Study protocol for a systematic review of evidence for digital interventions for comorbid excessive drinking and depression in community-dwelling populations

IntroductionExcessive drinking and depression are frequently comorbid and make a substantial contribution to the global non-communicable disease burden. A range of effective interventions and treatments exist for either excessive drinking or depression alone, including a positive emerging evidence base for the use of digital interventions. Computerised and/or smartphone delivered advice could provide flexible, coordinated support for patients with comorbid excessive drinking and depression. However, to date, no systematic review of the evidence has been conducted focused on the effectiveness of digital interventions for this specific comorbid population. This systematic review will identify and evaluate the effectiveness of digital interventions for reducing comorbid excessive drinking and depression in community-dwelling populations.Methods and analysisWe will search MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC and SCI from inception to end of July 2019 for randomised controlled trials that evaluate any personalised digital intervention for comorbid excessive drinking and depression and published in any language. Primary outcomes will be changes in quantity of alcohol consumed and depressive symptoms. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be undertaken independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. Meta-analytic methods will be used to synthesise the data collected relating to the primary outcomes of interest.Ethics and disseminationAs a systematic review, ethical approval is not needed. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.Trial registration numberCRD42019130134.

Download Full-text

Identifying patient-important outcomes for treatment of bipolar disorder: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050453 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (12) ◽

pp. e050453

Author(s):

Alessia D'Elia ◽

Olivia Orsini ◽

Stephanie Sanger ◽

Alannah Hillmer ◽

Nitika Sanger ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Bipolar Disorder ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Treatment Effectiveness ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Observational Research ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Randomised Controlled

IntroductionTreatment of bipolar disorder is the focus of several clinical trials, however the understanding of the outcomes for establishing treatment effectiveness within these trials is limited. Further, there is limited literature which reports on the outcomes considered to be important to patients, indicating that patient perspectives are often not considered when selecting outcomes of effectiveness within trials. This protocol describes a systematic review which aims to describe the outcomes being used within trials to measure treatment effectiveness, commenting on the inclusion of patient-important outcomes within previous trials.Methods and analysisThis protocol is reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols statement. OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, OVID APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, the Wiley Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases will be searched for eligible studies. Screening, full-text and data extraction stages will be completed in duplicate using the Covidence platform for systematic reviews. Eligible studies will include clinical trials of interventions in bipolar disorder, in order to identify outcomes used to assess treatment effectiveness, and qualitative studies, to determine which outcomes have been reported as important by patients. Risk of bias for included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomised controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational research.Ethics and disseminationThis review will involve dissemination to key stakeholders, including primary end users such as patients, clinicians and trialists. Knowledge translation tools will be generated to share the relevant conclusions of this review. Results will be communicated to the scientific community through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and workshops. No ethics approval will be sought as this study is based on literature.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021214435.

Download Full-text

Prescribing cascades in community-dwelling adults: protocol for a systematic review

HRB Open Research ◽

10.12688/hrbopenres.13345.2 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 4 ◽

pp. 72

Author(s):

Ann Doherty ◽

Frank Moriarty ◽

Fiona Boland ◽

Barbara Clyne ◽

Tom Fahey ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Inappropriate Prescribing ◽

Case Series ◽

Evidence Base ◽

Community Dwelling ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Ageing Population ◽

Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing ◽

Inclusion Criteria

Introduction: Internationally, health systems face the challenge of managing a growing ageing population living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Potentially inappropriate prescribing is common among patients with polypharmacy, increasing the risk for adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Several prescribing indicator sets exist to improve prescribing and reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing, but do not address prescribing cascades. Prescribing cascades occur when a medication is prescribed to treat an ADR to another prescribed medication, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and constitute an important area to consider when characterising problematic polypharmacy. This is a protocol for a systematic review examining prescribing cascades in community-dwelling adults. Methods: The review will be reported adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic search of Medline (Ovid), EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library will be conducted from inception to March 2021, using a predetermined strategy. Grey literature will be searched using Open Grey, MedNar, Dart Europe, and the Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) databases. No restrictions will be placed on language or publication year. Inclusion criteria are: population - community-dwelling adults (≥18 years); risk - prescription medication with the potential to cause side effects; outcomes - initiation of a new medicine to ‘treat’ or reduce the risk of experiencing an ADR. Prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case control and case series studies will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts; studies meeting inclusion criteria will undergo independent full-text screening by two reviewers. A narrative synthesis will be conducted. Study quality will be independently assessed using the relevant Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. Discussion: This systematic review will identify examples of prescribing cascades for community-dwelling adults and contribute to developing an evidence base regarding such cascades. Registration: PROSPERO [CRD42021243163, 31/03/2021].

