scholarly journals Influence of childhood trauma on the treatment outcomes of pharmacological and/or psychological interventions for adolescents and adults with bipolar disorder: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e044569
Author(s):  
Anna Wrobel ◽  
Samantha E Russell ◽  
Olivia M Dean ◽  
Sue Cotton ◽  
Michael Berk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bipolar Disorder ◽  
Treatment Outcomes ◽  
Childhood Trauma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Psychological Interventions ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Adolescents And Adults ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale

IntroductionDespite available pharmacological and psychological treatments, remission rates for bipolar disorder remain relatively low. Current research implicates the experience of childhood trauma as a potential moderator of poor treatment outcomes among individuals with bipolar disorder. To date, the evidence reporting the influence of childhood trauma on the treatment outcomes of pharmacological and/or psychological interventions for adolescents and adults with bipolar disorder has not been systematically reviewed.Method and analysisMEDLINE Complete, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched to identify randomised and nonrandomised studies of pharmacological and/or psychological interventions for bipolar disorder, which also assessed childhood trauma. To be eligible for inclusion, studies must have been conducted with adolescents or adults (≥10 years). Data will be screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. If deemed viable, a meta-analysis will be conducted using a random effects model. Heterogeneity of evidence will be estimated with the I² statistics.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will use only previously published data. Therefore, ethical approval is not required. The results will be written in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines, published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020201891.

scholarly journals Psychological interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain: protocol of a systematic review with network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e034996
Author(s):  
Emma Ho ◽  
Manuela Ferreira ◽  
Lingxiao Chen ◽  
Milena Simic ◽  
Claire Ashton-James ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Psychological Interventions ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Fear Avoidance

IntroductionPsychological factors such as fear avoidance beliefs, depression, anxiety, catastrophic thinking and familial and social stress, have been associated with high disability levels in people with chronic low back pain (LBP). Guidelines endorse the integration of psychological interventions in the management of chronic LBP. However, uncertainty surrounds the comparative effectiveness of different psychological approaches. Network meta-analysis (NMA) allows comparison and ranking of numerous competing interventions for a given outcome of interest. Therefore, we will perform a systematic review with a NMA to determine which type of psychological intervention is most effective for adults with chronic non-specific LBP.Methods and analysisWe will search electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, SCOPUS and CINAHL) from inception until 22 August 2019 for randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions to any comparison interventions in adults with chronic non-specific LBP. There will be no restriction on language. The primary outcomes will include physical function and pain intensity, and secondary outcomes will include health-related quality of life, fear avoidance, intervention compliance and safety. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) tool and confidence in the evidence will be assessed using the Confidence in NMA (CINeMA) framework. We will conduct a random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach to estimate relative effects for all comparisons between treatments and rank treatments according to the mean rank and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. All analyses will be performed in Stata.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required. The research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019138074.

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.

scholarly journals Psychological interventions for coronary heart disease: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 247-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne H Richards ◽  
Lindsey Anderson ◽  
Caroline E Jenkinson ◽  
Ben Whalley ◽  
Karen Rees ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Coronary Heart Disease ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Psychological Interventions ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Considerable Uncertainty

Background Although psychological interventions are recommended for the management of coronary heart disease (CHD), there remains considerable uncertainty regarding their effectiveness. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions for CHD. Methods The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched to April 2016. Retrieved papers, systematic reviews and trial registries were hand-searched. We included RCTs with at least 6 months of follow-up, comparing the direct effects of psychological interventions to usual care for patients following myocardial infarction or revascularisation or with a diagnosis of angina pectoris or CHD defined by angiography. Two authors screened titles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Studies were pooled using random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression was used to explore study-level predictors. Results Thirty-five studies with 10,703 participants (median follow-up 12 months) were included. Psychological interventions led to a reduction in cardiovascular mortality (rfcelative risk 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63 to 0.98), although no effects were observed for total mortality, myocardial infarction or revascularisation. Psychological interventions improved depressive symptoms (standardised mean difference [SMD] –0.27, 95% CI –0.39 to –0.15), anxiety (SMD –0.24, 95% CI –0.38 to –0.09) and stress (SMD –0.56, 95% CI –0.88 to –0.24) compared with controls. Conclusions We found that psychological intervention improved psychological symptoms and reduced cardiac mortality for people with CHD. However, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding the magnitude of these effects and the specific techniques most likely to benefit people with different presentations of CHD.

