scholarly journals Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: protocol for umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e033634
Author(s):  
Luigi Marano ◽  
Daniele Fusario ◽  
Vinno Savelli ◽  
Luigi Verre ◽  
Alessandro Neri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Laparoscopic Gastrectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Robotic Approach ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionLaparoscopic surgery has been adopted in some parts of the world as an innovative approach to the resection of gastric cancers. However, in the modern era of surgical oncology, to overcome intrinsic limitations of the traditional laparoscopy, the robotic approach is advocated as able to facilitate the lymph node dissection and complex reconstruction after gastrectomy, to assure oncologic safety also in advanced gastric cancer patients. Previous meta-analyses highlighted a lower complication rate as well as bleeding in the robotic approach group when compared with the laparoscopic one. This potential benefit must be balanced against an increased time of intervention. The aim of this umbrella review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature for surgeons and policymakers in order to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared with the laparoscopic approach for gastric cancer.Methods and analysisWe will perform a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for all articles published up to May 2019 and reference list of relevant publications for systematic review and meta-analyses comparing the outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. Studies will be selected by two independent reviewers based on prespecified eligibility criteria and the quality will be assessed according to AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) checklist. All information will be collected using piloted and standardised data-extraction forms in DistillerSR developed following the Joanna Briggs Institute’s recommended extraction items.Ethics and disseminationThis umbrella review will inform clinical and policy decisions regarding the benefits and harms of RG for treating gastric cancer. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and the popular press. Formal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019139906.

scholarly journals Efficacy of perioperative immunonutrition in visceral surgery: an umbrella review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e053851
Author(s):  
Karem Slim ◽  
Flora Badon ◽  
Charles-Hervé Vacheron ◽  
Chadli Dziri ◽  
Thomas Marquillier
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Surgical Site Infections ◽  
Visceral Surgery ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionImmunonutrition (IN) is generally used before major visceral surgery with the intent to reduce postoperative complications, especially infectious ones. However, the conclusions of published meta-analyses are conflicting. The purpose of this review is to synthesise the data of published systematic reviews on the effectiveness of IN.Methods and analysisThis protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols guidelines. This is an umbrella review of systematic reviews comparing IN (delivered orally 5–7 days preoperatively) with normal diet or isocaloric isonitrogenous feeding before visceral surgery performed on any of several viscera (colorectum, stomach, pancreas, liver, oesophagus). We search the systematic reviews included in the main bibliographic databases. To assess the efficacy of IN, several outcomes will be considered: the main outcome is infectious complications (surgical site infections, pulmonary infections or urinary infections) and secondary outcomes are overall morbidity, hospital length of stay and mortality. Identified reviews will be screened by two independent assessors. The methodological quality of relevant included reviews will be assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. The data extracted from included reviews will be synthesised using the r-Metafor package considering separate groups according to the viscus of interest. Publication bias will be evaluated, and subgroup analyses will be performed according to the quality of studies and preoperative nutritional status.Ethics and disseminationAn umbrella review based on published data from systematic reviews needs no ethical approval. Furthermore, no patient will be involved in the review. Once terminated, the review will be submitted for publication in an open access journal to ensure wide dissemination of the findings.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021255177.

scholarly journals Effect of Probiotic, Prebiotic, or Synbiotic Supplement on Children, Adolescents, or Infants: A Protocol of an Umbrella Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shunlian 付顺链 Fu ◽  
Qian Zhou ◽  
Lijun Yuan ◽  
Zi-nan Li ◽  
Qiu Chen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Qualitative Comparison ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have studied the association between probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics and children, adolescents, or Infants. With the promotion of probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics in our life and medical practice, more and more attention has been paid to them. Therefore, it is necessary to make a systematic summary of them. When the information was obtained in the identified systematic review, it will be compared with a control group that do not use probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics. In addition, our aim is to assess the quality of the included systematic reviews.Methods: We will conduct a comprehensive systematic search by summarizing systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials which have studied effect of probiotic, prebiotic, or synbiotic supplement on children, adolescents, or Infants. Four electronic databases (Embase, PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) will be searched. Two reviewers will independently screen the retrieved papers. Two reviewers will independently extract the data by reference to the JBI Data Extraction Form for Review for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. We will also assess methodological quality and assessment of certainty in the findings by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Review version 2 (AMSTAR-2) and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We will calculate the corrected covered area (CCA). We will recalculate the summary effect and 95% CIs by using fixed-effect or random-effect models.Discussion: Through quantitative and qualitative comparison by conducting an umbrella review, we hope our results will service better for future clinical practice.Systematic review registration: This protocol have finished the registration in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (registration number: CRD42021244923).

scholarly journals Evidence-based umbrella review of cognitive effects of prefrontal tDCS

