scholarly journals Barriers towards organ donor registration and consent among people of Indian origin living globally: a systematic review and integrative synthesis—protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035360
Author(s):  
Britzer Paul Vincent ◽  
Gurch Randhawa ◽  
Erica Cook
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Organ Donor ◽  
Indian Origin ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
End Stage

IntroductionThe need for organs is comparatively higher among people of Indian origin due to the higher prevalence of end-stage organ failure. In spite of the higher need, they have a lower number of organ donors. Studies have been carried out among people of Indian origin living globally to understand the reasons for the low donation rate, but there has been no systematic review that has integrated all of these studies to synthesise the current literature. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to examine the barriers towards organ donor registration and consent among Indians living globally.Methods and analysisA systematic search will be conducted using the following relevant databases namely CINHAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed Central, Global Health and Grey literature. Studies from 1994 that satisfy our inclusion criteria will be included. Two reviewers will conduct the screening, data extraction and quality assessment of the studies; in event of any disagreement between the two reviewers at any stage, the third reviewer will reconcile any disagreements and consensus will be made.Ethics and disseminationAs this study includes only secondary data, ethical approval for secondary data usage has been sought. This study will use Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines to report and the study outcomes will be disseminated through a relevant peer-review publication, related conferences and also to various non-governmental organisations globally which are working with this particular community; following which further research can be developed based on this evidence and also helps in building a culturally competent strategy.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019155274.

scholarly journals Global epidemiology of acute generalised peritonitis: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e034326
Author(s):  
Joel Noutakdie Tochie ◽  
Ndip Valirie Agbor ◽  
Tianyi Tianyi Frank Leonel ◽  
Aime Mbonda ◽  
Desmond Aji Abang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Case Fatality Rate ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Fatality ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Fatality Rate ◽  
Global Epidemiology ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionGlobally, acute generalised peritonitis (AGP) is a common medical and surgical emergency which is a major contributor to non-trauma deaths despite improvements in diagnosis and surgical and intensive care management. In order to determine the global burden of AGP, geared at tailoring key interventions to curb its morbidity and mortality, we proposed this first ever systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the contemporary prevalence, and to determine the most frequent AGP and the case fatality rate of AGP, at the global scene.Methods and analysisWe intend to searchAfricanJournalsOnline, Americana em Ciências da Saúde, Citation index, EMBASE, Global Index Medicus, Literatura Latino Africa Index Medicus, Medline and Scientific Electronic Library Online databases from 1 January 2009 to 31 July 2019 to identify studies that reported the prevalence, types of AGP, and case fatality rate of AGP in the global population without any language restrictions. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be conducted independently at each level by a pair of independent investigators. Random-effects meta-analysis will be used to pool studies judged to be clinically homogeneous. The presence of heterogeneity will be evaluated using the χ² test on Cochrane’s Q statistic and quantified with the I² statistics. Publication bias will be evaluated statistically and visually using the Egger’s test and funnel plots, respectively. Findings will be reported and compared by countries, WHO regions and globally.Ethics and disseminationSince this study will be based on published data, it does will not require an ethical approval. The findings will be published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. They will also be presented at scientific conferences and to relevant public health actors.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019143331.

scholarly journals Radiology artificial intelligence, a systematic evaluation of methods (RAISE): a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan Kelly ◽  
Conor Judge ◽  
Stephanie M. Bollard ◽  
Simon M. Clifford ◽  
Gerard M. Healy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Systematic Evaluation ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number

Abstract Introduction There has been a recent explosion of research into the field of artificial intelligence as applied to clinical radiology with the advent of highly accurate computer vision technology. These studies, however, vary significantly in design and quality. While recent guidelines have been established to advise on ethics, data management and the potential directions of future research, systematic reviews of the entire field are lacking. We aim to investigate the use of artificial intelligence as applied to radiology, to identify the clinical questions being asked, which methodological approaches are applied to these questions and trends in use over time. Methods and analysis We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and by the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. We will perform a literature search through MEDLINE (Pubmed), and EMBASE, a detailed data extraction of trial characteristics and a narrative synthesis of the data. There will be no language restrictions. We will take a task-centred approach rather than focusing on modality or clinical subspecialty. Sub-group analysis will be performed by segmentation tasks, identification tasks, classification tasks, pegression/prediction tasks as well as a sub-analysis for paediatric patients. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval will not be required for this study, as data will be obtained from publicly available clinical trials. We will disseminate our results in a peer-reviewed publication. Registration number PROSPERO: CRD42020154790

