scholarly journals Buteyko method for people with asthma: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e049213
Author(s):  
Karla Morganna Pereira Pinto de Mendonça ◽  
Sean Collins ◽  
Tácito ZM Santos ◽  
Gabriela Chaves ◽  
Sarah Leite ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionButeyko method is recommended as a non-pharmacological treatment for people with asthma. Although the worldwide interest in the Buteyko method, there is a paucity of studies gathering evidence to support its use. Therefore, we aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of the Buteyko method in children and adults with asthma.Methods and analysisWe will search on Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for studies focusing on the Buteyko method for children and adults with asthma. The searches will be carried out in September 2021 from database’s inception to the present. We will include randomised controlled trials comparing Buteyko method alone with asthma education or inactive control intervention. There will be no restriction on language. Primary outcomes include quality of life, asthma symptoms and adverse events/side effects. Two review authors will independently screen the studies for inclusion and extract data. We will assess the quality of the included studies using the ‘Risk of Bias’ tool. The certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach. Data synthesis will be conducted using Review Manager software. Reporting of the review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.Ethics and disseminationThis study will assess and provide evidence for the use of the Buteyko method in people with asthma. We will analyse secondary data and this does not require ethics approval. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, at relevant conferences and will be shared in plain language in social media. Moreover, the findings of this review could guide the direction of healthcare practice and research.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020193132.

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 eHealth interventions for reducing cardiovascular disease risk in men: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Mcmahon ◽  
DR Thompson ◽  
MC Pascoe ◽  
K Brazil ◽  
CF Ski
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Behavior Change ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Database Search ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Cvd Risk ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): Department for the Economy (DfE) studentships Background. Men remain at a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) than women and behavioral risk factor modification is an important preventive measure. However, engaging men in behavior change interventions is challenging. eHealth interventions have the potential to address this gap, though their effectiveness for reducing CVD risk in men is unclear. Purpose. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of eHealth interventions for reducing CVD risk in men. Methods. This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and principles laid out by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A search of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with no date restrictions up to July 2020 was conducted across five electronic databases: Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and SCOPUS. Reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses were manually searched for additional trials not identified during the database search. Eligible studies were RCTs that focused on the use of eHealth to improve a minimum of two major CVD related risk factors in males aged 18 years or older. Results. A total of 3168 records were retrieved from the online database search, with nine trials meeting the inclusion criteria following screening and full-text assessment. Study quality ranged from low to unclear, with one trial at a high risk of bias. Compared to those in a control group or receiving printed materials, participants randomised to an eHealth intervention had statistically significant improvements in BMI (Z=-2.75, p = 0.01), body weight (Z=-3.25, p = 0.01), waist circumference (Z=-2.30, p = 0.02) and systolic (Z=-3.57, p = 0.01) and diastolic (Z=-3.56, p = 0.01) blood pressure. Though less evident, there were also improvements in physical activity and diet in favour of the intervention group. Conclusion. This was the first systematic review and meta-analysis conducted on the effectiveness of eHealth interventions for reducing CVD risk in men. This review suggests that eHealth interventions can reduce CVD risk in adult men through behavior change. However, we were unable to determine the association between intervention characteristics and outcomes. Also, overall, participant adherence to the intervention was poor. Both of these issues should be considered in future studies.

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 Efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017868
Author(s):  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
Sheyu Li ◽  
Wan-Jie Gu ◽  
Hao Chen ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Coronary Revascularisation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Collection Form ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.

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.

scholarly journals Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of respiratory rehabilitation following intensive care unit discharge for COVID-19 survivors

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e041184
Author(s):  
Dan Wang ◽  
Jin Li ◽  
Feilong Zhu ◽  
Qianqin Hong ◽  
Ming Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Respiratory Rehabilitation

IntroductionBoth physical and mental disorders may be exacerbated in patients with COVID-19 due to the experience of receiving intensive care; undergoing prolonged mechanical ventilation, sedation, proning and paralysis. Pulmonary rehabilitation is aimed to improve dyspnoea, relieve anxiety and depression, reduce the incidence of related complications, as well as prevent and improve dysfunction. However, the impact of respiratory rehabilitation on discharged patients with COVID-19 is currently unclear, especially on patients who have been mechanically ventilated over 24 hours. Therefore, we aim to investigate the efficacy of respiratory rehabilitation programmes, initiated after discharge from the intensive care unit, on the physical and mental health and health-related quality of life in critical patients with COVID-19.Methods and analysisWe have registered the protocol on PROSPERO and in the process of drafting it, we strictly followed the checklist of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Potocols. We will search the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang, VIP information databases and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Additionally, ongoing trials in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov and ISRCTN registry will be searched as well. Studies in English or Chinese and from any country will be accepted regardless of study design. Two review authors will independently extract data and assess the quality of included studies. Continuous data are described as standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs. Dichotomous data from randomised controlled trials are described as risk ratio(RR) with 95% CIs; otherwise, it is described as odds ratio(OR) with 95% CIs. I2 and the Cochrane’s Q statistic will be used to conduct heterogeneity assessment. The quality of evidence of main outcomes will be evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE) criteria. When included studies are sufficient, we will conduct subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis; the publication bias will be statistically analysed using a funnel plot analysis and Egger’s test.Ethics and disseminationOur review, planning to include published studies, does not need the request to the ethical committee. The final results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal after completion.Patient and public involvementNo patient involved.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020186791.

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

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.

scholarly journals Interventions to facilitate return to work in adults with chronic non-malignant pain: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e040962
Author(s):  
Mathilda Björk ◽  
Björn Gerdle ◽  
Gunilla Liedberg ◽  
Frida Svanholm ◽  
Marco Solmi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Analysis Tool ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Private Patient

IntroductionWork absenteeism due to chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP) is a major societal and individual cause of concern that requires effective treatments.ObjectiveWe present a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aiming to compare available interventions for return to work (RTW) in adults with CNMP.Methods and analysisPubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases will be searched till 31 August 2020 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining interventions for RTW outcomes among patients with CNMP. Two independent investigators will search the databases, perform data extraction and assess the methodological quality of the selected RCTs. The primary outcome will be RTW, if possible, full-time or part-time after work absence due to chronic pain from baseline to the last available follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include self-reported workability or work capacity, or self-reported physical functioning and quality of life as measured by any validated scale. Pairwise meta-analysis and NMA will be conducted for each outcome using a random-effects model. For the primary outcomes, we will also obtain the ranking of all competing interventions within each NMA using surface under the cumulative ranking curve. The assumption of coherence (ie, that direct and indirect evidence are in statistical agreement) will be examined using both a local and a global approach. We will also conduct subgroup and meta-regression analyses, whenever feasible, to investigate the unexplained variation in effect size. The comparison-adjusted funnel plot will be used to evaluate small-study effects. The overall quality of evidence will be rated with the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis tool. Data analysis will be conducted using Stata V.16.0.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review does not require ethical approval since it will not disseminate any private patient data. The results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020171429.

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Spine Surgery—How Good Are They in Methodological Quality? A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muthu Sathish ◽  
Ramakrishnan Eswar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Critical Flaw ◽  
Meta Analyses

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria. Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document