scholarly journals Neuroimaging of headaches in patients with normal neurological examination: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e020190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernold Kenteu ◽  
Yannick F Fogang ◽  
Ulrich Flore Nyaga ◽  
Joseline G Zafack ◽  
Jean Jacques Noubiap ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Neurological Examination ◽  
Incidental Findings ◽  
Visual Analysis ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Standard Data ◽  
Ethical Approval

IntroductionHeadache disorders (HD) are among the most frequent neurological disorders seen in neurology practice. Because secondary HD are rare, patients’ examination is most often unremarkable. However, the will to relieve patients’ anxiety and the fear of prosecutions lead to overuse of neuroimaging thus resulting in the discovery of incidental findings (IF) or normal variants that can lead to futile or harmful procedures. Knowing the probability of identifying a potentially clinically significant lesion in patients with isolated headache could facilitate decision-making and reduce health costs. This review aims to determine the prevalence of incidental findings and normal anatomic variants (NAV) on neuroimaging studies performed in patients presenting with headache and normal neurological examination.Method and analysisStudies reporting neuroimaging findings in patients with headache and normal neurological examination and published before the 30 September 2017 will be identified by searching PubMed, Medline and EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database). Relevant unpublished papers and conference proceedings will also be checked. Full texts of eligible studies will then be accessed and data extracted using a standard data extraction sheet. Studies will be assessed for quality and risk of bias. Heterogeneity of studies will be evaluated by the χ2test on Cochrane’s Q statistic. The prevalence of NAV and IF across studies and in relevant subgroups will be estimated by pooling the study-specific estimates using a random-effects meta-analysis. Visual analysis of funnel plot and Egger’s test will be used to detect publication bias. The report of this systematic review will be compliant with the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines.Ethics and disseminationThe current study is based on published data; ethical approval is, therefore, not required. The final report of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, findings will be presented at conferences and submitted to relevant health authorities.Trial registration numberCRD42017079714.

scholarly journals Global epidemiology of acute generalised peritonitis: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e034326
Author(s):  
Joel Noutakdie Tochie ◽  
Ndip Valirie Agbor ◽  
Tianyi Tianyi Frank Leonel ◽  
Aime Mbonda ◽  
Desmond Aji Abang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Case Fatality Rate ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Fatality ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Fatality Rate ◽  
Global Epidemiology ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionGlobally, acute generalised peritonitis (AGP) is a common medical and surgical emergency which is a major contributor to non-trauma deaths despite improvements in diagnosis and surgical and intensive care management. In order to determine the global burden of AGP, geared at tailoring key interventions to curb its morbidity and mortality, we proposed this first ever systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the contemporary prevalence, and to determine the most frequent AGP and the case fatality rate of AGP, at the global scene.Methods and analysisWe intend to searchAfricanJournalsOnline, Americana em Ciências da Saúde, Citation index, EMBASE, Global Index Medicus, Literatura Latino Africa Index Medicus, Medline and Scientific Electronic Library Online databases from 1 January 2009 to 31 July 2019 to identify studies that reported the prevalence, types of AGP, and case fatality rate of AGP in the global population without any language restrictions. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be conducted independently at each level by a pair of independent investigators. Random-effects meta-analysis will be used to pool studies judged to be clinically homogeneous. The presence of heterogeneity will be evaluated using the χ² test on Cochrane’s Q statistic and quantified with the I² statistics. Publication bias will be evaluated statistically and visually using the Egger’s test and funnel plots, respectively. Findings will be reported and compared by countries, WHO regions and globally.Ethics and disseminationSince this study will be based on published data, it does will not require an ethical approval. The findings will be published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. They will also be presented at scientific conferences and to relevant public health actors.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019143331.

