Effect of face-to-face verbal feedback compared with no or alternative feedback on the objective workplace task performance of health professionals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ObjectiveVerbal face-to-face feedback on clinical task performance is a fundamental component of health professions education. Experts argue that feedback is critical for performance improvement, but the evidence is limited. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the effect of face-to-face verbal feedback from a health professional, compared with alternative or no feedback, on the objective workplace task performance of another health professional.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched the full holdings of Ovid MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO up to 1 February 2019 and searched references of included studies. Two authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal. Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of feedback, in which health professionals were randomised to individual verbal face-to-face feedback compared with no feedback or alternative feedback and available as full-text publications in English. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. For feedback compared with no feedback, outcome data from included studies were pooled using a random effects model.ResultsIn total, 26 trials met the inclusion criteria, involving 2307 participants. For the effect of verbal face-to-face feedback on performance compared with no feedback, when studies at high risk of bias were excluded, eight studies involving 392 health professionals were included in a meta-analysis: the standardised mean difference (SMD) was 0.7 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.03; p<0.001) in favour of feedback. The calculated SMD prediction interval was −0.06 to 1.46. For feedback compared with alternative feedback, studies could not be pooled due to substantial design and intervention heterogeneity. All included studies were summarised, and key factors likely to influence performance were identified including components within feedback interventions, instruction and practice opportunities.ConclusionsVerbal face-to-face feedback in the health professions may result in a moderate to large improvement in workplace task performance, compared with no feedback. However, the quality of evidence was low, primarily due to risk of bias and publication bias. Further research is needed. In particular, we found a lack of high-quality trials that clearly reported key components likely to influence performance.Trial registration numberCRD42017081796.

Download Full-text

Virtual Reality for Health Professions Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.12959 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Bhone Myint Kyaw ◽

Nakul Saxena ◽

Pawel Posadzki ◽

Jitka Vseteckova ◽

Charoula Konstantia Nikolaou ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Virtual Reality ◽

Clinical Practice ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Cognitive Skills ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Health Professions ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Traditional Learning ◽

Digital Education

BACKGROUND Virtual reality (VR) is a technology that allows the user to explore and manipulate computer-generated real or artificial three-dimensional multimedia sensory environments in real time to gain practical knowledge that can be used in clinical practice. OBJECTIVE The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of VR for educating health professionals and improving their knowledge, cognitive skills, attitudes, and satisfaction. METHODS We performed a systematic review of the effectiveness of VR in pre- and postregistration health professions education following the gold standard Cochrane methodology. We searched 7 databases from the year 1990 to August 2017. No language restrictions were applied. We included randomized controlled trials and cluster-randomized trials. We independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, and then, we compared the information in pairs. We contacted authors of the studies for additional information if necessary. All pooled analyses were based on random-effects models. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to rate the quality of the body of evidence. RESULTS A total of 31 studies (2407 participants) were included. Meta-analysis of 8 studies found that VR slightly improves postintervention knowledge scores when compared with traditional learning (standardized mean difference [SMD]=0.44; 95% CI 0.18-0.69; I2=49%; 603 participants; moderate certainty evidence) or other types of digital education such as online or offline digital education (SMD=0.43; 95% CI 0.07-0.79; I2=78%; 608 participants [8 studies]; low certainty evidence). Another meta-analysis of 4 studies found that VR improves health professionals’ cognitive skills when compared with traditional learning (SMD=1.12; 95% CI 0.81-1.43; I2=0%; 235 participants; large effect size; moderate certainty evidence). Two studies compared the effect of VR with other forms of digital education on skills, favoring the VR group (SMD=0.5; 95% CI 0.32-0.69; I2=0%; 467 participants; moderate effect size; low certainty evidence). The findings for attitudes and satisfaction were mixed and inconclusive. None of the studies reported any patient-related outcomes, behavior change, as well as unintended or adverse effects of VR. Overall, the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE criteria ranged from low to moderate. We downgraded our certainty of evidence primarily because of the risk of bias and/or inconsistency. CONCLUSIONS We found evidence suggesting that VR improves postintervention knowledge and skills outcomes of health professionals when compared with traditional education or other types of digital education such as online or offline digital education. The findings on other outcomes are limited. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of immersive and interactive forms of VR and evaluate other outcomes such as attitude, satisfaction, cost-effectiveness, and clinical practice or behavior change.

