scholarly journals Helminth infections, atopy, asthma and allergic diseases: protocol for a systematic review of observational studies worldwide

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. e038085
Author(s):  
Margarete Arrais ◽  
Tiago Maricoto ◽  
Philip Cooper ◽  
Jorge M R Gama ◽  
Bright I Nwaru ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Allergic Diseases ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Ongoing Research ◽  
Helminth Infections ◽  
Open Access Journals

IntroductionChildhood infections, particularly those caused by helminths are considered to be important environmental exposures influencing the development of allergic diseases. However, epidemiological studies focusing on the relationship between helminth infections and risk of allergic diseases, performed worldwide, show inconsistent findings. Previous systematic reviews of observational studies published 10 or more years ago showed conflicting findings for effects of helminths on allergic diseases. Over the past 10 years there has been growing literature addressing this research area and these need to be considered in order to appreciate the most contemporary evidence. The objective of the current systematic review will be to provide an up-to-date synthesis of findings of observational studies investigating the influence of helminth infections on atopy, and allergic diseases.Methods and analysisThis systematic review protocol was registered at PROSPERO. We will search Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, ISI Web of Science, WHO Global Health Library, Scielo, IndMed, PakMediNet, KoreaMed, Ichushi for published studies from 1970 to January 2020. Bibliographies of all eligible studies will be reviewed to identify additional studies. Unpublished and ongoing research will also be searched in key databases. There will be no language or geographical restrictions regarding publications. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool will be used to appraise methodological quality of included studies. A descriptive summary with data tables will be constructed, and if adequate, meta-analysis using random-effects will be performed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist will be followed for reporting of the systematic review.Ethics and disseminationSince this systematic review will be only based on published and retrievable literature, no ethics approval will be sought. The multidisciplinary team performing this systematic review will participate in relevant dissemination activities. Findings will be presented at scientific meetings and publish the systematic review in international, peer-reviewed, open-access journals.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020167249.

scholarly journals House dust mite (HDM) and storage mite (SM) molecular sensitisation profiles and association with clinical outcomes in allergic asthma and rhinitis: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e046519
Author(s):  
Filipa Matos-Semedo ◽  
Cíntia Cruz ◽  
Filipe Inácio ◽  
Jorge M R Gama ◽  
Bright I Nwaru ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
House Dust ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
House Dust Mites ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Storage Mites ◽  
Link Type

IntroductionIdentification and characterisation of single allergens at molecular level is important. Component-resolved diagnosis offers the possibility of higher diagnostic precision, thereby allowing better patient management. House dust mites (HDM) have a worldwide distribution. Studies from different countries have shown that IgE-mediated allergy to storage mites (SM) is important in rural and urban populations. With the availability of HDM and SM molecular allergen components, studies have investigated whether different molecular sensitisation profiles are associated with clinical disease outcomes. However, no previous systematic review has synthesised the underlying evidence.Methods and analysisWe will search Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Methodology Register), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, ISI Web of Science (Science and Social Science Index) from inception to March 2020. Unpublished and ongoing work, as well as research in progress will be searched in www.ClinicalTrials.gov; www.controlledtrials.com and wwwanzctrorgau. We will contact an international panel of experts in this field. No language restrictions will apply; translations will be undertaken where necessary. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool will be used to appraise the methodological quality of included studies. A descriptive summary with data tables will be constructed, and if adequate, meta-analysis using random effects will be performed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist will be followed for reporting.Ethics and disseminationSince this systematic review will be only based on published and retrievable literature, no ethics approval is required. We will publish the systematic review in an international peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberreviewregistry959.

The association between dietary inflammatory index and risk of central obesity in adults: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 90 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 535-552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahdieh Abbasalizad Farhangi ◽  
Mahdi Vajdi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Central Obesity ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Dietary Factors ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Inflammatory Status ◽  
Obesity Indices