scholarly journals Impact of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) on pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e039933
Author(s):  
Kleyton Santos Medeiros ◽  
Ayane Cristine Alves Sarmento ◽  
Erico Silva Martins ◽  
Ana Paula Ferreira Costa ◽  
José Eleutério Jr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has been growing at an accelerating rate, and has become a public health emergency. Pregnant women and their fetuses are susceptible to viral infection, and outcomes in this population need to be investigated.Methods and analysisPubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHAL, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, clinicaltrials.gov, SCOPUS, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central Controlled Trials Registry will be searched for observational studies (cohort and control cases) published from December 2019 to present. This systematic review and meta-analysis will include studies of pregnant women at any gestational stage diagnosed with COVID-19. The primary outcomes will be maternal and foetal morbidity and mortality. Three independent reviewers will select the studies and extract data from the original publications. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. To evaluate the strength of evidence from the included data, we will use Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method. Data synthesis will be performed using Review Manager software V.5.2.3. To assess heterogeneity, we will compute the I2 statistics. Additionally, a quantitative synthesis will be performed if the included studies are sufficiently homogenous.Ethics and disseminationThis study will be a review of the published data, and thus it is not necessary to obtain ethical approval. The findings of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberPROSPERO 2020: CRD42020181519.

scholarly journals Clinical outcome of bonded partial indirect posterior restorations on vital and non-vital teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Dioguardi ◽  
Mario Alovisi ◽  
Giuseppe Troiano ◽  
Carlo Vito Alberto Caponio ◽  
Andrea Baldi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Endodontically Treated Teeth ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale

Abstract Objectives The survival rate of indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital versus endodontically treated teeth is still controversial. The hypothesis is that there may be a difference in the survival rate of partial adhesive restorations performed on non-vital teeth compared to vital teeth. Materials and methods This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The considered clinical studies investigated the outcomes of adhesive inlays, onlays, and overlays conducted over the past 40 years, focusing on Kaplan–Meier survival curves to calculate the hazard ratio (primary objective) and the survival rate (secondary objective) between vital and non-vital teeth. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Studies included in the review were identified through bibliographic research on electronic databases (“PubMed,” “Scopus,” “Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial,” and “Embase”). The K agreement between the two screening reviewers was evaluated. Results A total of 55,793 records were identified on PubMed, Scopus, and other bibliographic sources, and after the application of the eligibility and inclusion criteria, eight articles were included for qualitative analysis and six for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis of the primary and secondary outcomes demonstrated that hazard ratios (HR = 8.41, 95% CI: [4.50, 15.72]) and survival rates (OR = 3.24, 95% CI: [1.76, 5.82]) seemed more favorable for indirect partial adhesive restorations on vital teeth than for those on endodontically treated teeth. Conclusions Within the limits of this study, these findings suggest that the risk of failure of indirect partial adhesive restorations on endodontically treated teeth is higher than on vital teeth. Clinical relevance The use of partial adhesive restorations on vital and endodontically treated teeth showed different long-term clinical outcomes.

scholarly journals Nutraceuticals and nutritional supplements for the treatment of bipolar disorder: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e025640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie M Ashton ◽  
Michael Berk ◽  
Chee H Ng ◽  
Malcolm Hopwood ◽  
Bianca Kavanagh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bipolar Disorder ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Search Terms

IntroductionFirst line pharmacological treatments for bipolar disorder (BD) can leave shortfalls in recovery leading to patients seeking alternative and adjunctive treatments such as nutraceuticals. This protocol for a systematic review and proposed meta-analysis aims to answer the research question: in patients with BD, how does use of nutraceutical treatments compare with placebo in reducing depressive and mania symptoms?Methods and analysisClinical trials will be identified through database searches using PubMed via PubMed, EMBASE via embase.com, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) via cochranelibrary.com and CINAHL Complete via EBSCO. Search terms for BD and specific nutraceuticals (75 total search terms) will be used. Double-blind, randomised, controlled, clinical trials of adults with BD will be included in the review. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.Ethics and disseminationThis review will only look at published data (already reviewed for ethical compliance); therefore, ethical approval is not required. We aim to publish the systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal and present at conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019100745.

