scholarly journals Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term neurocognitive outcomes in paediatric traumatic brain injury

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035513
Author(s):  
Dawn Shu Hui Looi ◽  
Mark Sen Liang Goh ◽  
Sharon Si Min Goh ◽  
Jia Ling Goh ◽  
Rehena Sultana ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Neurodevelopmental Outcomes ◽  
Neurocognitive Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionChildren who suffer from traumatic brain injury (TBI) are at risk of permanent brain damage and developmental deficits. Reports on neurodevelopmental outcomes in paediatric TBI suffer from small sample size and varying outcome definitions in the neurocognitive domains tested. This protocol describes a systematic review and meta-analysis of paediatric TBI in the following key neurocognitive domains: executive function, perceptual–motor function, language, learning and memory, social cognition and complex attention.MethodsA comprehensive search comprising studies from Medline, Cochrane, Embase and PsycINFO published from 1988 to 2019 will be conducted. We will include studies on children ≤18 years old who suffer from mild, moderate and severe TBI as determined by the Glasgow Coma Scale that report neurocognitive outcomes in domains predetermined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fifth edition criteria. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, case–control, cohort and cross-sectional studies will be included. References from systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be hand-searched for relevant articles. A meta-analysis will be performed and effect sizes will be calculated to summarise the magnitude of change in each neurocognitive domain compared at different timepoints and stratified by severity of TBI. Included studies will be pooled using pooled standardised mean differences with a random effects model to determine an overall effect. In the scenario that we are unable to pool the studies, we will perform a narrative analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this study.The authors of this study will publish and present the findings in a peer-reviewed journal as well as national and international conferences. The results of this study will provide understanding into the association between different severities of paediatric TBI and long-term neurocognitive outcomes.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020152680.

Effects of Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury on Verbal IQ: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Carly A. Cermak ◽  
Shannon E. Scratch ◽  
Nick P. Reed ◽  
Lisa Kakonge ◽  
Deryk S. Beal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Mild Tbi ◽  
Verbal Iq ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity

Abstract Objectives: To examine the effects of pediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI) on verbal IQ by severity and over time. Methods: A systematic review and subsequent meta-analysis of verbal IQ by TBI severity were conducted using a random effects model. Subgroup analysis included two epochs of time (e.g., <12 months postinjury and ≥12 months postinjury). Results: Nineteen articles met inclusion criteria after an extensive literature search in MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, and CINAHL. Meta-analysis revealed negative effects of injury across severities for verbal IQ and at both time epochs except for mild TBI < 12 months postinjury. Statistical heterogeneity (i.e., between-study variability) stemmed from studies with inconsistent classification of mild TBI, small sample sizes, and in studies of mixed TBI severities, although not significant. Risk of bias on estimated effects was generally low (k = 15) except for studies with confounding bias (e.g., lack of group matching by socio-demographics; k = 2) and measurement bias (e.g., outdated measure at time of original study, translated measure; k = 2). Conclusions: Children with TBI demonstrate long-term impairment in verbal IQ, regardless of severity. Future studies are encouraged to include scores from subtests within verbal IQ (e.g., vocabulary, similarities, comprehension) in addition to functional language measures (e.g., narrative discourse, reading comprehension, verbal reasoning) to elucidate higher-level language difficulties experienced in this population.

scholarly journals The Impact of Traumatic Brain Injury on Neurocognitive Outcomes in Children: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. jnnp-2020-325066
Author(s):  
Mark Sen Liang Goh ◽  
Dawn Shu Hui Looi ◽  
Jia Ling Goh ◽  
Rehena Sultana ◽  
Sharon Si Min Goh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Executive Function ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Learning And Memory ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Neurocognitive Outcomes ◽  
Severe Tbi ◽  
The Impact

ObjectiveTo assess the burden of paediatric traumatic brain injury (TBI) on neurocognition via a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsStudies that compared neurocognitive outcomes of paediatric patients with TBI and controls were searched using Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, between January 1988 and August 2019. We presented a random-effects model, stratified by TBI severity, time of assessment post injury and age.ResultsOf 5919 studies, 41 (patients=3717) and 33 (patients=3118) studies were included for the systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. Studies mostly measured mild TBI (n=26, patients=2888) at 0–3 months postinjury (n=17, patients=2502). At 0–3 months postinjury, standardised mean differences between TBI and controls for executive function were −0.04 (95% CI −0.14 to 0.07; I2=0.00%), −0.18 (95% CI −0.29 to –0.06; I2=26.1%) and −0.95 (95% CI −1.12 to –0.77; I2=10.1%) for mild, moderate and severe TBI, respectively; a similar effect was demonstrated for learning and memory. Severe TBI had the worst outcomes across all domains and persisted >24 months postinjury. Commonly used domains differed largely from workgroup recommendations. Risk of bias was acceptable for all included studies.ConclusionA dose-dependent relationship between TBI severity and neurocognitive outcomes was evident in executive function and in learning and memory. Cognitive deficits were present for TBIs of all severity but persisted among children with severe TBI. The heterogeneity of neurocognitive scales makes direct comparison between studies difficult. Future research into lesser explored domains and a more detailed assessment of neurocognitive deficits in young children are required to better understand the true burden of paediatric TBI.

