Insufficient Reporting of Factors Associated With Exercise Referral Scheme Uptake, Attendance, and Adherence: A Systematic Review of Reviews

Background: Exercise referral schemes (ERS) are prescribed programs to tackle physical inactivity and associated noncommunicable disease. Inconsistencies in reporting, recording, and delivering ERS make it challenging to identify what works, why, and for whom. Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guided this narrative review of reviews. Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews of ERS. Inclusion criteria and quality assessed through A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Data on uptake, attendance, and adherence were extracted. Results: Eleven reviews met inclusion criteria. AMSTAR quality was medium. Uptake ranged between 35% and 81%. Groups more likely to take up ERS included (1) females and (2) older adults. Attendance ranged from 12% to 49%. Men were more likely to attend ERS. Effect of medical diagnosis upon uptake and attendance was inconsistent. Exercises prescribed were unreported; therefore, adherence to exercise prescriptions was unreported. The influence of theoretically informed approaches on uptake, attendance, and adherence was generally lacking; however, self-determination, peer support, and supervision were reported as influencing attendance. Conclusions: There was insufficient reporting across studies about uptake, attendance, and adherence. Complex interventions such as ERS require consistent definitions, recording, and reporting of these key facets, but this is not evident from the existing literature.

Download Full-text

Published patterns of spin in biomedical literature: a protocol for a meta-research study

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043784 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (4) ◽

pp. e043784

Author(s):

Naichuan Su ◽

Michiel van der Linden ◽

Geert JMG van der Heijden ◽

Stefan Listl ◽

Stefan Schandelmaier ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Scientific Journal ◽

Open Science ◽

Biomedical Literature ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Delphi Consensus ◽

Reporting Practices ◽

Literature Reviews ◽

Science Framework ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionSpin is defined as reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and create misleading conclusions by suggesting more favourable results. Such unjustifiable and misleading misrepresentation may negatively influence the development of further studies, clinical practice and healthcare policies. Spin manifests in various patterns in different sections of publications (titles, abstracts and main texts). The primary aim of this study is to identify reported spin patterns and assess the prevalence of spin in general, and the prevalence of spin patterns reported in biomedical literature based on previously published systematic reviews and literature reviews on spin.Methods and analysisPubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS will be searched to identify systematic or literature reviews on spin in biomedicine. To improve the comprehensiveness of the search, the snowballing method will be used to broaden the search. The data on spin-related outcomes and characteristics of the included studies will be extracted. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed with selective items of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 checklist. A new classification scheme for spin patterns will be developed if the classifications of spin patterns identified in the included studies vary. The prevalence of spin and spin patterns will be pooled based on meta-analyses if the classification schemes for spin are comparable across included studies. Otherwise, the prevalence will be described qualitatively. The seriousness of spin patterns will be assessed based on a Delphi consensus study.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam Ethics Review Committee (2020250). The study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.RegistrationOpen Science Framework: osf.io/hzv6e

Download Full-text

How Can Social Mentality Theory Help Us Understand Eating Disorder Presentations? A Scoping Review

Journal of Relationships Research ◽

10.1017/jrr.2018.17 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 9 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Georgina Mullen ◽

Gary O'Reilly

Keyword(s):

Eating Disorder ◽

Attachment Style ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Scoping Review ◽

Social Rank ◽

Inclusion Criteria ◽

Self Compassion ◽

Social Difficulties ◽

Caregiver Experiences ◽

Meta Analyses

AbstractThis scoping review used social mentality theory (SMT) as a framework to identify and integrate relevant eating disorder systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic search of the PsycINFO database was conducted, using terms from SMT and eating disorder literature. Eighteen systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Findings suggest that those with eating disorders also experience a number of relationship difficulties, in childhood and/or adulthood, related to attachment style, caregiver experiences, family functioning, social rank, social cognition, and self-compassion. The identification of these social difficulties is established in the eating disorder literature. SMT can provide a theoretical framework to understand how evolved motives to relate to others may contribute to these difficulties.