Abstract. Backgrounds: Central obesity, as a pivotal component of metabolic syndrome is associated with numerous co-morbidities. Dietary factors influence central obesity by increased inflammatory status. However, recent studies didn’t evaluate the association between central obesity and dietary inflammation index (DII®) that give score to dietary factors according to their inflammatory potential. In the current systematic review and meta-analysis, we summarized the studies that investigated the association between DII® with central obesity indices in the general populations. Methods: In a systematic search from PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Sciences and Cochrane electronic databases, we collected relevant studies written in English and published until 30 October 2019. The population of included studies were apparently healthy subjects or individuals with obesity or obesity-related diseases. Observational studies that evaluated the association between DII® and indices of central obesity including WC or WHR were included. Results: Totally thirty-two studies were included; thirty studies were cross-sectional and two were cohort studies with 103071 participants. Meta-analysis of observational studies showed that higher DII® scores were associated with 1.81 cm increase in WC (Pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) = 1.813; CI: 0.785–2.841; p = 0.001). Also, a non-significant increase in the odds of having higher WC (OR = 1.162; CI: 0.95–1.43; p = 0.154) in the highest DII category was also observed. In subgroup analysis, the continent, dietary assessment tool and gender were the heterogeneity sources. Conclusion: The findings proposed that adherence to diets with high DII® scores was associated with increased WC. Further studies with interventional designs are necessary to elucidate the causality inference between DII® and central obesity indices.

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.

scholarly journals The association of fracture risk in atrial fibrillation patients and long-term anticoagulant therapy category: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PeerJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. e10683
Author(s):  
Jun Chen ◽  
Lingchun Lyu ◽  
Jiayi Shen ◽  
Chunlai Zeng ◽  
Cheng Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hip Fracture ◽  
Fracture Risk ◽  
Hip Fractures ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Hip Fracture Risk ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective Our study aimed to assess the risk of all fractures and hip fractures in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who took non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared to warfarin. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials.gov Website. Reviewed related researches up to January 31, 2020, to identify studies with more than 12 months of follow-up data. The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO Number: CRD42020156893). Results We included five RCT studies, and five observational studies that contained a total of 326,846 patients in our meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that patients taken NOACs had no significant all fracture risk (RR = 0.91, 95% CI [0.81–1.01]) and hip fracture risk (RR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.82–1.03]) compared with those taken warfarin. Subanalysis showed that the risk of all fractures and hip fractures treated by NOACs were significant lower compared with warfarin in observational studies compared with RCT studies. Also, a subanalysis across the duration of anticoagulation showed the NOACs users have lower all fracture risk than warfarin users when the duration of anticoagulation ≤2 years (RR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.80–0.99]). Further analysis, significant lower all fracture risk in the rivaroxaban therapy (RR = 0.81; 95% CI [0.76–0.86]) compared with warfarin but no statistical significance in hip fracture. There were no significant difference of all fracture risk and hip fracture risk in dabigatran, apixaban, and edoxaban therapy compared with warfarin. Conclusion The meta-analysis demonstrated that NOACs associated with a significantly lower all fracture risk compared with warfarin when the duration of anticoagulation more than 2 years. Rivaroxaban users had lower risk of all fracture than warfarin users in AF patients. But there was no evidence to verify apixaban, edoxaban, and dabigatranin could decrease all fracture and hip fracture risk compared with warfarin.

Effectiveness of Physiotherapy to Promote Motor Recovery in Individuals with Stroke: A Systematic Review Protocol

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shehong Zhang ◽  
Hongyu Xie ◽  
Chuanjie Wang ◽  
Fengfeng Wu ◽  
Xin Wang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Motor Function ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Review Protocol

Abstract Introduction: Motor function is essential in our daily lives, one of the most common impairments caused by stroke is loss of functional movement. Over 70% of stroke survivors have motor or other neurological functional disabilities. However, rehabilitation of motor function suffered from a stroke can be rather difficult due to the complexity of organs and systems related to motor function, as well as the neural system that supported motor function. In particularly, previous evidence for the effectiveness of physiotherapy, a commonly prescribed intervention method for people with stroke, that recover motor function in people following a stroke is varied and limited in the chronic rehabilitation phase and therefore has never been reviewed systematically. With the progress of study in neurology and the development of novel tools for rehabilitation, results from more and more clinical trials are now available, thus here justifying conducting a systematic review. Methods and analysis: This systematic review protocol is developed in accordance with the methodology recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols, as well as the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Relevant studies will be identified by searching the databases. We will perform searches for relevant studies in databases, including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science, Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Cochrane Library databases. The reference lists of included articles and reviews will be searched manually. The date range parameters used in searching all databases will be restricted between January 2001 and January 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published will be included. The language used in the articles included was restricted to English. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions) approach will be used to systematically appraise the quality of methodology. We will assess the risk of bias of the RCTs included using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and provide a qualitative synthesis. After that, we will consider conducting a meta-analysis if the final data across outcomes shows sufficient homogeneity. Ethics and dissemination: No ethical approval is needed as the proposed study does not involve the collection of primary data, and the results of this review will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Trial registration number: CRD42021267069.

