scholarly journals Association between vision impairment and mortality: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e037556
Author(s):  
Joshua R Ehrlich ◽  
Jacqueline Ramke ◽  
David Macleod ◽  
Bonnielin K Swenor ◽  
Helen Burn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Global Health ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Vision Impairment ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Evaluation Approach ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionDue to growth and ageing of the world’s population, the number of individuals worldwide with vision impairment (VI) and blindness is projected to increase rapidly over the coming decades. VI and blindness are an important cause of years lived with disability. However, the association of VI and blindness with mortality, including the risk of bias in published studies and certainty of the evidence, has not been adequately studied in an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisThe planned systematic review and meta-analysis will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases, including MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid and Global Health, will be searched for relevant studies. Two reviewers will then screen studies and review full texts to identify studies for inclusion. Data extraction will be performed, and for included studies, the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The prognostic factor in this study is visual function, which must have been measured using a standard objective ophthalmic clinical or research instrument. We will use standard criteria from WHO to categorise VI and blindness. All-cause mortality may be assessed by any method one or more years after baseline assessment of vision. Results from included studies will be meta-analysed according to relevant sections of the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist.Ethics and disseminationThis review will only include published data; therefore, ethics approval will not be sought. The findings of this review and meta-analysis will be published in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal and will be included in the ongoing Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health.

scholarly journals Aromatherapy for Symptom Relief in Patients with Burn: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Hye Won Lee ◽  
Lin Ang ◽  
Jung Tae Kim ◽  
Myeong Soo Lee
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Symptom Relief ◽  
Routine Care ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Review Author ◽  
Beneficial Effects ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background and Objectives: This review aimed to provide an updated review of evidence regarding the effects of aromatherapy in relieving symptoms of burn injuries, focusing on pain and physiological distress. Materials and Methods: Fifteen databases (including five English databases, four Korean medical databases, and four Iranian databases) and trial registries were searched for studies published between their dates of inception and July 2021. Two review authors individually performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, and any discrepancies were solved by a third review author. Results: Eight RCTs met our inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this updated systematic review. Our meta-analyses revealed that inhaled aromatherapy plus routine care showed beneficial effects in relieving pain after dressing, as compared to placebo plus routine care (p < 0.00001) and routine care alone (p = 0.02). Additionally, inhaled aromatherapy plus routine care (p < 0.00001) and aromatherapy massage plus routine care (p < 0.0001) also showed superior effects in calming anxiety, as compared to routine care alone. None of the included studies reported on AEs. Overall, the risk of bias across the studies was concerning. Conclusions: This updated review and synthesis of the studies had brought a more detailed understanding of the potential application of aromatherapy for easing the pain and anxiety of burn patients.

Outcomes of Medication Misadventure Among People With Cognitive Impairment or Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 106002802094912
Author(s):  
Anum Saqib Zaidi ◽  
Gregory M. Peterson ◽  
Luke R.E. Bereznicki ◽  
Colin M. Curtain ◽  
Mohammed Salahudeen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Adverse Drug Events ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Potentially Inappropriate Medications ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective: To investigate mortality and hospitalization outcomes associated with medication misadventure (including medication errors [MEs], such as the use of potentially inappropriate medications [PIMs], and adverse drug events [ADEs]) among people with cognitive impairment or dementia. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to December 2019. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Relevant studies using any study design were included. Reviewers independently performed critical appraisal and extracted relevant data. Data Synthesis: The systematic review included 10 studies that reported the outcomes of mortality or hospitalization associated with medication misadventure, including PIMs (n=5), ADEs (n=2), a combination of MEs and ADEs (n=2), and drug interactions (n=1). Five studies examining the association between PIMs and mortality/hospitalization were included in the meta-analyses. Exposure to PIMs was not associated with either mortality (odds ratio [OR]=1.36; 95%CI=0.79-2.35) or hospitalization (OR=1.02; 95%CI=0.83-1.26). In contrast, single studies indicated that ADEs with cholinesterase inhibitors were associated with mortality and hospitalization. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Individuals with cognitive impairment or dementia are at increased risk of medication misadventure; based on relatively limited published data, this does not necessarily translate to increased mortality and hospitalization. Conclusions: Overall, medication misadventure was not associated with mortality or hospitalization in people with cognitive impairment or dementia, noting the limited number of studies, difficulty in controlling potential confounding variables, and that most studies focus on PIMs.

