scholarly journals New meniscal tears after ACL injury: what is the risk? A systematic review protocol

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 386-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guri Ranum Ekås ◽  
Clare Ardern ◽  
Hege Grindem ◽  
Lars Engebretsen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Meniscal Tears ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis

BackgroundSecondary meniscal tears after ACL injuries increase the risk of knee osteoarthritis. The current literature on secondary meniscal injuries after ACL injury is not consistent and may have methodological shortcomings. This protocol describes the methods of a systematic review investigating the rate of secondary meniscal injuries in children and adults after treatment (operative or non-operative) for ACL injury.MethodsWe will search electronic databases (Embase, Ovid Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), SPORTDiscus, PEDro and Google Scholar) from database inception. Extracted data will include demographic data, methodology, intervention details and patient outcomes. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa checklist for cohort studies. Article screening, eligibility assessment, risk of bias assessment and data extraction will be performed in duplicate by independent reviewers. A proportion meta-analysis will be performed if studies are homogeneous (I2<75%). If meta-analysis is precluded, data will be synthesised descriptively using best-evidence synthesis. The strength of recommendations and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation working group methodology.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol is written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on 22 March 2016.Trial registration numberCRD42016036788.

scholarly journals Is acupuncture effective for knee osteoarthritis? A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e052270
Author(s):  
Chuan-Yang Liu ◽  
Jian-Feng Tu ◽  
Myeong Soo Lee ◽  
Ling-Yu Qi ◽  
Fang-Ting Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis

IntroductionKnee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of the leading causes of disability. The effectiveness of acupuncture for treating KOA remains controversial. This protocol describes the method of a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for treating KOA.Methods and analysisFour English databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases and Web of Science) and four Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, and Wanfang) will be searched from the database inception to 1 September 2021. All randomised controlled trials related to acupuncture for KOA will be included. Extracted data will include publication details, basic information, demographic data, intervention details and patient outcomes. The primary outcome will be pain intensity. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias. Article selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be performed in duplicate by two independent reviewers. If the meta-analysis is precluded, we will conduct a descriptive synthesis using a best-evidence synthesis approach. The strength of recommendations and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation working group methodology.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required because individual patient data are not included. This protocol was registered in the international Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on 25 February 2021. The systematic review and meta-analysis will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The findings will also be disseminated through conference presentations.Trial registration numberCRD42021232177.

scholarly journals Neurocognitive impairment after neonatal sepsis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e038816
Author(s):  
Jen Heng Pek ◽  
Bei Jun Yap ◽  
Ming Ying Gan ◽  
Shu Ting Tammie Seethor ◽  
Rachel Greenberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Developmental Disability ◽  
Neonatal Sepsis ◽  
English Language ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Neurocognitive Outcomes

IntroductionThe effect of neonatal sepsis on the developing brain is not well documented. We aim to perform evidence synthesis to determine the outcome of neurodevelopmental impairment and intellectual disability among survivors of neonatal sepsis. The data gathered will inform on the long-term neurocognitive outcomes of neonates with sepsis and the measures used to document their developmental disability.Methods and analysisWe will perform a search based on the following parameters: neonates and infants less than 90 days old diagnosed with sepsis who had neurocognitive outcomes or measures of developmental disability reported. We will search PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase and Web of Science for articles in English language published between January 2010 and December 2019. Clinical trials and observational studies will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen studies for eligibility. Data extraction will then be performed using a standardised form. The quality of evidence and risk of bias will be assessed using Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Intervention (ROBINS-I). The results will be synthesised qualitatively and pooled for meta-analysis.Ethics and disseminationNo formal ethical approval is required as there is no collection of primary data. This systematic review and meta-analysis will be disseminated through conference meetings and peer-reviewed publications.PROSPERO registration numberRegistration submitted CRD42020164334

scholarly journals Lack of Superiority of Epidural Injections with Lidocaine with Steroids Compared to Without Steroids in Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 4S;23 (8;4S) ◽  
pp. S239-S270
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Discogenic Pain ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Best Evidence Synthesis

