Anticholinergic burden and fractures: a protocol for a methodological systematic review and meta-analysis

IntroductionMedications with anticholinergic activity are used in the treatment of many diseases common in old age, including depression, psychosis, Parkinson’s disease, allergies, pain and urinary incontinence. A high anticholinergic burden (ACB) is considered a major risk factor for fractures in older adults but recent studies reported inconsistent results. These inconsistencies may partly be due to differences in methodological aspects. However, no systematic review so far has addressed this association and considered study methods. Thus, we aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies addressing the association of ACB with fractures and to provide a methodological appraisal of the included studies.Methods and analysisWe will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Science Citation Index, CENTRAL and grey literature using a strategy that combines the terms anticholinergic and fractures. We will hand search reference lists of articles. Two reviewers will independently screen all identified abstracts for eligibility and evaluate the risk of bias of the included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and RTI item bank. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or consultation with a third researcher. We will conduct a meta-analysis, either for the overall population or for specific and more homogeneous subgroups, if the number of studies retrieved and their heterogeneity allows it.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval will be sought, as no original data will be collected for this review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018116737.

Download Full-text

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

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035360 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042525 ◽

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

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of personal letters to healthcare professionals in changing clinical practice behaviours: A Systematic Review protocol

10.21203/rs.3.rs-55534/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Aikaterini Grimani ◽

Louis Goffe ◽

Mei Yee Tang ◽

Fiona Beyer ◽

Falko F. Sniehotta ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Practice ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Behaviour Change Techniques ◽

Hand Search

Abstract Background: Letters are regularly sent by healthcare organisations to healthcare professionals to encourage them to take action, change practice or implement guidance. However, whether letters are an effective tool in delivering a change in clinical practice behaviour is currently uncertain. In addition, there are currently no evidence-based guidelines to support providers and health authorities with advice on how to formulate the communication, what information and behaviour change techniques to include in order to optimise the potential effect on the behaviour of the receivers. To address this research gap, we aim to inform such guidance through this systematic review.Methods/ Design: A systematic literature search of published and unpublished studies (the grey literature) in electronic databases will be conducted to identify studies that meet our inclusion criteria. The search will be conducted in five electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library and CINAHL. We will also conduct supplementary searches in Google Scholar, hand search relevant journals, and conduct backward and forward citation searching for included studies and relevant reviews. A systematic approach to searching, screening, reviewing and data extraction will be applied based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis. Titles, abstracts, full-texts for eligibility will be examined independently by researchers. The quality of the included studies will be assessed using quality assessment tool for studies with diverse design and Cochrane risk of bias tool. Disagreements will be resolved by a consensus procedure.Discussion: This review aims to provide comprehensive evidence of the effectiveness of personal letters to healthcare professionals in changing clinical practice behaviours. Health policy makers across government will benefit from being able to increase compliance in clinical settings by applying theories of behaviour to design of policy communications. The synthesized findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020167674

Download Full-text

What are the risk factors for injuries and injury prevention strategies for skiers and snowboarders in terrain parks and half-pipes? A systematic review

British Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1136/bjsports-2018-099166 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 53 (1) ◽

pp. 19-24 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Olivier Audet ◽

Brent E Hagel ◽

Albertro Nettel-Aguirre ◽

Tatum Mitra ◽

Carolyn A Emery ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Injury Prevention ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Original Data ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Prevention Strategies ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Severe Injuries ◽

Registration Number

ObjectiveTo synthesise the current evidence regarding the risk factors, the injury prevention strategies and the profile of injured skiers and snowboarders in terrain parks (TPs) and half-pipes (HPs).DesignSystematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines.Data sourcesLiterature searches from six electronic databases and manual searches were performed.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesInclusion criteria were: (1) publication based on original data; (2) injuries sustained in TPs or HPs; (3) recreational skiing or snowboarding injuries; (4) observational or experimental study design with a comparison group.ResultsNo study explored the risk factors in HPs or the prevention strategies in TPs or HPs. From the literature retrieved, there is strong evidence that skiing or snowboarding in a TP is a risk factor for head, neck, back and severe injuries. Two papers assessed the risk factors for injuries in TPs, mainly demonstrating that features promoting aerial manoeuvres or a large drop to the ground were associated with higher feature-specific injury rates. The profile of injured skiers and snowboarders in TPs described in the literature suggested some evidence of associations between factors including activity, sex, skill level, helmet use, age and TP injuries.Summary/conclusionsThis systematic review demonstrates the need for studies identifying the risk factors for injuries to skiers and snowboarders and on interventions to reduce the risk of injury in TPs and HPs. Studies addressing the issue of TP design should be considered.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016045206.

