scholarly journals How defensive medicine is defined and understood in European medical literature: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e034300
Author(s):  
Nathalie Baungaard ◽  
Pia Skovvang ◽  
Elisabeth Assing Hvidt ◽  
Helle Gerbild ◽  
Merethe Kirstine Andersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Defensive Medicine ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
The Us ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionThe term defensive medicine, referring to actions motivated primarily by litigious concerns, originates from the USA and has been used in medical research literature since the late 1960s. Differences in medical legal systems between the US and most European countries with no tort legislation raise the question whether the US definition of defensive medicine holds true in Europe.AimTo present the protocol of a systematic review investigating variations in definitions and understandings of the term ‘defensive medicine’ in European research articles.Methods and analysisIn concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review of all medical research literature that investigate defensive medicine will be performed by two independent reviewers. The databases PubMed, Embase and Cochrane will be systematically searched on the basis of predetermined criteria. Data from all included European studies will systematically be extracted including the studies’ definitions and understandings of defensive medicine, especially the motives for doing medical actions that the study regards as ‘defensive’.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics clearance is required as no primary data will be collected. The results of the systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed, international journal.PROSPERO registration numberThis review has been submitted to International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and is awaiting registration.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017868
Author(s):  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
Sheyu Li ◽  
Wan-Jie Gu ◽  
Hao Chen ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Coronary Revascularisation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Collection Form ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.

Developing, Implementing, and Applying Novel Techniques During Systematic Reviews of Primary Space Medicine Data

2021 ◽  
Vol 92 (8) ◽  
pp. 681-688
Author(s):  
Andrew Winnard ◽  
Nick Caplan ◽  
Claire Bruce-Martin ◽  
Patrick Swain ◽  
Rochelle Velho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Space Medicine ◽  
Systematic Review Methods ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Primary Space

BACKGROUND: The Aerospace Medicine Systematic Review Group was set up in 2016 to facilitate high quality and transparent synthesis of primary data to enable evidence-based practice. The group identified many research methods specific to space medicine that need consideration for systematic review methods. The group has developed space medicine specific methods to address this and trialed usage of these methods across seven published systematic reviews. This paper outlines evolution of space medicine synthesis methods and discussion of their initial application.METHODS: Space medicine systematic review guidance has been developed for protocol planning, quantitative and qualitative synthesis, sourcing gray data, and assessing quality and transferability of space medicine human spaceflight simulation study environments.RESULTS: Decision algorithms for guidance and tool usage were created based on usage. Six reviews used quantitative methods in which no meta-analyses were possible due to lack of controlled trials or reporting issues. All reviews scored the quality and transferability of space simulation environments. One review was qualitative. Several research gaps were identified.CONCLUSION: Successful use of the developed methods demonstrates usability and initial validity. The current space medicine evidence base resulting in no meta-analyses being possible shows the need for standardized guidance on how to synthesize data in this field. It also provides evidence to call for increasing use of controlled trials, standardizing outcome measures, and improving minimum reporting standards. Space medicine is a unique field of medical research that requires specific systematic review methods.Winnard A, Caplan N, Bruce-Martin C, Swain P, Velho R, Meroni R, Wotring V, Damann V, Weber T, Evetts S, Laws J. Developing, implementing, and applying novel techniques during systematic reviews of primary space medicine data. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2021; 92(8):681688.

scholarly journals A protocol and novel tool for systematically reviewing the effects of mindful walking on mental and cardiovascular health

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. e0258424
Author(s):  
Dustin W. Davis ◽  
Bryson Carrier ◽  
Brenna Barrios ◽  
Kyle Cruz ◽  
James W. Navalta
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cardiovascular Health ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Meta Analyses

To our knowledge, no published systematic review has described the effects of mindful walking on mental and cardiovascular health. We have aimed to fill this gap by first establishing our systematic review protocol. Our protocol was adapted from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and is registered in PROSPERO (Registration Number: CRD42021241180). The protocol is described step-by-step in this paper, which we wrote to achieve three objectives: to adhere to the best practices stated in the PRISMA guidelines, to ensure procedural transparency, and to enable readers to co-opt our protocol for future systematic reviews on mindful walking and related topics. To achieve our third objective, we provide and explain a novel tool we created to track the sources we will find and screen for our review. Ultimately, the protocol and novel tool will lead to the first published systematic review about mindful walking and will also facilitate future systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Health outcomes associated with Zika virus infection in humans: a systematic review of systematic reviews

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e032275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphael Ximenes ◽  
Lauren C Ramsay ◽  
Rafael Neves Miranda ◽  
Shaun K Morris ◽  
Kellie Murphy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Zika Virus ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
New Research ◽  
Meta Analyses

ObjectiveWith the emergence of Zika virus (ZIKV) disease in Central and South America in the mid-2010s and recognition of the teratogenic effects of congenital exposure to ZIKV, there has been a substantial increase in new research published on ZIKV. Our objective is to synthesise the literature on health outcomes associated with ZIKV infection in humans.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review (SR) of SRs following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and LILACS (Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde) databases from inception to 22 July 2019, and included SRs that reported ZIKV-associated health outcomes. Three independent reviewers selected eligible studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of included SRs using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) tool. Conflicts were resolved by consensus or consultation with a third reviewer.ResultsThe search yielded 1382 unique articles, of which 21 SRs met our inclusion criteria. The 21 SRs ranged from descriptive to quantitative data synthesis, including four meta-analyses. The most commonly reported ZIKV-associated manifestations and health outcomes were microcephaly, congenital abnormalities, brain abnormalities, neonatal death and Guillain-Barré syndrome. The included reviews were highly heterogeneous. The overall quality of the SRs was critically low with all studies having more than one critical weakness.ConclusionThe evolving nature of the literature on ZIKV-associated health outcomes, together with the critically low quality of existing SRs, demonstrates the need for high-quality SRs to guide patient care and inform policy decision making.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018091087.

