scholarly journals Pain associated with psoriasis: systematic scoping review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e031461
Author(s):  
Ana Sanader Vucemilovic ◽  
Danijela Nujic ◽  
Livia Puljak
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Chronic Skin ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionPsoriasis is a common chronic skin inflammatory disease. Its presentation, apart from affected skin areas, involves other unpleasant symptoms, such as pain. Pain deteriorates the patient’s quality of life, impairing their daily behaviour and functioning. Therefore, the alleviation of pain in patients with psoriasis should be one of the most desired outcomes of successful treatment. The aim of this study is to summarise available evidence about pain in patients with psoriasis using systematic scoping review methodology in order to map the relevant literature.Methods and analysesOur scoping systematic review will provide evidence synthesis of the literature, both quantitative and qualitative, about the pain associated with psoriasis, including pain associated with psoriatic arthritis. Any types of studies will be eligible for inclusion, and we will not have any time, language or publication status restrictions. We will search MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO via OVID, as well as Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Cochrane Library, CINAHL via EBSCO, OpenGrey and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. All databases will be searched from the date of their inception. Retrieved bibliographic records and potentially relevant full texts will be screened by two authors independently. Two researchers will extract data independently. Any discrepancies will be resolved via discussion or consultation of the third author, if necessary. To appraise studies, we will use a Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, AMSTAR 2, Cochrane risk of bias tool and ROBINS. Our findings will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews.Ethics and disseminationThe proposed study will not be conducted with human participants. We will only use published data and therefore ethics approval is not required. Our findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed manuscript and conference reports.

scholarly journals Resilient healthcare theory as a lens to research emergency department operations: a protocol for a scoping review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e053701
Author(s):  
Peter Thomas Chessum ◽  
Mark Sujan ◽  
Andreas Xyrichis ◽  
Janet E Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Complex Systems ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Ed Operations

IntroductionEmergency departments (EDs) are complex systems that have constant fluctuations in demand, creating mismatches with planned capacity. Despite the complexity of ED operations, quality and safety improvement are often approached in a reactive, linear and reductionist manner. There is increasing interest in adopting Resilient Healthcare (RHC) techniques based on complex systems thinking as a method for quality improvement and research in EDs. However, the evidence for this approach is still developing and it is not clear what techniques have been used so far and which are most effective. This scoping review will be conducted between March 2022 until May 2022. It seeks to examine the international literature for available reports that have adopted RHC theory to study ED operations and identify approaches used and proposed benefits.Methods and analysisThe methodology for scoping reviews outlined by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) will be followed, acknowledging refinements made to the scoping review process by Levac et al (2010). The methodology consists of five steps: (1) identifying the research question; (2) identifying the relevant literature; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results. A two-stage approach will be undertaken to synthesise and report results: (1) numerical analysis of the nature and distribution of studies (the overall number of studies, country of origin, the most studied core function of ED, type of research design); and (2) a thematic mapping of the literature.Ethics and disseminationScoping review methodology synthesises published data and, therefore, does not require ethical approval. An article formatted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses forScoping Reviews reporting guidance will be submitted for publication to a scientific journal. Findings will also be presented at relevant advanced practice conferences and disseminated within clinical and academic groups.

scholarly journals Problemas de coagulação em adultos com síndroma respiratório agudo grave devido a infeção por coronavírus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): uma revisão abrangente

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 421-434
Author(s):  
Susana Pereira Costa ◽  
◽  
Inês Lopes Antunes ◽  
Ana Margarida Gomes ◽  
Cláudia Ho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objetivos: Resumir as informações publicadas acerca dos problemas de coagulação em adultos com SARS-CoV-2, incluindo características, fisiopatologia, diagnóstico e resposta ao uso profilático ou terapêutico de anticoagulantes ou antiagregantes plaquetários. Métodos: Realizada uma revisão abrangente, de acordo com as guidelines Joanna Briggs Institute Guidelines on Scoping Reviews e Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review guidelines (PRISMA-ScR). Efetuada pesquisa nas bases de dados MEDLINE®, SciELO® e Web of Science® entre 1 e 2 de maio de 2020. A seleção dos artigos foi dividida em etapas sequenciais considerando: título, resumo e artigo integral. Em cada etapa os artigos foram aceites ou rejeitados tendo em conta os critérios de inclusão e exclusão. Foi feito o mapeamento dos dados e a evidência relevante foi sumarizada. Resultados: Após seleção obtiveram-se 106 artigos. Destes, 36 correspondiam a cartas, 28 a estudos originais, 25 a revisões e 14 a relatos de caso; uma meta-análise, um comentário e um consenso também foram incluídos. Os resultados mostraram associação entre COVID-19 e complicações trombóticas, embora com diferentes tipos de eventos e taxas de frequência. A tríade inflamação, disfunção endotelial e coagulopatia parecem estar subjacentes às alterações fisiopatológicas. As técnicas laboratoriais e de imagem podem ser úteis para uma intervenção adequada. A profilaxia com anticoagulantes parentéricos, preferencialmente heparina de baixo peso molecular (HBPM) em dose intermédia, entre as comummente utilizadas para profilaxia ou tratamento, está indicada em pacientes hospitalizados, especialmente com doença grave. Deve ser mantida por um período variável após a alta, dependendo do doente. A anticoagulação terapêutica parece não diferir de outras situações previamente conhecidas. Conclusões: Várias incertezas persistem na abordagem dos problemas da coagulação em pacientes com infeção por SARS-CoV-2. As informações existentes dizem respeito principalmente ao contexto hospitalar e têm origem em fontes pouco robustas. Assim, são necessários ensaios clínicos aleatorizados e controlados para sustentar as decisões clínicas em todos os estadios.