Background: Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews have been conducted to summarize the evidence for administration of local anesthetic (lidocaine) alone or with steroids, with discordant opinions, more in favor of equal effect with local anesthetic alone or with steroids. Objective: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of lidocaine alone and lidocaine with steroids in managing spinal pain to assess superiority or equivalency. Study Design: A systematic review of RCTs assessing the effectiveness of lidocaine alone compared with addition of steroids to lidocaine in managing spinal pain secondary to multiple causes (disc herniation, radiculitis, discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post-surgery syndrome). Methods: This systematic review was performed utilizing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) for literature search, Cochrane review criteria, and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) to assess the methodologic quality assessment and qualitative analysis utilizing best evidence synthesis principles, and quantitative analysis utilizing conventional and single-arm meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1966 through December 2019. The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. Outcome Measures: A hard endpoint for the primary outcome was defined as the proportion of patients with 50% pain relief and improvement in function. Secondary outcome measures, or soft endpoints, were pain relief and/or improvement in function. Effectiveness was determined as short-term if it was less than 6 months. Improvement that lasted longer than 6 months, was defined as long-term. Results: Based on search criteria, 15 manuscripts were identified and considered for inclusion for qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis with conventional meta-analysis, and single-arm meta-analysis. The results showed Level II, moderate evidence, for short-term and long-term improvement in pain and function with the application of epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroid in managing spinal pain of multiple origins. Limitations: Despite 15 RCTs, evidence may still be considered as less than optimal and further studies are recommended. Conclusion: Overall, the present meta-analysis shows moderate (Level II) evidence for epidural injections with lidocaine with or without steroids in managing spinal pain secondary to disc herniation, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain, and post-surgery syndrome based on relevant, high-quality RCTs. Results were similar for lidocaine, with or without steroids. Key Words: Chronic spinal pain, epidural injections, local anesthetic, lidocaine, steroids, active control trials, placebo effect

scholarly journals Prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e040997
Author(s):  
Varo Kirthi ◽  
Paul Nderitu ◽  
Uazman Alam ◽  
Jennifer Evans ◽  
Sarah Nevitt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
International Diabetes Federation ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Fundus Photography ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Cochrane Library

IntroductionThere is growing evidence of a higher than expected prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes. This paper presents the protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis of retinopathy in prediabetes. The aim of the review is to estimate the prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes and to summarise the current data.Methods and analysisThis protocol is developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A comprehensive electronic bibliographic search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. Eligible studies will report prevalence data for retinopathy on fundus photography in adults with prediabetes. No time restrictions will be placed on the date of publication. Screening for eligible studies and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers independently, using predefined inclusion criteria and prepiloted data extraction forms. Disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved by discussion, and if required, a third (senior) reviewer will arbitrate.The primary outcome is the prevalence of any standard features of diabetic retinopathy (DR) on fundus photography, as per International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (ICDRSS) classification. Secondary outcomes are the prevalence of (1) any retinal microvascular abnormalities on fundus photography that are not standard features of DR as per ICDRSS classification and (2) any macular microvascular abnormalities on fundus photography, including but not limited to the presence of macular exudates, microaneurysms and haemorrhages. Risk of bias for included studies will be assessed using a validated risk of bias tool for prevalence studies. Pooled estimates for the prespecified outcomes of interest will be calculated using random effects meta-analytic techniques. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as this is a protocol for a systematic review and no primary data are to be collected. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international meetings including Diabetes UK, European Association for the Study of Diabetes, American Diabetes Association and International Diabetes Federation conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184820.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Antalgic Therapies in Patients with Vertebral Bone Metastasis: A Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (8) ◽  
pp. 3991
Author(s):  
Antonio Jose Martin-Perez ◽  
María Fernández-González ◽  
Paula Postigo-Martin ◽  
Marc Sampedro Pilegaard ◽  
Carolina Fernández-Lao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Metastasis ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Pharmacological Intervention ◽  
Vertebral Metastasis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

