scholarly journals Changes in gastric mucosal microbiota in gastric carcinogenesis: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e045810
Author(s):  
Ruoyu Ji ◽  
Xinyu Zhao ◽  
Xinyuan Cao ◽  
Yizhen Zhang ◽  
Yingyun Yang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Conference Proceedings ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Alpha Diversity ◽  
Gastric Carcinogenesis ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Quantitative Analyses

IntroductionThe human stomach is a complex and diverse microbial ecosystem. Consecutive alternations of gastric microbiota occur in gastric carcinogenesis, while the changing pattern during this process remains controversial across studies. We aim to identify the changes in the diversity and composition of gastric mucosal microbiota in gastric tumorigenesis.Methods and analysisWe will search through PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, as well as conference proceedings and references of review articles for observational articles reporting either the relative abundance of bacteria at the phylum or genus level or at least one of the alpha diversity indexes respectively and clearly in both gastric cancer and non-cancer groups. Selection of studies and data extraction will be performed independently by two researchers. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion. Risk of bias will be assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Quantitative analyses will be performed using a random effects model, where the effect measurement will be expressed as the MD.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this systematic review is not required, as the study is based exclusively on published documents and will not include any individual data. Findings of this study are expected to be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020206973.

scholarly journals Pharmacogenetics of Type 2 diabetes mellitus: A Systematic Review Protocol (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamid Reza Aghaei Meybodi ◽  
Negar Sarhangi ◽  
Anoosh Naghavi ◽  
Marzieh Rahbaran ◽  
Maryam Hassani Doabsari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale ◽  
Review Protocol

UNSTRUCTURED The objective of this systematic review is to determine the effect of genetic variants that associate with antidiabetic medications and their efficacy and toxicity in T2DM patients. The understanding may allow interventions for improving management of T2DM and later systematically evaluated in more in-depth studies. We will have performed a comprehensive search using PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Sciences and Cochrane database from 1990 to 2018. Relevant journals and references of all included studies will be hand searched to find the additional studied. Eligible studies such as pharmacogenetics studies in terms of drug response and toxicity in the type 2 diabetes patients and performed just on human will be included. Data extraction and quality assessment will be carried out by two independent reviewers and disagreements will be resolved through third expert reviewer. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized studies and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational Studies. Narrative synthesis will be conducted by the combination of key findings. The results of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication and also presented at PROSPERO. We expect this review will provide highly relevant information for clinicians, pharmaceutical industry that will benefit from the summary of the best available data regarding the efficacy of antidiabetic medication in the aspect of pharmacogenetics. PROSPERO Registration number (CRD42018104843)

scholarly journals What does my neighbourhood have to do with my weight? A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between neighbourhood socioeconomic status and body weight

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017567
Author(s):  
Shimels Hussien Mohammed ◽  
Mulugeta Molla Birhanu ◽  
Tesfamichael Awoke Sissay ◽  
Tesfa Dejenie Habtewold ◽  
Balewgizie Sileshi Tegegn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale ◽  
Neighbourhood Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Using Data

IntroductionIndividuals living in poor neighbourhoods are at a higher risk of overweight/obesity. There is no systematic review and meta-analysis study on the association of neighbourhood socioeconomic status (NSES) with overweight/obesity. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse the existing evidence on the association of NSES with overweight/obesity.Methods and analysisCross-sectional, case–control and cohort studies published in English from inception to 15 May 2017 will be systematically searched using the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Sciences and Google Scholar. Selection, screening, reviewing and data extraction will be done by two reviewers, independently and in duplicate. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) will be used to assess the quality of evidence. Publication bias will be checked by visual inspection of funnel plots and Egger’s regression test. Heterogeneity will be checked by Higgins’s method (I2statistics). Meta-analysis will be done to estimate the pooled OR. Narrative synthesis will be performed if meta-analysis is not feasible due to high heterogeneity of studies.Ethics and disseminationEthical clearance is not required as we will be using data from published articles. Findings will be communicated through a publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentations at professional conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017063889.