Effects of Caffeine Supplementation on Physical Performance of Soccer Players: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 194173812199871
Author(s):  
Raphael Einsfeld Simões Ferreira ◽  
Rafael Leite Pacheco ◽  
Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca ◽  
Rachel Riera ◽  
Ricardo Guilherme Eid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Perceived Exertion ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Rating Of Perceived Exertion ◽  
Soccer Players ◽  
Meta Analyses

Context: Caffeine is 1 of the most popular supplements consumed by athletes, and the evidence for improving soccer performance remains limited. Objective: To investigate and update the effects (benefits and harms) of caffeine to improve performance on soccer players. Data Sources: Electronic search in Medline (via PubMed), CENTRAL, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and LILACS, from inception to March 28, 2020. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of caffeine on the performance of soccer players. Study Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Level of Evidence: Level 1. Data Extraction: Data extraction was conducted independently by 2 authors using a piloted form. We assessed methodological quality (Cochrane risk-of-bias [RoB] table) and the certainty of the evidence (GRADE [Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation] approach). Results: Sixteen RCTs were included. Overall methodological quality was classified as unclear to low risk of bias. When assessing aerobic endurance, meta-analyses did not demonstrate the differences between caffeine and placebo (mean difference [MD], 44.9 m; 95% confidence interval [CI], −77.7 to 167.6). Similarly, no difference was observed during time to fatigue test (MD, 169.8 seconds; 95% CI, −71.8 to 411.6). Considering anaerobic power, meta-analyses also did not find differences for vertical jump (MD, 1.01 cm; 95% CI, −0.68 to 2.69) and repeated sprint tests (MD, −0.02 seconds; 95% CI, −0.09 to 0.04), as well as reaction time agility test (MD, 0.02 seconds; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.04) and rating of perceived exertion (MD, 0.16 points; 95% CI, −0.55 to 0.87). Regarding safety, a few minor adverse events were reported. Based on the GRADE approach, the certainty of this evidence was classified as very low to low. Conclusions: We found no significant improvement in soccer-related performance with caffeine compared with placebo or no intervention. However, caffeine appears to be safe.

Parent–Infant Interventions to Promote Parental Sensitivity During NICU Hospitalization: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 105381512199192
Author(s):  
Andréane Lavallée ◽  
Gwenaëlle De Clifford-Faugère ◽  
Ariane Ballard ◽  
Marilyn Aita
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Parental Sensitivity ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Implementation Failure ◽  
Meta Analyses

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of parent–infant interventions for parents of preterm infants on parental sensitivity compared to standard care or active comparators. This review follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration ID: CRD42016047083). Database searches were performed from inception to 2020 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and quality of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. A total of 19 studies ( n = 2,111 participants) were included and 14 were suitable to be pooled in our primary outcome meta-analysis. Results show no significant effect of parent–infant interventions over standard care or basic educational programs, on parental sensitivity. Results may not necessarily be due to the ineffectiveness of the interventions but rather due to implementation failure or high risk of bias of included studies.