Download Full-text

Effectivity of Psychotherapy Interventions for Anxiety in Medical Students: A Systematic Review

Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences ◽

10.3889/oamjms.2021.7244 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (F) ◽

pp. 453-463

Author(s):

Andrian Fajar Kusumadewi ◽

Carla Raymondalexas Marchira ◽

Widyandana Widyandana ◽

Ronny Tri Wirasto

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Medical Students ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Depression And Anxiety ◽

Inclusion Criteria ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

And Behavior ◽

Anxiety Depression ◽

Suicidal Ideas ◽

Psychotherapy Interventions

BACKGROUND: The mental health of medical students has long been a topic of concern in many countries. Much research in Europe reported that around 30% of medical students suffered from anxiety. Anxiety disorders have significant physical and emotional consequences. Various studies show that excessive, unmanaged stress related to poor academic performance in medical students leads to cynical personalities, lack of empathy, and suicidal ideas. AIM: This study aimed to identify studies for psychotherapy interventions carried out in medical students and analyze each impact on anxiety level in medical students. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted with evidence sourced from 2000 to 2020. The review process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The study was registered with the Prospective Registering of Systematic Reviews database (Protocol ID: CRD42020180650). RESULTS: Twenty-three studies meet the inclusion criteria, and there are various psychotherapy interventions to deal with anxiety. Most studies reported that students who received mindfulness-based interventions reported lower anxiety, depression, and stress. CONCLUSION: There are various interventions carried out to decrease stress levels, depression, and anxiety in medical students. The most effective psychotherapy was found in cognitive and behavior intervention and mindfulness intervention.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of perioperative immunonutrition in visceral surgery: an umbrella review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053851 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (9) ◽

pp. e053851

Author(s):

Karem Slim ◽

Flora Badon ◽

Charles-Hervé Vacheron ◽

Chadli Dziri ◽

Thomas Marquillier

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Surgical Site Infections ◽

Visceral Surgery ◽

Hospital Length Of Stay ◽

Bibliographic Databases ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Published Data ◽

Umbrella Review ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionImmunonutrition (IN) is generally used before major visceral surgery with the intent to reduce postoperative complications, especially infectious ones. However, the conclusions of published meta-analyses are conflicting. The purpose of this review is to synthesise the data of published systematic reviews on the effectiveness of IN.Methods and analysisThis protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols guidelines. This is an umbrella review of systematic reviews comparing IN (delivered orally 5–7 days preoperatively) with normal diet or isocaloric isonitrogenous feeding before visceral surgery performed on any of several viscera (colorectum, stomach, pancreas, liver, oesophagus). We search the systematic reviews included in the main bibliographic databases. To assess the efficacy of IN, several outcomes will be considered: the main outcome is infectious complications (surgical site infections, pulmonary infections or urinary infections) and secondary outcomes are overall morbidity, hospital length of stay and mortality. Identified reviews will be screened by two independent assessors. The methodological quality of relevant included reviews will be assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. The data extracted from included reviews will be synthesised using the r-Metafor package considering separate groups according to the viscus of interest. Publication bias will be evaluated, and subgroup analyses will be performed according to the quality of studies and preoperative nutritional status.Ethics and disseminationAn umbrella review based on published data from systematic reviews needs no ethical approval. Furthermore, no patient will be involved in the review. Once terminated, the review will be submitted for publication in an open access journal to ensure wide dissemination of the findings.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021255177.

Download Full-text

Use of Augmented Reality in Reconstructive Microsurgery: A Systematic Review and Development of the Augmented Reality Microsurgery Score

Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery ◽

10.1055/s-0039-3401832 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 36 (04) ◽

pp. 261-270

Author(s):

Yasser Al Omran ◽

Ali Abdall-Razak ◽

Catrin Sohrabi ◽

Tiffanie-Marie Borg ◽

Hayat Nadama ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Augmented Reality ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Real World ◽

Digital Information ◽

Inclusion Criteria ◽

Qualitative Synthesis ◽

Reconstructive Microsurgery ◽

User Access ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Augmented reality (AR) uses a set of technologies that overlays digital information into the real world, giving the user access to both digital and real-world environments in congruity. AR may be specifically fruitful in reconstructive microsurgery due to the dynamic nature of surgeries performed and the small structures encountered in these operations. The aim of this study was to conduct a high-quality preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and assessment of multiple systematic reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) compliant systematic review evaluating the use of AR in reconstructive microsurgery. Methods A systematic literature search of Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases was performed using appropriate search terms to identify all applications of AR in reconstructive microsurgery from inception to December 2018. Articles that did not meet the objectives of the study were excluded. A qualitative synthesis was performed of those articles that met the inclusion criteria. Results A total of 686 articles were identified from title and abstract review. Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Three of the studies used head-mounted displays, one study used a display monitor, and one study demonstrated AR using spatial navigation technology. The augmented reality microsurgery score was developed and applied to each of the AR technologies and scores ranged from 8 to 12. Conclusion Although higher quality studies reviewing the use of AR in reconstructive microsurgery is needed, the feasibility of AR in reconstructive microsurgery has been demonstrated across different subspecialties of plastic surgery. AR applications, that are reproducible, user-friendly, and have clear benefit to the surgeon and patient, have the greatest potential utility. Further research is required to validate its use and overcome the barriers to its implementation.