scholarly journals What you need to know about scoping reviews

Medwave ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (02) ◽  
pp. e8144-e8144
Author(s):  
Catalina Verdejo ◽  
Luis Tapia-Benavente ◽  
Bastián Schuller-Martínez ◽  
Laura Vergara-Merino ◽  
Manuel Vargas-Peirano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Clinical Epidemiology ◽  
Recent Model ◽  
Reporting Guideline ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Reproducible Method ◽  
Meta Analyses

The increasing amount of evidence has caused an increasing amount of literature reviews. There are different types of reviews —systematic reviews are the best known—, and every type of review has different purposes. The scoping review is a recent model that aims to answer broad questions and identify and expose the available evidence for a broader question, using a rigorous and reproducible method. In the last two decades, researchers have discussed the most appropriate method to carry out scoping reviews, and recently the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guideline was published. This is the fifth article of a methodological collaborative series of narrative reviews about general topics on biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. This review aims to describe what scoping reviews are, identify their objectives, differentiate them from other types of reviews, and provide considerations on how to carry them out.

scholarly journals Obstetrical safety indicators for preventing hospital harms in low risk births: a scoping review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. e036203
Author(s):  
Aislinn Conway ◽  
Jessica Reszel ◽  
Mark C Walker ◽  
Jeremy M Grimshaw ◽  
Sandra I Dunn
Keyword(s):  
Patient Care ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Primary Concern ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Patient Safety Indicators ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionOptimising the safety of obstetric patient care is a primary concern for many hospitals. Performance indicators measuring aspects of patient care processes can lead to improvements in health systems and the prevention of harm to the patient. We present our protocol for a scoping review to identify indicators for obstetric safety in low risk births. We aim to identify indicators addressing preventable hospital harms, to summarise the data and synthesise results.Methods and analysisWe will use methods described by Arksey and O’Malley and further expanded by Levacet al. We will search electronic databases such as Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library, and websites from professional bodies and other organisations, using an iterative search strategy.Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts of search results to determine eligibility for inclusion. If eligibility is not clear, the reviewers will screen the full text version. If reviewers’ decisions regarding eligibility differ, a third reviewer will review the record. Two reviewers will independently extract data from records that meet our inclusion criteria using a standardised data collection form. We will narratively describe quantitative data, such as the frequency with which indicators are identified, and conduct a thematic analysis of the qualitative data. We will compile a comprehensive list of patient safety indicators and organise them according to concepts that best suit the data such as the Donabedian model or the Hospital Harm Framework. We will discuss the implications for future research, clinical practice and policy-making. We will report the conduct of the review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews checklist.Ethics and disseminationThe sources of information included in this scoping review will be available to the public. Therefore, ethics approval is not warranted. We will disseminate results in a peer-reviewed publication, conference/event presentation(s) and stakeholder communications.

scholarly journals What Are We Measuring When We Evaluate Digital Interventions for Improving Lifestyle? A Scoping Meta-Review

