scholarly journals COVID-19 L·OVE REPOSITORY IS HIGHLY COMPREHENSIVE AND CAN BE USED AS A SINGLE SOURCE FOR COVID-19 STUDIES

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Verdugo-Paiva ◽  
C Vergara ◽  
C Ávila ◽  
J Castro ◽  
J Cid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Representative Sample ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Single Source ◽  
Public Repository ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
High Quality ◽  
One Stop ◽  
The Individual

ABSTRACTObjectiveCOVID-19 Living OVerview of Evidence (COVID-19 L·OVE) is a public repository and classification platform for COVID-19 articles. The repository contains over 430,000 articles as of 20 September 2021 and intends to provide a one-stop shop for COVID-19 evidence. Considering that systematic reviews conduct high-quality searches, this study assesses the comprehensiveness and currency of the repository against the total number of studies in a representative sample of COVID-19 systematic reviews.MethodsOur sample was generated from all the studies included in the systematic reviews of COVID-19 published during April 2021. We estimated the comprehensiveness of COVID-19 L·OVE repository by determining how many of the individual studies in the sample were included in the COVID-19 L·OVE repository. We estimated the currency as the percentage of studies that were available in the COVID-19 L·OVE repository at the time the systematic reviews conducted their own search.ResultsWe identified 83 eligible systematic reviews that included 2132 studies. COVID-19 L·OVE had an overall comprehensiveness of 99.67% (2125/2132). The overall currency of the repository, that is, the proportion of articles that would have been obtained if the search of the reviews was conducted in COVID-19 L·OVE instead of searching the original sources, was 96.48% (2057/2132). Both the comprehensiveness and the currency were 100% for randomised trials (82/82).ConclusionThe COVID-19 L·OVE repository is highly comprehensive and current. Using this repository instead of traditional manual searches in multiple databases can save a great amount of work to people conducting systematic reviews and would improve the comprehensiveness and timeliness of evidence syntheses. This tool is particularly important for supporting living evidence synthesis processes

scholarly journals Characteristics, quality and volume of the first 5 months of the COVID-19 evidence synthesis infodemic: a meta-research study

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2021-111710
Author(s):  
Rebecca Abbott ◽  
Alison Bethel ◽  
Morwenna Rogers ◽  
Rebecca Whear ◽  
Noreen Orr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Definition Of

ObjectiveThe academic and scientific community has reacted at pace to gather evidence to help and inform about COVID-19. Concerns have been raised about the quality of this evidence. The aim of this review was to map the nature, scope and quality of evidence syntheses on COVID-19 and to explore the relationship between review quality and the extent of researcher, policy and media interest.Design and settingA meta-research: systematic review of reviews.Information sourcesPubMed, Epistemonikos COVID-19 evidence, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and the WHO COVID-19 database, searched between 10 June 2020 and 15 June 2020.Eligibility criteriaAny peer-reviewed article reported as a systematic review, rapid review, overview, meta-analysis or qualitative evidence synthesis in the title or abstract addressing a research question relating to COVID-19. Articles described as meta-analyses but not undertaken as part of a systematic or rapid review were excluded.Study selection and data extractionAbstract and full text screening were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Descriptive information on review type, purpose, population, size, citation and attention metrics were extracted along with whether the review met the definition of a systematic review according to six key methodological criteria. For those meeting all criteria, additional data on methods and publication metrics were extracted.Risk of biasFor articles meeting all six criteria required to meet the definition of a systematic review, AMSTAR-2 ((A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, version 2.0) was used to assess the quality of the reported methods.Results2334 articles were screened, resulting in 280 reviews being included: 232 systematic reviews, 46 rapid reviews and 2 overviews. Less than half reported undertaking critical appraisal and a third had no reproducible search strategy. There was considerable overlap in topics, with discordant findings. Eighty-eight of the 280 reviews met all six systematic review criteria. Of these, just 3 were rated as of moderate or high quality on AMSTAR-2, with the majority having critical flaws: only a third reported registering a protocol, and less than one in five searched named COVID-19 databases. Review conduct and publication were rapid, with 52 of the 88 systematic reviews reported as being conducted within 3 weeks, and a half published within 3 weeks of submission. Researcher and media interest, as measured by altmetrics and citations, was high, and was not correlated with quality.DiscussionThis meta-research of early published COVID-19 evidence syntheses found low-quality reviews being published at pace, often with short publication turnarounds. Despite being of low quality and many lacking robust methods, the reviews received substantial attention across both academic and public platforms, and the attention was not related to the quality of review methods.InterpretationFlaws in systematic review methods limit the validity of a review and the generalisability of its findings. Yet, by being reported as ‘systematic reviews’, many readers may well regard them as high-quality evidence, irrespective of the actual methods undertaken. The challenge especially in times such as this pandemic is to provide indications of trustworthiness in evidence that is available in ‘real time’.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020188822.