scholarly journals Effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for insomnia: a protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. e029206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu He ◽  
Nianyi Sun ◽  
Zhiqiang Wang ◽  
Wenchen Zou
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Manual Search ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), a non-invasive brain stimulation approach, might be a promising technique in the management of insomnia. A systematic review of the available literature on this topic is warranted. The systematic review described in this protocol aims to investigate the efficacy of rTMS as a physical therapy in patients with insomnia.Methods and analysisThis protocol was developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We will retrieve relevant literatures across the following electronic bibliographic databases: CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PEDro, CBM, CNKI, WANFANG and VIP. A manual search of the reference lists of all relevant articles will be performed for any additional studies. We will include randomised controlled trials published in English and Chinese examining efficacy of rTMS on patients with insomnia. Two reviewers will independently complete the article selection, data extraction and rating. PEDro scale will be used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Narrative and quantitative synthesis will be done accordingly.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be required for this review. The results of this review will be disseminated in a peer-review journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018115033.

scholarly journals Prevalence and associated factors of active smoking among individuals living with hypertension and/or diabetes in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e015444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guy S Wafeu ◽  
Aurel T Tankeu ◽  
Francky Teddy A Endomba ◽  
Jobert Richie Nansseu ◽  
Arnaud D Kaze ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Geographic Region ◽  
Future Research ◽  
P Value ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Active Smoking ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
Factors Associated

IntroductionTobacco use significantly increases cardiovascular complications in people living with hypertension and/or diabetes. We aim to summarise data on the prevalence and factors associated with active smoking in these conditions in Africa.Method and analysisWe will search PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and African Journals Online for relevant abstracts of studies on active smoking in individuals living with diabetes and/or hypertension published from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2016, with no language restriction. Additionally, relevant unpublished papers and conference proceedings will be checked, as well as references of included articles. Two investigators will independently screen, select studies, extract data and assess the risk of bias in each study. Data will be analysed using Stata software (Stata V.14, Texas, USA). The study-specific estimates will be pooled through a random-effects meta-analysis model to obtain an overall summary estimate of the prevalence of smoking across studies. Also, we will assess factors associated to smoking. Heterogeneity of studies will be evaluated by the χ2 test on Cochrane’s Q statistic. Funnel plots analysis and Egger’s test will be done to detect publication bias. Results will be presented by geographic region (central, eastern, northern, southern and western Africa). A p value less than 0.05 will be considered significant for factors associated to smoking.Ethics and disseminationThis study is based on published data, and therefore ethical approval is not a requirement. This systematic review and meta-analysis is expected to serve as a basis for designing cost-effective interventions to reduce and prevent smoking in patients with diabetes and/or hypertension, and as a guide for future research based on the remaining gaps. The final report of this study in the form of a scientific paper will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Findings will further be presented at conferences and submitted to relevant health authorities.

Outcomes of Medication Misadventure Among People With Cognitive Impairment or Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 106002802094912
Author(s):  
Anum Saqib Zaidi ◽  
Gregory M. Peterson ◽  
Luke R.E. Bereznicki ◽  
Colin M. Curtain ◽  
Mohammed Salahudeen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Adverse Drug Events ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Potentially Inappropriate Medications ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective: To investigate mortality and hospitalization outcomes associated with medication misadventure (including medication errors [MEs], such as the use of potentially inappropriate medications [PIMs], and adverse drug events [ADEs]) among people with cognitive impairment or dementia. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to December 2019. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Relevant studies using any study design were included. Reviewers independently performed critical appraisal and extracted relevant data. Data Synthesis: The systematic review included 10 studies that reported the outcomes of mortality or hospitalization associated with medication misadventure, including PIMs (n=5), ADEs (n=2), a combination of MEs and ADEs (n=2), and drug interactions (n=1). Five studies examining the association between PIMs and mortality/hospitalization were included in the meta-analyses. Exposure to PIMs was not associated with either mortality (odds ratio [OR]=1.36; 95%CI=0.79-2.35) or hospitalization (OR=1.02; 95%CI=0.83-1.26). In contrast, single studies indicated that ADEs with cholinesterase inhibitors were associated with mortality and hospitalization. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Individuals with cognitive impairment or dementia are at increased risk of medication misadventure; based on relatively limited published data, this does not necessarily translate to increased mortality and hospitalization. Conclusions: Overall, medication misadventure was not associated with mortality or hospitalization in people with cognitive impairment or dementia, noting the limited number of studies, difficulty in controlling potential confounding variables, and that most studies focus on PIMs.