scholarly journals Global epidemiology of acute generalised peritonitis: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e034326
Author(s):  
Joel Noutakdie Tochie ◽  
Ndip Valirie Agbor ◽  
Tianyi Tianyi Frank Leonel ◽  
Aime Mbonda ◽  
Desmond Aji Abang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Case Fatality Rate ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Fatality ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Fatality Rate ◽  
Global Epidemiology ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionGlobally, acute generalised peritonitis (AGP) is a common medical and surgical emergency which is a major contributor to non-trauma deaths despite improvements in diagnosis and surgical and intensive care management. In order to determine the global burden of AGP, geared at tailoring key interventions to curb its morbidity and mortality, we proposed this first ever systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the contemporary prevalence, and to determine the most frequent AGP and the case fatality rate of AGP, at the global scene.Methods and analysisWe intend to searchAfricanJournalsOnline, Americana em Ciências da Saúde, Citation index, EMBASE, Global Index Medicus, Literatura Latino Africa Index Medicus, Medline and Scientific Electronic Library Online databases from 1 January 2009 to 31 July 2019 to identify studies that reported the prevalence, types of AGP, and case fatality rate of AGP in the global population without any language restrictions. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be conducted independently at each level by a pair of independent investigators. Random-effects meta-analysis will be used to pool studies judged to be clinically homogeneous. The presence of heterogeneity will be evaluated using the χ² test on Cochrane’s Q statistic and quantified with the I² statistics. Publication bias will be evaluated statistically and visually using the Egger’s test and funnel plots, respectively. Findings will be reported and compared by countries, WHO regions and globally.Ethics and disseminationSince this study will be based on published data, it does will not require an ethical approval. The findings will be published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal. They will also be presented at scientific conferences and to relevant public health actors.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019143331.

scholarly journals Use of metabolomics for predicting spontaneous preterm birth in asymptomatic pregnant women: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e026033 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renato T Souza ◽  
Rafael Bessa Galvão ◽  
Debora Farias Batista Leite ◽  
Renato Passini Jr ◽  
Philip Baker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Preterm Birth ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Spontaneous Preterm Birth ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Protocol

IntroductionPreterm birth (PTB) is the leading cause of neonatal mortality and short- and long-term morbidity. The aetiology and pathophysiology of spontaneous PTB (sPTB) are still unclear, which makes the identification of reliable and accurate predictor markers more difficult, particularly for unscreened or asymptomatic women. Metabolomics biomarkers have been demonstrated to be potentially accurate biomarkers for many disorders with complex mechanisms such as PTB. Therefore, we aim to perform a systematic review of metabolomics markers associated with sPTB. Our research question is ‘What is the performance of metabolomics for predicting spontaneous preterm birth in asymptomatic pregnant women?’Methods and analysisWe will focus on studies assessing metabolomics techniques for predicting sPTB in asymptomatic pregnant women. We will conduct a comprehensive systematic review of the literature from the last 10 years. Only observational cohort and case-control studies will be included. Our search strategy will be carried out by two independent reviewers, who will scan title and abstract before carrying out a full review of the article. The scientific databases to be explored include PubMed, MedLine, ScieLo, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science, Scopus and others.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review protocol does not require ethical approval. We intend to disseminate our findings in scientific peer-reviewed journal, the Preterm SAMBA study open access website, specialists’ conferences and to our funding agencies.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018100172.

scholarly journals Radiology artificial intelligence, a systematic evaluation of methods (RAISE): a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan Kelly ◽  
Conor Judge ◽  
Stephanie M. Bollard ◽  
Simon M. Clifford ◽  
Gerard M. Healy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Systematic Evaluation ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number

Abstract Introduction There has been a recent explosion of research into the field of artificial intelligence as applied to clinical radiology with the advent of highly accurate computer vision technology. These studies, however, vary significantly in design and quality. While recent guidelines have been established to advise on ethics, data management and the potential directions of future research, systematic reviews of the entire field are lacking. We aim to investigate the use of artificial intelligence as applied to radiology, to identify the clinical questions being asked, which methodological approaches are applied to these questions and trends in use over time. Methods and analysis We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and by the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. We will perform a literature search through MEDLINE (Pubmed), and EMBASE, a detailed data extraction of trial characteristics and a narrative synthesis of the data. There will be no language restrictions. We will take a task-centred approach rather than focusing on modality or clinical subspecialty. Sub-group analysis will be performed by segmentation tasks, identification tasks, classification tasks, pegression/prediction tasks as well as a sub-analysis for paediatric patients. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval will not be required for this study, as data will be obtained from publicly available clinical trials. We will disseminate our results in a peer-reviewed publication. Registration number PROSPERO: CRD42020154790