scholarly journals COHESION: core outcomes in neonatal encephalopathy (protocol)

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiona A. Quirke ◽  
Patricia Healy ◽  
Elaine Ní Bhraonáin ◽  
Mandy Daly ◽  
Linda Biesty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Core Outcome Set ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Neonatal Encephalopathy ◽  
Outcome Set ◽  
The Brain

Abstract Background Neonatal encephalopathy is a complex syndrome in infants that predominantly affects the brain and other organs. The leading cause is a lack of oxygen in the blood reaching the brain. Neonatal encephalopathy can result in mortality or complications later in life, including seizures, movement disorders and cerebral palsy. Treatment options for neonatal encephalopathy are limited mainly to therapeutic hypothermia, although other potential treatments are emerging. However, evaluations of the effectiveness of treatments are challenging because of heterogeneity and inconsistency in outcomes measured and reported between trials. In this paper, we detail how we will develop a core outcome set to standardise outcomes measured and reported upon for interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. Methods We will systematically review the literature to identify outcomes reported previously in randomised trials and systematic reviews of randomised trials. We will identify outcomes important to parents or caregivers of infants diagnosed with and who have received treatment for neonatal encephalopathy. We will do this by conducting in person or by video teleconferencing interviews with parents or caregivers in high-income and low- to middle-income countries. Stakeholders with expertise in neonatal encephalopathy (parents/caregivers, healthcare providers and researchers) will rate the importance of identified outcomes in an online Delphi survey using either a three-round Delphi survey or a “Real-Time” Delphi survey to which stakeholders will be allocated at random. Consensus meetings will take place by video conference to allow for an international group of stakeholder representatives to discuss and vote on the outcomes to include in the final core outcome set (COS). Discussion More research is needed on treatments for neonatal encephalopathy. Standardising outcomes measured and reported in evaluations of the effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy will improve evidence synthesis and improve results reported in systematic reviews and meta-analysis in this area. Overall, this COS will allow for improved treatments to be identified, heterogeneity in research to be reduced, and overall patient care to be enhanced. Trial registration This study is registered in the Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness (COMET) database http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1270.

scholarly journals Contributions of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses to Nursing Education, Research, and Practice

Aquichan ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Wilson Cañón-Montañez
Keyword(s):  
Education Research ◽  
Nursing Education ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Nursing Education Research ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Meta Analyses

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are helpful methodological alternatives that combine, discuss, and assess the quality of the best available evidence through adequate and exhaustive searches of the literature. In the last decade, there has been an increase in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nursing research. This article intends to reflect on the contributions of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to nursing education, research, and practice. Synthesizing the evidence through high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses adds to the disciplinary development of nursing; therefore, students and professionals in the field should be encouraged to employ these methodological tools in education and research and implement the results of these methods in clinical practice for making better decisions regarding the individual needs of patients.

scholarly journals What are the most important unanswered research questions on rapid review methodology? A James Lind Alliance research methodology Priority Setting Partnership: the Priority III study protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 80
Author(s):  
Claire Beecher ◽  
Elaine Toomey ◽  
Beccy Maeso ◽  
Caroline Whiting ◽  
Derek C. Stewart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Rapid Reviews ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

Background: The value of rapid reviews in informing health care decisions is more evident since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While systematic reviews can be completed rapidly, rapid reviews are usually a type of evidence synthesis in which components of the systematic review process may be simplified or omitted to produce information more efficiently within constraints of time, expertise, funding or any combination thereof. There is an absence of high-quality evidence underpinning some decisions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. We will conduct a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews in collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders. Methods: An international steering group consisting of key stakeholder perspectives (patients, the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders) will facilitate broad reach, recruitment and participation across stakeholder groups. An initial online survey will identify stakeholders’ perceptions of research uncertainties about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. Responses will be categorised to generate a long list of questions. The list will be checked against systematic reviews published within the past three years to identify if the question is unanswered. A second online stakeholder survey will rank the long list in order of priority. Finally, a virtual consensus workshop of key stakeholders will agree on the top 10 unanswered questions. Discussion: Research prioritisation is an important means for minimising research waste and ensuring that research resources are targeted towards answering the most important questions. Identifying the top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities will help target research to improve how we plan, do and share rapid reviews and ultimately enhance the use of high-quality synthesised evidence to inform health care policy and practice.

