scholarly journals Comprehensive geriatric assessment in perioperative care: a protocol for a systematic review and qualitative synthesis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e049875
Author(s):  
Rachael Lucia Miller ◽  
Jonathan David Barnes ◽  
Ronelle Mouton ◽  
Philip Braude ◽  
Robert Hinchliffe
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Geriatric Assessment ◽  
Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Care Facility ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionComprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is an intervention that has been deployed in the perioperative setting with the aim to improve outcomes for older patients admitted to hospital. Older patients undergoing surgery are more likely to have postoperative complications, a longer hospital stay and be discharged to a care facility. Despite the increasing application of this intervention within surgical services, the evidence for CGA remains limited in this group. The aim of this systematic review is to describe CGA as in intervention applied to surgical populations in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as well as the outcomes assessed.Methods and analysisA systematic search of RCTs of CGA in surgery will be run in Embase, Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and Cochrane library. Further articles will be identified from reference lists in relevant studies found in the search. A narrative synthesis will be undertaken outlining specialties included, detailed descriptions of the intervention and outcomes.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required. The results of this review will be published and used as the basis of work to optimise this intervention for future trials in surgical populations.PROSPERO registration numberThis review is registered with PROSPERO CRD42020221797.

scholarly journals Use of tracking technology to examine life-space mobility among people with depression: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e034208
Author(s):  
Man Hon Chung ◽  
Sau Fong Leung ◽  
Maritta Välimäki
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Depressive Disorders ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Life Space ◽  
Electronic Data Collection ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionPeople with depression often experience disabilities that limit their social and physical capacity, daily function, and quality of life. Depressive symptoms and their implications on daily activities are often measured retrospectively using subjective measurement tools. Recently, more objective and accurate electronic data collection methods have been used to describe the daily life of people with depressive disorders. The results, however, have not yet been systematically reviewed. We aim to provide a knowledge basis for the use of tracking technologies in examining life-space mobility among adults with depression and those with anxiety as a comorbidity.Methods and analysisA systematic review with a narrative approach for different types of study design will be conducted. The following databases will be used to gather data from 1994 to the present: MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, Health Technology Assessment Database and IEEE Xplore. The study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Methodological appraisal of studies will be performed using the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool as well as the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for randomised controlled trials. A narrative synthesis of all included studies will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationBecause there will be no human involvement in the actual systematic review, no ethical approval will be required. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and in a conference presentation.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019127102.

scholarly journals Pulmonary rehabilitation for pneumoconiosis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e025891 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hulei Zhao ◽  
Yang Xie ◽  
Jiajia Wang ◽  
Xuanlin Li ◽  
Jiansheng Li
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pulmonary Rehabilitation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Diffuse Fibrosis ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
St George's Respiratory Questionnaire ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionPneumoconiosis is characterised by diffuse fibrosis in lung tissue, and its incidence is on the rise. At present, there are limited therapeutic options for pneumoconiosis. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) has been widely used to treat pneumoconiosis，however, there is limited evidence concerning its efficacy. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review to investigate the efficacy and safety of PR for pneumoconiosis.Methods and analysisThe following databases will be searched from their inception to 1 April 2019: PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP and Wanfang Data. Randomised controlled trials of PR for pneumoconiosis will be included. Primary outcomes will include 6 min walk distance and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire. Study selection, extraction of data and assessment of study quality each will be independently undertaken. Statistical analysis will be conducted using Review Manager software.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will provide up-to-date information on PR for pneumoconiosis. The review does not require ethical approval and will be disseminated electronically through a peer-reviewed publication or conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018095266.

scholarly journals Burden of tinea capitis among children in Africa: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies, 1990–2020

