scholarly journals Musculoskeletal care pathways for adults with hip and knee pain referred for specialist opinion: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e027874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Button ◽  
Fiona Morgan ◽  
Alison Lesley Weightman ◽  
Stephen Jones
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Knee Pain ◽  
Systems Approach ◽  
Health Management ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Care Pathways ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Musculoskeletal Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveMusculoskeletal care pathways are variable and inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence for the clinical and/or cost effectiveness of current care pathways for adults with hip and/or knee pain referred for specialist opinion.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesElectronic database searches were carried out in MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, PEDro, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central and Health Management Information Consortium without language restriction from 1990 onwards. Websites were reviewed for grey literature.Eligibility criteriaAll study designs and documents that considered care pathways for adults with musculoskeletal hip and/or knee pain referred for specialist opinion were screened by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for randomised controlled trials and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction and quality assessment were performed by one reviewer and checked by a second. Findings are reported narratively.ResultsThe titles and abstracts of 1248 articles were screened and 140 full-text articles retrieved. 19 papers reporting 17 studies met the study inclusion criteria. Quality was low due to study design and methodological flaws. Most of the outcomes relate to organisational process at the ‘meso’ level of a whole systems approach.ConclusionIt can be concluded that the pathway is not linear, containing variations and activity loops. The available evidence suggests that, from the point of referral for specialist opinion, a model is required that integrates the skills of all the different healthcare professionals and streamlining is required to ensure that individuals are seen by the healthcare professional that best meets their needs. There is very limited evidence of patient experience informing knee and hip care pathways.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016035510.

scholarly journals Digital and online symptom checkers and health assessment/triage services for urgent health problems: systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e027743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan Chambers ◽  
Anna J Cantrell ◽  
Maxine Johnson ◽  
Louise Preston ◽  
Susan K Baxter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Health Management ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Health Assessment ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Digital Version

ObjectivesIn England, the NHS111 service provides assessment and triage by telephone for urgent health problems. A digital version of this service has recently been introduced. We aimed to systematically review the evidence on digital and online symptom checkers and similar services.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesWe searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Health Management Information Consortium, Web of Science and ACM Digital Library up to April 2018, supplemented by phrase searches for known symptom checkers and citation searching of key studies.Eligibility criteriaStudies of any design that evaluated a digital or online symptom checker or health assessment service for people seeking advice about an urgent health problem.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction and quality assessment (using the Cochrane Collaboration version of QUADAS for diagnostic accuracy studies and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute tool for observational studies) were done by one reviewer with a sample checked for accuracy and consistency. We performed a narrative synthesis of the included studies structured around pre-defined research questions and key outcomes.ResultsWe included 29 publications (27 studies). Evidence on patient safety was weak. Diagnostic accuracy varied between different systems but was generally low. Algorithm-based triage tended to be more risk averse than that of health professionals. There was very limited evidence on patients’ compliance with online triage advice. Study participants generally expressed high levels of satisfaction, although in mainly uncontrolled studies. Younger and more highly educated people were more likely to use these services.ConclusionsThe English ‘digital 111’ service has been implemented against a background of uncertainty around the likely impact on important outcomes. The health system may need to respond to short-term changes and/or shifts in demand. The popularity of online and digital services with younger and more educated people has implications for health equity.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018093564.

scholarly journals Is resistance training intensity adequately prescribed to meet the demands of returning to sport following anterior cruciate ligament repair? A systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. e001144
Author(s):  
Zackary William Nichols ◽  
Daniel O'Brien ◽  
Steven Gordon White
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

ObjectiveTo identify, critique and synthesise the research findings that evaluate the use of resistance training (RT) programmes on return to sport outcome measures for people following ACL repair (ACLR).Design and data sourcesThis systematic review included a comprehensive search of electronic databases (EBSCO health databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus), Scopus and Pedro) performed in June 2020 and was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Studies were appraised using the Downs and Black checklist.Eligibility criteriaRandomised and non-randomised controlled trials, longitudinal cohort studies and case series were considered for inclusion where an adequate description of the RT intervention was provided as a part of the study’s ACLR rehabilitation protocol. Articles that did not include outcome measures related to return to sport criteria were excluded.ResultsEleven articles met the inclusion criteria and were subjected to appraisal and data extraction. Study quality ranged from poor to excellent. RT intensity varied considerably among studies (between 5% and >80% of one repetition maximum). Only one identified study specifically investigated the effect of a low-intensity versus high-intensity RT protocol. The majority of studies reported participant outcomes that would not meet commonly used return to sport criteria.ConclusionThere appears to be considerable variation in the intensity of RT prescribed in research for people following ACLR. Furthermore, in most of the identified studies, RT protocols promoted muscle endurance and hypertrophy without progressing to strength or power-based RT. The findings of this review provide insight into potential factors limiting returning to sport and contributing to reinjury for people following ACLR.

