scholarly journals Delivery room interventions to prevent bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e028066 ◽  
Author(s):  
Souvik Mitra ◽  
Timothy Disher ◽  
Gerhard Pichler ◽  
Brandon D'Souza ◽  
Helen Mccord ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lung Injury ◽  
Bayesian Network ◽  
Preterm Infants ◽  
Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Delivery Room ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based

IntroductionAs gestational age decreases, incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) and chronic lung disease increases. There are many interventions used in the delivery room to prevent acute lung injury and consequently BPD in these patients. The availability of different treatment options often poses a practical challenge to the practicing neonatologist when it comes to making an evidence-based choice as the multitude of pairwise systematic reviews including Cochrane reviews that are currently available only provide a narrow perspective through head-to-head comparisons.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating delivery room interventions within the first golden hour after birth for prevention of BPD. The primary outcome includes BPD. Secondary outcomes include death at 36 weeks of postmenstrual age or before discharge; severe intraventricular haemorrhage (grade 3 or 4 based on the Papile criteria); any air leak syndromes (including pneumothorax or pulmonary interstitial emphysema); retinopathy of prematurity (any stage) and neurodevelopmental impairment at 18–24 months. We will search from their inception to August 2018, the following databases: Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials as well as grey literature resources. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, review full texts, extract information and assess the risk of bias and the confidence in the estimate (with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach). This review will use Bayesian network meta-analysis approach which allows the comparison of the multiple delivery room interventions for prevention of BPD. We will perform a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine the pooled direct and indirect treatment effect estimates for each outcome, effectiveness and safety of delivery room interventions for prevention of BPD.Ethics and disseminationThe proposed protocol is a network meta-analysis, which has been registered on PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42018078648). The results will provide an evidence-based guide to choosing the right sequence of early postnatal interventions that will be associated with the least likelihood of inducing lung injury and BPD in preterm infants. Furthermore, we will identify knowledge gaps and will encourage further research for other therapeutic options. Therefore, its results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Due to the nature of the design, no ethics approval is necessary.

PO-0671 The Use Of Sustained Inflations In The Resuscitation Of Preterm Infants In The Delivery Room – A Systematic Review And Meta-analysis

2014 ◽  
Vol 99 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. A473.4-A474
Author(s):  
GM Schmolzer ◽  
M Kumar ◽  
K Aziz ◽  
G Pichler ◽  
M O’Reilly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Preterm Infants ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Delivery Room

scholarly journals Brief Psychotherapy for Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason A. Nieuwsma ◽  
Ranak B. Trivedi ◽  
Jennifer McDuffie ◽  
Ian Kronish ◽  
Dinesh Benjamin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Brief Psychotherapy ◽  
Problem Solving Therapy

Objective: Because evidence-based psychotherapies of 12 to 20 sessions can be perceived as too lengthy and time intensive for the treatment of depression in primary care, a number of studies have examined abbreviated psychotherapy protocols. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of brief psychotherapy (i.e., < 8 sessions) for depression. Methods: We used combined literature searches in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and an Internet-accessible database of clinical trials of psychotherapy to conduct two systematic searches: one for existing systematic reviews and another for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Included studies examined evidence-based psychotherapy(s) of eight or fewer sessions, focused on adults with depression, contained an acceptable control condition, were published in English, and used validated measures of depressive symptoms. Results: We retained 2 systematic reviews and 15 RCTs evaluating cognitive behavioral therapy, problem-solving therapy, and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy. The systematic reviews found brief psychotherapies to be more efficacious than control, with effect sizes ranging from −0.33 to −0.25. Our meta-analysis found six to eight sessions of cognitive behavioral therapy to be more efficacious than control (ES −0.42, 95% CI −0.74 to −0.10, I2 = 56%). A sensitivity analysis controlled for statistical heterogeneity but showed smaller treatment effects (ES −0.24, 95% CI −0.42 to −0.06, I2 = 0%). Conclusions: Depression can be efficaciously treated with six to eight sessions of psychotherapy, particularly cognitive behavioral therapy and problem-solving therapy. Access to non-pharmacologic treatments for depression could be improved by training healthcare providers to deliver brief psychotherapies.

scholarly journals Interventions for Expectant and New Parents Designed to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect in at-risk Families: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroki Tamon ◽  
Maiko Suto ◽  
Kunio Ogawa ◽  
Kenji Takehara ◽  
Yoshiyuki Tachibana
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Child Abuse ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Child Abuse And Neglect ◽  
Intervention Programs ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Abuse And Neglect ◽  
Prevent Child Abuse

Abstract Background: The prevention of child abuse and neglect is an urgent matter, as abuse and neglect are associated with serious effects even into adulthood, and as there is an increased risk of the offspring of abused children being abused themselves. Intervening as early as possible may prevent abuse that can begin in infancy. Although several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have investigated the effects of interventions on populations at risk for child abuse and neglect, few studies have focused on at-risk women or interventions that start during perinatal periods. This study aims to describe a systematic review to examine the effects of interventions to prevent child abuse and neglect that begin during pregnancy and just after childbirth (less than one year). The study will involve performing a systematic review and meta-analysis based on the latest research articles up to and including November 2020 and a broader literature search.Methods: The protocol was prepared using the 2015 statement of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. The review will follow Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines/statements. The literature search will be performed using the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception onward. Randomized controlled trials of interventions that begin during pregnancy or the first year postpartum and are designed to prevent child abuse and neglect in at-risk families will be included. Data collection, quality assessment, and statistical syntheses will be conducted by following methods in the protocol that are defined in advance.Discussion: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be important in clinical and political settings for the prevention of child abuse and neglect. The results of this study will provide a basis for the development of evidence-based intervention programs for expectant and new parents and child abuse prevention policies. Additionally, this study will encourage future studies to conduct more evidence-based intervention programs and illuminate the direction of research on the prevention of child abuse and neglect.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021266462

scholarly journals A bibliometric analysis of systematic review/meta-analysis on dry eye disease

