scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness of manipulation and mobilisation interventions for the treatment of non-specific neck pain: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e037783
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Bailey ◽  
Nicola R Heneghan ◽  
Natasha J Cassidy ◽  
Deborah Falla ◽  
Alison B Rushton
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Functional Disability ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Neck Disability Index ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Range Of Movement ◽  
Patient Reported

IntroductionNon-specific neck pain (NSNP) is a common musculoskeletal condition resulting in pain, physical limitations and associated functional disability. Current guidelines recommend manipulation and/or mobilisation as part of the multimodal management of NSNP. This study focuses on intervention at the articular level and aims to identify whether joint mobilisation or joint manipulation has a greater effect on function, range of movement or pain outcomes in the management of NSNP.Methods and analysisA systematic review protocol has been designed and is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. A targeted search strategy will enable searching of key databases from inception to 31 March 2020: CINAHL, PEDro, AMED, EMBASE, OVID, MEDLINE, Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar. Key journals will be searched using predefined keywords determined from preliminary scoping searches for randomised controlled trials of manipulation and mobilisation modalities for adults with NSNP in the absence of radiculopathy or whiplash, published in English. Grey literature and unpublished studies will also be searched. Studies will be screened by title and abstract and full text. Two independent reviewers will conduct the searches independently, extract data, assess risk of bias (Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2) and assess overall strength of evidence (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Meta-analysis will be performed where individual studies measure comparable outcomes including performance-based outcome measures such as range of movement or patient reported outcome measures such as Neck Disability Index; and where interventions are comparable in their delivery such as number of oscillations and Maitland grading. Where not possible, data will be presented descriptively.Ethics and disseminationThis study does not require ethical approval. Findings will be submitted for publication to relevant peer-reviewed journals and will be presented at profession-specific conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020164457.

scholarly journals Outcome measures evaluating physical functioning and their measurement properties in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. e034286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samia Alamrani ◽  
Alison Rushton ◽  
Adrian Gardner ◽  
Deborah Falla ◽  
Nicola R Heneghan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis ◽  
Idiopathic Scoliosis ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Physical Functioning ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported

IntroductionPhysical functioning (PF) is the ability to carry out the physical activity of daily living. It is an important outcome that provides a meaningful evaluation of individuals’ life. PF can be assessed using patient-reported outcome measures, performance-based outcome measures or body structure and function measure. Measures need to be valid, reliable and responsive to change to evaluate the effects of an intervention. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common deformity among the paediatric population and impacts on individuals’ lives. This systematic review will appraise evidence on the measurement properties of PF tools in individuals with AIS.Methods/analysisA protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis informed by Cochrane guidelines is reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-P. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTdiscus, Web of Science and PubMed will be searched in two stages, from inception until December 2019. Search 1 will inventory all studies that assessed PF in participants with AIS, without any limitations. The search terms will be scoliosis, adolescent and PF-related terms. Search 2 will include studies which investigated instrument measurement properties in the same population for measures identified in search one. Two reviewers will independently perform study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and overall quality assessment. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias and a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines will be used. A meta-analysis will be conducted if possible, or the evidence will be synthesised and summarised per measurement property per outcome measure per measurement type.Ethics and disseminationThis review will provide recommendations for practice and future research, considering psychometric properties of outcome measures of PF in AIS. The results of this study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019142335.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and optimal dosage of resistance training for chronic non-specific neck pain: a protocol for a systematic review with a qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e025158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Price ◽  
Alison Rushton ◽  
Isaak Tyros ◽  
Nicola R Heneghan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Optimal Dosage ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Training Exercise ◽  
Resistance Training Exercise

IntroductionThe prevalence of neck pain is increasing rapidly with a high percentage of patients going on to experience recurrent or chronic symptoms. The resulting pain and disability are commonly managed using a variety of treatments including exercise. Resistance training exercise aimed at the neck and shoulders is advocated to treat chronic non-specific neck pain (CNSNP), however the dosage of prescribed exercise varies considerably between studies. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of resistance training in CNSNP and to determine an optimal dosage that should be prescribed in clinical practice.Methods and analysisA systematic review with qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Excerpta Medica Database, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, PEDro, Zetoc, Index to Chiropractic Literature ChiroAcces, PubMed, grey literature sources and key journals will be searched. Randomised clinical trials investigating resistance training exercise in adults with CNSNP using outcome measures of pain and/or disability will be eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently screen for eligibility, extract data and assess risk of bias (Cochrane risk of bias tool) with a third reviewer mediating in cases of disagreement. Data will be synthesised qualitatively to investigate intervention effectiveness and to determine the effect of exercise dosage on pain and disability. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model will be conducted where sufficient clinical homogeneity exists. The strength of the overall body of evidence will be assessed and reported using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Ethics and disseminationThis study raises no ethical issues. Results will inform exercise prescription to improve management of CNSNP. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018096187.

