scholarly journals Associations between vision impairment and driving and the effectiveness of vision-related interventions: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e040881
Author(s):  
Helen Nguyen ◽  
Gian Luca Di Tanna ◽  
Kristy Coxon ◽  
Julie Brown ◽  
Kerrie Ren ◽  
...  

IntroductionDriving is one of the main modes of transport with safe driving requiring a combination of visual, cognitive and physical skills. With population ageing, the number of people living with vision impairment is set to increase in the decades ahead. Vision impairment may negatively impact an individual’s ability to safely drive. The association between vision impairment and motor vehicle crash involvement or driving participation has yet to be systematically investigated. Further, the evidence for the effectiveness of vision-related interventions aimed at decreasing crashes and driving errors has not been synthesised.Methods and analysisA search will be conducted for relevant studies on Medline (Ovid), EMBASE and Global Health from their inception to March 2020 without date or geographical restrictions. Two investigators will independently screen abstracts and full texts using Covidence software with conflicts resolved by a third investigator. Data extraction will be conducted on all included studies, and their quality assessed to determine the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. Outcome measures include crash risk, driving cessation and surrogate measures of driving safety (eg, driving errors and performance). The results of this review will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guideline. Meta-analysis will be undertaken for outcomes with sufficient data and reported following the Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline. Where statistical pooling is not feasible or appropriate, narrative summaries will be presented following the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis in systematic reviews guideline.Ethics and disseminationThis review will only report on published data thus no ethics approval is required. Results will be included in the Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health, published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020172153.

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e037556
Author(s):  
Joshua R Ehrlich ◽  
Jacqueline Ramke ◽  
David Macleod ◽  
Bonnielin K Swenor ◽  
Helen Burn ◽  
...  

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. 101286
Author(s):  
Sjaan Koppel ◽  
Marilyn Di Stefano ◽  
Bleydy Dimech-Betancourt ◽  
Mohammed Aburumman ◽  
Rachel Osborne ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 05 (06) ◽  
pp. 573-581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Tregear ◽  
James Reston ◽  
Karen Schoelles ◽  
Barbara Phillips

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e033267
Author(s):  
Dengfeng Wang ◽  
Yang Yu ◽  
Pengxian Tao ◽  
Dan Wang ◽  
Yajing Chen ◽  
...  

IntroductionVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious life-threatening complication in patients with gastric cancer. Abnormal coagulation function and tumour-related treatment may contribute to the occurrence of VTE. Many guidelines considered that surgical treatment would put patients with cancer at high risk of VTE, so positive prevention is needed. However, there are no studies that have systematically reviewed the postoperative risk and distribution of VTE in patients with gastric cancer. We thus conduct this systematic review to determine the risk of VTE in patients with gastric cancer undergoing surgery and provide some evidence for clinical decision-making.Methods and analysisStudies reporting the incidence of VTE after gastric cancer surgery will be included. Primary studies of randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, population-based surveys and cross-sectional studies are eligible for this review and only studies published in Chinese and English will be included. We will search the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang data from their inception to November 2019. Two reviewers will independently select studies and extract data. The quality of each included study will be assessed with tools corresponding to their study design. Meta-analysis will be used to pool the incidence data from included studies. Heterogeneity of the estimates across studies will be assessed, if necessary, a subgroup analysis will be performed to explore the source of heterogeneity. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method is applied to assess the level of evidence obtained from this systematic review.Ethics and disseminationThis proposed systematic review and meta-analysis is based on published data, and thus ethical approval is not required. The results of this review will be sought for publication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019144562


Vascular ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 170853812199127
Author(s):  
Lixin Wang ◽  
Enci Wang ◽  
Fei Liu ◽  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Xiaolong Shu ◽  
...  

Objective This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the published data on the efficacy and safety of therapies for superior mesenteric venous thrombosis (SMVT), aiming to provide a reference and set of recommendations for clinical treatment. Methods Relevant databases were searched for studies published from 2000 to June 2020 on SMVT treated with conservative treatment, surgical treatment, or endovascular approach. Different treatment types were grouped for analysis and comparison, and odds ratios with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The outcomes were pooled using meta-analytic methods and presented by forest plots. Results Eighteen articles, including eight on SMVT patients treated with endovascular therapies, were enrolled. The treatment effectiveness was compared between different groups according to the change of symptoms, the occurrence of complications, and mortality as well. The conservative treatment group had better efficacy compared to the surgery group (89.0% vs. 78.6%, P <0.05), and the one-year survival rate was also higher (94.4% vs. 80.0%, P >0.05), but without statistical significance. As for endovascular treatment, the effectiveness was significantly higher than the surgery group (94.8% vs. 75.2%, P <0.05), and the conservative treatment group as well (93.3% vs. 86.3%, P >0.05), which still requires further research for the lack of statistical significance. Conclusions Present findings indicate that anticoagulation, as conservative treatment should be the preferred clinical option in the clinic for SMVT, due to its better curative effect compared to other treatment options, including lower mortality, fewer complications, and better prognosis. Moreover, endovascular treatment is a feasible and promising approach that is worth in-depth research, for it is less invasive than surgery and has relatively better effectiveness, thus can provide an alternative option for SMVT treatment and may be considered as a reliable method in clinical.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document