Download Full-text

Quality of the Evidence Supporting the Role of Oral Nutritional Supplements in the Management of Malnutrition: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Advances in Nutrition ◽

10.1093/advances/nmaa108 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Christine Baldwin ◽

Rosemary Smith ◽

Michelle Gibbs ◽

C Elizabeth Weekes ◽

Peter W Emery

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Hospital Readmissions ◽

Nutritional Supplement ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

High Quality ◽

Oral Nutritional Supplements ◽

Meta Analyses

ABSTRACT There is considerable heterogeneity across the findings of systematic reviews of oral nutritional supplement (ONS) interventions, presenting difficulties for healthcare decision-makers and patients alike. It is not known whether heterogeneity arises from differences in patient populations or relates to methodological rigor. This overview aimed to collate and compare findings from systematic reviews of ONSs compared with routine care in adult patients who were malnourished or at risk of malnutrition with any clinical condition and to examine their methodological quality. Three electronic databases were searched to July 2019, supplemented with hand-searching. Data on all outcomes were extracted and review methodological quality assessed using A MeaSurement Tool for Assessment of systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Twenty-two reviews were included, 11 in groups from mixed clinical backgrounds and 11 in specific clinical conditions. Ninety-one meta-analyses were identified for 12 different outcomes but there was discordance between results. Significant benefits of ONSs were reported in 4 of 4 analyses of energy intake, 7 of 11 analyses of body weight, 7 of 22 analyses of mortality, 10 of 17 analyses of complications (total and infectious), 1 of 3 analyses of muscle strength, 4 of 9 analyses of body composition/nutritional status, 2 of 14 analyses of length of stay, and 2 of 5 analyses of hospital readmissions. Ten reviews were high quality (AMSTAR scores 8–11), 9 moderate (AMSTAR scores 3–8), and 3 poor (AMSTAR scores 0–3). Methodological deficiencies were limitations to searches, poor reporting of heterogeneity, and failure to incorporate quality of evidence into any recommendations. Discordance between reviews was not markedly reduced when only high-quality reviews were considered. Evidence for the effects of ONS in malnourished patients or those who are at risk of malnutrition is uncertain, and discordance in results can arise from differences in clinical background of patients or the etiological basis of malnutrition.

Download Full-text

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: protocol for umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033634 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (2) ◽

pp. e033634

Author(s):

Luigi Marano ◽

Daniele Fusario ◽

Vinno Savelli ◽

Luigi Verre ◽

Alessandro Neri ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gastric Cancer ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Laparoscopic Gastrectomy ◽

Laparoscopic Approach ◽

Primary Data ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Reference List ◽

Robotic Approach ◽

Umbrella Review ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionLaparoscopic surgery has been adopted in some parts of the world as an innovative approach to the resection of gastric cancers. However, in the modern era of surgical oncology, to overcome intrinsic limitations of the traditional laparoscopy, the robotic approach is advocated as able to facilitate the lymph node dissection and complex reconstruction after gastrectomy, to assure oncologic safety also in advanced gastric cancer patients. Previous meta-analyses highlighted a lower complication rate as well as bleeding in the robotic approach group when compared with the laparoscopic one. This potential benefit must be balanced against an increased time of intervention. The aim of this umbrella review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature for surgeons and policymakers in order to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared with the laparoscopic approach for gastric cancer.Methods and analysisWe will perform a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for all articles published up to May 2019 and reference list of relevant publications for systematic review and meta-analyses comparing the outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. Studies will be selected by two independent reviewers based on prespecified eligibility criteria and the quality will be assessed according to AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) checklist. All information will be collected using piloted and standardised data-extraction forms in DistillerSR developed following the Joanna Briggs Institute’s recommended extraction items.Ethics and disseminationThis umbrella review will inform clinical and policy decisions regarding the benefits and harms of RG for treating gastric cancer. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and the popular press. Formal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019139906.