Download Full-text

Clinical presentations, laboratory and radiological findings, and treatments for 11,028 COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-30388/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Carlos K.H. Wong ◽

Janet Y. Wong ◽

Eric H.M. Tang ◽

Chi Ho Au ◽

Abraham K. Wai

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Healthcare Providers ◽

Original Data ◽

Epidemiological Studies ◽

Laboratory Findings ◽

Non Invasive ◽

Clinical Presentations ◽

Registration Number

Abstract Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the comorbidities, symptoms, clinical characteristics and treatment of COVID-19 patients.Method: Epidemiological studies published in 2020 (from January-March) on the clinical presentation, laboratory findings and treatments of COVID-19 patients were identified from PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases. Studies published in English by 27th March, 2020 with original data were included. A random-effects model was used to aggregate estimates across eligible studies and produce meta-analytic estimates. Primary outcomes included comorbidities of COVID-19 patients, their symptoms presented on hospital admission, laboratory results and radiological outcomes, and pharmacological and in-patient treatments.Results: 77 studies were included in this meta-analysis, accounting for a total of 11,028 COVID- 19 patients in multiple countries. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (18.1%, 95%CI: 15.4-20.8%). The most frequently identified symptoms were fever (72.4%, 95%CI: 67.2-77.7%) and cough (55.5%, 95%CI: 50.7-60.3%). For pharmacological treatment, 63.9% (95%CI: 52.5-75.3%), 62.4% (95%CI: 47.9-76.8%) and 29.7% (95%CI: 21.8-37.6%) of patients were given antibiotics, antiviral, and corticosteroid, respectively. Notably, 62.6% (95%CI: 39.9- 85.4%) and 20.2% (95%CI: 14.6-25.9%) of in-patients received oxygen therapy and non- invasive mechanical ventilation, respectively.Conclusions: This meta-analysis informed healthcare providers about the timely status of characteristics and treatments of COVID-19 patients across different countries.PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42020176589

Download Full-text

Macrolides for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

10.31219/osf.io/rvp59 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Catalina Verdejo ◽

Laura Vergara-Merino ◽

Natalia Carvajal-Juliá ◽

Nicolás Meza ◽

Eva Madrid ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Direct Evidence ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Randomised Trials ◽

Web Based ◽

Central Register ◽

Registration Number ◽

Review Protocol

ObjectiveThis living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of macrolides for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.Data sources We will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 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 methods We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of macrolides — as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs — versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating macrolides 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 we find no direct evidence from randomised trials, 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 pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system 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 every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates.Ethics and dissemination No ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO Registration number CRD42020181032

Download Full-text

Interventions to Reduce Patient Identification Errors in the Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review

The Open Nursing Journal ◽

10.2174/1874434602115010109 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

pp. 109-121

Author(s):

Helena De Rezende ◽

Marta M. Melleiro ◽

Paulo A. O. Marques ◽

Timothy H. Barker

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Hospital Setting ◽

Care Process ◽

Patient Identification ◽

High Quality Research ◽

Registration Number ◽

Educational Staff ◽

Identification Practices

Background: Patient identification is considered as a fundamental part of the care process and a relevant resource for safety practices in hospital settings. Objective: We aimed to review the literature on interventions to reduce patient identification errors in hospital settings. Methods: A systematic review of effectiveness using The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology was conducted. A three-step search strategy was utilised to explore primary research published up to March 2020 in English, Spanish, and Portuguese across eight databases. Grey literature was also assessed. The titles and abstracts of the studies were screened for assessment of the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently appraised the full text of the selected studies and extracted data using standardised tools from JBI. Due to the heterogeneity of studies and insufficient data for statistical pooling, meta-analysis was not feasible. Therefore, the results were synthesised narratively. Results: Twelve studies met the review criteria; all were rated at a moderate risk of bias and four different groups of interventions were identified: educational staff interventions alone and those combined with a partnership with families and patients through education; and information technology interventions alone, and combined with an educational staff strategy. Although most studies showed a statistically significant reduction in patient identification errors, the overall quality of the evidence was considered very low. Conclusion: High-quality research is needed to understand the real impact of interventions to reduce patient identification errors. Nurses should recognise the importance of patient identification practices as a part of their overall commitment to improving patient safety. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42018085236

Download Full-text

Clinical presentations, laboratory and radiological findings, and treatments for 11,028 COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-020-74988-9 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Carlos K. H. Wong ◽