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis C Farhat ◽  
Andre F Carvalho ◽  
Marco Solmi ◽  
Andre R Brunoni
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Affective Neuroscience ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Neuroscience Research ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique, which has been increasingly used as an investigational tool in neuroscience. In social and affective neuroscience research, the prefrontal cortex has been primarily targeted, since this brain region is critically involved in complex psychobiological processes subserving both ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ domains. Although several studies have suggested that prefrontal tDCS can enhance neuropsychological outcomes, meta-analyses have reported conflicting results. Therefore, we aimed to assess the available evidence by performing an umbrella review of meta-analyses. We evaluated the effects of prefrontal active vs sham tDCS on different domains of cognition among healthy and neuropsychiatric individuals. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 was employed to evaluate the quality of meta-analyses, and the GRADE system was employed to grade the quality of evidence of every comparison from each meta-analysis. PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched, and 11 meta-analyses were included resulting in 55 comparisons. Only 16 comparisons reported significant effects favoring tDCS, but 13 of them had either very low or low quality of evidence. Of the remaining 39 comparisons which reported non-significant effects, 38 had either very low or low quality of evidence. Meta-analyses were rated as having critically low and low quality. Among several reasons to explain these findings, the lack of consensus and reproducibility in tDCS research is discussed.

scholarly journals Safety of topical corticosteroids in atopic eczema: an umbrella review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e046476
Author(s):  
Emma Axon ◽  
Joanne R Chalmers ◽  
Miriam Santer ◽  
Matthew J Ridd ◽  
Sandra Lawton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Atopic Eczema ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Adrenal Suppression ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Topical Corticosteroids ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Meta Analyses

ObjectiveAn umbrella review summarising all safety data from systematic reviews of topical corticosteroids (TCS) in adults and children with atopic eczema.MethodsEmbase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology map of eczema systematic reviews were searched until 7 November 2018 and Epistemonikos until 2 March 2021. Reviews were included if they assessed the safety of TCS in atopic eczema and searched >1 database using a reproducible search strategy. Review quality was assessed using version 2 of 'A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews' (AMSTAR 2 tool).Results38 systematic reviews included, 34 low/critically low quality. Treatment and follow-up were usually short (2–4 weeks).Key findingsTCS versus emollient/vehicle: No meta-analyses identified for skin-thinning. Two 2-week randomised controlled trials (RCTs) found no significant increased risk with very potent TCS (0/196 TCS vs 0/33 vehicle in children and 6/109 TCS vs 2/50 vehicle, age unknown). Biochemical adrenal suppression (cortisol) was 3.8% (95% CI 2.4% to 5.8%) in a meta-analysis of 11 uncontrolled observational studies (any potency TCS, 522 children). Effects reversed when treatment ceased.TCS versus topical calcineurin inhibitors: Meta-analysis showed higher relative risk of skin thinning with TCS (4.86, 95% CI 1.06 to 22.28, n=4128, four RCTs, including one 5-year RCT). Eight cases in 2068 participants, 7 using potent TCS. No evidence of growth suppression.Once daily versus more frequent TCS: No meta-analyses identified. No skin-thinning in one RCT (3 weeks potent TCS, n=94) or biochemical adrenal suppression in two RCTs (up to 2 weeks very potent/moderate TCS, n=129).TCS twice/week to prevent flares (‘weekend therapy’) versus vehicle: No meta-analyses identified. No evidence of skin thinning in five RCTs. One RCT found biochemical adrenal suppression (2/44 children, potent TCS).ConclusionsWe found no evidence of harm when TCS were used intermittently ‘as required’ to treat flares or ‘weekend therapy’ to prevent flares. However, long-term safety data were limited.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018079409.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of aliskiren combination therapy: a protocol for an umbrella review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e043807
Author(s):  
Jiantong Shen ◽  
Wenming Feng ◽  
Yike Wang ◽  
Qiyuan Zhao ◽  
Billong Laura Flavorta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Third Person ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionEfficacy of aliskiren combination therapy with other antihypertensive has been evaluated in the treatment of patients with hypertension in recent systematic reviews. However, most previous reviews only focused on one single health outcome or one setting, none of them made a full summary that assessed the impact of aliskiren combination treatment comprehensively. As such, this umbrella review based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses is aimed to synthesise the evidences on efficacy, safety and tolerability of aliskiren-based therapy for hypertension and related comorbid patients.Methods and analysisA comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI published from inception to August 2020 will be conducted. The selected articles are systematic reviews which evaluated efficacy, safety and tolerability of aliskiren combination therapy. Two reviewers will screen eligible articles, extract data and evaluate quality independently. Any disputes will be resolved by discussion or the arbitration of a third person. The quality of reporting evidence will be assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews V.2 tool tool. We will take a mixed-methods approach to synthesising the review literatures, reporting summary of findings tables and iteratively mapping the results.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for the study, as we would only collect data from available published materials. This umbrella review will be also submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication after completion.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020192131.

