scholarly journals Association between financial links to indoor tanning industry and conclusions of published studies on indoor tanning: systematic review

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lola Adekunle ◽  
Rebecca Chen ◽  
Lily Morrison ◽  
Meghan Halley ◽  
Victor Eng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Science Studies ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Indoor Tanning ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
English Articles ◽  
Tanning Industry

Abstract Objective To assess whether an association exists between financial links to the indoor tanning industry and conclusions of indoor tanning literature. Design Systematic review. Data sources PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, up to 15 February 2019. Study selection criteria Articles discussing indoor tanning and health were eligible for inclusion, with no article type restrictions (original research, systematic reviews, review articles, case reports, editorials, commentaries, and letters were all eligible). Basic science studies, articles describing only indoor tanning prevalence, non-English articles, and articles without full text available were excluded. Results 691 articles were included in analysis, including empiric articles (eg, original articles or systematic reviews) (357/691; 51.7%) and non-empiric articles letters (eg, commentaries, letters, or editorials) (334/691; 48.3%). Overall, 7.2% (50/691) of articles had financial links to the indoor tanning industry; 10.7% (74/691) articles favored indoor tanning, 3.9% (27/691) were neutral, and 85.4% (590/691) were critical of indoor tanning. Among the articles without industry funding, 4.4% (27/620) favored indoor tanning, 3.5% (22/620) were neutral, and 92.1% (571/620) were critical of indoor tanning. Among the articles with financial links to the indoor tanning industry, 78% (39/50) favored indoor tanning, 10% (5/50) were neutral, and 12% (6/50) were critical of indoor tanning. Support from the indoor tanning industry was significantly associated with favoring indoor tanning (risk ratio 14.3, 95% confidence interval 10.0 to 20.4). Conclusions Although most articles in the indoor tanning literature are independent of industry funding, articles with financial links to the indoor tanning industry are more likely to favor indoor tanning. Public health practitioners and researchers need to be aware of and account for industry funding when interpreting the evidence related to indoor tanning. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019123617.

scholarly journals Protocol for a Systematic Review on the Effectiveness of Interventions to Reduce Exposure to Occupational Solar UltraViolet Radiation (UVR) Among Outdoor Workers

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Modenese ◽  
Tom Loney ◽  
Marc Rocholl ◽  
Cara Symanzik ◽  
Fabriziomaria Gobba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ultraviolet Radiation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
International Agency ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Solar Ultraviolet Radiation ◽  
Outdoor Workers ◽  
Skin Cancers ◽  
Solar Ultraviolet

Background: Solar UltraViolet Radiation (UVR) is considered the most relevant occupational carcinogenic exposure in terms of the number of workers exposed (i.e., outdoor workers) and UVR-induced skin cancers are among the most frequent types of occupational cancers worldwide. This review aims to collect and evaluate all the available preventive interventions conducted on outdoor workers to reduce their solar UVR related risk, with the final purpose of reducing the burden of occupational skin cancers for outdoor workers.Methods: We will search the following databases for peer-reviewed original research published: MEDLINE (through PubMed), Scopus, and EMBASE. We will include only interventional studies, both randomized and non-randomized, with an adequate comparison group, therefore excluding cross-sectional studies, as well as case-reports/series, reviews, and letters/comments. The systematic review will adhere to the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) guidelines for reporting systematic reviews. After the literature search, studies to be included will be independently reviewed by two Authors, first based on title and abstract, then based on the full text, according to the inclusion criteria. Conflicts will be solved by a third Author. Two authors will independently extract the required data from included studies and perform quality assessment according to the relevant domain for Risk of Bias assessment proposed by the Cochrane collaboration group. In case of sufficient homogeneity of interventions and outcomes evaluated, results from subgroups of studies will be pooled together in a meta-analysis.Discussion: Following the principles for the evaluation of interventions for cancer prevention established by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, this systematic review will investigate the effectiveness of the interventions, and consequently it will provide reliable indications for the actual reduction of skin cancer incidence in outdoor workers.

scholarly journals Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Siw Waffenschmidt ◽  
Marco Knelangen ◽  
Wiebke Sieben ◽  
Stefanie Bühn ◽  
Dawid Pieper
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Study Selection

scholarly journals COVID-19 and Influenza Co-infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masoud Dadashi ◽  
Saeedeh Khaleghnejad ◽  
Parisa Abedi Elkhichi ◽  
Mehdi Goudarzi ◽  
Hossein Goudarzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Influenza Infection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Influenza Viruses ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Respiratory Pathogens ◽  
Prevalence Studies