scholarly journals Protocol for a systematic review and qualitative synthesis of information quality frameworks in eHealth

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e024722 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kayode Philip Fadahunsi ◽  
James Tosin Akinlua ◽  
Siobhan O’Connor ◽  
Petra A Wark ◽  
Joseph Gallagher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Safety ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Information Quality ◽  
Health Management ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Academic Journal ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria

IntroductionElectronic health (eHealth) applications have become a very large repository of health information which informs critical decisions relating to the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of patients. Poor information quality (IQ) within eHealth may compromise patient safety. Evaluation of IQ in eHealth is therefore necessary to promote patient safety. An IQ framework specifies what aspects of information to assess and how to conduct the assessment. This systematic review aims to identify dimensions within existing IQ frameworks in eHealth and develop a new IQ framework for the assessment of eHealth.Method and analysisWe will search Embase, Medline, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Maternity and Infant Care, PsycINFO (American Psychological Association), Global Health, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Health Management Information Consortium and reference lists of relevant publications for articles published in English until November 2018. Studies will be selected by two independent reviewers based on prespecified eligibility criteria. Two reviewers will independently extract data in each eligible study using a prepiloted Microsoft Excel data extraction form. Thematic synthesis will be employed to define IQ dimensions and develop a new IQ framework for eHealth.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this systematic review as primary data will not be collected. The result of the review will be disseminated through publication in an academic journal and scientific conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018097142.

scholarly journals Effects of cosmetic and other camouflage interventions on appearance-related and psychological outcomes among adults with visible differences in appearance: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e046634
Author(s):  
Shadi Gholizadeh ◽  
Danielle B Rice ◽  
Andrea Carboni-Jiménez ◽  
Linda Kwakkenbos ◽  
Jill Boruff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Routine Care ◽  
Psychological Outcomes ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Poor Reporting

ObjectiveVisible differences in appearance are associated with poor social and psychological outcomes. Effectiveness of non-surgical cosmetic and other camouflage interventions is poorly understood. The objective was to evaluate effects of cosmetic and other camouflage interventions on appearance-related outcomes, general psychological outcomes and adverse effects for adults with visible appearance differences.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid) CINAHL and Cochrane Central databases searched from inception to 24 October 2020. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts and full texts.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials in any language on non-surgical cosmetic or other camouflage interventions that reported appearance-related outcomes, general psychological outcomes or adverse effects for adults with visible appearance differences.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted data, assessed intervention reporting using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Outcomes included appearance-related outcomes, general psychological outcomes (eg, depression, anxiety) and adverse effects.ResultsOne head-to-head trial and five trials with waiting list or routine care comparators were included. All had unclear or high risk of bias in at least five of seven domains. Effect sizes could not be determined for most outcomes due to poor reporting. Between-group statistically significant differences were not reported for any appearance-related outcomes and for only 5 of 25 (20%) other psychological outcomes. Given heterogeneity of populations and interventions, poor reporting and high risk of bias, quantitative synthesis was not possible.ConclusionsConclusions about effectiveness of non-surgical cosmetic or other camouflage interventions could not be drawn. Well-designed and conducted trials are needed. Without such evidence, clinicians or other qualified individuals should engage with patients interested in cosmetic interventions in shared decision making, outlining potential benefits and harms, and the lack of evidence to inform decisions.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018103421.

scholarly journals Colchicine for children with pericarditis: systematic review of clinical studies

2016 ◽  
Vol 101 (10) ◽  
pp. 953-956 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samer Alabed ◽  
Giordano Pérez-Gaxiola ◽  
Amanda Burls
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo review the evidence for the efficacy and safety of colchicine in children with pericarditis.DesignSystematic review.Search strategyThe following databases were searched for studies about colchicine in children with pericarditis (June 2015): Cochrane Central, Medline, EMBASE and LILACS.Eligibility criteriaAll observational and experimental studies on humans with any length of follow-up and no limitations on language or publication status were included. The outcomes studied were recurrences of pericarditis and adverse events.Data extractionTwo authors extracted data and assessed quality of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for non-randomised trials.ResultsTwo case series and nine case reports reported the use of colchicine in a total of 86 children with pericarditis. Five articles including 74 paediatric patients were in favour of colchicine in preventing further pericarditis recurrences. Six studies including 12 patients showed that colchicine did not prevent recurrences of pericarditis.LimitationsNo randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were found.ConclusionsAlthough colchicine is an established treatment for pericarditis in adults, it is not routinely used in children. There is not enough evidence to support or discourage the use of colchicine in children with pericarditis. Further research in the form of large double-blind RCTs is needed to establish the efficacy of colchicine in children with pericarditis.