scholarly journals Frailty Status and All-Cause Mortality in the Community-Dwelling Older People: An Umbrella Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 488-489
Author(s):  
A R M Saifuddin Ekram ◽  
Joanne Ryan ◽  
Carlene Britt ◽  
Sara Espinoza ◽  
Robyn Woods
Keyword(s):  
Older People ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Frailty Phenotype ◽  
Frailty Status ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Community Dwelling Older People ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Frailty is increasingly recognised for its association with adverse health outcomes including mortality. However, various measures are used to assess frailty, and the strength of association could vary depending on the specific definition used. This umbrella review aimed to map which frailty scale could best predict the relationship between frailty and all-cause mortality among community-dwelling older people. According to the PRISMA guidelines, Medline, Embase, EBSCOhost and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses which examined the association between frailty and all-cause mortality in the community-dwelling older people. Relevant data were extracted and summarised qualitatively. Methodological quality was assessed by AMSTAR-2 checklist. Five moderate-quality systematic reviews with a total of 374,529 participants were identified. Of these, two examined the frailty phenotype and its derivatives, two examined the cumulative deficit models and the other predominantly included studies assessing frailty with the FRAIL scale. All of the reviews found a significant association between frailty status and all-cause mortality. The magnitude of association varied between individual studies, with no consistent pattern related to the frailty measures that were used. In conclusion, regardless of the measure used to assess frailty status, it is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality.

scholarly journals Published patterns of spin in biomedical literature: a protocol for a meta-research study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e043784
Author(s):  
Naichuan Su ◽  
Michiel van der Linden ◽  
Geert JMG van der Heijden ◽  
Stefan Listl ◽  
Stefan Schandelmaier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionSpin is defined as reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and create misleading conclusions by suggesting more favourable results. Such unjustifiable and misleading misrepresentation may negatively influence the development of further studies, clinical practice and healthcare policies. Spin manifests in various patterns in different sections of publications (titles, abstracts and main texts). The primary aim of this study is to identify reported spin patterns and assess the prevalence of spin in general, and the prevalence of spin patterns reported in biomedical literature based on previously published systematic reviews and literature reviews on spin.Methods and analysisPubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS will be searched to identify systematic or literature reviews on spin in biomedicine. To improve the comprehensiveness of the search, the snowballing method will be used to broaden the search. The data on spin-related outcomes and characteristics of the included studies will be extracted. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed with selective items of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 checklist. A new classification scheme for spin patterns will be developed if the classifications of spin patterns identified in the included studies vary. The prevalence of spin and spin patterns will be pooled based on meta-analyses if the classification schemes for spin are comparable across included studies. Otherwise, the prevalence will be described qualitatively. The seriousness of spin patterns will be assessed based on a Delphi consensus study.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam Ethics Review Committee (2020250). The study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.RegistrationOpen Science Framework: osf.io/hzv6e

The performance of artificial intelligence-driven technologies in diagnosing mental disorders: An umbrella review (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alaa Abd-Alrazaq ◽  
Jens Schneider ◽  
Dari Alhuwail ◽  
Carla T Toro ◽  
Arfan Ahmed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Great Promise ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
Daily Routine ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Compulsive Disorder

BACKGROUND Diagnosing mental disorders is usually not an easy task and requires a large amount of time and effort given the complex nature of mental disorders. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been successfully exploited in diagnosing many mental disorders. Numerous systematic reviews summarize the evidence on the accuracy of AI models in diagnosing different mental disorders. OBJECTIVE This umbrella review aims to synthesize results of previous systematic reviews on the performance of AI models in diagnosing mental disorders. METHODS To identify relevant systematic reviews, we searched 11 electronic databases, checked the reference list of the included reviews, and checked the reviews that cited the included reviews. Two reviewers independently selected the relevant reviews, extracted the data from them, and appraised their quality. We synthesized the extracted data using the narrative approach. Specifically, results of the included reviews were grouped based on the target mental disorders that the AI classifiers distinguish. RESULTS We included 15 systematic reviews of 852 citations identified by searching all databases. The included reviews assessed the performance of AI models in diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease (n=7), mild cognitive impairment (n=6), schizophrenia (n=3), bipolar disease (n=2), autism spectrum disorder (n=1), obsessive-compulsive disorder (n=1), post-traumatic stress disorder (n=1), and psychotic disorders (n=1). The performance of the AI models in diagnosing these mental disorders ranged between 21% and 100%. CONCLUSIONS AI technologies offer great promise in diagnosing mental health disorders. The reported performance metrics paint a vivid picture of a bright future for AI in this field. To expedite progress towards these technologies being incorporated into routine practice, we recommend that healthcare professionals in the field cautiously and consciously begin to explore the opportunities of AI-based tools for their daily routine. It would also be encouraging to see a greater number of meta-analyses and further systematic reviews on performance of AI models in diagnosing other common mental disorders such as depression and anxiety. CLINICALTRIAL CRD42021231558

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document