scholarly journals Impact and use of reviews and ‘overviews of reviews’ to inform clinical practice guideline recommendations: protocol for a methods study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e031442
Author(s):  
Carole Lunny ◽  
Cynthia Ramasubbu ◽  
Savannah Gerrish ◽  
Tracy Liu ◽  
Douglas M Salzwedel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Practice Guideline ◽  
Practice Guideline ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Evaluation Approach ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionGuidelines are systematically developed recommendations to assist practitioner and patient decisions about treatments for clinical conditions. High quality and comprehensive systematic reviews and ‘overviews of systematic reviews’ (overviews) represent the best available evidence. Many guideline developers, such as the WHO and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, recommend the use of these research syntheses to underpin guideline recommendations. We aim to evaluate the impact and use of systematic reviews with and without pairwise meta-analysis or network meta-analyses (NMAs) and overviews in clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations.Methods and analysisCPGs will be retrieved from Turning Research Into Practice and Epistemonikos (2017–2018). The retrieved citations will be sorted randomly and then screened sequentially by two independent reviewers until 50 CPGs have been identified. We will include CPGs that provide at least two explicit recommendations for the management of any clinical condition. We will assess whether reviews or overviews were cited in a recommendation as part of the development process for guidelines. Data extraction will be done independently by two authors and compared. We will assess the risk of bias by examining how each guideline developed clinical recommendations. We will calculate the number and frequency of citations of reviews with or without pairwise meta-analysis, reviews with NMAs and overviews, and whether they were systematically or non-systematically developed. Results will be described, tabulated and categorised based on review type (reviews or overviews). CPGs reporting the use of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be compared with those using a different system, and pharmacological versus non-pharmacological CPGs will be compared.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is required. We will present at the Cochrane Colloquium and the Guidelines International Network conference.

scholarly journals Is There Association Between Stress and Bruxism? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victória dos Santos Chemelo ◽  
Yago Gecy de Sousa Né ◽  
Deborah Ribeiro Frazão ◽  
Renata Duarte de Souza-Rodrigues ◽  
Nathalia Carolina Fernandes Fagundes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quantitative Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fixed Effect Model ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Effect Model ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
Meta Analyses

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate a possible association between stress and bruxism in humans. This study was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines under the code CRD42020188862, and the searches were performed on the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, LILACS, OpenGrey, and Google Scholar. This systematic review evaluated observational studies in adult humans with and without stress to verify the association between bruxism and the presence of stress. The risk of bias was evaluated through the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. In quantitative analysis, the Odds Ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated through a fixed-effect model. Furthermore, a summary of the overall strength of evidence was presented using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). A total of 1,458 studies were identified, and six were included in this systematic review. Two studies included were classified with a low risk of bias, and the others were classified with a moderate risk of bias. In three articles, a meta-analysis was performed and showed an association between these two factors (OR 2.07 [1.51, 2.83], p &lt; 0.00001, I2 = 45%). Besides that, a low certainty of the evidence was detected among this association. Stressed individuals show a higher chance of presenting bruxism when compared to healthy individuals. Despite the low heterogeneity found in the quantitative analysis among the articles reporting an association between stress and bruxism, further studies with similar methods are necessary to understand this relationship better.

scholarly journals Effectiveness, safety and acceptability of medical abortion at home versus in the clinic: a systematic review and meta-analysis in response to COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. e003934
Author(s):  
Katherine Gambir ◽  
Camille Garnsey ◽  
Kelly Ann Necastro ◽  
Thoai D Ngo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Medical Abortion ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Evaluation Approach ◽  
Home Based ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
At Home

BackgroundIncreased access to home-based medical abortion may offer women a convenient, safe and effective abortion method, reduce burdens on healthcare systems and support social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Home-based medical abortion is defined as any abortion where mifepristone, misoprostol or both medications are taken at home.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRSs) were conducted. We searched databases from inception to 10 July 2019 and 14 June 2020. Successful abortion was the main outcome of interest. Eligible studies were RCTs and NRSs studies with a concurrent comparison group comparing home versus clinic-based medical abortion. Risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% CIs were calculated. Estimates were calculated using a random-effects model. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess risk of bias by outcome and to evaluate the overall quality of the evidence.ResultsWe identified 6277 potentially eligible published studies. Nineteen studies (3 RCTs and 16 NRSs) were included with 11 576 women seeking abortion up to 9 weeks gestation. Neither the RCTs nor the NRS found any difference between home-based and clinic-based administration of medical abortion in having a successful abortion (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01, I2=0%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.01, I2=52%, respectively). The certainty of the evidence for the 16 NRSs was downgraded from low to very low due to high risk of bias and publication bias. The certainty of the evidence for the three RCTs was downgraded from high to moderate by one level for high risk of bias.ConclusionHome-based medical abortion is effective, safe and acceptable to women. This evidence should be used to expand women’s abortion options and ensure access to abortion for women during COVID-19 and beyond.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020183171.