Dental implants survival after nasal floor elevation: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Anitua ◽  
Beatriz Anitua ◽  
Mohammad Hamdan Alkhraisat ◽  
Laura Piñas ◽  
Asier Eguia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lateral Approach ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Good Survival ◽  
Quality Level ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Nasal Floor

Purpose The aim of this work is to assess the clinical outcomes of implants placed after a nasal floor elevation procedure. Methods A systematic review was conducted using four electronic databases; Medline (Pubmed), Cochrane library, DOAJ and SCOPUS, following the PRISMA statement recommendations to answer the PICO question: “In patients undergoing dental implant placement in the maxillary anterior region (P), Do implants placed after nasal floor elevation (I) have a different survival (O) from those implants placed without grafting procedures (C)?. The study was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021229479). Included articles quality was assessed using the “NIH quality assessment tool”, “The Newcastle-Ottawa scale” and “JBI critical appraisal tools for case reports''. Results Twelve articles were finally selected, including 151 patients and 460 implants. The weighted mean follow-up was 32.2 months, and the weighted survival rate after this period was 97.64% (range 89.2-100%). No statistical differences could be inferred between the treatments performed in one-stage or two-stage, following a lateral approach or a transcrestal approach or using different grafting materials. A great heterogeneity was found in terms of study design and methodological aspects. For this reason, a quantitative analysis followed by meta-analysis was not possible. Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, implants placed after a nasal floor elevation present a good survival and a low range of complications. In absence of randomized studies, the level of evidence was low, attending the GRADE system and based on the study quality level, the strength of evidence attending the SORT taxonomy was B.

scholarly journals Clinical, laboratory and imaging predictors for critical illness and mortality in patients with COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e039813
Author(s):  
Xinxing Lai ◽  
Jian Liu ◽  
Tianyi Zhang ◽  
Luda Feng ◽  
Ping Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Critical Illness ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Laboratory ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Early Management ◽  
Modifiable Factors

IntroductionWith the threat of a worldwide pandemic of COVID-19, it is important to identify the prognostic factors for critical conditions among patients with non-critical COVID-19. Prognostic factors and models may assist front-line clinicians in rapid identification of high-risk patients, early management of modifiable factors, appropriate triaging and optimising the use of limited healthcare resources. We aim to systematically assess the clinical, laboratory and imaging predictors as well as prediction models for severe or critical illness and mortality in patients with COVID-19.Methods and analysisAll peer-reviewed and preprint primary articles with a longitudinal design that focused on prognostic factors or models for critical illness and mortality related to COVID-19 will be eligible for inclusion. A systematic search of 11 databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang Data, SinoMed, bioRxiv, Arxiv and MedRxiv will be conducted. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data extraction will be performed using the modified version of the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies checklist and quality will be evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool. The association between prognostic factors and outcomes of interest will be synthesised and a meta-analysis will be conducted with three or more studies reporting a particular factor in a consistent manner.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was not required for this systematic review. We will disseminate our findings through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD 42020178798.

scholarly journals Neighbourhood socioeconomic status and overweight/obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e028238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shimels Hussien Mohammed ◽  
Tesfa Dejenie Habtewold ◽  
Mulugeta Molla Birhanu ◽  
Tesfamichael Awoke Sissay ◽  
Balewgizie Sileshi Tegegne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Neighbourhood Socioeconomic Status

