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

scholarly journals The impact of antibiotics on growth in children in low and middle income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 348 (apr15 6) ◽  
pp. g2267-g2267 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. K. Gough ◽  
E. E. M. Moodie ◽  
A. J. Prendergast ◽  
S. M. A. Johnson ◽  
J. H. Humphrey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Low And Middle Income

scholarly journals Nuts and their Effect on Gut Microbiota, Gut Function and Symptoms in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 2347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice C. Creedon ◽  
Estella S. Hung ◽  
Sarah E. Berry ◽  
Kevin Whelan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Gut Microbiota ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Faecal Microbiota ◽  
Gut Function ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Nuts contain fibre, unsaturated fatty acids and polyphenols that may impact the composition of the gut microbiota and overall gut health. This study aimed to assess the impact of nuts on gut microbiota, gut function and gut symptoms via a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in healthy adults. Eligible RCTs were identified by systematic searches of five electronic databases, hand searching of conference abstracts, clinical trials databases, back-searching reference lists and contact with key stakeholders. Eligible studies were RCTs administering tree nuts or peanuts in comparison to control, measuring any outcome related to faecal microbiota, function or symptoms. Two reviewers independently screened papers, performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Outcome data were synthesised as weighted mean difference (WMD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) using a random effects model. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019138169). Eight studies reporting nine RCTs were included, investigating almonds (n = 5), walnuts (n = 3) and pistachios (n = 1). Nut consumption significantly increased Clostridium (SMD: 0.40; 95% CI, 0.10, 0.71; p = 0.01), Dialister (SMD: 0.44; 95% CI, 0.13, 0.75; p = 0.005), Lachnospira (SMD: 0.33; 95% CI, 0.02, 0.64; p = 0.03) and Roseburia (SMD: 0.36; 95% CI, 0.10, 0.62; p = 0.006), and significantly decreased Parabacteroides (SMD: −0.31; 95% CI, −0.62, −0.00; p = 0.05). There was no effect of nuts on bacterial phyla, diversity or stool output. Further parallel design RCTs, powered to detect changes in faecal microbiota and incorporating functional and clinical outcomes, are needed.

scholarly journals Treatment interventions to maintain abstinence from alcohol in primary care: systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m3934 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hung-Yuan Cheng ◽  
Luke A McGuinness ◽  
Roy G Elbers ◽  
Georgina J MacArthur ◽  
Abigail Taylor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Psychosocial Interventions ◽  
World Health ◽  
Alcohol Dependency ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Abstinence From Alcohol

AbstractObjectiveTo determine the most effective interventions in recently detoxified, alcohol dependent patients for implementation in primary care.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials comparing two or more interventions that could be used in primary care. The population was patients with alcohol dependency diagnosed by standardised clinical tools and who became detoxified within four weeks.Data extractionOutcomes of interest were continuous abstinence from alcohol (effectiveness) and all cause dropouts (as a proxy for acceptability) at least 12 weeks after start of intervention.Results64 trials (43 interventions) were included. The median probability of abstinence across placebo arms was 25%. Compared with placebo, the only intervention associated with increased probability of abstinence and moderate certainty evidence was acamprosate (odds ratio 1.86, 95% confidence interval 1.49 to 2.33, corresponding to an absolute probability of 38%). Of the 62 included trials that reported all cause dropouts, interventions associated with a reduced number of dropouts compared with placebo (probability 50%) and moderate certainty of evidence were acamprosate (0.73, 0.62 to 0.86; 42%), naltrexone (0.70, 0.50 to 0.98; 41%), and acamprosate-naltrexone (0.30, 0.13 to 0.67; 17%). Acamprosate was the only intervention associated with moderate confidence in the evidence of effectiveness and acceptability up to 12 months. It is uncertain whether other interventions can help maintain abstinence and reduce dropouts because of low confidence in the evidence.ConclusionsEvidence is lacking for benefit from interventions that could be implemented in primary care settings for alcohol abstinence, other than for acamprosate. More evidence from high quality randomised controlled trials is needed, as are strategies using combined interventions (combinations of drug interventions or drug and psychosocial interventions) to improve treatment of alcohol dependency in primary care.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016049779.

scholarly journals Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions for reducing transmission of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e041383
Author(s):  
Krishna Regmi ◽  
Cho Mar Lwin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Pharmaceutical Interventions

IntroductionImplementing non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) protect the public from COVID-19. However, the impact of NPIs has been inconsistent and remains unclear. This study, therefore, aims to measure the impact of major NPIs (social distancing, social isolation and quarantine) on reducing COVID-19 transmission.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis research of both randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. We will undertake a systematic search of: MEDLINE, Embase, Allied & Complementary Medicine, COVID-19 Research, WHO database on COVID-19, ClinicalTrails.Gov for clinical trials on COVID-19, Cochrane Resources on Coronavirus (COVID-19), Oxford COVID-19 Evidence Service and Google Scholar for published and unpublished literatures on COVID-19 including preprint engines such as medRxiv, bioRxiv, Litcovid and SSRN for unpublished studies on COVID-19 and will be reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Outcomes of interest for impact analysis will include the reduction of COVID-19 transmission, avoiding crowds and restricting movement, isolating ill and psychological impacts. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist has been used for this protocol. For quality of included studies, we will use the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias for randomised controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will grade the certainty of the evidence for all outcome measures across studies. Random-effects model for meta-analysis will measure the effect size of NPIs or the strengths of relationships. For quantitative data, risk ratio or OR, absolute risk difference (for dichotomous outcome data), or mean difference or standardised mean difference (for continuous data) and their 95% CIs will be calculated. Where statistical pooling is not possible, a narrative synthesis will be conducted for the included studies. To assess the heterogeneity of effects, I2 together with the observed effects will be evaluated to provide the true effects in the analysis.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval from an institutional review board or research ethics committee is not required as primary data will not be collected. The final results of this study will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal, and 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 WHO. In addition, we may post the submitted manuscript under review to medRxiv, or other relevant preprint servers.Trial registration numberCRD42020207338.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document