Background and Aim: Co-infection of COVID-19 with other respiratory pathogens which may complicate the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of COVID-19 emerge new concern. The overlap of COVID-19 and influenza, as two epidemics at the same time can occur in the cold months of the year. The aim of current study was to evaluate the rate of such co-infection as a systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods: A systematic literature search was performed on September 28, 2019 for original research articles published in Medline, Web of Science, and Embase databases from December 2019 to September 2020 using relevant keywords. Patients of all ages with simultaneous COVID-19 and influenza were included. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 14 software.Results: Eleven prevalence studies with total of 3,070 patients with COVID-19, and 79 patients with concurrent COVID-19 and influenza were selected for final evaluation. The prevalence of influenza infection was 0.8% in patients with confirmed COVID-19. The frequency of influenza virus co-infection among patients with COVID-19 was 4.5% in Asia and 0.4% in the America. Four prevalence studies reported the sex of patients, which were 30 men and 31 women. Prevalence of co-infection with influenza in men and women with COVID-19 was 5.3 and 9.1%, respectively. Eight case reports and 7 case series with a total of 123 patients with COVID-19 were selected, 29 of them (16 men, 13 women) with mean age of 48 years had concurrent infection with influenza viruses A/B. Fever, cough, and shortness of breath were the most common clinical manifestations. Two of 29 patients died (6.9%), and 17 out of 29 patients recovered (58.6%). Oseltamivir and hydroxychloroquine were the most widely used drugs used for 41.4, and 31% of patients, respectively.Conclusion: Although a low proportion of COVID-19 patients have influenza co-infection, however, the importance of such co-infection, especially in high-risk individuals and the elderly, cannot be ignored. We were unable to report the exact rate of simultaneous influenza in COVID-19 patients worldwide due to a lack of data from several countries. Obviously, more studies are needed to evaluate the exact effect of the COVID-19 and influenza co-infection in clinical outcomes.

scholarly journals Vertical Transmission of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

Viruses ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 1877
Author(s):  
Salihu S. Musa ◽  
Umar M. Bello ◽  
Shi Zhao ◽  
Zainab U. Abdullahi ◽  
Muhammad A. Lawan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Vertical Transmission ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Mode Of Delivery ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Neonatal Outcomes ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Mother To Child

The COVID-19 pandemic has hugely impacted global public health and economy. The COVID-19 has also shown potential impacts on maternal perinatal and neonatal outcomes. This systematic review aimed to summarize the evidence from existing systematic reviews about the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infections on maternal perinatal and neonatal outcomes. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, from 1 December 2019 to 7 July 2021, for published review studies that included case reports, primary studies, clinical practice guidelines, overviews, case-control studies, and observational studies. Systematic reviews that reported the plausibility of mother-to-child transmission of COVID-19 (also known as vertical transmission), maternal perinatal and neonatal outcomes, and review studies that addressed the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy were also included. We identified 947 citations, of which 69 studies were included for further analysis. Most (>70%) of the mother-to-child infection was likely due to environmental exposure, although a significant proportion (about 20%) was attributable to potential vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Further results of the review indicated that the mode of delivery of pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 could not increase or decrease the risk of infection for the newborns (outcomes), thereby emphasizing the significance of breastfeeding. The issue of maternal perinatal and neonatal outcomes with SARS-CoV-2 infection continues to worsen during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, increasing maternal and neonatal mortality, stillbirth, ruptured ectopic pregnancies, and maternal depression. Based on this study, we observed increasing rates of cesarean delivery from mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also found that SARS-CoV-2 could be potentially transmitted vertically during the gestation period. However, more data are needed to further investigate and follow-up, especially with reports of newborns infected with SARS-CoV-2, in order to examine a possible long-term adverse effect.

scholarly journals Interventions to Mitigate COVID-19 Misinformation: Protocol for a Scoping Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Navin Kumar ◽  
Nathan Walter ◽  
Kate Nyhan ◽  
Kaveh Khoshnood ◽  
Joseph D Tucker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Science Framework

