scholarly journals Comparison of effects of different dietary interventions on cognitive function in Alzheimer’s disease: protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e042997
Author(s):  
Lili Chen ◽  
Xinhua Xu ◽  
Huizhen Cao ◽  
Hong Li
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Cognitive Function ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Dietary Interventions ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionAlzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most common neurodegenerative disease and is characterised by cognitive impairment. Non-pharmacological treatments such as diet therapy have been widely investigated in studies on AD. Given the synergistic effects of nutrients present in foods, considering overall dietary composition rather than focusing on a single nutrient may be more useful for evaluating the relationship between diet and AD cognition. The present study aimed to assess the efficacy of different dietary interventions (eg, ketogenic and Mediterranean diets) on cognitive function in patients with AD in a systematic review and pairwise and network meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials or clinical trials.Methods and analysisTwo reviewers will independently conduct searches of PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases. Data will be extracted from selected studies and risk of bias will be assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and evidence quality will be assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The primary outcome of interest is cognitive function in patients with AD; secondary outcomes include biochemical biomarkers of AD and oxidative stress and/or inflammatory biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid or plasma. For each outcome, random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses will be carried out to determine the pooled relative effect of each intervention relative to every other intervention.Ethics and disseminationAs this study is based solely on published literature, no ethics approval is required. The research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

scholarly journals Association between components of the delirium syndrome and outcomes in hospitalised adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoë Tieges ◽  
Terence Quinn ◽  
Lorn MacKenzie ◽  
Daniel Davis ◽  
Graciela Muniz-Terrera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Symptom Domains ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Psychotic Features ◽  
Quality Evidence

Abstract Background Delirium is a heterogeneous syndrome with inattention as the core feature. There is considerable variation in the presence and degree of other symptom domains such as altered arousal, psychotic features and global cognitive dysfunction. Delirium is independently associated with increased mortality, but it is unclear whether individual symptom domains of delirium have prognostic importance. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in hospitalised adults in general settings to identify the relationship between symptom domains of delirium and outcomes. (PROSPERO: CRD42018093935). Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, clinicaltrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to November 2019. We included studies of hospitalised adults that reported associations between symptom domains of delirium and 30-day mortality (primary outcome), and other outcomes including mortality at other time points, length of stay, and dementia. Reviewer pairs independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies) and quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. We performed random-effects meta-analyses stratified by delirium domain where possible. Results From 7092 citations we included 6 studies (6002 patients, 1112 with delirium). Higher mortality (ranging from in-hospital to follow-up beyond 12 months) was associated with altered arousal (pooled Odds Ratio (OR) 2.80, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.33–3.37; moderate-quality evidence), inattention (pooled OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.74–3.80; low-quality evidence), and in single studies with disorientation, memory deficits and disorganised thoughts. Risk of bias varied across studies but was moderate-to-high overall, mainly due to selection bias, lack of blinding of assessments and unclear risk of selective outcome reporting. We found no studies on the association between psychotic features, visuospatial deficits or affective disturbances in delirium and outcomes, or studies reporting non-mortality outcomes. Conclusions Few studies have related symptom domains of delirium to outcomes, but the available evidence suggests that altered arousal and inattention in delirium are associated with higher mortality than normal arousal and attention in people with or without delirium. Measurable symptom domains of delirium may have value in predicting survival and stratifying patients for treatment. We recommend that future delirium studies report outcomes by symptom domain.

scholarly journals Association Between Components of the Delirium Syndrome and Outcomes in Hospitalised Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoë Tieges ◽  
Terence Quinn ◽  
Lorn MacKenzie ◽  
Daniel Davis ◽  
Graciela Muniz-Terrera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Symptom Domains ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Psychotic Features ◽  
Quality Evidence