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Head Lice ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

scholarly journals Generic Patient-Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review Study Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuki Seidler ◽  
Erika Mosor ◽  
Margaret R Andrews ◽  
Carolina Watson ◽  
Nick Bott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an essential part of health outcome measurement and vital to patient-centricity and valued-based care. Several international consortia have developed core outcome sets and many of them include PROs. PROs are measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROs and PROMs can be generic or specific to certain diseases or conditions. While the characteristics of generic PROs and PROMs are well recognised as widely relevant and applicable across different domains, diseases and conditions, there is a lack of knowledge on the types of PROs measured by generic PROMs. We also do not know in which disease areas generic PROs and PROMs are commonly used. To date, there has been no systematic review solely focusing on generic PROMs, what they measure and their areas of application. Objectives: This systematic review will identify core PROs measured by generic PROMs used in adult populations and the areas in which they are applied. Methods: We will conduct a systematic review of reviews. The screening process and the reporting will comply with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) 2020 Statement. We will use four databases, Medline [PubMed], CINHAL [Ebsco], Cochrane [Cochrane Library], and PsycINFO [Ovid], and reports from international consortia. Inclusion criteria are systematic reviews, meta-analysis or patient-reported outcome sets developed by international consortia reporting on generic PROMs in adult populations. Articles primarily focusing on patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), children or adolescents, or those not written in English will be excluded. Risk of bias will be assessed by checking if the included articles comply with established guidelines for systematic reviews such as the PRISMA statement. We will extract generic PROMs and PROs measured by these PROMs, and the areas applied from the selected articles and reports. Extracted data and information will be quantitatively and qualitatively synthesised without statistical interference. The quality of the synthesised evidences will be assessed by clarifying the strengths, limitations and possible biases in our review.

The effects of non-clinician guidance on effectiveness and process outcomes of digital mental health interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Calista Leung ◽  
Julia Pei ◽  
Kristen Hudec ◽  
Farhud Shams ◽  
Richard Munthali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychosocial Support ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Process Outcomes ◽  
Mental Health Interventions

BACKGROUND Digital mental health interventions are increasingly prevalent in the current context of rapidly evolving technology, and research indicates that they yield effectiveness outcomes comparable to in-person treatment. Integrating professionals (i.e. psychologists, physicians) into digital mental health interventions has been common, and the inclusion of guidance within programs can increase adherence to interventions. However, employing professionals to enhance mental health programs may undermine the scalability of digital interventions. Therefore, delegating guidance tasks to paraprofessionals (peer supporters, technicians, lay counsellors, or other non-clinicians) can help reduce costs and increase accessibility. OBJECTIVE This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness, adherence, and other process outcomes of non-clinician guided digital mental health interventions. METHODS Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PSYCInfo) were searched for randomized controlled trials published between 2010 and 2020 examining digital mental health interventions. Three journals focused on digital intervention were also hand searched and grey literature was searched using ProQuest and the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL). Two researchers independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2. Data were collected on effectiveness, adherence, and other process outcomes, and meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and adherence outcomes. Non-clinician guided interventions were compared with treatment as usual, clinician-guided interventions, and unguided interventions. RESULTS Thirteen studies qualified for inclusion. Results indicate that non-clinician guided interventions yielded higher post-treatment effectiveness outcomes when compared to conditions involving control programs (e.g. online psychoeducation, monitored attention control) or waitlist controls (k=7, Hedges g=-0.73 (95% CI -1.08 to -0.38)). There are significant differences between non-clinician guided interventions and unguided interventions as well (k=6, Hedges g=-0.17 (95% CI -0.23 to -0.11)). In addition, non-clinician guided interventions did not differ in effectiveness from clinician-guided interventions (k=3, Hedges g=0.08 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.17)). These results suggest that guided digital mental health interventions are helpful to improve mental health outcomes regardless of the qualification, and that the presence of a non-clinician guide improves effectiveness outcomes more than no guidance. Non-clinician guided interventions did not yield significantly different effects on adherence outcomes when compared with unguided interventions (k=3, OR 1.58 (95% CI 0.51 to 4.92)), although a general trend of improved adherence was observed within non-clinician guided interventions. CONCLUSIONS Integrating paraprofessionals and non-clinicians appear to improve outcomes of digital mental health interventions, and may also enhance adherence outcomes (though the trend was nonsignificant). Further research should focus on the specific types of tasks these paraprofessionals can successfully provide (i.e. psychosocial support, therapeutic alliance, technical augmentation) and their associated outcomes. CLINICALTRIAL The protocol is preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42020191226).

scholarly journals Measures of central sensitisation and their measurement properties in the adult musculoskeletal trauma population: a protocol for a systematic review and data synthesis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e023204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Middlebrook ◽  
Alison B Rushton ◽  
Nicola R Heneghan ◽  
Deborah Falla
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Central Sensitisation ◽  
Trauma Population ◽  
Musculoskeletal Trauma