scholarly journals Accuracy of potential diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e038994
Author(s):  
Martha Maria Christine Elwenspoek ◽  
Joni Jackson ◽  
Sarah Dawson ◽  
Hazel Everitt ◽  
Peter Gillett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Coeliac Disease ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Finding ◽  
Endoscopic Biopsy ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionCoeliac disease (CD) is a systemic immune-mediated disorder triggered by gluten in genetically predisposed individuals. CD is diagnosed using a combination of serology tests and endoscopic biopsy of the small intestine. However, because of non-specific symptoms and heterogeneous clinical presentation, diagnosing CD is challenging. Early detection of CD through improved case-finding strategies can improve the response to a gluten-free diet, patients’ quality of life and potentially reduce the risk of complications. However, there is a lack of consensus in which groups may benefit from active case-finding.Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic review to determine the accuracy of diagnostic indicators (such as symptoms and risk factors) for CD in adults and children, and thus can help identify patients who should be offered CD testing. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science will be searched from 1997 until 2020. Screening will be performed in duplicate. Data extraction will be performed by one and checked by a second reviewer. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or referral to a third reviewer. We will produce a narrative summary of identified prediction models. Studies, where 2×2 data can be extracted or reconstructed, will be treated as diagnostic accuracy studies, that is, the diagnostic indicators are the index tests and CD serology and/or biopsy is the reference standard. For each diagnostic indicator, we will perform a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of the sensitivity and specificity.Ethics and disseminationResults will be reported in peer-reviewed journals, academic and public presentations and social media. We will convene an implementation panel to advise on the optimum strategy for enhanced dissemination. We will discuss findings with Coeliac UK to help with dissemination to patients. Ethical approval is not applicable, as this is a systematic review and no research participants will be involved.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020170766.

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 Adaptive design methods in dialysis clinical trials: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e036755
Author(s):  
Conor Judge ◽  
Robert P Murphy ◽  
Sarah Cormican ◽  
Andrew Smyth ◽  
Martin O'Halloran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adaptive Design ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Geographical Location ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Design Methods ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionAdaptive design methods are a potential solution to improve efficiency of clinical trials but their uptake in dialysis is unknown. We aim to investigate the use of adaptive design methods in dialysis clinical trials and to cultivate further adoption of adaptive design methods by the nephrology community.Methods and analysisWe will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines and the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. We will perform a literature search through MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and CENTRAL, a detailed data extraction of trial characteristics and a narrative synthesis of the data. There will be no language restrictions. We will estimate the percentage of adaptive clinical trials per year in dialysis. Subgroup analysis will be performed by dialysis modality, funder and geographical location.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be required for this study as data will be obtained from publicly available clinical trials. We will disseminate our results in a peer-reviewed publication.PROSPERO registration number

scholarly journals P054: The effectiveness of emergency department-based interventions for patients with advanced or end-stage illness: a systematic review

CJEM ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. S82
Author(s):  
A. Ghalab ◽  
M. Kruhlak ◽  
S. Kirkland ◽  
H. Ruske ◽  
S. Campbell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Third Party ◽  
High Quality ◽  
End Stage ◽  
The Impact

Introduction: Patients with advanced or end-stage illness frequently present to emergency departments (EDs), many of whom are in need of palliative care (PC). Emergency physicians have struggled in providing high quality care to these patients and there is a need to identify cost-effective PC interventions delivered in the ED to improve patient outcomes. The objective of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of ED-based PC interventions. Methods: A comprehensive search of nine electronic databases and grey literature sources was conducted to identify any comparative studies assessing the effectiveness of ED-based PC interventions to improve health outcomes of patients with advanced or end-stage illness. Two independent reviewers completed study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. Differences were mediated via third-party adjudication. Relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random effects model and heterogeneity (I2) was reported. Results: From 5882 potentially eligible citations, 12 studies were included. Two studies are currently on-going clinical trials, and as such, 10 studies were included in this analysis. The studies consisted of before-after studies (n = 5), RCTs (n = 4), and an observational cohort (n = 1). Interventions assessed among the included studies consisted primarily of ED-directed PC consultations (n = 6), while other studies assessed screening of patients with advanced or end-stage illness and PC needs (n = 2), education on PC for ED-staff (n = 1), and an ED-based critical care unit (n = 1). Infrequent reporting of important outcomes (e.g., Mortality, ED relapse) limited the ability of this review to conduct meaningful meta-analysis. There was no difference in patient mortality between two studies assessing ED-directed PC consultations (RR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.71, 1.13; I2 = 0%). One before-after study (RR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.47, 1.13) and two RCTs (RR = 2.19; 95% CI: 0.40, 11.92; I2 = 96%) did not identify significant differences in PC consultations intervention (implementation of ED-directed PC consultations) and control (usual care) patients. Conclusion: This review found limited evidence to support the recommendation of any particular ED-based intervention for patients presenting to the ED with advanced or end-stage illness. High quality studies and standardized outcome reporting are needed to better understand the impact of PC interventions in the ED setting.

scholarly journals Risk factors for premature coronary artery disease (PCAD) in adults: a systematic review protocol

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 1228
Author(s):  
Adeel Khoja ◽  
Prabha H. Andraweera ◽  
Zohra S. Lassi ◽  
Mingyue Zheng ◽  
Maleesa M. Pathirana ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Premature Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Artery Disease