Long-term employment outcomes following moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Brain Injury ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (13-14) ◽  
pp. 1567-1580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mirinda Gormley ◽  
Monika Devanaboyina ◽  
Nada Andelic ◽  
Cecilie Røe ◽  
Ronald T. Seel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Severe Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Employment Outcomes

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Crime Prevention Evaluations

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Petrosino ◽  
Claire Morgan ◽  
Trevor Fronius
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
What Works ◽  
Management Procedures ◽  
Meta Analyses

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become a focal point of evidence-based policy in criminology. Systematic reviews use explicit and transparent processes to identify, retrieve, code, analyze, and report on existing research studies bearing on a question of policy or practice. Meta-analysis can combine the results from the most rigorous evaluations identified in a systematic review to provide policymakers with the best evidence on what works for a variety of interventions relevant to reducing crime and making the justice system fairer and more effective. The steps of a systematic review using meta-analysis include specifying the topic area, developing management procedures, specifying the search strategy, developing eligibility criteria, extracting data from the studies, computing effect sizes, developing an analysis strategy, and interpreting and reporting the results. In a systematic review using meta-analysis, after identifying and coding eligible studies, the researchers create a measure of effect size for each experimental versus control contrast of interest in the study. Most commonly, reviewers do this by standardizing the difference between scores of the experimental and control groups, placing outcomes that are conceptually similar but measured differently (e.g., such as re-arrest or reconviction) on the same common scale or metric. Though these are different indices, they do measure a program’s effect on some construct (e.g., criminality). These effect sizes are usually averaged across all similar studies to provide a summary of program impact. The effect sizes also represent the dependent variable in the meta-analysis, and more advanced syntheses explore the role of potential moderating variables, such as sample size or other characteristics related to effect size. When done well and with full integrity, a systematic review using meta-analysis can provide the most comprehensive assessment of the available evaluative literature addressing the research question, as well as the most reliable statement about what works. Drawing from a larger body of research increases statistical power by reducing standard error; individual studies often use small sample sizes, which can result in large margins of error. In addition, conducting meta-analysis can be faster and less resource-intensive than replicating experimental studies. Using meta-analysis instead of relying on an individual program evaluation can help ensure that policy is guided by the totality of evidence, drawing upon a solid basis for generalizing outcomes.

scholarly journals More than 50 long-term effects of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Lopez-Leon ◽  
Talia Wegman-Ostrosky ◽  
Carol Perelman ◽  
Rosalinda Sepulveda ◽  
Paulina A. Rebolledo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Original Data ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Attention Disorder ◽  
Initial Recovery ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractCOVID-19 can involve persistence, sequelae, and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify studies assessing the long-term effects of COVID-19. LitCOVID and Embase were searched to identify articles with original data published before the 1st of January 2021, with a minimum of 100 patients. For effects reported in two or more studies, meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed using the MetaXL software to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% CI. PRISMA guidelines were followed. A total of 18,251 publications were identified, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of 55 long-term effects was estimated, 21 meta-analyses were performed, and 47,910 patients were included (age 17–87 years). The included studies defined long-COVID as ranging from 14 to 110 days post-viral infection. It was estimated that 80% of the infected patients with SARS-CoV-2 developed one or more long-term symptoms. The five most common symptoms were fatigue (58%), headache (44%), attention disorder (27%), hair loss (25%), and dyspnea (24%). Multi-disciplinary teams are crucial to developing preventive measures, rehabilitation techniques, and clinical management strategies with whole-patient perspectives designed to address long COVID-19 care.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Effect of Beta-Blockers in Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
William A. Florez-Perdomo ◽  
Edgar Felipe Laiseca Torres ◽  
Sergio a Serrato ◽  
Tariq Janjua ◽  
Andrei F. Joaquim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Severe Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Beta Blockers ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol examining the clinical characteristics and epidemiological features of olfactory dysfunction (OD) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemond Qian-Xiu Tan ◽  
Wai Tak Victor Li ◽  
Wing-Zi Shum ◽  
Sheung Chit Chu ◽  
Hang-Long Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Olfactory Dysfunction ◽  
Statistical Analyses ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Analysis Protocol

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused recurring and major outbreaks in multiple human populations around the world. The plethora of clinical presentations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been described extensively, of which olfactory dysfunction (OD) was established as an important and common extrapulmonary manifestation of COVID-19 infection. The aim of this protocol is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on peer-reviewed articles which described clinical data of OD in COVID-19 patients. Methods This research protocol has been prospectively registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42020196202). CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed, as well as Chinese medical databases China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP and WANFANG, will be searched using keywords including ‘COVID-19’, ‘coronavirus disease’, ‘2019-nCoV’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, ‘novel coronavirus’, ‘anosmia’, ‘hyposmia’, ‘loss of smell’, and ‘olfactory dysfunction’. Systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Articles will be screened according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria to extract studies that include new clinical data investigating the effect of COVID-19 on olfactory dysfunction. Included articles will be reviewed in full; data including patient demographics, clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD, methods of olfactory assessment and relevant clinical outcomes will be extracted. Statistical analyses will be performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3. Discussion This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol will aim to collate and synthesise all available clinical evidence regarding COVID-19-related OD as an important neurosensory dysfunction of COVID-19 infection. A comprehensive search strategy and screening process will be conducted to incorporate broad clinical data for robust statistical analyses and representation. The outcome of the systematic review and meta-analysis will aim to improve our understanding of the symptomatology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD and identify knowledge gaps in its disease process, which will guide future research in this specific neurosensory defect. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020196202.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document