2022 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodolfo Castro ◽  
Marcelo Ribeiro-Alves ◽  
Cátia Oliveira ◽  
Carmen Phang Romero ◽  
Hugo Perazzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Lifestyle Changes ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Delivery Methods ◽  
Intermediate Outcomes ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Lifestyle Medicine (LM) aims to address six main behavioral domains: diet/nutrition, substance use (SU), physical activity (PA), social relationships, stress management, and sleep. Digital Health Interventions (DHIs) have been used to improve these domains. However, there is no consensus on how to measure lifestyle and its intermediate outcomes aside from measuring each behavior separately. We aimed to describe (1) the most frequent lifestyle domains addressed by DHIs, (2) the most frequent outcomes used to measure lifestyle changes, and (3) the most frequent DHI delivery methods.Methods: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-ScR) Extension for Scoping Reviews. A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science for publications since 2010. We included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials using DHI to promote health, behavioral, or lifestyle change.Results: Overall, 954 records were identified, and 72 systematic reviews were included. Of those, 35 conducted meta-analyses, 58 addressed diet/nutrition, and 60 focused on PA. Only one systematic review evaluated all six lifestyle domains simultaneously; 1 systematic review evaluated five lifestyle domains; 5 systematic reviews evaluated 4 lifestyle domains; 14 systematic reviews evaluated 3 lifestyle domains; and the remaining 52 systematic reviews evaluated only one or two domains. The most frequently evaluated domains were diet/nutrition and PA. The most frequent DHI delivery methods were smartphone apps and websites.Discussion: The concept of lifestyle is still unclear and fragmented, making it hard to evaluate the complex interconnections of unhealthy behaviors, and their impact on health. Clarifying this concept, refining its operationalization, and defining the reporting guidelines should be considered as the current research priorities. DHIs have the potential to improve lifestyle at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of prevention—but most of them are targeting clinical populations. Although important advances have been made to evaluate DHIs, some of their characteristics, such as the rate at which they become obsolete, will require innovative research designs to evaluate long-term outcomes in health.

scholarly journals A gestão do conhecimento em contexto hospitalar: uma scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreia Mesquita ◽  
Diana Santos ◽  
Vítor Raposo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

Enquadramento: a implementação da gestão do conhecimento nas organizações hospitalares é considerada um elemento essencial de uma boa governação, que permite dar resposta aos desafios que surgem diariamente com maior facilidade, efetividade e eficiência. Contudo, existem inúmeros fatores influenciadores da implementação deste conceito de interesse nas organizações hospitalares, sendo pertinente identificá-los. Objetivo: mapear os fatores que influenciam a implementação da gestão do conhecimento no contexto hospitalar pelos clínicos e pelos gestores em saúde. Metodologia: scoping review realizada segundo: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Foi realizada uma pesquisa em bases de dados científicas sem restrição ao espaço temporal e nos idiomas português, inglês e espanhol. O processo de seleção de estudos, extração de dados e síntese da informação foi concretizado apenas por um autor. Resultados: através dos quatro estudos incluídos nesta revisão, foi possível identificar 16 fatores influenciadores da implementação da gestão do conhecimento em contexto hospitalar pelos clínicos e gestores em saúde. Conclusão: o mapeamento dos fatores influenciadores permite o desenvolvimento de estratégias organizacionais para potenciar ou colmatar os mesmos, tendo em vista ganhos em saúde e uma boa governação hospitalar. Também serão necessários mais estudos primários, essencialmente em contexto português

scholarly journals Characteristics of activity-based therapy interventions for people living with spinal cord injury or disease across the continuum of care: a scoping review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. e040014
Author(s):  
Anita Kaiser ◽  
Katherine Chan ◽  
Maureen Pakosh ◽  
Kristin E Musselman
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Spinal Cord Injury ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Continuum Of Care ◽  
Manuscript Submission ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Cord Injury ◽  
The Continuum

IntroductionIndividuals living with spinal cord injury and disease (SCI/D) experience sensory and motor impairments below their neurological level of injury. Activity-based therapies (ABT) are interventions that provide activation of the neuromuscular system below the level of lesion with the goal of retraining the nervous system to recover a specific motor task. ABT can lead to increased function and improved quality of life; however, research and clinical settings currently lack tools to track participation in ABT. As a first step towards developing such a tool, a scoping review will be conducted with the objective of identifying the characteristics of ABT that individuals with SCI/D participate in across the continuum of care.Methods and analysisThe review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review framework. Studies that involve at least two sessions of ABT for individuals with SCI/D aged ≥16 years will be included. Seven databases were searched from their inception to 4 March 2020: Medline, Embase, Emcare, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, APA PsycINFO, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The search will be rerun in November 2020 prior to manuscript submission. Screening of titles and abstracts will be followed by a review of full texts to identify articles meeting inclusion criteria. Stakeholders will be consulted for the creation of the data extraction table. The Downs and Black Checklist or the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used to assess article quality. Results will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this scoping review. Study findings will be shared with key stakeholder groups through academic, clinical and public venues.

scholarly journals Perioperative management for people with chronic kidney disease receiving dialysis undergoing major surgery: a protocol for a scoping review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e038725
Author(s):  
Tyrone G Harrison ◽  
Brenda R Hemmelgarn ◽  
Janine F Farragher ◽  
Connor O'Rielly ◽  
Maoliosa Donald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Perioperative Management ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Major Surgery ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Scoping Reviews