There is no systematic review that has identified existing studies evaluating the pharmacological and non-pharmacological intervention for pain management in patients with bone metastasis. To fill this gap in the literature, this systematic review with meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of different antalgic therapies (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) in the improvement of pain of these patients. To this end, this protocol has been written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020135762). A systematic search will be carried out in four international databases: Medline (Via PubMed), Web of Science, Cochrane Library and SCOPUS, to select the randomized controlled clinical trials. The Risk of Bias Tool developed by Cochrane will be used to assess the risk of bias and the quality of the identified studies. A narrative synthesis will be used to describe and compare the studies, and after the data extraction, random effects model and a subgroup analyses will be performed according to the type of intervention, if possible. This protocol aims to generate a systematic review that compiles and synthesizes the best and most recent evidence on the treatment of pain derived from vertebral metastasis.

scholarly journals Effects of open-label placebos in clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Melina von Wernsdorff ◽  
Martin Loef ◽  
Brunna Tuschen-Caffier ◽  
Stefan Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Condition ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Cancer Related Fatigue ◽  
Promising Treatment ◽  
Irritable Bowel

AbstractOpen-label placebos (OLPs) are placebos without deception in the sense that patients know that they are receiving a placebo. The objective of our study is to systematically review and analyze the effect of OLPs in comparison to no treatment in clinical trials. A systematic literature search was carried out in February 2020. Randomized controlled trials of any medical condition or mental disorder comparing OLPs to no treatment were included. Data extraction and risk of bias rating were independently assessed. 1246 records were screened and thirteen studies were included into the systematic review. Eleven trials were eligible for meta-analysis. These trials assessed effects of OLPs on back pain, cancer-related fatigue, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, allergic rhinitis, major depression, irritable bowel syndrome and menopausal hot flushes. Risk of bias was moderate among all studies. We found a significant overall effect (standardized mean difference = 0.72, 95% Cl 0.39–1.05, p < 0.0001, I2 = 76%) of OLP. Thus, OLPs appear to be a promising treatment in different conditions but the respective research is in its infancy. More research is needed, especially with respect to different medical and mental disorders and instructions accompanying the OLP administration as well as the role of expectations and mindsets.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 175346662110280
Author(s):  
Roberto Ariel Abeldaño Zuñiga ◽  
Ruth Ana María González-Villoria ◽  
María Vanesa Elizondo ◽  
Anel Yaneli Nicolás Osorio ◽  
David Gómez Martínez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trials

Aims: Given the variability of previously reported results, this systematic review aims to determine the clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma employed in the treatment of hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of controlled clinical trials assessing treatment with convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The outcomes were mortality, clinical improvement, and ventilation requirement. Results: A total of 51 studies were retrieved from the databases. Five articles were finally included in the data extraction and qualitative and quantitative synthesis of results. The overall risk of bias in the reviewed articles was established at low-risk only in two trials. The meta-analysis suggests that there is no benefit of convalescent plasma compared with standard care or placebo in reducing the overall mortality and the ventilation requirement. However, there could be a benefit for the clinical improvement in patients treated with plasma. Conclusion: Current results led to assume that the convalescent plasma transfusion cannot reduce the mortality or ventilation requirement in hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. More controlled clinical trials conducted with methodologies that ensure a low risk of bias are still needed. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

scholarly journals Racecadotril for acute diarrhoea in children: systematic review and meta-analyses

2015 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 234-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morris Gordon ◽  
Anthony Akobeng
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Acute Diarrhoea ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms ◽  
Duration Of Illness ◽  
Significant Difference