ObjectiveLow neighbourhood socioeconomic status (NSES) has been linked to a higher risk of overweight/obesity, irrespective of the individual’s own socioeconomic status. No meta-analysis study has been done on the association. Thus, this study was done to synthesise the existing evidence on the association of NSES with overweight, obesity and body mass index (BMI).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Sciences and Google Scholar databases were searched for articles published until 25 September 2019.Eligibility criteriaEpidemiological studies, both longitudinal and cross-sectional ones, which examined the link of NSES to overweight, obesity or BMI, were included.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was done by two reviewers, working independently. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for the observational studies. The summary estimates of the relationships of NSES with overweight, obesity and BMI statuses were calculated with random-effects meta-analysis models. Heterogeneity was assessed by Cochran’s Q and I2 statistics. Subgroup analyses were done by age categories, continents, study designs and NSES measures. Publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots and Egger’s regression test.ResultA total of 21 observational studies, covering 1 244 438 individuals, were included in this meta-analysis. Low NSES, compared with high NSES, was found to be associated with a 31% higher odds of overweight (pooled OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.47, p<0.001), a 45% higher odds of obesity (pooled OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.74, p<0.001) and a 1.09 kg/m2 increase in mean BMI (pooled beta=1.09, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.50, p<0.001).ConclusionNSES disparity might be contributing to the burden of overweight/obesity. Further studies are warranted, including whether addressing NSES disparity could reduce the risk of overweight/obesity.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017063889

scholarly journals Effect of electronic health interventions on metabolic syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e036927
Author(s):  
Dandan Chen ◽  
Zhihong Ye ◽  
Jing Shao ◽  
Leiwen Tang ◽  
Hui Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Metabolic Syndrome ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Biochemical Indicators ◽  
Positive Effects

ObjectiveWe aimed to examine whether eHealth interventions can effectively improve anthropometric and biochemical indicators of patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsPubMed, the Web of Science, Embase, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Wanfang and Weipu databases were comprehensively searched for papers that were published from database inception to May 2019. Articles were included if the participants were metabolic syndrome (MetS) patients, the participants received eHealth interventions, the participants in the control group received usual care or were wait listed, the outcomes included anthropometric and biochemical indicators of MetS, and the study was a randomised controlled trial (RCT) or a controlled clinical trial (CCT). The Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies was used to assess the methodological quality of the included articles. The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager V.5.3 software.ResultsIn our review, seven RCTs and two CCTs comprising 935 MetS participants met the inclusion criteria. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that eHealth interventions resulted in significant improvements in body mass index (standardised mean difference (SMD)=−0.36, 95% CI (−0.61 to −0.10), p<0.01), waist circumference (SMD=−0.47, 95% CI (−0.84 to −0.09), p=0.01) and systolic blood pressure(SMD=−0.35, 95% CI (−0.66 to −0.04), p=0.03) compared with the respective outcomes associated with the usual care or wait-listed groups. Based on the included studies, we found significant effects of the eHealth interventions on body weight. However, we did not find significant positive effects of the eHealth interventions on other metabolic parameters.ConclusionsThe results indicated that eHealth interventions were beneficial for improving specific anthropometric outcomes, but did not affect biochemical indicators of MetS. Therefore, whether researchers adopt eHealth interventions should be based on the purpose of the study. More rigorous studies are needed to confirm these findings.

scholarly journals Risk factors for new ischaemic cerebral lesions after carotid artery stenting: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e030025 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yao Feng ◽  
Long Li ◽  
Xuesong Bai ◽  
Tao Wang ◽  
Yanfei Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Carotid Artery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Carotid Artery Stenting ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Occurrence Rate ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cerebral Lesions

IntroductionNew ischaemic cerebral lesions (NICL) detected by diffusion-weighted imaging MRI are common after carotid artery stenting (CAS), with an occurrence rate ranging from 18% to 57%. Many studies reported occurrence of NICL could increase risk of future cerebrovascular events and cognitive impairment. However, controversies about determinants for occurrence of NICL after CAS exist among studies, and one risk factor embodied in an article may not be in another. Aim of this study is to introduce a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify risk factors associated with occurrence of NICL after CAS.Methods and analysisAll relevant literature referring to risk factors for occurrence of NICL after CAS will be searched on the major databases, such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library until 31 December 2018. Literature, which must be randomised controlled trials, case–control studies or cohort studies, will be included in accordance with the prespecified eligibility criteria. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration criteria and the quality of evidence will be assessed with the corresponding scale. Data will be extracted with a form prepared before and analysed using RevMan V.5.3 analyses software. Heterogeneity will be assessed using I2statistic. 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 statement.Ethics and disseminationThere is no need for ethical approval because primary data will not be attained. The systematic review will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019121129

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document