scholarly journals Drug-induced sleep endoscopy compared with systematic adenotonsillectomy in the management of obstructive sleep apnoea in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e028242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne-Sophie Prévost ◽  
Mathieu Hylands ◽  
Mireille Gervais ◽  
Jean-Paul Praud ◽  
Marie-Claude Battista ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Obstructive Sleep Apnoea ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sleep Apnoea ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Sleep Endoscopy ◽  
Drug Induced ◽  
Drug Induced Sleep Endoscopy ◽  
Obstructive Sleep

IntroductionObstructive sleep apnoea affects up to 6% of children worldwide. Although current guidelines recommend systematic tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy, many children do not benefit from these interventions. Drug-induced sleep endoscopy (DISE) allows the dynamic evaluation of patients’ airways to identify the specific anatomic sites of obstruction. This intervention can potentially guide subsequent invasive procedures to optimise outcomes and minimise the number of children exposed to unnecessary operations.Methods and analysisWe will identify randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies comparing DISE-directed interventions to systematic tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy in paediatric populations. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL as well as clinical trial registries and conference proceedings (initial electronic search date 9 October 2018). Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessments will be performed in duplicate by independent reviewers. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the overall quality of evidence and present our results.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this systematic review of published data. This review will be presented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We will present our findings at otorhinolaryngology conferences and publish a report in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018085370.

scholarly journals Radiology artificial intelligence, a systematic evaluation of methods (RAISE): a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan Kelly ◽  
Conor Judge ◽  
Stephanie M. Bollard ◽  
Simon M. Clifford ◽  
Gerard M. Healy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Systematic Evaluation ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number

Abstract Introduction There has been a recent explosion of research into the field of artificial intelligence as applied to clinical radiology with the advent of highly accurate computer vision technology. These studies, however, vary significantly in design and quality. While recent guidelines have been established to advise on ethics, data management and the potential directions of future research, systematic reviews of the entire field are lacking. We aim to investigate the use of artificial intelligence as applied to radiology, to identify the clinical questions being asked, which methodological approaches are applied to these questions and trends in use over time. Methods and analysis We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and by the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. We will perform a literature search through MEDLINE (Pubmed), and EMBASE, a detailed data extraction of trial characteristics and a narrative synthesis of the data. There will be no language restrictions. We will take a task-centred approach rather than focusing on modality or clinical subspecialty. Sub-group analysis will be performed by segmentation tasks, identification tasks, classification tasks, pegression/prediction tasks as well as a sub-analysis for paediatric patients. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval will not be required for this study, as data will be obtained from publicly available clinical trials. We will disseminate our results in a peer-reviewed publication. Registration number PROSPERO: CRD42020154790

scholarly journals Impact of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) on pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e039933
Author(s):  
Kleyton Santos Medeiros ◽  
Ayane Cristine Alves Sarmento ◽  
Erico Silva Martins ◽  
Ana Paula Ferreira Costa ◽  
José Eleutério Jr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has been growing at an accelerating rate, and has become a public health emergency. Pregnant women and their fetuses are susceptible to viral infection, and outcomes in this population need to be investigated.Methods and analysisPubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHAL, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, clinicaltrials.gov, SCOPUS, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Controlled Trials Registry will be searched for observational studies (cohort and control cases) published from December 2019 to present. This systematic review and meta-analysis will include studies of pregnant women at any gestational stage diagnosed with COVID-19. The primary outcomes will be maternal and foetal morbidity and mortality. Three independent reviewers will select the studies and extract data from the original publications. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. To evaluate the strength of evidence from the included data, we will use Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method. Data synthesis will be performed using Review Manager software V.5.2.3. To assess heterogeneity, we will compute the I2 statistics. Additionally, a quantitative synthesis will be performed if the included studies are sufficiently homogenous.Ethics and disseminationThis study will be a review of the published data, and thus it is not necessary to obtain ethical approval. The findings of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberPROSPERO 2020: CRD42020181519.

scholarly journals Barriers towards organ donor registration and consent among people of Indian origin living globally: a systematic review and integrative synthesis—protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035360
Author(s):  
Britzer Paul Vincent ◽  
Gurch Randhawa ◽  
Erica Cook
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Organ Donor ◽  
Indian Origin ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
End Stage