scholarly journals What are the most important unanswered research questions on rapid review methodology? A James Lind Alliance research methodology Priority Setting Partnership: the Priority III study protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 80
Author(s):  
Claire Beecher ◽  
Elaine Toomey ◽  
Beccy Maeso ◽  
Caroline Whiting ◽  
Derek C. Stewart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Rapid Reviews ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

Background: The value of rapid reviews in informing health care decisions is more evident since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While systematic reviews can be completed rapidly, rapid reviews are usually a type of evidence synthesis in which components of the systematic review process may be simplified or omitted to produce information more efficiently within constraints of time, expertise, funding or any combination thereof. There is an absence of high-quality evidence underpinning some decisions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. We will conduct a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews in collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders. Methods: An international steering group consisting of key stakeholder perspectives (patients, the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders) will facilitate broad reach, recruitment and participation across stakeholder groups. An initial online survey will identify stakeholders’ perceptions of research uncertainties about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. Responses will be categorised to generate a long list of questions. The list will be checked against systematic reviews published within the past three years to identify if the question is unanswered. A second online stakeholder survey will rank the long list in order of priority. Finally, a virtual consensus workshop of key stakeholders will agree on the top 10 unanswered questions. Discussion: Research prioritisation is an important means for minimising research waste and ensuring that research resources are targeted towards answering the most important questions. Identifying the top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities will help target research to improve how we plan, do and share rapid reviews and ultimately enhance the use of high-quality synthesised evidence to inform health care policy and practice.

scholarly journals Diet and physical activity in pregnancy to prevent gestational diabetes: a protocol for an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis on the differential effects of interventions with economic evaluation

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e048119
Author(s):  
Dyuti Coomar ◽  
Jonathan M Hazlehurst ◽  
Frances Austin ◽  
Charlie Foster ◽  
Graham A Hitman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Individual Participant Data ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Diet And Physical Activity ◽  
Individual Participant ◽  
In Pregnancy

IntroductionMothers with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are at increased risk of pregnancy-related complications and developing type 2 diabetes after delivery. Diet and physical activity-based interventions may prevent GDM, but variations in populations, interventions and outcomes in primary trials have limited the translation of available evidence into practice. We plan to undertake an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised trials to assess the differential effects and cost-effectiveness of diet and physical activity-based interventions in preventing GDM and its complications.MethodsThe International Weight Management in Pregnancy Collaborative Network database is a living repository of IPD from randomised trials on diet and physical activity in pregnancy identified through a systematic literature search. We shall update our existing search on MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS, LILACS, Pascal, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Health Technology Assessment Database without language restriction to identify relevant trials until March 2021. Primary researchers will be invited to join the Network and share their IPD. Trials including women with GDM at baseline will be excluded. We shall perform a one and two stage random-effect meta-analysis for each intervention type (all interventions, diet-based, physical activity-based and mixed approach) to obtain summary intervention effects on GDM with 95% CIs and summary treatment–covariate interactions. Heterogeneity will be summarised using I2 and tau2 statistics with 95% prediction intervals. Publication and availability bias will be assessed by examining small study effects. Study quality of included trials will be assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach will be used to grade the evidence in the results. A model-based economic analysis will be carried out to assess the cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent GDM and its complications compared with usual care.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. The study is registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020212884). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

scholarly journals Determining the influence of intervention characteristics on implementation success requires reliable and valid measures: Results from a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 263348952199419
Author(s):  
Cara C Lewis ◽  
Kayne Mettert ◽  
Aaron R Lyon
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Quality Measures ◽  
Measure Development ◽  
Relative Advantage ◽  
Design Quality ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Evidence Strength