Abstract Background: The duration and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic depends in a large part on individual and societal actions which is influenced by the quality and salience of the information to which they are exposed. Unfortunately, COVID-19 misinformation has proliferated. To date, no systematic efforts have been made to evaluate interventions that mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation. We plan to conduct a scoping review that seeks to fill several of the gaps in the current knowledge of interventions that mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation.Methods: A scoping review focusing on interventions that mitigate COVID-19 misinformation will be conducted. We will search (from January 2020 onwards) MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Africa-Wide Information, Global Health, WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease Database, WHO Global Index Medicus, and Sociological Abstracts. Grey literature will be identified using Disaster Lit, Google Scholar, Open Science Framework, governmental websites and preprint servers (e.g. EuropePMC, PsyArXiv, MedRxiv, JMIR Preprints). Study selection will conform to Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2020 Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. Only English language, original studies will be considered for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. A narrative summary of findings will be conducted. Data analysis will involve quantitative (e.g. frequencies) and qualitative (e.g. content and thematic analysis) methods.Discussion: Original research is urgently needed to design interventions to mitigate COVID-19 misinformation. The planned scoping review will help to address this gap.Systematic Review registrations: Systematic Review Registration: Open Science Framework (osf/io/etw9d).

scholarly journals The effects of caffeine in adults with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jake Ryan Gibbon ◽  
James Frith
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Orthostatic Hypotension ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Neurogenic Orthostatic Hypotension ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Evidence Based Treatments

Abstract Purpose To systematically review the evidence base for the effectiveness and safety of caffeine for the treatment of neurogenic orthostatic hypotension in adults. Methods Eight electronic databases were searched in January 2021. Original research studies or case reports involving adults with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension were included if caffeine was an intervention and outcomes included symptoms, blood pressure or adverse effects. Relevant studies were screened and underwent qualitative analysis. Insufficient reporting precluded meta-analysis. Results Five studies were identified: four crossover studies and one case report summation. Study size ranged from 5 to 16 participants. Participants had neurogenic orthostatic hypotension, with a mean standing systolic blood pressure of 86 mmHg. Two studies evaluated caffeine alone. Three studies administered caffeine in combination with ergotamine. Caffeine dose ranged from 100 to 300 mg. Nature and timing of outcomes measured varied between studies, with measurements being recorded from 30 to 480 min after intervention. Caffeine/ergotamine improved symptoms in one study and reduced orthostatic blood pressure drop in two studies. Caffeine/ergotamine increased seated blood pressure in three studies, whilst the results for caffeine alone were inconsistent. No serious adverse events were reported. All studies demonstrated high risk of bias. Conclusion Caffeine should only be considered as a treatment for adults with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension when evidence-based treatments have been exhausted. Systematic review registration PROSPERO ID: CRD42020124589. Date of registration: 30/10/2020

scholarly journals Presentation and Management of Liraglutide-Related Pancreatitis: Systematic Review of Case Reports

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. A418-A418
Author(s):  
Som P Singh ◽  
Fahad Qureshi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Pancreatitis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Serum Amylase ◽  
Age Of Onset ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Elevated Serum ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background: Liraglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1 agonist) aimed towards promoting glucose-dependent insulin secretions. This medication is an emerging treatment option for the management of obesity through promoting satiety. However, there are a growing number of cases noting adverse effects of liraglutide. Of note, liraglutide has been seen to elevate serum amylase and lipase levels among users, and therefore promoting acute pancreatitis. Moreover, the overall presentation of liraglutide-related acute pancreatitis can be variable. The aim of this study is to determine qualitative patterns of presentation and meta-analysis of lab changes among acute pancreatitis patients on liraglutide. Methodology: Systematic review of the literature was performed on MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for liraglutide-related acute pancreatitis case studies, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and checklist. Meta-Analysis performed using Stata. Results: Twenty-one patient cases were identified then contingently evaluated for acute pancreatitis based on presentation, labs, and treatment outcomes. Within the pancreatitis cases, the average age of onset was 59 ± 16.5 (male = 58 ± 24.5; female = 56 ± 24.6). Upon qualitative review, 14.3% of patients were asymptomatic but showed elevated serum amylase and lipase levels following liraglutide administration (p < 0.05). Among the symptomatic group, there was variation in the duration of liraglutide administration and reported compliance. There was no significant difference among treatment regimes between symptomatic and asymptomatic groups. Conclusion: Longer duration of liraglutide treatment without dose adjustment was notable to show elevated rises in both serum amylase and lipase. However, the variation of patient symptoms cannot be determined through the duration of treatment. Patient demographics do not seem to play a role in acute pancreatitis episodes. Future studies ought to focus on larger patient samples to further develop an understanding of treatment duration, presentation, and management of acute pancreatitis management after liraglutide administration.

scholarly journals Psychometric properties of leadership scales for health professionals: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa A. Carlson ◽  
Sarah Morris ◽  
Fiona Day ◽  
Ann Dadich ◽  
Annika Ryan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Allied Health ◽  
Psychometric Testing ◽  
Test Reliability ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Leadership Traits ◽  
Allied Health Professionals