IntroductionThe need for organs is comparatively higher among people of Indian origin due to the higher prevalence of end-stage organ failure. In spite of the higher need, they have a lower number of organ donors. Studies have been carried out among people of Indian origin living globally to understand the reasons for the low donation rate, but there has been no systematic review that has integrated all of these studies to synthesise the current literature. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to examine the barriers towards organ donor registration and consent among Indians living globally.Methods and analysisA systematic search will be conducted using the following relevant databases namely CINHAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed Central, Global Health and Grey literature. Studies from 1994 that satisfy our inclusion criteria will be included. Two reviewers will conduct the screening, data extraction and quality assessment of the studies; in event of any disagreement between the two reviewers at any stage, the third reviewer will reconcile any disagreements and consensus will be made.Ethics and disseminationAs this study includes only secondary data, ethical approval for secondary data usage has been sought. This study will use Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines to report and the study outcomes will be disseminated through a relevant peer-review publication, related conferences and also to various non-governmental organisations globally which are working with this particular community; following which further research can be developed based on this evidence and also helps in building a culturally competent strategy.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019155274.

scholarly journals Association between vision impairment and mortality: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e037556
Author(s):  
Joshua R Ehrlich ◽  
Jacqueline Ramke ◽  
David Macleod ◽  
Bonnielin K Swenor ◽  
Helen Burn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Vision Impairment ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Evaluation Approach ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionDue to growth and ageing of the world’s population, the number of individuals worldwide with vision impairment (VI) and blindness is projected to increase rapidly over the coming decades. VI and blindness are an important cause of years lived with disability. However, the association of VI and blindness with mortality, including the risk of bias in published studies and certainty of the evidence, has not been adequately studied in an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisThe planned systematic review and meta-analysis will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases, including MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid and Global Health, will be searched for relevant studies. Two reviewers will then screen studies and review full texts to identify studies for inclusion. Data extraction will be performed, and for included studies, the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The prognostic factor in this study is visual function, which must have been measured using a standard objective ophthalmic clinical or research instrument. We will use standard criteria from WHO to categorise VI and blindness. All-cause mortality may be assessed by any method one or more years after baseline assessment of vision. Results from included studies will be meta-analysed according to relevant sections of the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist.Ethics and disseminationThis review will only include published data; therefore, ethics approval will not be sought. The findings of this review and meta-analysis will be published in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal and will be included in the ongoing Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health.

scholarly journals Accuracy of potential diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e038994
Author(s):  
Martha Maria Christine Elwenspoek ◽  
Joni Jackson ◽  
Sarah Dawson ◽  
Hazel Everitt ◽  
Peter Gillett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Coeliac Disease ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Finding ◽  
Endoscopic Biopsy ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionCoeliac disease (CD) is a systemic immune-mediated disorder triggered by gluten in genetically predisposed individuals. CD is diagnosed using a combination of serology tests and endoscopic biopsy of the small intestine. However, because of non-specific symptoms and heterogeneous clinical presentation, diagnosing CD is challenging. Early detection of CD through improved case-finding strategies can improve the response to a gluten-free diet, patients’ quality of life and potentially reduce the risk of complications. However, there is a lack of consensus in which groups may benefit from active case-finding.Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic review to determine the accuracy of diagnostic indicators (such as symptoms and risk factors) for CD in adults and children, and thus can help identify patients who should be offered CD testing. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science will be searched from 1997 until 2020. Screening will be performed in duplicate. Data extraction will be performed by one and checked by a second reviewer. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or referral to a third reviewer. We will produce a narrative summary of identified prediction models. Studies, where 2×2 data can be extracted or reconstructed, will be treated as diagnostic accuracy studies, that is, the diagnostic indicators are the index tests and CD serology and/or biopsy is the reference standard. For each diagnostic indicator, we will perform a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of the sensitivity and specificity.Ethics and disseminationResults will be reported in peer-reviewed journals, academic and public presentations and social media. We will convene an implementation panel to advise on the optimum strategy for enhanced dissemination. We will discuss findings with Coeliac UK to help with dissemination to patients. Ethical approval is not applicable, as this is a systematic review and no research participants will be involved.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020170766.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document