Abstract Background Delirium is a heterogeneous syndrome with inattention as the core feature. There is considerable variation in the presence and degree of other symptom domains such as altered arousal, psychotic features and global cognitive dysfunction. Delirium is independently associated with increased mortality, but it is unclear whether individual symptom domains of delirium have prognostic importance. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies in hospitalised adults in general settings to identify the relationship between symptom domains of delirium and outcomes.(PROSPERO: CRD42018093935). Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, clinicaltrials.gov and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to November 2019. We included studies of hospitalised adults that reported associations between symptom domains of delirium and 30-day mortality (primary outcome), and other outcomes including mortality at other time points, length of stay, and dementia. Reviewer pairs independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies) and quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. We performed random-effects meta-analyses stratified by delirium domain where possible.Results From 7092 citations we included 6 studies (6002 patients, 1112 with delirium). Higher mortality was associated with altered arousal (pooled Odds Ratio (OR) 2.80, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.33-3.37; moderate-quality evidence), inattention (pooled OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.74-3.80; low-quality evidence), and in single studies with disorientation, memory deficits and disorganised thoughts. Risk of bias varied across studies but was moderate-to-high overall, mainly due to selection bias, lack of blinding of assessments and unclear risk of selective outcome reporting. We found no studies on the association between psychotic features, visuospatial deficits or affective disturbances in delirium and outcomes, or studies reporting non-mortality outcomes.Conclusions Few studies have related symptom domains of delirium to outcomes, but the available evidence suggests that altered arousal and inattention in delirium are associated with higher mortality than normal arousal and attention in people with or without delirium. Measurable symptom domains of delirium may have value in predicting survival and stratifying patients for treatment. We recommend that future delirium studies report outcomes by symptom domain.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Mhealth Interventions to Improve Nasal Corticosteroid Adherence in Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mats Baxter ◽  
Jurgen Schwarze ◽  
Andrew Bush ◽  
Aziz Sheikh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Allergic Rhinitis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract IntroductionMobile health (mHealth) is a potential tool to improve nasal corticosteroid (NCS) adherence in allergic rhinitis (AR), which remains largely poor and inconsistent for many. We plan to undertake a systematic review to synthesise the evidence on the efficacy of mHealth interventions to improve NCS adherence in AR. Methods and analysisA systematic search will be conducted in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), filtered for publication dates between January 2010 and August 2020. The search is scheduled to commence in August 2020. We will scan reference lists of included studies for additional eligible papers. Relevant unpublished or in-progress trials will be searched for through trial registries. Randomised controlled trials that examine the efficacy of mHealth interventions to improve NCS adherence in AR are to be included. Two reviewers will independently screen and extract relevant data from the included studies and perform a risk-of-bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2.0. We will perform a narrative synthesis with relevant data tables and, if deemed clinically relevant and statistically adequate, meta-analyses using random-effects modelling. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement will be used to help guide the reporting of this review. Ethics and disseminationSince this systematic review will be exclusively based on published and retrievable literature, no ethics approval will be sought. The findings of this systematic review will be disseminated at appropriate conferences/webinars while being published in an open access peer-reviewed journal.Registration: In accordance with the guidelines, our systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 27th August 2020. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020198879.

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 Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haonan Tian ◽  
Congman Xie ◽  
Min Lin ◽  
Hongmei Yang ◽  
Aishu Ren
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Canine Retraction ◽  
Temporary Anchorage Devices ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Implant Anchorage

Abstract Background Temporary anchorage devices have been used for decades in orthodontic practice for many applications. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction during the two-step technique. Methods A search was systematically performed for articles published prior to June 30, 2019 in five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled clinical trials (CCTs). The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for the quality assessment. Data concerning the mean difference in mesial molar movement and extent of canine retraction were extracted for statistical analysis. The mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were analyzed for continuous data. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model for comparable outcomes was carried out. Results Three RCTs and five CCTs were finally included. Meta-analysis showed a significant increase not only in anchorage preservation in the implant anchorage group in both the maxilla (1.56 mm, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.98, P < 0.00001) and the mandible (1.62 mm, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.01, P < 0.00001) but also in canine retraction in the implant anchorage group in both the maxilla (0.43 mm, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.69, P = 0.001) and the mandible (0.26 mm, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.49, P = 0.03). Conclusions There is very low-quality evidence showing that implant anchorage is more efficient than conventional anchorage during canine retraction. Additional high-quality studies are needed.

scholarly journals Intensity of Task-Specific Training for Functional Ability Post-stroke: Protocol for a Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rabiu Ibrahim ◽  
Isa Usman Lawal ◽  
Conran Joseph
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Specific Training ◽  
Medical Subject Headings ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Pubmed Search ◽  
Evidence Database

