scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017868
Author(s):  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
Sheyu Li ◽  
Wan-Jie Gu ◽  
Hao Chen ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Coronary Revascularisation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Collection Form ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.

scholarly journals Natriuretic peptide-guided treatment for heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie McLellan ◽  
Clare R Bankhead ◽  
Jason L Oke ◽  
F D Richard Hobbs ◽  
Clare J Taylor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Natriuretic Peptide ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Individual Outcomes ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundGUIDE-IT, the largest trial to date, published in August 2017, evaluating the effectiveness of natriuretic peptide (NP)-guided treatment of heart failure (HF), was stopped early for futility on a composite outcome. However, the reported effect sizes on individual outcomes of all-cause mortality and HF admissions are potentially clinically relevant.ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aims to combine all available trial level evidence to determine if NP-guided treatment of HF reduces all-cause mortality and HF admissions in patients with HF.Study selectionEight databases, no language restrictions, up to November 2017 were searched for all randomised controlled trials comparing NP-guided treatment versus clinical assessment alone in adult patients with HF. No language restrictions were applied. Publications were independently double screened and extracted. Fixed-effect meta-analyses were conducted.Findings89 papers were included, reporting 19 trials (4554 participants), average ages 62–80 years. Pooled risk ratio estimates for all-cause mortality (16 trials, 4063 participants) were 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.99 and 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89 for HF admissions (11 trials, 2822 participants). Sensitivity analyses, restricted to low risk of bias, produced similar estimates, but were no longer statistically significant.ConclusionsConsidering all the evidence to date, the pooled effects suggest that NP-guided treatment is beneficial in reducing HF admissions and all-cause mortality. However, there is still insufficient high-quality evidence to make definitive recommendations on the use of NP-guided treatment in clinical practice.Trial registration numberSystematic Review Cochrane Database Number: CD008966.

scholarly journals Efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of a recombinant tetravalent dengue vaccine (CYD-TDV) in children aged 2–17 years: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e019368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Rodrigues Rosa ◽  
Antonio José Ledo Alves da Cunha ◽  
Roberto de Andrade Medronho
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Incomplete Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Dengue Vaccine ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundRandomised controlled trials have evaluated the recombinant tetravalent dengue vaccine (CYD-TDV). However, individual results may have little power to identify differences among the populations studied.ObjectiveTo evaluate efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of CYD-TDV in the prevention of dengue in children aged 2–17 years.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE (from 1950 to 5 December 2018), EMBASE (from 1947 to 5 December 2018) and Cochrane (from 1993 to 5 December 2018).Eligibility criteria of studiesRandomised trials comparing efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of CYD-TDV with placebo or other vaccines for preventing dengue cases in children aged 2–17 years.Outcome measuresEfficacy, immunogenicity and safety of CYD-TDV.Study appraisal and methodsCalculations were made of relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. All estimates were calculated considering a 95% CI estimate. A p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsNine studies involving 34 248 participants were included. The overall efficacy of CYD-TDV was 60% (RR 0.40 (0.30 to 0.54)). Serotype-specific efficacy of the vaccine was 51% for dengue virus type-1 (DENV-1) (RR 0.49 (0.39 to 0.63)); 34% for DENV-2 (RR 0.66 (0.50 to 0.86)); 75% for DENV-3 (RR 0.25 (0.18 to 0.35)) and 77% for DENV-4 (RR 0.23 (0.15 to 0.34)). Overall immunogenicity (MD) of CYD-TDV was 225.13 (190.34 to 259.93). Serotype-specific immunogenicity was: DENV-1: 176.59 (123.36 to 229.83); DENV-2: 294.21 (181.98 to 406.45); DENV-3: 258.78 (146.72 to 370.84) and DENV-4: 189.35 (141.11 to 237.59). The most common adverse events were headache and pain at the injection site.LimitationsThe main limitation of this study was unclear or incomplete data.Conclusions and implications of key findingsCYD-TDV is considered safe and able to partially protect children and adolescents against four serotypes of DENV for a 1-year period. Despite this, research should prioritise improvements in vaccine efficacy, thus proving higher long-term protection against all virus serotypes.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016043628.