Download Full-text

Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: A living systematic review

F1000Research ◽

10.12688/f1000research.51117.1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 ◽

pp. 401

Author(s):

Lena Schmidt ◽

Babatunde K. Olorisade ◽

Luke A. McGuinness ◽

James Thomas ◽

Julian P. T. Higgins

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Extraction Methods ◽

Evidence Base ◽

Standard Data ◽

Different Types ◽

Number Of Publications ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Accuracy Data ◽

Full Text Screening

Background: The reliable and usable (semi)automation of data extraction can support the field of systematic review by reducing the workload required to gather information about the conduct and results of the included studies. This living systematic review examines published approaches for data extraction from reports of clinical studies. Methods: We systematically and continually search MEDLINE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), arXiv, and the dblp computer science bibliography databases. Full text screening and data extraction are conducted within an open-source living systematic review application created for the purpose of this review. This iteration of the living review includes publications up to a cut-off date of 22 April 2020. Results: In total, 53 publications are included in this version of our review. Of these, 41 (77%) of the publications addressed extraction of data from abstracts, while 14 (26%) used full texts. A total of 48 (90%) publications developed and evaluated classifiers that used randomised controlled trials as the main target texts. Over 30 entities were extracted, with PICOs (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) being the most frequently extracted. A description of their datasets was provided by 49 publications (94%), but only seven (13%) made the data publicly available. Code was made available by 10 (19%) publications, and five (9%) implemented publicly available tools. Conclusions: This living systematic review presents an overview of (semi)automated data-extraction literature of interest to different types of systematic review. We identified a broad evidence base of publications describing data extraction for interventional reviews and a small number of publications extracting epidemiological or diagnostic accuracy data. The lack of publicly available gold-standard data for evaluation, and lack of application thereof, makes it difficult to draw conclusions on which is the best-performing system for each data extraction target. With this living review we aim to review the literature continually.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of tuina, cupping and acupuncture therapy on pain, anxiety, depression and quality of life in patients with neck pain: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-966738/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Shi-xin Qin ◽

An Li ◽

Mao-Lin Zhan ◽

Yi-Cheng Wu ◽

Yong-Hua Zhao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Neck Pain ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Pain Anxiety ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Future Clinical Practice ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Anxiety Depression

Abstract Background: Neck pain is a common disorder and is more frequent in females than in males worldwide. Recently, more attention is being paid to precautions for and treatment of neck pain. Current therapeutic methods for neck pain include pharmaceutical, complementary and alternative therapies. Tuina, acupuncture and cupping are effective in the treatment of neck pain, which enrich patients’ options. In this study, we aim to evaluate the efficacy of different interventions using randomised controlled trials to identify a prioritised treatment for neck pain.Methods: We will search five English databases (Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID and Cochrane Library) and four Chinese databases (CNKI, SinoMed, Wanfang Database and VIP) from database inception to December 2020. Two reviewers will independently perform article screening (title, keywords, abstract and full text); data extraction; risk of bias (RoB) assessment and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation. We will use RevMan 5.3 software to carry out statistical analysis of the RoB and risk ratio to analyse the dichotomous data. Finally, we will use GeMTC V.0.8.1 package of R-3.3.2 software for network meta-analysis based on a Bayesian framework.Discussion: We will compare these three interventions to determine the most effective therapy for neck pain in terms of improving pain, anxiety, depression and QoL. In this way, we will provide powerful evidence for future clinical practice guidelines for patients with neck pain who want to receive a suitable treatment.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020206853.

Download Full-text

Trauma-informed approaches to primary and community mental health care: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042112 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. e042112

Author(s):

Shoba Dawson ◽

Angel Bierce ◽

Gene Feder ◽

John Macleod ◽

Katrina M Turner ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Service System ◽

Data Extraction ◽

National Policy ◽

Mental Healthcare ◽

Psychological Trauma ◽

Evidence Base ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Care Protocol ◽

Trauma Informed

IntroductionExposure to different types of psychological trauma may lead to a range of adverse effects on trauma survivors, including poor mental and physical health, economic, social and cognitive functioning outcomes. Trauma-informed (TI) approaches to care are defined as a service system grounded in and directed by an understanding of how trauma affects the survivors’ neurological, biological, physiological and social development. TI service system involves training of all staff, service improvements and sometimes screening for trauma experiences. The UK started incorporating TI approaches into the National Health Service. While policies recommend it, the evidence base for TI approaches to healthcare is not well established. We aim to conduct a systematic review to synthesise evidence on TI approaches in primary and community mental healthcare globally.Methods and analysisWe will undertake a systematic search for primary studies in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane library, websites of organisations involved in the development and implementation of TI approaches in healthcare, and databases of thesis and dissertation. Included studies will be in English published between 1990 and February 2020. Two reviewers will independently perform study selection with data extraction and quality appraisal undertaken by one reviewer and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer. A results-based convergent synthesis will be conducted where quantitative (narratively) and qualitative (thematically) evidence will be analysed separately and then integrated using another method of synthesis. We set up a trauma survivor group and a professional group to consult throughout this review.Ethics and disseminationThere is no requirement for ethical approval for this systematic review as no empirical data will be collected. The findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, scientific and practitioner conferences, and policy briefings targeted at local and national policy makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020164752.

