Human microbiome and metabolic health: An overview of systematic reviews

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Michels ◽  
Semi Zouiouich ◽  
Bert Vanderbauwhede ◽  
Judith Vanacker ◽  
B. Iciar Indave Ruiz ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (23) ◽  
pp. 2686-2691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ioannis Doundoulakis ◽  
Christina Antza ◽  
Haralambos Karvounis ◽  
George Giannakoulas

Background: Anticoagulation in patients with pulmonary embolism. Objective: To identify how non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are associated with multiple outcomes in patients with pulmonary embolism. Methods: We performed a systematic search of systematic reviews via multiple electronic databases from inception to August 19th, 2019, without language restriction. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews using the ROBIS tool. Results: We found twelve systematic reviews. Eleven SRs collected their data from randomized clinical trials and one from observational studies. All the included studies were published between 2014 and 2019 in English. The methodological quality of the 12 systematic reviews was low to high. None of the systematic reviews, which are included in our overview of systematic reviews, has evaluated the overall quality of evidence outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Conclusion: This is the first effort to summarize evidence about non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in an overview of systematic reviews focusing exclusively on patients with pulmonary embolism. The evidence suggests that the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants seem to be more effective and safer than a dualdrug approach with LMWH- VKA.


2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 204-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenni Ilomaki ◽  
Natali Jokanovic ◽  
Edwin Tan ◽  
Eija Lonnroos

Author(s):  
Fatemeh Khademian ◽  
Azam Aslani ◽  
Peivand Bastani

Abstract Objectives Despite a large number of mobile apps in the field of mental health, it is difficult to find a useful and reliable one, mainly due to the fact that the effectiveness of many apps has not been assessed scientifically. The present study aimed to assess the effects of mental health apps on managing the symptoms of stress, anxiety, and depression. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for the papers published from 2000 to 2019. Studies were included if they reviewed articles or mobile apps for their effectiveness in stress, anxiety, and depression. The reviews that had considered mobile apps or web-based mobile applications as an intervention or part of intervention were included, as well. Results A total of 4,999 peer-reviewed articles were identified, out of which nine systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Seven systematic reviews measured depression outcomes, three measured stress, and five systematic reviews measured anxiety symptoms. The applications that used behavior change strategies, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, and Behavioral Activation, reported significant effects on depression, anxiety, and stress. Conclusion It seems that mental health apps can be promising media for reducing depressive symptoms. This field is an emerging area of mobile health, and further research should be done in future in order to reach conclusive evidence.


2020 ◽  
Vol 287 ◽  
pp. 112905 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chunsong Yang ◽  
Xiao Cheng ◽  
Qiyunrui Zhang ◽  
Dan Yu ◽  
Jiayuan Li ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento ◽  
Dónal P. O’Mathúna ◽  
Thilo Caspar von Groote ◽  
Hebatullah Mohamed Abdulazeem ◽  
Ishanka Weerasekara ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Navigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic. Methods Nine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO’s Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes. Results Eighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as “critically low”. Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82–95%), cough with or without sputum (58–72%), dyspnea (26–59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29–51%), sore throat (10–13%), headache (8–12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5–9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%. Conclusions In this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was “critically low”. Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document