scholarly journals Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of patients with macrolide-resistant Mycobacterium avium complex pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Youngmok Park ◽  
Eun Hye Lee ◽  
Inkyung Jung ◽  
Goeun Park ◽  
Young Ae Kang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Outcomes ◽  
Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Surgical Resection ◽  
Mycobacterium Avium ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale

Abstract Background Macrolide is a key drug in the treatment of Mycobacterium avium complex pulmonary disease (MAC-PD). Macrolide-resistant MAC is gaining importance, but there are little data in clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of macrolide-resistant MAC-PD (MR-MAC-PD). Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies reporting clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of patients with MR-MAC-PD. Risk of bias was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results Nine studies (seven retrospective and two prospective) comprising 319 patients were identified through a database search. Around 73% were women, and 52% had the fibrocavitary form. Pooled sputum culture conversion rate after combined multiple antibiotics or surgical resection was 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14–30%), and the one-year all-cause mortality was 10% (95% CI, 5–20%). There was no significant difference in treatment outcomes between nodular bronchiectatic and fibrocavitary types. Conclusions Even combination therapy with fluoroquinolone, aminoglycoside, and surgical resection, the treatment outcomes of MR-MAC-PD were poor. The investigation of new treatment modalities is urgent.

scholarly journals Non-pharmacological interventions for treating sexual dysfunction in postpartum women: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e028660
Author(s):  
Michelly Nóbrega Monteiro ◽  
Kleyton Santos Medeiros ◽  
Iaponira Vidal ◽  
Ivete Matias ◽  
Ricardo Ney Cobucci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sexual Dysfunction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Sexual Problems ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Postpartum Women ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions

IntroductionSexual dysfunction in the postpartum period is a very common and relevant clinical problem, which has a significant adverse impact on the health of women. We aim to analyse the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for treating sexual dysfunction in postpartum women. Our review aims to provide accurate data for effective policy-making and improve our understanding of the treatment of postpartum sexual dysfunction with non-pharmacological therapies.Methods and analysisThe Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, Medline/PubMed, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), LILACS (Literatura Latino-americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde) and Embase will be used to search for articles dated from database inception to July 2019. Randomised controlled clinical trials and large prospective cohorts with control groups using non-pharmacological treatments for sexual dysfunction in postpartum women will be included. Sexual problems are directly linked to sexual dysfunction; thus, the primary outcome will be the absolute number or percentage of sexual issues in each treatment group. The secondary outcomes will be assessed by decreased sexual problems, such as lack of lubrication, decreased libido and difficulty reaching orgasm. Three reviewers will independently select trials and extract data from the original publications. The citations will be screened independently by reviewers in duplicate. The risk of bias of the included studies will be assessed according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data synthesis will be performed using Review Manager (RevMan) software V.5.2.3. In the event that a meta-analysis is possible, we will assess the heterogeneity across the studies by computing the I2statistic.Ethics and disseminationAs the design of this study includes a review of published data, the need to obtain ethical approval was waived by our institutional review committee. We intend to publish the findings of this systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018103077.

scholarly journals Clinical and socioeconomic characteristics of older adults with COVID-19: A protocol for a rapid systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (suppl 2) ◽  
pp. 118-123
Author(s):  
Maycon Sousa Pegorari ◽  
Areolino Pena Matos ◽  
Natalia Camargo Rodrigues Iosimuta ◽  
Vânia Tie Koga Ferreira ◽  
Daniela Gonçalves Ohara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Socioeconomic Characteristics ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Treatment Information ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale

SUMMARY The aim of this rapid systematic review is to analyze the prevalence of clinical, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics, laboratory and imaging findings, diagnostic tests, and treatment information of older adults with COVID-19. To conduct this systematic review, the Cochrane Handbook recommendations will be followed. Patients aged 60 years or older with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection will be included. A comprehensive literature search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Spanish Bibliographic Index on Health Sciences (IBECS) and Epistemonikos COVID-19 L·OVE platform. No language restrictions will be applied. To assess the methodological quality of the included studies and the certainty of the evidence, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used. The meta-analysis will be performed using R software. We believe this rapid systematic review will be able to summarize the currently available evidence on clinical, socioeconomic characteristics, and management of COVID-19 in older adults. Therefore, it will help implement adequate strategies to fight the pandemic and assist in understanding the clinical profile of older patients with COVID-19, providing data with due scientific support upon which to base future choices of procedures and interventions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document