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

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investigation reported in specialty congresses and trials regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press, and in progress).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

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

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.

scholarly journals Panoramic versus CBCT used to reduce inferior alveolar nerve paresthesia after third molar extractions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 20190265
Author(s):  
Nathalia Calzavara Del Lhano ◽  
Rosangela Almeida Ribeiro ◽  
Carolina Castro Martins ◽  
Neuza Maria Souza Picorelli Assis ◽  
Karina Lopes Devito
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Panoramic Radiography ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Inferior Alveolar Nerve ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Eligibility Criteria

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to verify whether CBCT in comparison with panoramic radiography reduced the cases of temporary paresthesias of the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) associated with third molar extractions. Methods: The literature search included five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, SciELO), in addition to gray literature and hand search of reference list of included studies. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts, and full texts according to eligibility criteria, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias through Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB 2.0). Data were meta-analyzed by comparing CBCT versus panoramic radiographs for number of events (temporary paresthesia after third molar surgery). Fixed effect model was used for non-significant heterogeneity; relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were calculated. The certainty of evidence was evaluated by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in meta-analysis, and for the majority of domains they presented low risk of bias. RR was 1.23 (95% IC: 0.75–2.02; I2: 0%; p = 0.43) favouring panoramic radiography, but without significant effect, and with moderate certainty of evidence. Conclusions: We concluded that both interventions had a similar ability to reduce temporary paresthesia of the IAN after third molar surgery with moderate certainty of evidence.

scholarly journals 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 ◽  
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.

The effects of non-clinician guidance on effectiveness and process outcomes of digital mental health interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Calista Leung ◽  
Julia Pei ◽  
Kristen Hudec ◽  
Farhud Shams ◽  
Richard Munthali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychosocial Support ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Process Outcomes ◽  
Mental Health Interventions

BACKGROUND Digital mental health interventions are increasingly prevalent in the current context of rapidly evolving technology, and research indicates that they yield effectiveness outcomes comparable to in-person treatment. Integrating professionals (i.e. psychologists, physicians) into digital mental health interventions has been common, and the inclusion of guidance within programs can increase adherence to interventions. However, employing professionals to enhance mental health programs may undermine the scalability of digital interventions. Therefore, delegating guidance tasks to paraprofessionals (peer supporters, technicians, lay counsellors, or other non-clinicians) can help reduce costs and increase accessibility. OBJECTIVE This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness, adherence, and other process outcomes of non-clinician guided digital mental health interventions. METHODS Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PSYCInfo) were searched for randomized controlled trials published between 2010 and 2020 examining digital mental health interventions. Three journals focused on digital intervention were also hand searched and grey literature was searched using ProQuest and the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL). Two researchers independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2. Data were collected on effectiveness, adherence, and other process outcomes, and meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and adherence outcomes. Non-clinician guided interventions were compared with treatment as usual, clinician-guided interventions, and unguided interventions. RESULTS Thirteen studies qualified for inclusion. Results indicate that non-clinician guided interventions yielded higher post-treatment effectiveness outcomes when compared to conditions involving control programs (e.g. online psychoeducation, monitored attention control) or waitlist controls (k=7, Hedges g=-0.73 (95% CI -1.08 to -0.38)). There are significant differences between non-clinician guided interventions and unguided interventions as well (k=6, Hedges g=-0.17 (95% CI -0.23 to -0.11)). In addition, non-clinician guided interventions did not differ in effectiveness from clinician-guided interventions (k=3, Hedges g=0.08 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.17)). These results suggest that guided digital mental health interventions are helpful to improve mental health outcomes regardless of the qualification, and that the presence of a non-clinician guide improves effectiveness outcomes more than no guidance. Non-clinician guided interventions did not yield significantly different effects on adherence outcomes when compared with unguided interventions (k=3, OR 1.58 (95% CI 0.51 to 4.92)), although a general trend of improved adherence was observed within non-clinician guided interventions. CONCLUSIONS Integrating paraprofessionals and non-clinicians appear to improve outcomes of digital mental health interventions, and may also enhance adherence outcomes (though the trend was nonsignificant). Further research should focus on the specific types of tasks these paraprofessionals can successfully provide (i.e. psychosocial support, therapeutic alliance, technical augmentation) and their associated outcomes. CLINICALTRIAL The protocol is preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42020191226).

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

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Rada ◽  
Javiera Corbalán ◽  
Patricio Rojas ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mesenchymal Stromal Cells ◽  
Stromal Cells ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
The Impact

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).

scholarly journals Effectiveness of interventions for the prevention of occupational violence against professionals in health services: a protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e036558
Author(s):  
Caroline Vieira Cláudio Okubo ◽  
Renata Cristina Campos Pereira Silveira ◽  
Maria José Quina Galdino ◽  
Daiane Rubinato Fernandes ◽  
Aline Aparecida Oliveira Moreira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Health Sector ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Occupational Violence

IntroductionOccupational violence affects several categories of workers; however, the health sector category has been considered at a high risk, exposing workers to physical and psychological abuse. Thus, occupational violence has decreased the quality of care in health service. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and reduction of occupational violence against health professionals.Methods and analysisThis protocol is consistent with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Searches will be conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and LIVIVO along with a comprehensive review of grey literature. The search will be conducted on August 1 st 2020, without language and time restrictions. Following the eligibility criteria, two independent reviewers will select the titles and abstracts and subsequently screen the full articles. If necessary, a third reviewer will assess any disagreements. All references will be imported into EndNote, and any duplicates will be removed. The data will be extracted using an extraction-based form from Cochrane. Statistical analyses will be performed using the software Cochrane Review Manager, and a meta-analysis will be performed if possible for the statistical combination of at least two studies. The risk of bias of the randomised clinical trials will be evaluated by the Risk of Bias tool from Cochrane, and the risk of bias of the non-randomised intervention studies will be evaluated using the Downs and Black scale. The quality of the evidence and strength of the classification recommendations will be assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Ethics and disseminationThis review will not evaluate individual patient information and therefore does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals, presentations at conferences and the doctoral thesis of the leading author.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018111383.

Gelatin tannate for acute diarrhoea and gastroenteritis in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
pp. archdischild-2018-316385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan D Florez ◽  
Javier M Sierra ◽  
Laura F Niño-Serna
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Acute Diarrhoea ◽  
Stool Frequency ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness and safety of gelatin tannate (GT) for reducing the duration of the acute diarrhoea and gastroenteritis (ADG) in children.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS and grey literature, published from inception to October 2018. No language restrictions.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials in children with ADG, comparing GT with placebo.ResultsOf 797 titles identified, we included three studies (276 children). We performed a random effects model meta-analysis for the main outcome (diarrhoea duration). We did not find significant differences between GT and placebo for diarrhoea duration (mean difference (MD)=−15.85 hours; 95% CI −42.24 to 14.82, I2=92%; three studies), stool frequency at day 2 (MD=0.11 stools/day; 95% CI −0.39 to 0.62: I2=26%; two studies), diarrhoea at day 3 (risk ratio [RR]=0.46; 95% CI 0.06 to 3.47: I2=73%; two studies), vomiting (RR=1.31; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80: I2=0%; two studies) or adverse events (RR=0.86; 95% CI 0.27 to 2.66: I2=0%; two studies). Most common adverse events included abdominal pain and nausea.ConclusionThe effect of GT was no different to placebo for mean diarrhoea duration (low certainty on the evidence) and stool frequency at day 2 (high certainty) and for the presence of diarrhoea at day 3 (very low certainty) of vomiting (moderate certainty) and of adverse events (low certainty).PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018087902.

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

2020 ◽  
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).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document