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Spine Surgery—How Good Are They in Methodological Quality? A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muthu Sathish ◽  
Ramakrishnan Eswar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Critical Flaw ◽  
Meta Analyses

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria. Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.

scholarly journals What components of smoking cessation care during pregnancy are implemented by health providers? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e026037 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian Sandra Gould ◽  
Laura Twyman ◽  
Leah Stevenson ◽  
Gabrielle R Gribbin ◽  
Billie Bonevski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Health Providers ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundPregnancy is an opportunity for health providers to support women to stop smoking.ObjectivesIdentify the pooled prevalence for health providers in providing components of smoking cessation care to women who smoke during pregnancy.DesignA systematic review synthesising original articles that reported on (1) prevalence of health providers’ performing the 5As (‘Ask’, ‘Advise’, ‘Assess’, ‘Assist’, ‘Arrange’), prescribing nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and (2) factors associated with smoking cessation care.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases searched using ‘smoking’, ‘pregnancy’ and ‘health provider practices’.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies included any design except interventions (self-report, audit, observed consultations and women’s reports), in English, with no date restriction, up to June 2017.ParticipantsHealth providers of any profession.Data extraction, appraisal and analysisData were extracted, then appraised with the Hawker tool. Meta-analyses pooled percentages for performing each of the 5As and prescribing NRT, using, for example, ‘often/always’ and ‘always/all’. Meta-regressions were performed of 5As for ‘often/always’.ResultsOf 3933 papers, 54 were included (n=29 225 participants): 33 for meta-analysis. Health providers included general practitioners, obstetricians, midwives and others from 10 countries. Pooled percentages of studies reporting practices ‘often/always’ were: ‘Ask’ (n=9) 91.6% (95% CI 88.2% to 95%); ‘Advise’ (n=7) 90% (95% CI 72.5% to 99.3%), ‘Assess’ (n=3) 79.2% (95% CI 76.5% to 81.8%), ‘Assist (cessation support)’ (n=5) 59.1% (95% CI 56% to 62.2%), ‘Arrange (referral)’ (n=6) 33.3% (95% CI 20.4% to 46.2%) and ‘prescribing NRT’ (n=6) 25.4% (95% CI 12.8% to 38%). Heterogeneity (I2) was 95.9%–99.1%. Meta-regressions for ‘Arrange’ were significant for year (p=0.013) and country (p=0.037).ConclusionsHealth providers ‘Ask’, ‘Advise’ and ‘Assess’ most pregnant women about smoking. ‘Assist’, ‘Arrange’ and ‘prescribing NRT’ are reported at lower rates: strategies to improve these should be considered.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42015029989.

scholarly journals Does pain influence force steadiness? A protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e042525
Author(s):  
Michail Arvanitidis ◽  
Deborah Falla ◽  
Andy Sanderson ◽  
Eduardo Martinez-Valdes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Force Steadiness ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionPerforming contractions with minimum force fluctuations is essential for everyday life as reduced force steadiness impacts on the precision of voluntary movements and functional ability. Several studies have investigated the effect of experimental or clinical musculoskeletal pain on force steadiness but with conflicting findings. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the current literature to determine whether pain, whether it be clinical or experimental, influences force steadiness.Methods and analysisThis protocol for a systematic review was informed and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Key databases will be searched from inception to 31 August 2020, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, ZETOC and Web of Science. Grey literature and key journals will be also reviewed. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa tool, and the quality of the cumulative evidence assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. If homogeneity exists between groups of studies, meta-analysis will be conducted. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis approach and a vote-counting method will be used, while the results will be presented as net increases or decreases of force steadiness.Ethics and disseminationThe findings will be presented at conferences and the review will be also submitted for publication in a refereed journal. No ethical approval was required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020196479

scholarly journals Buteyko method for people with asthma: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e049213
Author(s):  
Karla Morganna Pereira Pinto de Mendonça ◽  
Sean Collins ◽  
Tácito ZM Santos ◽  
Gabriela Chaves ◽  
Sarah Leite ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionButeyko method is recommended as a non-pharmacological treatment for people with asthma. Although the worldwide interest in the Buteyko method, there is a paucity of studies gathering evidence to support its use. Therefore, we aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of the Buteyko method in children and adults with asthma.Methods and analysisWe will search on Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for studies focusing on the Buteyko method for children and adults with asthma. The searches will be carried out in September 2021 from database’s inception to the present. We will include randomised controlled trials comparing Buteyko method alone with asthma education or inactive control intervention. There will be no restriction on language. Primary outcomes include quality of life, asthma symptoms and adverse events/side effects. Two review authors will independently screen the studies for inclusion and extract data. We will assess the quality of the included studies using the ‘Risk of Bias’ tool. The certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach. Data synthesis will be conducted using Review Manager software. Reporting of the review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.Ethics and disseminationThis study will assess and provide evidence for the use of the Buteyko method in people with asthma. We will analyse secondary data and this does not require ethics approval. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, at relevant conferences and will be shared in plain language in social media. Moreover, the findings of this review could guide the direction of healthcare practice and research.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020193132.