Download Full-text

Prescribing cascades in community-dwelling adults: protocol for a systematic review

HRB Open Research ◽

10.12688/hrbopenres.13345.1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 4 ◽

pp. 72

Author(s):

Ann Doherty ◽

Frank Moriarty ◽

Fiona Boland ◽

Barbara Clyne ◽

Tom Fahey ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Inappropriate Prescribing ◽

Case Series ◽

Evidence Base ◽

Community Dwelling ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Ageing Population ◽

Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing ◽

Inclusion Criteria

Introduction: Internationally, health systems face the challenge of managing a growing ageing population living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Potentially inappropriate prescribing is common among patients with polypharmacy, increasing the risk for adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Several prescribing indicator sets exist to improve prescribing and reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing, but do not address prescribing cascades. Prescribing cascades occur when a medication is prescribed to treat an ADR to another prescribed medication, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and constitute an important area to consider when characterising problematic polypharmacy. This is a protocol for a systematic review examining prescribing cascades in community-dwelling adults. Methods: The review will be reported adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic search of Medline (Ovid), EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library will be conducted from inception to March 2021, using a predetermined strategy. Grey literature will be searched using Open Grey, MedNar, Dart Europe, and the Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) databases. No restrictions will be placed on language or publication year. Inclusion criteria are: population - community-dwelling adults (≥18 years), including those in residential or nursing homes; risk - prescription medication with the potential to cause side effects; outcomes - initiation of a new medicine to ‘treat’ or reduce the risk of experiencing an ADR. Prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case control and case series studies will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts; studies meeting inclusion criteria will undergo independent full-text screening by two reviewers. A narrative synthesis will be conducted. Study quality will be independently assessed using the relevant Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. Discussion: This systematic review will identify examples of prescribing cascades for community-dwelling adults and contribute to developing an evidence base regarding such cascades. Registration: PROSPERO [CRD42021243163, 31/03/2021].

Download Full-text

Role of probiotics in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review protocol of randomised controlled trial studies

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038128 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (8) ◽

pp. e038128

Author(s):

Ifeoma Julieth Dikeocha ◽

Abdelkodose Mohammed Al-Kabsi ◽

Salasawati Hussin ◽

Mohammed Abdullah Alshawsh

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Anticancer Agents ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Age Factors ◽

Time Frame ◽

Evidence Base ◽

Data Extraction Form ◽

Randomised Controlled

IntroductionColorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related morbidity worldwide and it has been reported to be associated with poor lifestyle habits which include excess tobacco and alcohol intake as well as genetics and age factors. Probiotics such as the lactic acid bacteria and Bifidobacterium as well as probiotic containing foods (kombucha, kefir, miso etc) have received lots of attention as anticancer agents for prevention and treatment. The effects of the administration of probiotics to patients with colorectal cancer is the primary goal of this systematic review. The overall aim is to assess how the use of probiotics in patients with colorectal cancer helps in the management of colorectal cancer and its effect on the diversity of gut microbiota. The final systematic review will provide a comprehensive evidence base for the use and efficacy of probiotics in patient with colorectal cancer care.Methods and analysisThe systematic review, will be conducted by extensively searching different databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Wiley and ProQuest to identify randomised controlled trials (with no time frame) which relate to the administration of probiotics to patients with colorectal cancer. The search strategy will include words like colorectal cancer, probiotics, Bifidobacterium, clinical trials etc. A systematic search of databases was performed between 17 and 20 January 2020. Two reviewers will independently review the studies and also search the reference lists of the eligible studies to obtain more references. Data will be extracted from the eligible studies using standardised data extraction form. After assessing the risk of bias, qualitative analysis will be used to synthesise the systematic review.Ethics and disseminationThis is a protocol for a systematic review; therefore, it doesn’t require any ethics approval. We intend to disseminate the protocol in a peer reviewed journal.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness and safety of acupuncture therapy for inflammatory bowel disease: a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045090 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (8) ◽

pp. e045090

Author(s):

