bias” tool. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Ethics and Dissemination: As researchers will not access information that could lead to the identification of an individual participant, obtaining ethical approval was waived.

Download Full-text