Download Full-text

Digital Problem-Based Learning in Health Professions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.12945 ◽

2018 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Lorainne Tudor Car ◽

Bhone Myint Kyaw ◽

Gerard Dunleavy ◽

Neil A Smart ◽

Monika Semwal ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Digital Technology ◽

Digital Health ◽

Problem Based Learning ◽

Health Professions ◽

Pooled Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Traditional Learning ◽

Digital Education

BACKGROUND The use of digital education in problem-based learning, or digital problem-based learning (DPBL), is increasingly employed in health professions education. DPBL includes purely digitally delivered as well as blended problem-based learning, wherein digital and face-to-face learning are combined. OBJECTIVE The aim of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of DPBL in improving health professionals’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, and satisfaction. METHODS We used the gold-standard Cochrane methods to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We included studies that compared the effectiveness of DPBL with traditional learning methods or other forms of digital education in improving health professionals’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, and satisfaction. Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We contacted study authors for additional information, if necessary. We used the random-effects model in the meta-analyses. RESULTS Nine RCTs involving 890 preregistration health professionals were included. Digital technology was mostly employed for presentation of problems. In three studies, PBL was delivered fully online. Digital technology modalities spanned online learning, offline learning, virtual reality, and virtual patients. The control groups consisted of traditional PBL and traditional learning. The pooled analysis of seven studies comparing the effect of DPBL and traditional PBL reported little or no difference in postintervention knowledge outcomes (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.19, 95% CI 0.00-0.38). The pooled analysis of three studies comparing the effect of DPBL to traditional learning on postintervention knowledge outcomes favored DPBL (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.14-1.19). For skill development, the pooled analysis of two studies comparing DPBL to traditional PBL favored DPBL (SMD 0.30, 95% CI 0.07-0.54). Findings on attitudes and satisfaction outcomes were mixed. The included studies mostly had an unclear risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that DPBL is as effective as traditional PBL and more effective than traditional learning in improving knowledge. DPBL may be more effective than traditional learning or traditional PBL in improving skills. Further studies should evaluate the use of digital technology for the delivery of other PBL components as well as PBL overall.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of adaptive e-learning for health professionals and students: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025252 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (8) ◽

pp. e025252 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Guillaume Fontaine ◽

Sylvie Cossette ◽

Marc-André Maheu-Cadotte ◽

Tanya Mailhot ◽

Marie-France Deschênes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Future Research ◽

Control Group ◽

Factual Knowledge ◽

Clinical Behaviour ◽

Environment Control ◽

E Learning

ObjectiveAlthough adaptive e-learning environments (AEEs) can provide personalised instruction to health professional and students, their efficacy remains unclear. Therefore, this review aimed to identify, appraise and synthesise the evidence regarding the efficacy of AEEs in improving knowledge, skills and clinical behaviour in health professionals and students.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesCINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science from the first year of records to February 2019.Eligibility criteriaControlled studies that evaluated the effect of an AEE on knowledge, skills or clinical behaviour in health professionals or students.Screening, data extraction and synthesisTwo authors screened studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and coded quality of evidence independently. AEEs were reviewed with regard to their topic, theoretical framework and adaptivity process. Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they had a non-adaptive e-learning environment control group and had no missing data. Effect sizes (ES) were pooled using a random effects model.ResultsFrom a pool of 10 569 articles, we included 21 eligible studies enrolling 3684 health professionals and students. Clinical topics were mostly related to diagnostic testing, theoretical frameworks were varied and the adaptivity process was characterised by five subdomains: method, goals, timing, factors and types. The pooled ES was 0.70 for knowledge (95% CI −0.08 to 1.49; p.08) and 1.19 for skills (95% CI 0.59 to 1.79; p<0.00001). Risk of bias was generally high. Heterogeneity was large in all analyses.ConclusionsAEEs appear particularly effective in improving skills in health professionals and students. The adaptivity process within AEEs may be more beneficial for learning skills rather than factual knowledge, which generates less cognitive load. Future research should report more clearly on the design and adaptivity process of AEEs, and target higher-level outcomes, such as clinical behaviour.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017065585

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of Live Health Professional–Led Group eHealth Interventions for Adult Mental Health: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.27939 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Cheryl L Currie ◽

Richard Larouche ◽

M Lauren Voss ◽

Maegan Trottier ◽

Rae Spiwak ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Physical Activity ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Substance Use ◽

Health Professional ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Adult Mental Health ◽