Abstract Background This study aimed to describe and present detailed protocol of a systematic review aimed at determining available research evidence regarding the intensity, and frequency of task-specific training ( TST ) that can best result in improved motor function and mobility outcomes in both upper and lower extremities in acute, sub-acute and chronic stroke survivors. Methods Literature search strategies were developed using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and text key words related to stroke rehabilitation and the use of TST to search for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (PubMed search engine), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Google Scholar were searched for eligible articles published from inception to date. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, selected appropriate abstract/studies and extracted relevant data as yielded by the search based on the study inclusion criteria. Assessment of the study risk of bias and quality of included studies were appraised using the Cochrane’s tool for assessing risk of bias or other appropriate tools. Discussion This paper presented the description of the systematic review methods, and it is expected to guide researchers in conducting systematic review in similar fields of research. Sources of literature search terms and reviewers have been determined. Systematic review registration The study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (130991)

scholarly journals Smartphone-Based Self-Monitoring, Treatment, and Automatically Generated Data in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults With Psychiatric Disorders: Systematic Review (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sigurd Melbye ◽  
Lars Vedel Kessing ◽  
Jakob Eyvind Bardram ◽  
Maria Faurholt-Jepsen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Young Adults ◽  
Psychiatric Disorders ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Smartphone App ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BACKGROUND Psychiatric disorders often have an onset at an early age, and early identification and intervention help improve prognosis. A fine-grained, unobtrusive, and effective way to monitor symptoms and level of function could help distinguish severe psychiatric health problems from normal behavior and potentially lead to a more efficient use of clinical resources in the current health care system. The use of smartphones to monitor and treat children, adolescents, and young adults with psychiatric disorders has been widely investigated. However, no systematic review concerning smartphone-based monitoring and treatment in this population has been published. OBJECTIVE This systematic review aims at describing the following 4 features of the eligible studies: (1) monitoring features such as self-assessment and automatically generated data, (2) treatment delivered by the app, (3) adherence to self-monitoring, and (4) results of the individual studies. METHODS We conducted a systematic literature search of the PubMed, Embase, and PsycInfo databases. We searched for studies that (1) included a smartphone app to collect self-monitoring data, a smartphone app to collect automatically generated smartphone-based data, or a smartphone-based system for treatment; (2) had participants who were diagnosed with psychiatric disorders or received treatment for a psychiatric disorder, which was verified by an external clinician; (3) had participants who were younger than 25 years; and (4) were published in a peer-reviewed journal. This systematic review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The risk of bias in each individual study was systematically assessed. RESULTS A total of 2546 unique studies were identified through literature search; 15 of these fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. These studies covered 8 different diagnostic groups: psychosis, eating disorders, depression, autism, self-harm, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicidal behavior. Smartphone-based self-monitoring was used in all but 1 study, and 11 of them reported on the participants’ adherence to self-monitoring. Most studies were feasibility/pilot studies, and all studies on feasibility reported positive attitudes toward the use of smartphones for self-monitoring. In 2 studies, automatically generated data were collected. Three studies were randomized controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of smartphone-based monitoring and treatment, with 2 of these showing a positive treatment effect. In 2 randomized controlled trials, the researchers were blinded for randomization, but the participants were not blinded in any of the studies. All studies were determined to be at high risk of bias in several areas. CONCLUSIONS Smartphones hold great potential as a modern, widely available technology platform to help diagnose, monitor, and treat psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents. However, a higher level of homogeneity and rigor among studies regarding their methodology and reporting of adherence would facilitate future reviews and meta-analyses.

scholarly journals Relationship between hormonal contraceptives and sleep among women of reproductive age: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e045819
Author(s):  
Jinhui Ma ◽  
Megan Cheng ◽  
Lehana Thabane ◽  
Caihong Ma ◽  
Ning Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Reproductive Age ◽  
Hormonal Contraceptives ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Women Of Reproductive Age

IntroductionThe aetiology of sleep disruptions is unknown, but hormonal fluctuations during the menstrual cycle, pregnancy and menopause have been shown to potentially affect how well a woman sleeps. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether hormonal contraceptives are associated with a decreased quality of sleep and increased sleep duration in women of reproductive age.MethodsThis review will analyse data from randomised controlled trials or non-randomised comparative studies investigating the association between hormonal contraceptives and sleep outcomes among women of reproductive age. Reviews addressing the same research question with similar eligibility criteria will be included. A literature search will be performed using the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to 7 March 2021. The Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias for Randomised Trials V.2.0 and The Risk of Bias for Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool will be used to assess risk of bias for each outcome in eligible studies. Two reviewers will independently assess eligibility of studies and risk of bias and extract the data. All extracted data will be presented in tables and narrative form. For sleep measures investigated by two or more studies with low heterogeneity, we will conduct random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the magnitude of the overall effect of hormonal contraceptives. If studies included in this systematic review form a connected network, a network meta-analysis will be conducted to estimate the comparative effect of different contraceptives. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach will be used to summarise the quality of evidence. Our protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 guidelines.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as data were sourced from previously reported studies. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020199958.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document