Implementation and impact of mobile health (mHealth) in the management of diabetes mellitus in Africa: a systematic review protocol

IntroductionThe WHO has proposed the concept of mobile health (mHealth) to support healthcare systems delivery worldwide. mHealth basically involves the use of Information and Communication Technology for healthcare provision or delivery services. Africa has seen a remarkable increase in mobile phone availability and usage in the last decade. The incidence and prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) in Africa have also been on the increase in the last decade, in sharp contrast to an ailing healthcare system. We aim to review the extent of implementation of mHealth in the management of DM in Africa, and estimate its impact in helping patients achieve desired glycaemic target, sustain control and prevent complications in the past decade.Methods and analysisStudies assessing the utilisation of mhealth in the management of patients with DM in Africa will be considered based on the PICO method: Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes. Medline, PubMed, SCOPUS and the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, among others will be searched. Two authors independent of each other shall screen titles and abstracts retrieved using the search strategy, retrieve the full text articles and assess them for eligibility and extract data. A third reviewing author will be brought in to resolve any disagreement between the two authors by discussion. The ‘Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool’ will be used to assess the quality of included studies. A narrative synthesis of extracted data and, where the characteristics of the eligible studies permit, a meta-analysis (which will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines) will be done.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval will be required since only published data will be used. Dissemination of results will be through peer reviewed publication and conference presentation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021218674.

Download Full-text

Outcomes of hyperglycaemia in pregnancy in Africa: systematic review study protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040921 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. e040921

Author(s):

Ezekiel Musa ◽

Tawanda Chivese ◽

Mahmoud Werfalli ◽

Mushi Matjila ◽

Shane A Norris ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Narrative Analysis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Published Data ◽

Metabolic Complication ◽

Ethical Approval ◽

Registration Number ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

In Pregnancy

IntroductionThe prevalence of diabetes mellitus globally has increased considerably over the past decades with a resultant increase in the incidence of diabetes-complicated pregnancies. Hyperglycaemia in pregnancy is the most common metabolic complication encountered during pregnancy and is associated with adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. This systematic review aims to examine maternal, fetal, neonatal, childhood and long-term maternal outcomes of hyperglycaemia in pregnancy in Africa.Methods and analysisA systematic review of all studies that investigated hyperglycaemia in pregnancy outcomes, carried out in Africa from 1998 to 2019. A comprehensive search of all published articles indexed in PubMed-MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase and Web of Science databases will be performed. Studies will be screened for eligibility by title, abstract and full text in duplicate by two independent reviewers. For data where meta-analysis is not possible, narrative analysis will be carried out using themes from data. For data where meta-analysis is possible, random effects meta-analysis will be conducted. This systematic review will be reported according to the Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this study considering this is a systematic review protocol that uses only published data. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184573.

Download Full-text

Simultaneous compared to interval administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for medical abortion up to 10+0 weeks' gestation: a systematic review with meta-analyses

BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health ◽

10.1136/bmjsrh-2019-200448 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. bmjsrh-2019-200448

Author(s):

Mia Schmidt-Hansen ◽

Jonathan Lord ◽

Elise Hasler ◽

Sharon Cameron

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Collaboration ◽

Medical Abortion ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Published Data ◽

Study Results ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

BackgroundMedical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol usually involves an interval of 36–48 hours between administering these drugs; however, it is possible that the clinical efficacy at early gestations may be maintained when the drugs are taken simultaneously. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the safety and effectiveness of simultaneous compared with interval administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for abortion up to 10+0 weeks’ gestation.MethodsWe searched Embase Classic, Embase; Ovid MEDLINE(R) including Daily, and Epub Ahead-of-Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; and Cochrane Library on 11 December 2019. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published in English from 1985, comparing simultaneous to interval administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for early abortion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration checklist for RCTs. Meta-analysis of risk ratios (RRs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method were performed. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.ResultsMeta-analyses of three RCTs (n=1280) showed no differences in ‘ongoing pregnancy’ (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 8.36), ‘haemorrhage requiring transfusion or ≥500 mL blood loss’ (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.03) and ‘incomplete abortion with the need for surgical intervention’ (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.25) between the interventions. Individual study results showed no difference in patient satisfaction, or ‘need for repeat misoprostol’, although ‘time to onset of bleeding or cramping’ was longer after simultaneous than interval administration. The quality of evidence was very low to moderate.ConclusionThe published data support the use of simultaneous mifepristone and misoprostol for medical abortion up to 9+0 weeks in women who prefer this method of administration.