Randomized Controlled

BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic has had adverse impacts on mental health and substance use worldwide. Systematic reviews suggest eHealth interventions can be effective at addressing these problems. However, strong positive eHealth outcomes are often tied to the intensity of web-based therapist guidance, which has time and cost implications that can make the population scale-up of more effective interventions difficult. A way to offset cost while maintaining the intensity of therapist guidance is to offer eHealth programs to groups rather than more standard one-on-one formats. OBJECTIVE This systematic review aims to assess experimental evidence for the effectiveness of live health professional–led group eHealth interventions on mental health, substance use, or bereavement among community-dwelling adults. Within the articles selected for our primary aim, we also seek to examine the impact of interventions that encourage physical activity compared with those that do not. METHODS Overall, 4 databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library) were searched in July 2020. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of eHealth interventions led by health professionals and delivered entirely to adult groups by videoconference, teleconference, or webchat. Eligible studies reported mental health, substance use, or bereavement as primary outcomes. The results were examined by outcome, eHealth platform, and intervention length. Postintervention data were used to calculate effect size by study. The findings were summarized using the Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool. RESULTS Of the 4099 identified studies, 21 (0.51%) RCTs representing 20 interventions met the inclusion criteria. These studies examined mental health outcomes among 2438 participants (sample size range: 47-361 participants per study) across 7 countries. When effect sizes were pooled, live health professional–led group eHealth interventions had a medium effect on reducing anxiety compared with inactive (Cohen d=0.57) or active control (Cohen d=0.48), a medium to small effect on reducing depression compared with inactive (Cohen d=0.61) or active control (Cohen d=0.21), and mixed effects on mental distress and coping. Interventions led by videoconference, and those that provided 8-12 hours of live health professional–led group contact had more robust effects on adult mental health. Risk of bias was high in 91% (19/21) of the studies. Heterogeneity across interventions was significant, resulting in low to very low quality of evidence. No eligible RCT was found that examined substance use, bereavement, or physical activity. CONCLUSIONS Live eHealth group interventions led by health professionals can foster moderate improvements in anxiety and moderate to small improvements in depression among community-based adults, particularly those delivered by videoconference and those providing 8-12 hours of synchronous engagement. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO CRD42020187551; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=187551 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.1186/s13643-020-01479-3

Download Full-text

Chasing the Anchor: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Perceptual Anchoring Deficits in Developmental Dyslexia

10.31234/osf.io/amzpj ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Kurt D Shulver ◽

Nicholas A Badcock

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Reading Ability ◽

English Language ◽

Prediction Interval ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Visual Assessment ◽

Individual Performance ◽

Future Research ◽

Significant Heterogeneity ◽

Eligibility Criteria

We report the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the relationship between perceptual anchoring and dyslexia. Our goal was to assess the direction and degree of effect between perceptual anchoring and reading ability in typical and atypical (dyslexic) readers. We performed a literature search of experiments explicitly assessing perceptual anchoring and reading ability using PsycInfo (Ovid, 1860 to 2020), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1860 to 2019), EMBASE (Ovid, 1883 to 2019), and PubMed for all available years up to June (2020). Our eligibility criteria consisted of English-language articles and, at minimum, one experimental group identified as dyslexic - either by reading assessment at the time, or by previous diagnosis. We assessed for risk of bias using an adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Six studies were included in this review, but only five (n = 280 participants) were included in the meta-analysis (we were unable to access the necessary data for one study).The overall effect was negative, large and statistically significant; g = -0.87, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.27]: a negative effect size indicating less perceptual anchoring in dyslexic versus non-dyslexic groups. Visual assessment of funnel plot and Egger’s test suggest minimal bias but with significant heterogeneity; Q (4) = 9.70, PI (prediction interval) [-2.32, -0.58]. The primary limitation of the current review is the small number of included studies. We discuss methodological limitations, such as limited power, and how future research may redress these concerns. The variability of effect sizes appears consistent with the inherent variability within subtypes of dyslexia. This level of dispersion seems indicative of the how we define cut-off thresholds between typical reading and dyslexia populations, but also the methodological tools we use to investigate individual performance.

Download Full-text

Exercise interventions in lateral elbow tendinopathy have better outcomes than passive interventions, but the effects are small: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 2123 subjects in 30 trials

British Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1136/bjsports-2020-102525 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. bjsports-2020-102525

Author(s):

Stefanos Karanasios ◽

Vasileios Korakakis ◽

Rod Whiteley ◽

Ioannis Vasilogeorgis ◽

Sarah Woodbridge ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Short Term ◽