scholarly journals Barriers towards organ donor registration and consent among people of Indian origin living globally: a systematic review and integrative synthesis—protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e035360
Author(s):  
Britzer Paul Vincent ◽  
Gurch Randhawa ◽  
Erica Cook
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Organ Donor ◽  
Indian Origin ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
End Stage

IntroductionThe need for organs is comparatively higher among people of Indian origin due to the higher prevalence of end-stage organ failure. In spite of the higher need, they have a lower number of organ donors. Studies have been carried out among people of Indian origin living globally to understand the reasons for the low donation rate, but there has been no systematic review that has integrated all of these studies to synthesise the current literature. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to examine the barriers towards organ donor registration and consent among Indians living globally.Methods and analysisA systematic search will be conducted using the following relevant databases namely CINHAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed Central, Global Health and Grey literature. Studies from 1994 that satisfy our inclusion criteria will be included. Two reviewers will conduct the screening, data extraction and quality assessment of the studies; in event of any disagreement between the two reviewers at any stage, the third reviewer will reconcile any disagreements and consensus will be made.Ethics and disseminationAs this study includes only secondary data, ethical approval for secondary data usage has been sought. This study will use Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines to report and the study outcomes will be disseminated through a relevant peer-review publication, related conferences and also to various non-governmental organisations globally which are working with this particular community; following which further research can be developed based on this evidence and also helps in building a culturally competent strategy.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019155274.

scholarly journals Accuracy of potential diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e038994
Author(s):  
Martha Maria Christine Elwenspoek ◽  
Joni Jackson ◽  
Sarah Dawson ◽  
Hazel Everitt ◽  
Peter Gillett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Coeliac Disease ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Finding ◽  
Endoscopic Biopsy ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionCoeliac disease (CD) is a systemic immune-mediated disorder triggered by gluten in genetically predisposed individuals. CD is diagnosed using a combination of serology tests and endoscopic biopsy of the small intestine. However, because of non-specific symptoms and heterogeneous clinical presentation, diagnosing CD is challenging. Early detection of CD through improved case-finding strategies can improve the response to a gluten-free diet, patients’ quality of life and potentially reduce the risk of complications. However, there is a lack of consensus in which groups may benefit from active case-finding.Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic review to determine the accuracy of diagnostic indicators (such as symptoms and risk factors) for CD in adults and children, and thus can help identify patients who should be offered CD testing. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science will be searched from 1997 until 2020. Screening will be performed in duplicate. Data extraction will be performed by one and checked by a second reviewer. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or referral to a third reviewer. We will produce a narrative summary of identified prediction models. Studies, where 2×2 data can be extracted or reconstructed, will be treated as diagnostic accuracy studies, that is, the diagnostic indicators are the index tests and CD serology and/or biopsy is the reference standard. For each diagnostic indicator, we will perform a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of the sensitivity and specificity.Ethics and disseminationResults will be reported in peer-reviewed journals, academic and public presentations and social media. We will convene an implementation panel to advise on the optimum strategy for enhanced dissemination. We will discuss findings with Coeliac UK to help with dissemination to patients. Ethical approval is not applicable, as this is a systematic review and no research participants will be involved.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020170766.

scholarly journals Cancer and suicidal ideation and behaviours: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e020463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raffaella Calati ◽  
Fang Fang ◽  
Elizabeth Mostofsky ◽  
Qing Shen ◽  
Valentina Elisabetta Di Mattei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Suicidal Ideation ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Study Heterogeneity ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale

IntroductionPrevalence of suicidal ideation (SI) and behaviours are higher among patients with cancer than general population. No systematic review/meta-analysis investigated this topic; therefore, our aim will be to assess the relationship between cancer and SI and behaviours.MethodsWe will search PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library databases from their inception until 30 June 2018. Case–control and cohort studies focused on the association between cancer (any type) and suicidal outcomes (suicide, suicide attempt and SI) will be included. Two team members will independently: (A) perform the selection of the included studies and data extraction, with the supervision of a third member in case of discrepancies and (B) assess each study with: (1) Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS); (2) Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement; (3) Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We will conduct a random-effects meta-analysis. Individual and pooled ORs and associated 95% CIs will be calculated as well as between-study heterogeneity. We will examine the potential for publication bias. If possible, we will explore reasons for potential between-study heterogeneity.Ethics and disseminationThis study does not require ethical approval. The study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, will be publicly disseminated and will be the topic of research presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017072482.

scholarly journals Epidemiology of placenta previa accreta: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e031193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Jauniaux ◽  
Lene Grønbeck ◽  
Catey Bunce ◽  
Jens Langhoff-Roos ◽  
Sally L Collins
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Placenta Previa ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale ◽  
Placenta Accreta Spectrum ◽  
Obstetric Population ◽  
Ottawa Scale

ObjectiveTo estimate the prevalence and incidence of placenta previa complicated by placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) and to examine the different criteria being used for the diagnosis.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov and MEDLINE were searched between August 1982 and September 2018.Eligibility criteriaStudies reporting on placenta previa complicated by PAS diagnosed in a defined obstetric population.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers performed the data extraction using a predefined protocol and assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies, with difference agreed by consensus. The primary outcomes were overall prevalence of placenta previa, incidence of PAS according to the type of placenta previa and the reported clinical outcomes, including the number of peripartum hysterectomies and direct maternal mortality. The secondary outcomes included the criteria used for the prenatal ultrasound diagnosis of placenta previa and the criteria used to diagnose and grade PAS at birth.ResultsA total of 258 articles were reviewed and 13 retrospective and 7 prospective studies were included in the analysis, which reported on 587 women with placenta previa and PAS. The meta-analysis indicated a significant (p<0.001) heterogeneity between study estimates for the prevalence of placenta previa, the prevalence of placenta previa with PAS and the incidence of PAS in the placenta previa cohort. The median prevalence of placenta previa was 0.56% (IQR 0.39–1.24) whereas the median prevalence of placenta previa with PAS was 0.07% (IQR 0.05–0.16). The incidence of PAS in women with a placenta previa was 11.10% (IQR 7.65–17.35).ConclusionsThe high heterogeneity in qualitative and diagnostic data between studies emphasises the need to implement standardised protocols for the diagnoses of both placenta previa and PAS, including the type of placenta previa and grade of villous invasiveness.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017068589

scholarly journals Infection-associated biofilms and statins: protocol for systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e046290
Author(s):  
Dora Yesenia Valencia ◽  
Magdiel Habila ◽  
D Jean McClelland ◽  
Abraham Degarege ◽  
Purnima Madhivanan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Yield ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Medical Librarian ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Protocol

IntroductionOwing to their propensity for being associated with infections, biofilms have become a focus in infectious disease research. There is evidence suggesting that statins, which are commonly used for prevention of cardiovascular disease, may prevent biofilm-associated infections, but this association has not been well-understood.Methods and analysisThis systematic review protocol will include six database searches from their inception to 20 August 2020. A medical librarian will conduct the searches in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, LILACS and CENTRAL, without any limits. Bibliographies of selected articles, previously published reviews and high-yield journals that publish on statins and/or biofilms will be searched to identify additional articles. The screening and data extraction will be conducted by two independent reviewers using DistillerSR. All included papers will also be evaluated for quality using Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment tool, and we will examine for publication bias. If there are two or more studies with quantitative estimates that can be combined, we will conduct a meta-analysis after assessing for heterogeneity. We will report all findings according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Analyses-P framework.Ethics and disseminationThere are conflicting results on the effect of statins on biofilm-associated infections. The rise of antibiotic resistance in medical settings warrants a deeper understanding of this association, especially if statins can be used as a novel antibiotic. The findings of this review will assess the association between statin use and biofilm-associated infection to inform future medical practice. No formal ethical review is required for this protocol. All findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020193985.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document