Janet Y. H. Wong ◽

Eric H. M. Tang ◽

C. H. Au ◽

Abraham K. C. Wai

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽

Healthcare Providers ◽

Original Data ◽

Epidemiological Studies ◽

Laboratory Findings ◽

Non Invasive ◽

Clinical Presentations ◽

Registration Number

AbstractThis systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the comorbidities, symptoms, clinical characteristics and treatment of COVID-19 patients. Epidemiological studies published in 2020 (from January–March) on the clinical presentation, laboratory findings and treatments of COVID-19 patients were identified from PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases. Studies published in English by 27th March, 2020 with original data were included. Primary outcomes included comorbidities of COVID-19 patients, their symptoms presented on hospital admission, laboratory results, radiological outcomes, and pharmacological and in-patient treatments. 76 studies were included in this meta-analysis, accounting for a total of 11,028 COVID-19 patients in multiple countries. A random-effects model was used to aggregate estimates across eligible studies and produce meta-analytic estimates. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (18.1%, 95% CI 15.4–20.8%). The most frequently identified symptoms were fever (72.4%, 95% CI 67.2–77.7%) and cough (55.5%, 95% CI 50.7–60.3%). For pharmacological treatment, 63.9% (95% CI 52.5–75.3%), 62.4% (95% CI 47.9–76.8%) and 29.7% (95% CI 21.8–37.6%) of patients were given antibiotics, antiviral, and corticosteroid, respectively. Notably, 62.6% (95% CI 39.9–85.4%) and 20.2% (95% CI 14.6–25.9%) of in-patients received oxygen therapy and non-invasive mechanical ventilation, respectively. This meta-analysis informed healthcare providers about the timely status of characteristics and treatments of COVID-19 patients across different countries.PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42020176589

Download Full-text

Risk factors for premature coronary artery disease (PCAD) in adults: a systematic review protocol

F1000Research ◽

10.12688/f1000research.74926.1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 ◽

pp. 1228

Author(s):

Adeel Khoja ◽

Prabha H. Andraweera ◽

Zohra S. Lassi ◽

Mingyue Zheng ◽

Maleesa M. Pathirana ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Mean Difference ◽

Premature Coronary Artery Disease ◽

Registration Number ◽

Review Protocol ◽

Artery Disease

PCAD possesses a public health challenge resulting in years of productive life lost and an escalating burden on health systems. Objective of this review is to compare modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for PCAD compared to those without PCAD. This review will include all comparative observational studies conducted in adults aged >18 years with confirmed diagnosis of PCAD (on angiography) compared to those without PCAD. Databases to be searched include; PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and grey literature (Google Scholar). All identified studies will be screened for title and abstract and full-text against the inclusion criteria on Covidence software. Data relevant to exposures and outcomes will be extracted from all included studies. All studies selected for data extraction will be critically appraised for methodological quality. Meta-analysis using random-effects model will be performed using Review Manager 5.3. Effect sizes for categorical risk factors will be expressed as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. For risk factors measured in continuous form, mean difference (if units are consistent) otherwise standardized mean difference (if units are different across studies) will be reported. Heterogeneity between studies will be assessed using I2 test statistics. GRADE will be used to assess the certainty of the findings. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO Registration # CRD42020173216

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of interventions for optimising adherence to treatments for the prevention and management of scars: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023904 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. e023904

Author(s):

Jessica Killey ◽

Megan Simons ◽

Roy M Kimble ◽

Zephanie Tyack

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Burn Injury ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Conference Presentations ◽

Ethical Approval ◽

Registration Number ◽

Adults And Children ◽

Dermal Wound

IntroductionTreatments used in the management of scarring following wounds of the skin can be complex and time consuming, and patients may experience difficulties adhering to these treatments. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to identify the types of interventions that have been used to optimise adherence to treatment for preventing or reducing skin scars in adults and children and to determine the effectiveness of these interventions.Methods and analysisDatabases (PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Web of Science and OTSeeker) will be searched using the developed search strategy to identify eligible randomised trials. Adults and children using scar treatments to prevent or manage scarring as a result of a dermal wound (which may occur following burn injury, surgery, lacerations, piercings, vaccinations, acne and other conditions affecting the skin) will be included. Any intervention with the potential to effect adherence will be included. Titles and abstracts located through searching will be screened by two independent reviewers. Full text of studies will also be screened to determine eligibility for final inclusion. Two reviewers will assess the quality of included studies using the Cochrane ‘risk of bias’ tool. Data extraction forms will be developed and two reviewers will extract the data. A third reviewer will be used at each stage to ensure consensus is achieved. Meta-analysis and meta-regression will be completed if appropriate, otherwise a narrative synthesis of results will be undertaken.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is necessary for this systematic review as no patients will be directly involved. Results of this systematic review will be disseminated through journal publications and relevant conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018095082.

Download Full-text