Lateral Elbow ◽

Long Term Follow Up ◽

Wait And See ◽

Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of exercise compared with other conservative interventions in the management of lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) on pain and function.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 2 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess risk of bias and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to grade the certainty of evidence. Self-perceived improvement, pain intensity, pain-free grip strength (PFGS) and elbow disability were used as primary outcome measures.Eligibility criteriaRCTs assessing the effectiveness of exercise alone or as an additive intervention compared with passive interventions, wait-and-see or injections in patients with LET.Results30 RCTs (2123 participants, 5 comparator interventions) were identified. Exercise outperformed (low certainty) corticosteroid injections in all outcomes at all time points except short-term pain reduction. Clinically significant differences were found in PFGS at short-term (mean difference (MD): 12.15, (95% CI) 1.69 to 22.6), mid-term (MD: 22.45, 95% CI 3.63 to 41.3) and long-term follow-up (MD: 18, 95% CI 11.17 to 24.84). Statistically significant differences (very low certainty) for exercise compared with wait-and-see were found only in self-perceived improvement at short-term, pain reduction and elbow disability at short-term and long-term follow-up. Substantial heterogeneity in descriptions of equipment, load, duration and frequency of exercise programmes were evident.ConclusionsLow and very low certainty evidence suggests exercise is effective compared with passive interventions with or without invasive treatment in LET, but the effect is small.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018082703.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of Nutritional Education for Obese Older Adults With Frailty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Innovation in Aging ◽

10.1093/geroni/igaa057.1291 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 401-401

Author(s):

Yue-Heng Yin ◽

Liu Yat Justina

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Physical Function ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Experimental Studies ◽

Well Being ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Nutritional Education ◽

Hand Search ◽

Education Interventions

Abstract Obesity has been shown to intensify the decline of physical function and lead to frailty. Nutrition is an important method in managing obesity and frailty, while seldom reviews have ever explored the effects of nutritional education interventions. We conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42019142403) to explore the effectiveness of nutritional education interventions in managing body composition and physio-psychosocial parameters related to frailty. Randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were searched in CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus from 2001 to 2019. Hand search for the reference lists of included papers was conducted as well. We assessed the quality of included studies by Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analyses and narrative synthesis were used to analyse the data. Two studies with low risk of bias were screened from 180 articles, which involved 177 older people with an average age of 69.69±4.08 years old. The results showed that nutritional education was significantly effective in reducing body weight and fat mass than exercises, and it was beneficial to enhancing physical function and psychosocial well-being. But the effects of nutritional education in increasing muscle strength were not better than exercises. The combined effects of nutritional education and exercises were superior than either exercises or nutritional education interventions solely in preventing the loss of lean mass and bone marrow density, and in improving physical function. Due to limited numbers of relevant studies, the strong evidence of effectiveness of nutritional education interventions on reversing frailty is still lacking.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of low and very low carbohydrate diets for type 2 diabetes remission: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished randomized trial data

BMJ ◽

10.1136/bmj.m4743 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. m4743

Author(s):

Joshua Z Goldenberg ◽

Andrew Day ◽

Grant D Brinkworth ◽

Junko Sato ◽

Satoru Yamada ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Type 2 Diabetes ◽

Weight Loss ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Low Carbohydrate ◽

Remission Of Diabetes

Abstract Objective To determine the efficacy and safety of low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) and very low carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) for people with type 2 diabetes. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Searches of CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CAB, and grey literature sources from inception to 25 August 2020. Study selection Randomized clinical trials evaluating LCDs (<130 g/day or <26% of a 2000 kcal/day diet) and VLCDs (<10% calories from carbohydrates) for at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes were eligible. Data extraction Primary outcomes were remission of diabetes (HbA 1c <6.5% or fasting glucose <7.0 mmol/L, with or without the use of diabetes medication), weight loss, HbA 1c , fasting glucose, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included health related quality of life and biochemical laboratory data. All articles and outcomes were independently screened, extracted, and assessed for risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence at six and 12 month follow-up. Risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. Outcomes were assessed according to a priori determined minimal important differences to determine clinical importance, and heterogeneity was investigated on the basis of risk of bias and seven a priori subgroups. Any subgroup effects with a statistically significant test of interaction were subjected to a five point credibility checklist. Results Searches identified 14 759 citations yielding 23 trials (1357 participants), and 40.6% of outcomes were judged to be at low risk of bias. At six months, compared with control diets, LCDs achieved higher rates of diabetes remission (defined as HbA 1c <6.5%) (76/133 (57%) v 41/131 (31%); risk difference 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.47; 8 studies, n=264, I 2 =58%). Conversely, smaller, non-significant effect sizes occurred when a remission definition of HbA 1c <6.5% without medication was used. Subgroup assessments determined as meeting credibility criteria indicated that remission with LCDs markedly decreased in studies that included patients using insulin. At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes. Large clinically important improvements were seen in weight loss, triglycerides, and insulin sensitivity at six months, which diminished at 12 months. On the basis of subgroup assessments deemed credible, VLCDs were less effective than less restrictive LCDs for weight loss at six months. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence. That is, among highly adherent patients on VLCDs, a clinically important reduction in weight was seen compared with studies with less adherent patients on VLCDs. Participants experienced no significant difference in quality of life at six months but did experience clinically important, but not statistically significant, worsening of quality of life and low density lipoprotein cholesterol at 12 months. Otherwise, no significant or clinically important between group differences were found in terms of adverse events or blood lipids at six and 12 months. Conclusions On the basis of moderate to low certainty evidence, patients adhering to an LCD for six months may experience remission of diabetes without adverse consequences. Limitations include continued debate around what constitutes remission of diabetes, as well as the efficacy, safety, and dietary satisfaction of longer term LCDs. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020161795.