IntroductionPain following musculoskeletal trauma is common with poor outcomes and disability well documented. Pain is complex in nature and can include the four primary mechanisms of pain: nociceptive, neuropathic, inflammatory and central sensitisation (CS). CS can be measured in multiple ways; however, no systematic review has evaluated the measurement properties of such measures in the musculoskeletal trauma population. This systematic review aims to evaluate the measurement properties of current measures of CS in this population.Methods/analysisThis protocol is informed and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-P. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ZETOC, Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar as well as key journals and grey literature will be searched in two stages to (1) identify what measures are being used to assess CS in this population and (2) evaluate the measurement properties of the identified measures. Two independent reviewers will conduct the search, extract the data, assess risk of bias for included studies and assess overall quality. The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments Risk of Bias Checklist and a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines will be used. Meta-analysis will be conducted if deemed appropriate. Alternatively, a narrative synthesis will be conducted and summarised per measurement property per outcome measure.Ethics and disseminationThis review will aid clinicians in using the most appropriate tool for assessing central sensitisation in this population and is the first step towards a more standardised approach in pain assessment. The results of this study will be submitted to a peer reviewed journal and presented at conferences.PROSPERO registrationnumberCRD42018091531.

scholarly journals The Impact of a Stabilization Exercise on Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 81 (04) ◽  
pp. 342-347
Author(s):  
Binbin Wu ◽  
Hongyan Yuan ◽  
Deyu Geng ◽  
Liang Zhang ◽  
Cheng Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neck Disability Index ◽  
Depression Scale ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Stabilization Exercise ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Introduction The efficacy of a stabilization exercise for the relief of neck pain remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effectiveness of a stabilization exercise on neck pain. Methods We searched Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO Information Services, and the Cochrane Library databases through May 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of a stabilization exercise on neck pain. This meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model. Results Six RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Compared with the control group of patients with neck pain, a stabilization exercise can significantly reduce pain scores at 4 to 6 weeks (mean difference [MD]: −2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], −4.46 to −0.35; p = 0.02), Neck Disability Index [NDI] at 10 to 12 weeks (MD:− 6.75; 95% CI, −11.71 to −1.79; p = 0.008), and depression scale at 4 to 6 weeks (MD: −4.65; 95% CI, −7.00 to −2.31; p = 0.02), but it has no obvious impact on pain scores at 10 to 12 weeks (MD: −1.07; 95% CI, −3.42 to 1.28; p = 0.37) or at 6 months (MD: −1.02; 95% CI, −3.43 to 1.39; p = 0.41). Conclusions A stabilization exercise can provide some benefits to control neck pain.

Silver Diamine Fluoride Has Efficacy in Controlling Caries Progression in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (5) ◽  
pp. 527-541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Cláudia Chibinski ◽  
Letícia Maíra Wambier ◽  
Juliana Feltrin ◽  
Alessandro Dourado Loguercio ◽  
Denise Stadler Wambier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Active Material ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Silver Diamine Fluoride ◽  
Caries Progression

A systematic review was performed to evaluate the efficacy of silver diamine fluoride (SDF) in controlling caries progression in children when compared with active treatments or placebos. A search for randomized clinical trials that evaluate the effectiveness of SDF for caries control in children compared to active treatments or placebos with follow-ups longer than 6 months was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library, and grey literature. The risk of bias tool from the Cochrane Collaboration was used for quality assessment of the studies. The quality of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was performed on studies considered at low risk of bias. A total of 5,980 articles were identified. Eleven remained in the qualitative synthesis. Five studies were at “low,” 2 at “unclear,” and 4 studies at “high” risk of bias in the key domains. The studies from which the information could be extracted were included for meta-analysis. The arrestment of caries at 12 months promoted by SDF was 66% higher (95% CI 41-91%; p < 0.00001) than by other active material, but it was 154% higher (95% CI 67-85%; p < 0.00001) than by placebos. Overall, the caries arrestment was 89% higher (95% CI 49-138%; p < 0.00001) than using active materials/placebo. No heterogeneity was detected. The evidence was graded as high quality. The use of SDF is 89% more effective in controlling/arresting caries than other treatments or placebos. The quality of the evidence was graded as high.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis to Assess Patient-Reported Outcomes after Lung Cancer Surgery

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sayf Gazala ◽  
Jean-Sébastien Pelletier ◽  
Dale Storie ◽  
Jeffrey A. Johnson ◽  
Demetrios J. Kutsogiannis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lung Cancer Surgery ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related

The main objective of this review was to systematically review, assess, and report on the studies that have assessed health related quality of life (HRQOL) after VATS and thoracotomy for resection of lung cancer. We performed a systematic review of six databases. The Downs and Black tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Five studies were included. In general, patients undergoing VATS have a better HRQOL when compared to thoracotomy; however, there was a high risk of bias in the included studies. The consistent use of a lung cancer specific questionnaire for measuring HRQOL after surgery is encouraged.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document