Download Full-text

Machine learning in occupational safety and health: protocol for a systematic review

International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Safety ◽

10.24840/2184-0954_005.001_0004 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 32-38

Author(s):

Sara Maheronnaghsh ◽

H. Zolfagharnasab ◽

M. Gorgich ◽

J. Duarte

Keyword(s):

Machine Learning ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Occupational Safety ◽

Occupational Safety And Health ◽

Massive Data ◽

Inclusion Criteria ◽

Safety And Health ◽

Intelligent Behavior ◽

Methodological Practice ◽

Meta Analyses

Industry 4.0 has shaped the way people look at the world and interact with it, especially concerning the work environment with respect to occupational safety and health (OSH). Machine learning (ML), as a branch of Artificial Intelligence (AI), can be effectively used to create expert systems to exhibit intelligent behavior to provide solutions to complicated problems and finally process massive data. Therefore, a study is proposed to provide the best methodological practice in the light of ML. Alongside the review of previous investigations, the following research aims to determine the ML approaches appropriate to OSH issues. In other words, highlighting specific ML methodologies, which have been employed successfully in others areas. Bearing this objective in mind, one can identify an appropriate ML technique to solve a problem in the OSH domain. Accordingly, several questions were designed to conduct the research. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Protocols and Systematic Reviews were used to draw the research outline. The chosen databases were SCOPUS, PubMed, Science Direct, Inspect, and Web of Science. A set of keywords related to the topic were defined, and both exclusion and inclusion criteria were determined. All of the eligible papers will be analyzed, and the extracted information will be included in an Excel form sheet. The results will be presented in a narrative-based form. Additionally, all tables summarizing the most important findings will be offered.

Download Full-text

Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review

JMIR Perioperative Medicine ◽

10.2196/19099 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 3 (2) ◽

pp. e19099

Author(s):

Ben Patel ◽

Arron Thind

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Mobile Health ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Validated Questionnaire ◽

System Usability Scale ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Mhealth Apps

Background Mobile health (mHealth) apps are increasingly used postoperatively to monitor, educate, and rehabilitate. The usability of mHealth apps is critical to their implementation. Objective This systematic review evaluates the (1) methodology of usability analyses, (2) domains of usability being assessed, and (3) results of usability analyses. Methods The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews checklist was consulted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was adhered to. Screening was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers. All included studies were assessed for risk of bias. Domains of usability were compared with the gold-standard mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ). Results A total of 33 of 720 identified studies were included for data extraction. Of the 5 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), usability was never the primary end point. Methodology of usability analyses included interview (10/33), self-created questionnaire (18/33), and validated questionnaire (9/33). Of the 3 domains of usability proposed in the MAUQ, satisfaction was assessed in 28 of the 33 studies, system information arrangement was assessed in 11 of the 33 studies, and usefulness was assessed in 18 of the 33 studies. Usability of mHealth apps was above industry average, with median System Usability Scale scores ranging from 76 to 95 out of 100. Conclusions Current analyses of mHealth app usability are substandard. RCTs are rare, and validated questionnaires are infrequently consulted. Of the 3 domains of usability, only satisfaction is regularly assessed. There is significant bias throughout the literature, particularly with regards to conflicts of interest. Future studies should adhere to the MAUQ to assess usability and improve the utility of mHealth apps.

Download Full-text

Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.19099 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Ben Patel ◽

Arron Thind

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Mobile Health ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Validated Questionnaire ◽

System Usability Scale ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Mhealth Apps

BACKGROUND Mobile health (mHealth) apps are increasingly used postoperatively to monitor, educate, and rehabilitate. The usability of mHealth apps is critical to their implementation. OBJECTIVE This systematic review evaluates the (1) methodology of usability analyses, (2) domains of usability being assessed, and (3) results of usability analyses. METHODS The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews checklist was consulted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was adhered to. Screening was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers. All included studies were assessed for risk of bias. Domains of usability were compared with the gold-standard mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ). RESULTS A total of 33 of 720 identified studies were included for data extraction. Of the 5 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), usability was never the primary end point. Methodology of usability analyses included interview (10/33), self-created questionnaire (18/33), and validated questionnaire (9/33). Of the 3 domains of usability proposed in the MAUQ, satisfaction was assessed in 28 of the 33 studies, system information arrangement was assessed in 11 of the 33 studies, and usefulness was assessed in 18 of the 33 studies. Usability of mHealth apps was above industry average, with median System Usability Scale scores ranging from 76 to 95 out of 100. CONCLUSIONS Current analyses of mHealth app usability are substandard. RCTs are rare, and validated questionnaires are infrequently consulted. Of the 3 domains of usability, only satisfaction is regularly assessed. There is significant bias throughout the literature, particularly with regards to conflicts of interest. Future studies should adhere to the MAUQ to assess usability and improve the utility of mHealth apps.

Download Full-text