Download Full-text

Risk of colectomy after conservative treatment of diverticulitis of the left hemicolon complicated by abdominal or pelvic abscess: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042350 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (12) ◽

pp. e042350

Author(s):

Maximilian Sohn ◽

Ayman Agha ◽

Igors Iesalnieks ◽

Anna Tiefes ◽

Alfred Hochrein ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Emergency Surgery ◽

Case Reports ◽

Acute Diverticulitis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Case Series ◽

Pelvic Abscess ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Review Manager

IntroductionAcute diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon is increasingly treated by a non-operative approach. The need for colectomy after recovery from a flare of acute diverticulitis of the left colon, complicated diverticular abscess is still controversial. The primary aim of this study is to assess the risk of interval emergency surgery by systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisThe systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols statement. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE will be screened for the predefined searching term: (Diverticulitis OR Diverticulum) AND (Abscess OR pelvic abscess OR pericolic abscess OR intraabdominal abscess) AND (surgery OR operation OR sigmoidectomy OR drainage OR percutaneous drainage OR conservative therapy OR watchful waiting). All studies published in an English or German-speaking peer-reviewed journal will be suitable for this analysis. Case reports, case series of less than five patients, studies without follow-up information, systematic and non-systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be excluded. Primary endpoint is the rate of interval emergency surgery. Using the Review Manager Software (Review Manager/RevMan, V.5.3, Copenhagen, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012) meta-analysis will be pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method for random effects. The Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool will be used to assess methodological quality of non-randomised studies. Risk of bias in randomised studies will be assessed using the Cochrane developed RoB 2-tool.Ethics and disseminationAs no new data are being collected, ethical approval is exempt for this study. This systematic review is to provide a new insight on the need for surgical treatment after a first attack of acute diverticulitis, complicated by intra-abdominal or pelvic abscesses. The results of this study will be presented at national and international meetings and published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020164813.

Download Full-text

Prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040997 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

pp. e040997

Author(s):

Varo Kirthi ◽

Paul Nderitu ◽

Uazman Alam ◽

Jennifer Evans ◽

Sarah Nevitt ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Diabetic Retinopathy ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

International Diabetes Federation ◽

Current Data ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Fundus Photography ◽

Primary Data ◽

Cochrane Library

IntroductionThere is growing evidence of a higher than expected prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes. This paper presents the protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis of retinopathy in prediabetes. The aim of the review is to estimate the prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes and to summarise the current data.Methods and analysisThis protocol is developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A comprehensive electronic bibliographic search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. Eligible studies will report prevalence data for retinopathy on fundus photography in adults with prediabetes. No time restrictions will be placed on the date of publication. Screening for eligible studies and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers independently, using predefined inclusion criteria and prepiloted data extraction forms. Disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved by discussion, and if required, a third (senior) reviewer will arbitrate.The primary outcome is the prevalence of any standard features of diabetic retinopathy (DR) on fundus photography, as per International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (ICDRSS) classification. Secondary outcomes are the prevalence of (1) any retinal microvascular abnormalities on fundus photography that are not standard features of DR as per ICDRSS classification and (2) any macular microvascular abnormalities on fundus photography, including but not limited to the presence of macular exudates, microaneurysms and haemorrhages. Risk of bias for included studies will be assessed using a validated risk of bias tool for prevalence studies. Pooled estimates for the prespecified outcomes of interest will be calculated using random effects meta-analytic techniques. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as this is a protocol for a systematic review and no primary data are to be collected. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international meetings including Diabetes UK, European Association for the Study of Diabetes, American Diabetes Association and International Diabetes Federation conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184820.

Download Full-text