scholarly journals Prior surgical uterine evacuation of pregnancy and infertility: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. e034837
Author(s):  
Pengcheng Tu ◽  
Kaiyan Pei
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Inverse Variance ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Classification Tool ◽  
Dissemination Of Results

IntroductionPrior surgical uterine evacuation is associated with an increased risk of infertility. However, findings are inconsistent, highlighting the need for a clear consensus on the effect of prior surgical uterine evacuation on the risk of infertility. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarise the available evidence examining the association between prior surgical uterine evacuation and the risk of infertility.Methods and analysisA systematic search of electronic databases (ie, PubMed, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE and ScienceDirect) will be conducted since their inception until October 2019 with no limit for language using a detailed prespecified search strategy. Both the authors will independently screen titles and abstracts and select full-text articles, perform data extraction and appraise the quality of included studies using a bias classification tool. Meta-analyses will be performed to calculate the overall pooled estimates using the generic inverse variance method. This systematic review and meta-analysis will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.Ethics and disseminationGiven that this is a protocol based on published data, there is no requirement for ethics approval. It is anticipated that the dissemination of results will be reported according to the PRISMA statement. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019117266.

Effect of postoperative coffee consumption on postoperative ileus after abdominal surgery: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis (protocol) v1

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jun Watanabe ◽  
Atsushi Miki ◽  
Kazuhiko Kotani ◽  
Naohiro Sata
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Abdominal Surgery ◽  
Postoperative Ileus ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Coffee Consumption ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Evaluation Approach ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Analysis Protocol

Introduction: Coffee, a popular and cheap beverage worldwide, may have an important effect on postoperative ileus (POI). However, previous systematic reviews have not clarified whether the effect is due to caffeine or coffee itself, or shortening hospital stay. We will aim to assess the effect of postoperative coffee consumption on POI. Methods: Studies evaluating the effect of postoperative coffee consumption will be searched using the electronic databases and the trial registries. Meta-analyses will be performed using random-effects models. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach will be used to assess the certainty of evidence.

scholarly journals Which treatment is most effective for patients with patellofemoral pain? A protocol for a living systematic review including network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. e022920 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marinus Winters ◽  
Sinead Holden ◽  
Bill Vicenzino ◽  
Nicky J Welton ◽  
Deborah M Caldwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patellofemoral Pain ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Global Rating ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionPatellofemoral pain (PFP) affects 1 in every 14 adults. Many treatments for PFP have been evaluated, but the comparative effectiveness of all available treatments has never been examined. Network meta-analysis is the only design to study the comparative effectiveness of all available treatments in one synthesis. This protocol describes the methods for a systematic review including network meta-analysis to assess which treatment is most likely to be effective for patients with PFP.Methods and analysisThe primary outcome measures of this network meta-analysis are the global rating of change scale at 6–12 weeks, 13–52 weeks and >52 weeks. The secondary outcome measures are patient-rated pain scales at 6–12 weeks, 13–52 weeks and >52 weeks. Completed published and unpublished randomised controlled trials with full-text reports are eligible for inclusion. We will search Embase, PubMed (including MEDLINE), CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, OpenGrey, WorldCat, conference Proceedings and multiple trial registers for relevant reports. Two researchers will appraise the study eligibility and perform data extraction. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool V.2.0.Bayesian network meta-analyses will be constructed for global rating of change scale and patient-rated pain. Consistency between direct and indirect comparisons will be assessed. Between study variability will be explored, and a threshold analysis for the credibility of the network meta-analyses’ conclusions will be performed.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required, as this study will be based on published data. The study commenced at 1 February 2018, and its expected completion date is 15 January 2019. Full publication of the work will be sought in an international peer-reviewed journal, as well as translational articles to disseminate the work to clinical practitioners.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018079502.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document