IntroductionPeople with chronic kidney disease receiving dialysis (CKD G5D) have an increased risk of poor postoperative outcomes and a high incidence of major surgery. Despite the high burden of these combined risks, there is a paucity of evidence to support tailored perioperative strategies to manage this population. A comprehensive evidence synthesis would inform the management of these patients in the perioperative period and identify knowledge gaps. We describe a protocol for a scoping review of the literature to identify existing perioperative strategies, protocols, pathways and interventions for people with CKD G5D undergoing major surgery.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a scoping review in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and report per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. In February 2020, we will complete our search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry for published literature from inception to present. All study types are eligible for inclusion, without language restriction. Studies reporting a perioperative intervention in adult patients with CKD G5D are eligible for inclusion. Studies in prevalent kidney transplant patients or patients with acute kidney injury, and studies that report on surgical approaches without consideration of perioperative management strategies, will be excluded. Reviewers will independently assess abstracts for all identified studies in duplicate, and again at the full-text stage. Following published literature searches, a search of the grey literature will be developed. We will extract and narratively report study, participant and intervention details. This will include a summary table outlining the strategies employed, organised into post hoc developed perioperative domains.Ethics and disseminationEthical considerations do not apply to this scoping review. Findings will be disseminated through relevant conference presentations and publications.

scholarly journals Implementation of health-focused interventions in vulnerable populations: protocol for a scoping review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. e036937
Author(s):  
Amanda M Midboe ◽  
Caroline Gray ◽  
Hannah Cheng ◽  
Leonore Okwara ◽  
Randall C Gale
Keyword(s):  
Social Services ◽  
Vulnerable Populations ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Care Continuum ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionVulnerable populations face significant challenges in navigating the care continuum, ranging from diagnosis of illness to linkage and retention in healthcare. Understanding how best to move individuals within these vulnerable populations across the care continuum is critical to improving their health. A large body of literature has focused on evaluation of implementation of various health-focused interventions in this population. However, we do not fully understand the unique challenges to implementing healthcare interventions for vulnerable populations. This study aims to examine the literature describing implementation of health service interventions among vulnerable populations to identify how implementations using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research are adapted. Findings from this review will be useful to implementation scientists to identify gaps in evidence and for adapting similar interventions in unique settings.Methods and analysisThis study protocol outlines a scoping review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature, using established approaches delineated in Arksey and O'Malley’s scoping review framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. Search strategies will be developed and refined by a medical librarian in collaboration with the research team. Searches will be conducted in electronic databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, PsychINFO, PubMed, Social Services Abstracts, Web of Science, Google and Google Scholar) and limited to studies published between 1 August 2009 and 1 June 2020. Additionally, hand searches will be conducted in three relevant journals—Implementation Science, Systematic Reviews and BMJ Open. English-language studies and reports meeting inclusion criteria will be screened independently by two reviewers and the final list will be abstracted and charted in duplicate.Ethics and disseminationThis is a review of the literature; ethics approval is not indicated. We will disseminate findings from this study in peer-reviewed journals as well as presentations to relevant stakeholders and conferences.

scholarly journals The Efficacy of Moxibustion and Acupuncture Therapy for Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Protocol for an Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Chen ◽  
Jun Xiong ◽  
Lunbin Lu ◽  
Siyuan Zhu ◽  
Zhiying Zhong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Complementary Therapy ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Methodological Guidelines

Abstract Background:Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) is a complex and progressive autoimmune inflammatory disease with a worldwide prevalence ranging up to 0.9%. Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traditional Chinese medicine alternative therapies, such as acupuncture or moxibustion, have demonstrated the effectiveness of moxibustion and acupuncture in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis. However, there is no relevant literature to comprehensively evaluate the evidence.The purpose of this overview is to synthesize and evaluate the reliability of evidence generated in the systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis of moxibustion and acupuncture as a primary or complementary therapy for patients with ankylosing spondylitis.Methods:PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure[CNKI], Chinese VIP Information, Wanfang Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database[CBM] were searched for systematic reviews and Meta-analysis that review the efficacy of acupuncture or moxibustion as the primary treatment for patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis. The literature published before August 2020 will be selected. Additionally, the relevant SRs and Meta-analyses that unpublished or ongoing will be searched in PROSPERO and INPLASY. The methodological guidelines for overviews will be used to reviews and extract data by two reviewers, and their will do it independently.Methodology quality will be analyzed by the AMSTAR-2 and the risk of bias by POBIS. For the included studies, we will adopt the following results as primary evaluation indicators: effective rate, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Bath AS Disease Activity Index (BASDAI). Reviewers will assess the certainty of evidence by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE).Results: The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Conclusion: This overview will provide comprehensive evidence of moxibustion and acupuncture for patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis. Registration number: INPLASY202080035

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document