Background: Despite their inclusion in Rogers’ seminal diffusion of innovations theory, few implementation studies empirically evaluate the role of intervention characteristics. Now, with growing evidence on the role of adaptation in implementation, high-quality measures of characteristics such as adaptability, trialability, and complexity are needed. Only two systematic reviews of implementation measures captured those related to the intervention or innovation and their assessment of psychometric properties was limited. This manuscript reports on the results of eight systematic reviews of measures of intervention characteristics with nuanced data regarding a broad range of psychometric properties. Methods: The systematic review proceeded in three phases. Phase I, data collection, involved search string generation, title and abstract screening, full text review, construct assignment, and citation searches. Phase II, data extraction, involved coding psychometric information. Phase III, data analysis, involved two trained specialists independently rating each measure using PAPERS (Psychometric And Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scales). Results: Searches identified 16 measures or scales: zero for intervention source, one for evidence strength and quality, nine for relative advantage, five for adaptability, six for trialability, nine for complexity, and two for design quality and packaging. Information about internal consistency and norms was available for most measures, whereas information about other psychometric properties was most often not available. Ratings for psychometric properties fell in the range of “poor” to “good.” Conclusion: The results of this review confirm that few implementation scholars are examining the role of intervention characteristics in behavioral health studies. Significant work is needed to both develop new measures (e.g., for intervention source) and build psychometric evidence for existing measures in this forgotten domain. Plain Language Summary Intervention characteristics have long been perceived as critical factors that directly influence the rate of adopting an innovation. It remains unclear the extent to which intervention characteristics including relative advantage, complexity, trialability, intervention source, design quality and packaging, evidence strength and quality, adaptability, and cost impact implementation of evidence-based practices in behavioral health settings. To unpack the differential influence of these factors, high quality measures are needed. Systematic reviews can identify measures and synthesize the data regarding their quality to identify gaps in the field and inform measure development and testing efforts. Two previous reviews identified measures of intervention characteristics, but they did not provide information about the extent of the existing evidence nor did they evaluate the host of evidence available for identified measures. This manuscript summarizes the results of nine systematic reviews (i.e., one for each of the factors listed above) for which 16 unique measures or scales were identified. The nuanced findings will help direct measure development work in this forgotten domain.

scholarly journals A Mapping Literature Review of Medical Cannabis Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Evidence in Approved Conditions in the USA from 2016 to 2019

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Sebastian Jugl ◽  
Aimalohi Okpeku ◽  
Brianna Costales ◽  
Earl J. Morris ◽  
Golnoosh Alipour-Haris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
The Body ◽  
Medical Cannabis ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Chronic Noncancer Pain ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Improved Outcomes ◽  
Noncancer Pain ◽  
Study Setting

In 2017, a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) report comprehensively evaluated the body of evidence regarding cannabis health effects through the year 2016. The objectives of this study are to identify and map the most recently (2016–2019) published literature across approved conditions for medical cannabis and to evaluate the quality of identified recent systematic reviews, published following the NASEM report. Following the literature search from 5 databases and consultation with experts, 11 conditions were identified for evidence compilation and evaluation: amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, autism, cancer, chronic noncancer pain, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy, glaucoma, human immunodeficiency virus/AIDS, multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson’s disease, and posttraumatic stress disorder. A total of 198 studies were included after screening for condition-specific relevance and after imposing the following exclusion criteria: preclinical focus, non-English language, abstracts only, editorials/commentary, case studies/series, and non-U.S. study setting. Data extracted from studies included: study design type, outcome definition, intervention definition, sample size, study setting, and reported effect size. Few completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. Studies classified as systematic reviews were graded using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 tool to evaluate the quality of evidence. Few high-quality systematic reviews were available for most conditions, with the exceptions of MS (9 of 9 graded moderate/high quality; evidence for 2/9 indicating cannabis improved outcomes; evidence for 7/9 indicating cannabis inconclusive), epilepsy (3 of 4 graded moderate/high quality; 3 indicating cannabis improved outcomes; 1 indicating cannabis inconclusive), and chronic noncancer pain (12 of 13 graded moderate/high quality; evidence for 7/13 indicating cannabis improved outcomes; evidence from 6/7 indicating cannabis inconclusive). Among RCTs, we identified few studies of substantial rigor and quality to contribute to the evidence base. However, there are some conditions for which significant evidence suggests that select dosage forms and routes of administration likely have favorable risk-benefit ratios (i.e., epilepsy and chronic noncancer pain). The body of evidence for medical cannabis requires more rigorous evaluation before consideration as a treatment option for many conditions, and evidence necessary to inform policy and treatment guidelines is currently insufficient for many conditions.