PCAD possesses a public health challenge resulting in years of productive life lost and an escalating burden on health systems. Objective of this review is to compare modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for PCAD compared to those without PCAD. This review will include all comparative observational studies conducted in adults aged >18 years with confirmed diagnosis of PCAD (on angiography) compared to those without PCAD. Databases to be searched include; PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and grey literature (Google Scholar). All identified studies will be screened for title and abstract and full-text against the inclusion criteria on Covidence software. Data relevant to exposures and outcomes will be extracted from all included studies. All studies selected for data extraction will be critically appraised for methodological quality. Meta-analysis using random-effects model will be performed using Review Manager 5.3. Effect sizes for categorical risk factors will be expressed as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. For risk factors measured in continuous form, mean difference (if units are consistent) otherwise standardized mean difference (if units are different across studies) will be reported. Heterogeneity between studies will be assessed using I2 test statistics. GRADE will be used to assess the certainty of the findings. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO Registration # CRD42020173216

scholarly journals Effectiveness of interventions for optimising adherence to treatments for the prevention and management of scars: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e023904
Author(s):  
Jessica Killey ◽  
Megan Simons ◽  
Roy M Kimble ◽  
Zephanie Tyack
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Burn Injury ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Conference Presentations ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Adults And Children ◽  
Dermal Wound

IntroductionTreatments used in the management of scarring following wounds of the skin can be complex and time consuming, and patients may experience difficulties adhering to these treatments. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to identify the types of interventions that have been used to optimise adherence to treatment for preventing or reducing skin scars in adults and children and to determine the effectiveness of these interventions.Methods and analysisDatabases (PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Web of Science and OTSeeker) will be searched using the developed search strategy to identify eligible randomised trials. Adults and children using scar treatments to prevent or manage scarring as a result of a dermal wound (which may occur following burn injury, surgery, lacerations, piercings, vaccinations, acne and other conditions affecting the skin) will be included. Any intervention with the potential to effect adherence will be included. Titles and abstracts located through searching will be screened by two independent reviewers. Full text of studies will also be screened to determine eligibility for final inclusion. Two reviewers will assess the quality of included studies using the Cochrane ‘risk of bias’ tool. Data extraction forms will be developed and two reviewers will extract the data. A third reviewer will be used at each stage to ensure consensus is achieved. Meta-analysis and meta-regression will be completed if appropriate, otherwise a narrative synthesis of results will be undertaken.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is necessary for this systematic review as no patients will be directly involved. Results of this systematic review will be disseminated through journal publications and relevant conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018095082.

scholarly journals Misuse of medication in adult substance misuse services: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e047283
Author(s):  
Rosalind Gittins ◽  
Louise Missen ◽  
Ian Maidment
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Substance Misuse ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Opioid Analgesics ◽  
Physical And Mental Health ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Treatment Services ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionThere is a growing concern about the misuse of over the counter (OTC) and prescription only medication (POM) because of the impact on physical and mental health, drug interactions, overdoses and drug-related deaths. These medicines include opioid analgesics, anxiolytics such as pregabalin and diazepam and antidepressants. This protocol outlines how a systematic review will be undertaken (during June 2021), which aims to examine the literature on the pattern of OTC and POM misuse among adults who are accessing substance misuse treatment services. It will include the types of medication being taken, prevalence and demographic characteristics of people who access treatment services.Methods and analysisAn electronic search will be conducted on the Cochrane, OVID Medline, Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science databases as well as grey literature. Two independent reviewers will conduct the initial title and abstract screenings, using predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion. If selected for inclusion, full-text data extraction will be conducted using a pilot-tested data extraction form. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be reached. Quality and risk of bias assessment will be conducted for all included studies. A qualitative synthesis and summary of the data will be provided. If possible, a meta-analysis with heterogeneity calculation will be conducted; otherwise, Synthesis Without Meta-analysis will be undertaken for quantitative data. The reporting of this protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Findings will be peer reviewed, published and shared verbally, electronically and in print, with interested clinicians and policymakers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020135216.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of trauma care systems at different stages of development in reducing mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e047439
Author(s):  
Rayan Jafnan Alharbi ◽  
Virginia Lewis ◽  
Sumina Shrestha ◽  
Charne Miller
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Trauma Care ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Trauma System ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Trauma Centre ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Trauma Systems ◽  
Stages Of Development

IntroductionThe introduction of trauma systems that began in the 1970s resulted in improved trauma care and a decreased rate of morbidity and mortality of trauma patients. Worldwide, little is known about the effectiveness of trauma care system at different stages of development, from establishing a trauma centre, to implementing a trauma system and as trauma systems mature. The objective of this study is to extract and analyse data from research that evaluates mortality rates according to different stages of trauma system development globally.Methods and analysisThe proposed review will comply with the checklist of the ‘Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis’. In this review, only peer-reviewed articles written in English, human-related studies and published between January 2000 and December 2020 will be included. Articles will be retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. Additional articles will be identified from other sources such as references of included articles and author lists. Two independent authors will assess the eligibility of studies as well as critically appraise and assess the methodological quality of all included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias for Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool. Two independent authors will extract the data to minimise errors and bias during the process of data extraction using an extraction tool developed by the authors. For analysis calculation, effect sizes will be expressed as risk ratios or ORs for dichotomous data or weighted (or standardised) mean differences and 95% CIs for continuous data in this systematic review.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will use secondary data only, therefore, research ethics approval is not required. The results from this study will be submitted to a peer-review journal for publication and we will present our findings at national and international conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019142842.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document