Gelatin tannate for acute diarrhoea and gastroenteritis in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
pp. archdischild-2018-316385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan D Florez ◽  
Javier M Sierra ◽  
Laura F Niño-Serna
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Acute Diarrhoea ◽  
Stool Frequency ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness and safety of gelatin tannate (GT) for reducing the duration of the acute diarrhoea and gastroenteritis (ADG) in children.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS and grey literature, published from inception to October 2018. No language restrictions.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials in children with ADG, comparing GT with placebo.ResultsOf 797 titles identified, we included three studies (276 children). We performed a random effects model meta-analysis for the main outcome (diarrhoea duration). We did not find significant differences between GT and placebo for diarrhoea duration (mean difference (MD)=−15.85 hours; 95% CI −42.24 to 14.82, I2=92%; three studies), stool frequency at day 2 (MD=0.11 stools/day; 95% CI −0.39 to 0.62: I2=26%; two studies), diarrhoea at day 3 (risk ratio [RR]=0.46; 95% CI 0.06 to 3.47: I2=73%; two studies), vomiting (RR=1.31; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.80: I2=0%; two studies) or adverse events (RR=0.86; 95% CI 0.27 to 2.66: I2=0%; two studies). Most common adverse events included abdominal pain and nausea.ConclusionThe effect of GT was no different to placebo for mean diarrhoea duration (low certainty on the evidence) and stool frequency at day 2 (high certainty) and for the presence of diarrhoea at day 3 (very low certainty) of vomiting (moderate certainty) and of adverse events (low certainty).PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018087902.

scholarly journals Hyaluronic acid for tissue and bone regeneration after tooth extraction. Systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuheng Lai ◽  
Francisco Novillo ◽  
Geovanna Cárdenas ◽  
Francisca Verdugo ◽  
Gabriel Rada
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hyaluronic Acid ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Tooth Extraction ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Eligibility Criteria

AbstractObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness and safety of Hyaluronic Acid (HA) on tissue and bone regeneration after tooth extraction.Data SourcesWe will conduct a comprehensive search in Epistemonikos, PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), LILACS, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and grey literature, to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press and in progress).Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies and MethodsWe will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of HA on tissue and bone regeneration after tooth extraction. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, data extraction, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.Ethics and DisseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks, and traditional media.PROSPERO Registration IDCRD42020150285

scholarly journals Weaning from mechanical ventilation in people with neuromuscular disease: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e047449
Author(s):  
Saint Clair Gomes Bernardes Neto ◽  
Rodrigo Torres-Castro ◽  
Íllia Lima ◽  
Vanessa R Resqueti ◽  
Guilherme A F Fregonezi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Neuromuscular Disease ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Weaning Protocols

ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed in assessing the effects of different weaning protocols in people with neuromuscular disease (NMD) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, identifying which protocol is the best and how different protocols can affect weaning outcome success, duration of weaning, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay and mortality.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesElectronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Scopus) were searched from January 2009 to August 2020.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCT that evaluated patients with NMD (adults and children from 5 years old) in the weaning process managed with a protocol (pressure support ventilation; synchronised intermittent mandatory ventilation; continuous positive airway pressure; ‘T’ piece).Primary outcomeWeaning success.Secondary outcomesWeaning duration, ICU stay, hospital stay, ICU mortality, complications (pneumothorax, ventilation-associated pneumonia).Data extraction and synthesisTwo review authors assessed the titles and the abstracts for inclusion and reviewed the full texts independently.ResultsWe found no studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria.ConclusionsThe absence of studies about different weaning protocols for patients with NMD does not allow concluding the superiority of any specific weaning protocol for patients with NMD or determining the impact of different types of protocols on other outcomes. The result of this review encourages further studies.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019117393.

scholarly journals Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rocío Bravo-Jeria ◽  
María Ximena Rojas Reyes ◽  
Juan Víctor Ariel Franco ◽  
María Paz Acuña ◽  
Luz Ángela Torres López ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo determine the relative impact of the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine on outcomes important to patients with COVID 19.DesignThis is the protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), trial registries, grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe will follow a common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews, already published and submitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).We will include randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine — as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs — versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomised trials is found, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document