scholarly journals A systematic review of pharmacist-led audit and feedback interventions to influence prescribing behaviour in general practice settings

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i34-i35
Author(s):  
M Carter ◽  
N Abutheraa ◽  
N Ivers ◽  
J Grimshaw ◽  
S Chapman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Audit And Feedback ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Prescribing Behaviour ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Introduction Audit and Feedback (A&F) involves measuring data about practice, comparing it with clinical guidelines, professional standards or peer performance, and then feeding back the data to individuals/groups of health professionals to encourage change in practice (if required). A 2012 Cochrane review (1) found A&F was effective in changing health professionals’ behaviour and suggested that the person who delivers the A&F intervention influences its effect. Increasingly, pharmacists work in general practice and often have responsibility for medication review and repeat prescriptions. The effectiveness of pharmacist-led A&F in influencing prescribing behaviour is uncertain. Aim This secondary analysis from an ongoing update of the original Cochrane review aims to identify and describe pharmacist-led A&F interventions and evaluate their impact on prescribing behaviour in general practice compared with no intervention. Methods This sub-review is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42020194355 and complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (2). For the updated Cochrane review, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group searched MEDLINE (1946 to present), EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library (March 2019) to identify randomised trials featuring A&F interventions. For this sub-review, authors screened titles and abstracts (May 2020) to identify trials involving pharmacist-led A&F interventions in primary care, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (RoB) in eligible studies. Review results are summarised descriptively. Heterogeneity will be assessed and a random-effects meta-analysis is planned. Publication bias for selected outcomes and the certainty of the body of evidence will be evaluated and presented. Sub-group analyses will be conducted. Results Titles and abstracts of 295 studies identified for inclusion in the Cochrane A&F review update were screened. Eleven studies (all cluster-randomised trials) conducted in 9 countries (Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Ireland, UK, Australia, Malaysia, USA) were identified for inclusion (Figure 1). Six studies had low RoB, two had high risk due to dissimilarities between trial arms at baseline and/or insufficient detail about randomisation, and three studies had unclear RoB. Studies examined the effect of A&F on prescribing for specific conditions (e.g. hypertension), medications (e.g. antibiotics), populations (e.g. patients >70), and prescribing errors (e.g. inappropriate dose). The pharmacist delivering A&F was a colleague of intervention participants in five studies. Pharmacists’ levels of skill and experience varied; seven studies reported details of pharmacist training undertaken for trial purposes. A&F interventions in nine studies demonstrated changes in prescribing, including reductions in errors or inappropriate prescribing according to the study aims and smaller increases in unwanted prescribing compared with the control group. Data analyses are ongoing (results will be available for the conference). Conclusion The preliminary results demonstrate the effectiveness of pharmacist-led A&F interventions in different countries and health systems with influencing prescribing practice to align more closely with guidance. Studies measured different prescribing behaviours; meta-analysis is unlikely to include all 11 studies. Further detailed analysis including feedback format/content/frequency and pharmacist skill level/experience, work-base (external/internal to recipients), will examine the impact of specific features on intervention effectiveness. References 1. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(6):CD000259. 2. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

scholarly journals High-quality net shape geometries from additively manufactured parts using closed-loop controlled ablation with ultrashort laser pulses

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 101-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Holder ◽  
Artur Leis ◽  
Matthias Buser ◽  
Rudolf Weber ◽  
Thomas Graf
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Closed Loop ◽  
High Surface ◽  
Laser Pulses ◽  
Ultrashort Laser Pulses ◽  
Minimum Thickness ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Surface Optical ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Ultrashort Laser

AbstractAdditively manufactured parts typically deviate to some extent from the targeted net shape and exhibit high surface roughness due to the size of the powder grains that determines the minimum thickness of the individual slices and due to partially molten powder grains adhering on the surface. Optical coherence tomography (OCT)-based measurements and closed-loop controlled ablation with ultrashort laser pulses were utilized for the precise positioning of the LPBF-generated aluminum parts and for post-processing by selective laser ablation of the excessive material. As a result, high-quality net shape geometries were achieved with surface roughness, and deviation from the targeted net shape geometry reduced by 67% and 63%, respectively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document