Abstract Background The important role of leaders in the translation of health research is acknowledged in the implementation science literature. However, the accurate measurement of leadership traits and behaviours in health professionals has not been directly addressed. This review aimed to identify whether scales which measure leadership traits and behaviours have been found to be reliable and valid for use with health professionals. Methods A systematic review was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, ABI/INFORMIT and Business Source Ultimate were searched to identify publications which reported original research testing the reliability, validity or acceptability of a leadership-related scale with health professionals. Results Of 2814 records, a total of 39 studies met the inclusion criteria, from which 33 scales were identified as having undergone some form of psychometric testing with health professionals. The most commonly used was the Implementation Leadership Scale (n = 5) and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (n = 3). Of the 33 scales, the majority of scales were validated in English speaking countries including the USA (n = 15) and Canada (n = 4), but also with some translations and use in Europe and Asia, predominantly with samples of nurses (n = 27) or allied health professionals (n = 10). Only two validation studies included physicians. Content validity and internal consistency were evident for most scales (n = 30 and 29, respectively). Only 20 of the 33 scales were found to satisfy the acceptable thresholds for good construct validity. Very limited testing occurred in relation to test-re-test reliability, responsiveness, acceptability, cross-cultural revalidation, convergent validity, discriminant validity and criterion validity. Conclusions Seven scales may be sufficiently sound to be used with professionals, primarily with nurses. There is an absence of validation of leadership scales with regard to physicians. Given that physicians, along with nurses and allied health professionals have a leadership role in driving the implementation of evidence-based healthcare, this constitutes a clear gap in the psychometric testing of leadership scales for use in healthcare implementation research and practice. Trial registration This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (see Additional File 1) (PLoS Medicine. 6:e1000097, 2009) and the associated protocol has been registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (Registration Number CRD42019121544).

scholarly journals Cholera in travellers: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley A Connor ◽  
Richard Dawood ◽  
Mark S Riddle ◽  
Davidson H Hamer
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Prevention Strategies ◽  
Additional Risk ◽  
Levels Of Detail ◽  
Vaccination Recommendations ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Returning Travellers ◽  
English Articles

Abstract Exposure to cholera is a risk for individuals and groups travelling to endemic areas, and the bacteria can be imported to cholera-free countries by returning travellers. This systematic review of the literature describes the circumstances in which cholera infection can occur in travellers and considers the possible value of the cholera vaccine for prevention in travellers. PubMed and EMBASE were searched for case reports of cholera or diarrhoea among travellers, with date limits of 1 January 1990–30 April 2018. Search results were screened to exclude the following articles: diarrhoea not caused by cholera, cholera in animals, intentional cholera infection in humans, non-English articles and publications on epidemics that did not report clinical details of individual cases and publications of cases pre-dating 1990. Articles were reviewed through descriptive analytic methods and information summarized. We identified 156 cases of cholera imported as a consequence of travel, and these were reviewed for type of traveller, source country, serogroup of cholera, treatment and outcomes. The case reports retrieved in the search did not report consistent levels of detail, making it difficult to synthesize data across reports and draw firm conclusions from the data. This clinical review sheds light on the paucity of actionable published data regarding the risk of cholera in travellers and identifies a number of gaps that should drive additional effort. Further information is needed to better inform evidence-based disease prevention strategies, including vaccination for travellers visiting areas of cholera risk. Modifications to current vaccination recommendations to include or exclude current or additional traveller populations may be considered as additional risk data become available. The protocol for this systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: 122797).

scholarly journals A comparison between two recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug’s safety

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Penedones ◽  
Carlos Alves ◽  
Francisco Batel Marques
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Drug Reactions ◽  
Post Marketing ◽  
Review Question ◽  
Marketing Data

Abstract Background Several recommendations are available to conduct and report a systematic review of adverse drug reactions. This study is aimed at identifying and comparing the methodologies of the two most commonly used recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug’s safety. Methods Two systematic reviews were conducted following the recommendations “Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions” and “Systematic Reviews’ Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare.” The methods of each recommendation were characterized, and the results and the discussion of each systematic review were also evaluated. Results The methodologies of both recommendations are similar. The review question was structured. Both recommendations suggest to include pre- and post-marketing data. The recommended data sources differed and, consequently, the results of the systematic reviews (37 vs. 35 studies). Other aspects of search literature were identical. Different tools are suggested to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. For case reports, both recommendations only report some questions that may be helpful to assess risk of bias. The reporting of the results and discussion is also identical for both recommendations. Conclusions Few methodological differences were observed between the analyzed recommendations to conduct a systematic review on drug’s safety. Combining their methods into a single and recognized recommendation could be of great value.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document