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yonggang Zhang ◽  
An Ping ◽  
Shuyuan Lyu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dry Eye ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Core Collection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Dry Eye Disease ◽  
Eye Disease ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Number Of Citations

Abstract Background There was no citation analysis about systematic review/meta-analysis published on dry eye disease (DED). The objective of this study was to identify the citations of systematic review/meta-analysis published on DED and to provide information on the achievement and development of evidence-based dry eye research.Methods Web of Knowledge Core Collection was searched for all systematic review/meta-analysis relevant to DED. The number of citations, authorship, year, journal, country, and institution were analyzed for each study.Results A total of 29 systematic reviews/meta-analyses on DED published between 2009 and 2017 were included. The number of citations ranged from 0 to 63, with a medium of 8 citations. These systematic reviews/meta-analyses were from 10 countries, and 15 of them were from China. They were published in 21 journals. Ocular Surface published most studies (n =4), followed by International Journal of Ophthalmology (n =3). The journal with highest impact factor was Nutrition Reviews (IF=5.291 in 2016).Conclusion The citations of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on DED are still low. Further systematic reviews/meta-analyses are needed for providing more evidence for DED.

scholarly journals Donor Human Milk Protects against Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Villamor-Martínez ◽  
Maria Pierro ◽  
Giacomo Cavallaro ◽  
Fabio Mosca ◽  
Boris W. Kramer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Human Milk ◽  
Preterm Infants ◽  
Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Very Preterm Infants ◽  
Very Preterm ◽  
Donor Human Milk ◽  
Preterm Formula

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) is the most common complication after preterm birth. Pasteurized donor human milk (DHM) has increasingly become the standard of care for very preterm infants over the use of preterm formula (PF) if mother&rsquo;s own milk (MOM) is unavailable. Studies have reported beneficial effects of DHM on BPD. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies on the effects of DHM on BPD and other respiratory outcomes. Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of RCT&rsquo;s could not demonstrate that supplementation of MOM with DHM reduced BPD when compared to PF (3 studies, risk ratio [RR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60&ndash;1.32). However, meta-analysis of observational studies showed that DHM supplementation reduced BPD (8 studies, RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67&ndash;0.90). An exclusive human milk diet reduced the risk of BPD, compared to a diet with PF and/or bovine milk-based fortifier (3 studies, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68&ndash;0.95). Feeding raw MOM, compared to feeding pasteurized MOM, protected against BPD (2 studies, RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62&ndash;0.96). In conclusion, our data suggest that DHM protects against BPD in very preterm infants, but pasteurization of human milk reduces the benefit.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 6. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies

2008 ◽  
Vol 5;12 (5;9) ◽  
pp. 819-850
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Confounding Bias ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

Observational studies provide an important source of information when randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cannot or should not be undertaken, provided that the data are analyzed and interpreted with special attention to bias. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) stresses the examination of evidence from clinical research and describes it as a shift in medical paradigm, in contrast to intuition, unsystematic clinical experience, and pathophysiologic rationale. While the importance of randomized trials has been created by the concept of the hierarchy of evidence in guiding therapy, much of the medical research is observational. The reporting of observational research is often not detailed and clear enough with insufficient quality and poor reporting, which hampers the assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the study and the generalizability of the mixed results. Thus, in recent years, progress and innovations in health care are measured by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, “the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, clinical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic.” Meta-analysis usually is the final step in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are labor intensive, requiring expertise in both the subject matter and review methodology, and also must follow the rules of EBM which suggests that a formal set of rules must complement medical training and common sense for clinicians to integrate the results of clinical research effectively. While expertise in the review methods is important, the expertise in the subject matter and technical components is also crucial. Even though, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, specifically of RCTs, have exploded, the quality of the systematic reviews is highly variable and consequently, the opinions reached of the same studies are quite divergent. Numerous deficiencies have been described in methodologic assessment of the quality of the individual articles. Consequently, observational studies can provide an important complementary source of information, provided that the data are analyzed and interpreted in the context of confounding bias to which they are prone. Appropriate systematic reviews of observational studies, in conjunction with RCTs, may provide the basis for elimination of a dangerous discrepancy between the experts and the evidence. Steps in conducting systematic reviews of observational studies include planning, conducting, reporting, and disseminating the results. MOOSE, or Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, a proposal for reporting contains specifications including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the MOOSE checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analysis for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision-makers. This manuscript describes systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Authors frequently utilize RCTs and observational studies in one systematic review; thus, they should also follow the reporting standards of the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement, which also provides a checklist. A combined approach of QUOROM and MOOSE will improve reporting of systematic reviews and lead to progress and innovations in health care. Key words: Observational studies, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, metaanalysis, randomized trials, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, confounding bias, QUOROM, MOOSE

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document