scholarly journals Are Physical Education Lessons Suitable for Sport Talent Identification? A Systematic Review of the Literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 1965
Author(s):  
Alejandro Prieto-Ayuso ◽  
Juan Carlos Pastor-Vicedo ◽  
Sixto González-Víllora ◽  
Javier Fernández-Río
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Physical Education ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Alternative Programs ◽  
Gradual Change ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Talent Identification ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Shed Light

Objectives: The goal of this study was to shed light on the existent knowledge, internationally published over the last decade (2009–2019), on how to deal with talented children in physical education (PE). Methods: A mixed systematic review (SR) was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number: CRD42019117211. Study eligibility criteria: The articles included were selected using the following criteria: (a) studies published in peer-reviewed international journals; (b) studies published from 2009 to 2019 (both inclusive); (c) studies that included quantitative and/or qualitative methods and findings; (d) research conducted within school contexts; (e) articles that focused on both talent/gift and PE, and (f) studies published in English or Spanish. Results: A total of 11 articles were identified. Results showed a gradual change in both methods and instruments used for talent identification (TI) in PE, focused currently on children’s health and involvement in sports. Second, there is consensus on the lack of clarity in schools’ policies and guidelines on how to deal with talented children in PE. Conclusions: Finally, there are alternative programs to elite athlete models that better fit in PE to deal with talented children and to avoid child disengagement in PE and sports.

scholarly journals Corticosteroids Treatment for Patients With Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) With Different Disease Severity: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shaofei Lou ◽  
Kaizhuang Huang ◽  
Jiao Jiang ◽  
Ningjun Li
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Disease Severity ◽  
Oxygen Therapy ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antiviral Agents ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Introduction: As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic progresses, identifying effective antiviral agents to treat the COVID-19 is of most urgency. Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19 still are debated. Because high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the use of corticosteroids for patients with COVID-19 recently were published recently, we aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs on corticosteroids therapy in patients with different disease severity to ascertain the effect on survival. Methods: We will undertake a comprehensive literature search among PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, medRxiv, and bioRxiv from their inception onwards to identify relevant RCTs. Two reviewers will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality, mortality of mechanically ventilated patients and patients who did not receive oxygen therapy. Secondary outcomes include need for mechanical ventilation or oxygen therapy and incidence of adverse outcomes. Heterogeneity of the estimates across studies will be assessed. Outcomes will be analyzed to pooled risk ratio and pertinent 95% confidence interval. A subgroup analysis will be conducted by disease severity to explore the source of heterogeneity. The systematic review and meta-analysis will be presented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. Discussion: This systematic review will provide an overview of the current state of evidence concerning the effect of corticosteroids on survival of patients with COVID-19 depended on the disease severity. Also, this systematic review will show the limitations and strengths of the studies available in the literature, as well as recommendations for future avenues of research will be given. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020227740.

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Head Lice ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol examining the clinical characteristics and epidemiological features of olfactory dysfunction (OD) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemond Qian-Xiu Tan ◽  
Wai Tak Victor Li ◽  
Wing-Zi Shum ◽  
Sheung Chit Chu ◽  
Hang-Long Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Olfactory Dysfunction ◽  
Statistical Analyses ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Analysis Protocol

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused recurring and major outbreaks in multiple human populations around the world. The plethora of clinical presentations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been described extensively, of which olfactory dysfunction (OD) was established as an important and common extrapulmonary manifestation of COVID-19 infection. The aim of this protocol is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on peer-reviewed articles which described clinical data of OD in COVID-19 patients. Methods This research protocol has been prospectively registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42020196202). CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed, as well as Chinese medical databases China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP and WANFANG, will be searched using keywords including ‘COVID-19’, ‘coronavirus disease’, ‘2019-nCoV’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, ‘novel coronavirus’, ‘anosmia’, ‘hyposmia’, ‘loss of smell’, and ‘olfactory dysfunction’. Systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Articles will be screened according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria to extract studies that include new clinical data investigating the effect of COVID-19 on olfactory dysfunction. Included articles will be reviewed in full; data including patient demographics, clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD, methods of olfactory assessment and relevant clinical outcomes will be extracted. Statistical analyses will be performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3. Discussion This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol will aim to collate and synthesise all available clinical evidence regarding COVID-19-related OD as an important neurosensory dysfunction of COVID-19 infection. A comprehensive search strategy and screening process will be conducted to incorporate broad clinical data for robust statistical analyses and representation. The outcome of the systematic review and meta-analysis will aim to improve our understanding of the symptomatology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD and identify knowledge gaps in its disease process, which will guide future research in this specific neurosensory defect. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020196202.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document