Download Full-text

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

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034326 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

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

Insights into Imaging ◽

10.1186/s13244-020-00929-9 ◽

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

Download Full-text

Does pain influence force steadiness? A protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042525 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

pp. e042525

Author(s):

Michail Arvanitidis ◽

Deborah Falla ◽

Andy Sanderson ◽

Eduardo Martinez-Valdes

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Force Steadiness ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Ethical Approval ◽

Registration Number ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionPerforming contractions with minimum force fluctuations is essential for everyday life as reduced force steadiness impacts on the precision of voluntary movements and functional ability. Several studies have investigated the effect of experimental or clinical musculoskeletal pain on force steadiness but with conflicting findings. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the current literature to determine whether pain, whether it be clinical or experimental, influences force steadiness.Methods and analysisThis protocol for a systematic review was informed and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Key databases will be searched from inception to 31 August 2020, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, ZETOC and Web of Science. Grey literature and key journals will be also reviewed. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa tool, and the quality of the cumulative evidence assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. If homogeneity exists between groups of studies, meta-analysis will be conducted. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis approach and a vote-counting method will be used, while the results will be presented as net increases or decreases of force steadiness.Ethics and disseminationThe findings will be presented at conferences and the review will be also submitted for publication in a refereed journal. No ethical approval was required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020196479

Download Full-text

Risk of infection associated with intravenous iron preparations: protocol for updating a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024618 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (6) ◽

pp. e024618 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Akshay Shah ◽

Anita Sugavanam ◽

Jack Reid ◽

Antony J Palmer ◽

Edward Dickson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Intravenous Iron ◽

Cochrane Collaboration ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Evaluation Approach ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Ethical Approval ◽

Registration Number ◽

Randomised Controlled

IntroductionThe benefits and risk of intravenous iron have been documented in previous systematic reviews and continue to be the subject of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). An ongoing issue that continues to be raised is the relationship between administering iron and developing infection. This is supported by biological plausibility from animal models. We propose an update of a previously published systematic review and meta-analysis with the primary focus being infection.Methods and analysisWe will include RCTs and non-randomised studies (NRS) in this review update. We will search the relevant electronic databases. Two reviewers will independently extract data. Risk of bias for RCTs and NRS will be assessed using the relevant tools recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. Data extracted from RCTs and NRS will be analysed and reported separately. Pooled data from RCTs will be analysed using a random effects model. We will also conduct subgroup analyses to identify any patient populations that may be at increased risk of developing infection. We will provide a narrative synthesis on the definitions, sources and responsible pathogens for infection in the included studies. Overall quality of evidence on the safety outcomes of mortality and infection will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will only investigate published studies and therefore ethical approval is not required. The results will be broadly distributed through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberPROSPERO (CRD42018096023).

Download Full-text

Is sarcopenia associated with anxiety symptoms and disorders? A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054125 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (11) ◽

pp. e054125

Author(s):

Emma C West ◽

Lana J Williams ◽

Kayla B Corney ◽

Julie A Pasco

Keyword(s):

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Published Data ◽

Adverse Health Outcomes ◽

Study Selection ◽

Best Evidence Synthesis ◽

Ethical Approval ◽

Registration Number ◽

And Performance ◽

And Function

IntroductionSarcopenia is a skeletal muscle disorder characterised by a progressive decline in muscle mass and function (strength and performance). Sarcopenia is associated with numerous adverse health outcomes and has recently been linked to neurological and psychiatric disorders, including dementia and depression. Whether sarcopenia is related to other common psychiatric illnesses, such as anxiety, is unclear. We aim to systematically identify and review the extant literature regarding the association between sarcopenia and anxiety symptomatology and/or disorders (anxiety) in adults.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic search across four online databases (CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE Complete and PsycINFO) from inception to September 2021. Two reviewers will independently confirm study selection and assess methodological quality of included studies. If possible, a meta-analysis will be performed to determine pooled OR for the relationship between sarcopenia and anxiety. If meta-analysis is not possible due to methodological heterogeneity a ‘best evidence synthesis’ will be performed.Ethics and disseminationThis review will use published data only, thus, ethical approval will not be required. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020209420.