Yuan-Fang Zhou ◽

Ning Sun ◽

Shi-Rui Cheng ◽

Xiao-Dong Deng ◽

Xiang-Yin Ye ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽

Bowel Disease ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Biomedical Literature ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽

Inflammatory Bowel ◽

Randomised Controlled

IntroductionPrevious reviews have suggested that the effectiveness of acupuncture for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has not well been demonstrated due to the limited randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In recent years, the growing research on acupuncture for IBD make it possible to conduct a further systematic review and synthesise more sufficient clinical data to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for IBD.Methods and analysisNine electronic databases without language restriction will be retrieved from inception to March 2021, including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, the Chongqing Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database and Wanfang Database. The RCTs on acupuncture for IBD will be included. The data screening, data extraction and the assessment of risk bias will be performed respectively by two reviewers. The quality of evidence will be evaluated by using the Grading of recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation application. The meta-analysis will be performed if heterogeneity analysis conducted on the RevMan software (V.5.3) is insignificant. The primary outcome was symptoms alleviation after acupuncture treatment or even in the follow-up.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be needed because data of this review are not involved in patient’s information and privacy. The results will be published and diffused in a peer-reviewed journal or relative conferences.Trial registration numberCRD42020157903.

Download Full-text

Route of oxytocin administration for preventing blood loss at caesarean section: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051793 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (9) ◽

pp. e051793

Author(s):

Maria Regina Torloni ◽

Monica Siaulys ◽

Rachel Riera ◽

Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco ◽

Rafael Leite Pacheco ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Caesarean Section ◽

Blood Loss ◽

Fixed Effects ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Average Risk ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

ObjectivesAssess the effects of different routes of prophylactic oxytocin administration for preventing blood loss at caesarean section (CS).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsMedline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, BVS, SciELO and Global Index Medicus were searched through 24 May 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different routes of prophylactic oxytocin administration during CS. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted by two investigators independently. We pooled results in fixed effects meta-analyses and calculated average risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We used GRADE to assess the overall quality of evidence for each outcome.ResultsThree trials (180 women) were included in the review. All studies compared intramyometrial (IMY) versus intravenous oxytocin in women having prelabour CS. IMY compared with intravenous oxytocin administration may result in little or no difference in the incidence of postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.70; N=100 participants; 1 RCT), hypotension (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.45; N=40; 1 RCT), headache (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; N=40; 1 RCT) or facial flushing (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.08; N=40; 1 RCT); IMY oxytocin may reduce nausea/vomiting (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.69; N=140; 2 RCTs). We are very uncertain about the effect IMY versus intravenous oxytocin on the need for additional uterotonics (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.25 to 2.69; N=140; 2 RCTs). IMY oxytocin may reduce blood loss slightly (MD −57.40 mL, 95% CI −101.71 to −13.09; N=40; 1 RCT).ConclusionsThere is limited, low to very low certainty evidence on the effects of IMY versus intravenous oxytocin at CS for preventing blood loss. The evidence is insufficient to support choosing one route over another. More trials, including studies that assess intramuscular oxytocin administration, are needed on this relevant question.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020186797.

Download Full-text

Laparoscopic appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis—a systematic review

International Journal of Colorectal Disease ◽

10.1007/s00384-021-03927-5 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Franziska Köhler ◽

Anne Hendricks ◽

Carolin Kastner ◽

Sophie Müller ◽

Kevin Boerner ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Antibiotic Therapy ◽

Antibiotic Treatment ◽

Laparoscopic Appendectomy ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Open Appendectomy ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Pubmed Database ◽

Uncomplicated Appendicitis ◽

Absence From Work

Abstract Background Over the last years, laparoscopic appendectomy has progressively replaced open appendectomy and become the current gold standard treatment for suspected, uncomplicated appendicitis. At the same time, though, it is an ongoing discussion that antibiotic therapy can be an equivalent treatment for patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the safety and efficacy of antibiotic therapy and compare it to the laparoscopic appendectomy for acute, uncomplicated appendicitis. Methods The PubMed database, Embase database, and Cochrane library were scanned for studies comparing laparoscopic appendectomy with antibiotic treatment. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection and data extraction. The primary endpoint was defined as successful treatment of appendicitis. Secondary endpoints were pain intensity, duration of hospitalization, absence from work, and incidence of complications. Results No studies were found that exclusively compared laparoscopic appendectomy with antibiotic treatment for acute, uncomplicated appendicitis. Conclusions To date, there are no studies comparing antibiotic treatment to laparoscopic appendectomy for patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, thus emphasizing the lack of evidence and need for further investigation.

Download Full-text