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

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e042525
Author(s):  
Michail Arvanitidis ◽  
Deborah Falla ◽  
Andy Sanderson ◽  
Eduardo Martinez-Valdes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Force Steadiness ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionPerforming contractions with minimum force fluctuations is essential for everyday life as reduced force steadiness impacts on the precision of voluntary movements and functional ability. Several studies have investigated the effect of experimental or clinical musculoskeletal pain on force steadiness but with conflicting findings. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the current literature to determine whether pain, whether it be clinical or experimental, influences force steadiness.Methods and analysisThis protocol for a systematic review was informed and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Key databases will be searched from inception to 31 August 2020, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, ZETOC and Web of Science. Grey literature and key journals will be also reviewed. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa tool, and the quality of the cumulative evidence assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. If homogeneity exists between groups of studies, meta-analysis will be conducted. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis approach and a vote-counting method will be used, while the results will be presented as net increases or decreases of force steadiness.Ethics and disseminationThe findings will be presented at conferences and the review will be also submitted for publication in a refereed journal. No ethical approval was required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020196479

scholarly journals Are Physical Education Lessons Suitable for Sport Talent Identification? A Systematic Review of the Literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 1965
Author(s):  
Alejandro Prieto-Ayuso ◽  
Juan Carlos Pastor-Vicedo ◽  
Sixto González-Víllora ◽  
Javier Fernández-Río
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Physical Education ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Alternative Programs ◽  
Gradual Change ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Talent Identification ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Shed Light

Objectives: The goal of this study was to shed light on the existent knowledge, internationally published over the last decade (2009–2019), on how to deal with talented children in physical education (PE). Methods: A mixed systematic review (SR) was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number: CRD42019117211. Study eligibility criteria: The articles included were selected using the following criteria: (a) studies published in peer-reviewed international journals; (b) studies published from 2009 to 2019 (both inclusive); (c) studies that included quantitative and/or qualitative methods and findings; (d) research conducted within school contexts; (e) articles that focused on both talent/gift and PE, and (f) studies published in English or Spanish. Results: A total of 11 articles were identified. Results showed a gradual change in both methods and instruments used for talent identification (TI) in PE, focused currently on children’s health and involvement in sports. Second, there is consensus on the lack of clarity in schools’ policies and guidelines on how to deal with talented children in PE. Conclusions: Finally, there are alternative programs to elite athlete models that better fit in PE to deal with talented children and to avoid child disengagement in PE and sports.

scholarly journals Cognitive Impairment in Grandparents: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. 593-602
Author(s):  
Alexandra Rafael ◽  
Lídia Sousa ◽  
Sónia Martins ◽  
Lia Fernandes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Causal Effect ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Positive Effect

Objective To evaluate the relationship between grandparenting and the cognitive impairment in older persons.Methods The protocol was submitted to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number: CRD42018105849. Authors conducted a systematic review, following “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) recommendations. Electronic databases were accessed through august 2018: PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and EBSCOhost. Selection of records and quality appraisal were made by two reviewers, independently.Results A total of 178 records was found, after removing duplicates. From those, 17 were considered eligible for integral text reading and eight were included: five original studies, one classic review and two editorials. From the five original studies included, four suggested a positive effect on cognition resulting from grandparenting and one suggested that there was no evidence for a causal effect. Though the boundary was not consensual, some studies suggested that a higher frequency of grandparenting has a negative impact on cognition.Conclusion Overall, studies suggested a trend towards a positive effect of grandchild care on grandparents’ cognition. However, there was a significant heterogeneity between methodologies and a significant risk of bias which can hamper conclusions, indicating the need for further and more robust research.

scholarly journals Mediators and theories of change in psychotherapy with adolescents: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e042411
Author(s):  
Svenja Taubner ◽  
Andrea Saliba ◽  
Erkki Heinonen ◽  
Sonja Protić ◽  
Jana Volkert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Theories Of Change ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Prospective Longitudinal

IntroductionApproximately 75% of mental disorders emerge before the age of 25 years but less than half receive appropriate treatment. Little is known about the mechanisms underlying the therapeutic change of adolescents in psychotherapy. The ‘European Network of Individualised Psychotherapy Treatment of Young People with Mental Disorders’, funded by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology, will conduct the first systematic review to summarise the existing knowledge on mediators and theories of change in psychotherapy for adolescents.MethodA systematic review will be conducted, conforming to the reporting guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement recommendations. Electronic databases (PubMed and PsycINFO) have been systematically searched on 23 February 2020, for prospective, longitudinal and case-control designs which examine mediators of change. Participants will be adolescents between 10 and 19 years of age who suffer from a mental disorder or psychological difficulties and receive an intervention that aims at preventing, ameliorating and/or treating psychological problems.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this systematic review as no primary data will be collected. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journals and at conference presentations and will be shared with stakeholder groups. The whole data set will be offered to other research groups following recommendations of the open science initiative. Databases with the systematic search will be made openly available following open science initiatives.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020177535.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document