ObjectiveRacecadotril is an antisecretory agent that can prevent fluid/electrolyte depletion from the bowel as a result of acute diarrhoea without affecting intestinal motility. An up-to-date systematic review is indicated to summarise the evidence on racecadotril for the treatment of acute diarrhoea in children.DesignA Cochrane format systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.PatientsChildren with acute diarrhoea, as defined by the primary studies.InterventionsRCTs comparing racecadotril with placebo or other interventions.Main outcome measursDuration of illness, stool output/volume and adverse events.ResultsSeven RCTs were included, five comparing racecadotril with placebo or no intervention, one with pectin/kaolin and one with loperamide. Moderate to high risk of bias was present in all studies. There was no significant difference in efficacy or adverse events between racecadotril and loperamide. A meta-analysis of three studies with 642 participants showed significantly shorter duration of symptoms with racecadotril compared with placebo (mean difference −53.48 h, 95% CI −65.64 to −41.33). A meta-analysis of five studies with 949 participants showed no significant difference in adverse events between racecadotril and placebo (risk ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.34).ConclusionsThere is some evidence that racecadotril is more effective than placebo or no intervention in reducing the duration of illness and stool output in children with acute diarrhoea. However, the overall quality of the evidence is limited due to sparse data, heterogeneity and risk of bias. Racecadotril appears to be safe and well tolerated.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and safety of herbal medicines for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e022499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Collins Zamawe ◽  
Carina King ◽  
Hannah Maria Jennings ◽  
Chrispin Mandiwa ◽  
Edward Fottrell
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Herbal Medicines ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Significant Difference

ObjectiveThe use of herbal medicines for induction of labour (IOL) is common globally and yet its effects are not well understood. We assessed the efficacy and safety of herbal medicines for IOL.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of published literature.Data sourcesWe searched in MEDLINE, AMED and CINAHL in April 2017, updated in June 2018.Eligibility criteriaWe considered experimental and non-experimental studies that compared relevant pregnancy outcomes between users and non-user of herbal medicines for IOL.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted by two reviewers using a standardised form. A random-effects model was used to synthesise effects sizes and heterogeneity was explored through I2statistic. The risk of bias was assessed using ‘John Hopkins Nursing School Critical Appraisal Tool’ and ‘Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool’.ResultsA total of 1421 papers were identified through the searches, but only 10 were retained after eligibility and risk of bias assessments. The users of herbal medicine for IOL were significantly more likely to give birth within 24 hours than non-users (Risk Ratio (RR) 4.48; 95% CI 1.75 to 11.44). No significant difference in the incidence of caesarean section (RR 1.19; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.86), assisted vaginal delivery (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.14), haemorrhage (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.60), meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.65 to 2.23) and admission to nursery (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.38) was found between users and non-users of herbal medicines for IOL.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that herbal medicines for IOL are effective, but there is inconclusive evidence of safety due to lack of good quality data. Thus, the use of herbal medicines for IOL should be avoided until safety issues are clarified. More studies are recommended to establish the safety of herbal medicines.

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Published in Indexed Portuguese Medical Journals: Time Trends and Critical Appraisal.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luísa Prada ◽  
Ana Prada ◽  
Miguel Antunes ◽  
Ricardo Fernandes ◽  
João Costa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Electronic Search ◽  
Potential Impact

Abstract Introduction:Over the last years, the number of systematic reviews published is steadily increasing due to the global interest in this type of evidence synthesis. However, little is known about the characteristics of this research published in Portuguese medical journals. This study aims to evaluate the publication trends and overall quality of these systematic reviews.Material and Methods:Systematic reviews were identified through an electronic search up to August 2020, targeting Portuguese Medical journals indexed in MEDLINE. Systematic reviews selection and data extraction were done independently by three authors. The overall quality critical appraisal using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR II) was independently assessed by three authors. Disagreements were solved by consensus.Results:Seventy systematic reviews published in 5 Portuguese medical journals were included. Most (n=57; 81,4%) were systematic reviews without meta-analysis. Until 2010, the number of systematic reviews per year increased. Since then, the number of reviews published has not remained stable and no less than 3 SRs were published per year. According to the systematic reviews’ typology, most have been predominantly conducted to assess the effectiveness of health interventions (n=28; 40,0%). General and Internal Medicine (n=26; 37,1%) was the most addressed field. Most systematic reviews (n=45; 64,3%) were rated as being of “critically low-quality”.Conclusions:There were consistent flaws in the methodological quality report of the systematic reviews included, particularly in establishing a prior protocol and not assessing the potential impact of the risk of bias on the results.Through the years, the number of systematic reviews published increased, yet their quality is suboptimal. There is a need to improve the reporting of systematic reviews in Portuguese medical journals, which can be achieved by better adherence to quality checklists/tools.Systematic review registration: INPLASY202090105

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document