Download Full-text

Effect of leisure-time physical activity in controlling hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056270 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (12) ◽

pp. e056270

Author(s):

Md Shariful Islam ◽

Md Golam Rabbani ◽

Ammatul Fardousi ◽

Monaemul Islam Sizear ◽

KM Saif-Ur-Rahman

Keyword(s):

Physical Activity ◽

Blood Pressure ◽

Leisure Time ◽

Leisure Time Physical Activity ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Ethical Approval ◽

Registration Number ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionHypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. In 2015, over 1.13 billion individuals worldwide had hypertension. Globally, it results in 10.8 million deaths every year. Around half of the individuals do not continue treatment with medicine to control blood pressure. Physical activity, a non-pharmacological option of treatment, reduces blood pressure. We aim in this research to examine the effect of leisure-time physical activity in controlling blood pressure.Methods and analysisWe will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses to conduct this study. We will perform a systematic search in Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Physical Education Index (ProQuest) and CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library). Both experimental and observational studies will be included. The study population would be people with hypertension. Two reviewers will perform screening of the articles, bias assessment and data extraction independently. We will use the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools to assess the risk of bias. We will conduct a meta-analysis if it is applicable.Ethics and disseminationThe results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant scientific seminars and conferences. Ethical approval is not applicable.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021260751.

Download Full-text

Prior surgical uterine evacuation of pregnancy and infertility: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034837 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (7) ◽

pp. e034837

Author(s):

Pengcheng Tu ◽

Kaiyan Pei

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Published Data ◽

Inverse Variance ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Registration Number ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Classification Tool ◽

Dissemination Of Results

IntroductionPrior surgical uterine evacuation is associated with an increased risk of infertility. However, findings are inconsistent, highlighting the need for a clear consensus on the effect of prior surgical uterine evacuation on the risk of infertility. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to summarise the available evidence examining the association between prior surgical uterine evacuation and the risk of infertility.Methods and analysisA systematic search of electronic databases (ie, PubMed, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE and ScienceDirect) will be conducted since their inception until October 2019 with no limit for language using a detailed prespecified search strategy. Both the authors will independently screen titles and abstracts and select full-text articles, perform data extraction and appraise the quality of included studies using a bias classification tool. Meta-analyses will be performed to calculate the overall pooled estimates using the generic inverse variance method. This systematic review and meta-analysis will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.Ethics and disseminationGiven that this is a protocol based on published data, there is no requirement for ethics approval. It is anticipated that the dissemination of results will be reported according to the PRISMA statement. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019117266.

Download Full-text

Prevalence and determinants of anaemia in children aged6–59months in Africa: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032042 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (4) ◽

pp. e032042

Author(s):

Larissa Pone Simo ◽

Valirie Ndip Agbor ◽

Ettamba AgborNdip ◽

Domin Sone M Ekaney ◽

Emmanuel Njang Mbeng ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Low Income ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Random Effect ◽

Published Data ◽

Middle Income ◽

Middle Income Countries ◽

Backward Elimination ◽

Ethical Approval ◽

Negative Effect ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionAnaemia, especially in children aged <5 years, is a global health problem disproportionately affecting populations in low-income and middle-income countries. It is associated with high disability and death rates and has a negative effect on development. This study seeks to evaluate the prevalence and determinants of anaemia in children aged 6–59 months residing in Africa.Methods and analysisThis protocol was prepared using the 2015 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Protocols guidelines. Relevant citations will be identified by searching EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed, Global Medicus Index and African Journals Online from inception to 30 September 2019 with no language restrictions. Two authors will independently screen and select eligible studies for the review. Random-effect meta-analytic methods will be used to pool study-specific estimates and heterogeneity will be assessed and quantified using the χ2test on Cochrane’s Q and I2statistics, respectively. Publication bias will be evaluated using funnel plots and Egger’s test. Subgroup analysis and multiple meta-regression using backward elimination will be performed to investigate sources of substantial heterogeneity.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required for this study as it is based on already published data. The findings of the review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.

Download Full-text