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e041230
Author(s):  
Felix Bongomin ◽  
Ronald Olum ◽  
Lauryn Nsenga ◽  
Joseph Baruch Baluku
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Tinea Capitis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Trend Test ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionTinea capitis is the most common form of dermatophytosis among children, contributing significantly to the global burden of skin and hair infections. However, an accurate account of its burden in Africa, where most cases are thought to occur, is lacking. We aim to systematically evaluate the burden, aetiology and epidemiological trend of tinea capitis among children over a 30-year period in Africa.Methods and analysisA systematic review will be conducted using Embase, PubMed, African Journals Online, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Review. These resources will be used to identify studies published between 1990 and December 2020, which report the prevalence, aetiology and trend of tinea capitis among children younger than 18 years in Africa. Articles in English and French will be considered. Two independent reviewers will screen the articles for eligibility, and any discrepancies will be resolved by discussion and consensus between the authors. Methodological quality of all studies will be assessed and critically appraised. We will perform a metaregression to assess the impact of study characteristics on heterogeneity and also to correct the meta-analytical estimates for biases. A qualitative synthesis will be performed, and STATA V.16.0 software will be used to estimate the pooled prevalence and aetiology of tinea capitis. The Mann-Kendall trend test will be use to evaluate the trend in the prevalence of tinea capitis over the study period.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval from an institutional review board or research ethics committee is not required for this systematic review and meta-analysis. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented in conferences.

scholarly journals Prognostic factors for recovery and non-recovery in patients with non-specific neck pain: a protocol for a systematic literature review

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. e023356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucia Domingues ◽  
Eduardo B Cruz ◽  
Fernando M Pimentel-Santos ◽  
Sofia Ramiro ◽  
Helena Donato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Full Text Review ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Significant Disability ◽  
Review Question

IntroductionNeck pain is a common musculoskeletal disorder worldwide. It can result in significant disability and impaired quality of life. More than 50% of patients with neck pain still report symptoms 1 year later despite receiving different forms of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment. Identifying patient characteristics that are modifiable or predict recovery and non-recovery for an individual patient might identify ways of improving outcomes. This systematic review aims to comprehensively summarise the existing evidence regarding baseline patient characteristics associated with recovery and non-recovery, as defined by measures of pain intensity, disability and global perceived improvement.Methods and analysisSix electronic databases, PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro Database, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science, will be searched, with terms related to the review question such as neck pain, prognostic or predictive research, from inception to 28 September of 2018. Studies will be included if they have investigated an association between patient characteristics and outcomes, with at least one follow-up time point. Two independent reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts followed by a full-text review to assess papers regarding their eligibility. Data from included papers will be extracted using standardised forms, including study and participants’ characteristics, outcomes, prognostic factors and effect size of the association. The risk of bias of each study will be assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. A narrative synthesis will be conducted considering the strength, consistency of results and the methodological quality.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-review journal, as a chapter of a doctoral thesis and through presentations at national and international conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018091183.

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 The utility of Ki-67 as a prognostic biomarker in pulmonary neuroendocrine tumours: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e031531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salma Naheed ◽  
Chloe Holden ◽  
Lulu Tanno ◽  
Eleanor Jaynes ◽  
Judith Cave ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Neuroendocrine Tumours ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Ki 67 ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Academic Review ◽  
Reliable Marker ◽  
The Cochrane Library

IntroductionThe omission of the immunohistochemical proliferation marker Ki-67 labelling index (henceforth, simply Ki-67) from the 2015 WHO classification system of pulmonary neuroendocrine tumours (Lung-NETs) as a prognostic and grading criterion remains controversial. This systematic review along with meta-analysis will be conducted to assess the prognostic/grading utility of Ki-67 in Lung-NETs.MethodsThis systematic review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. A systematic search of MEDLINE Ovid, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library will be performed from the inception of each database to 28 February 2019 for studies investigating any role of Ki-67 in Lung-NETs. Only full papers published in English detailing survival outcomes and HRs according to Ki-67 will be included. The primary endpoint will be establishing whether Ki-67 is a reliable marker in determining prognosis and thus assessing grade of Lung-NETs patients.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be required as this is an academic review of published literature. Findings will be disseminated through the preparation of a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed journal as well as presentation at national and international conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018093389

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

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e024618 ◽  
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).

scholarly journals Self-care interventions in stroke survivor–caregiver dyads: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e051860
Author(s):  
Wenna Wang ◽  
Beilei Lin ◽  
Yongxia Mei ◽  
Zhenxiang Zhang ◽  
Bing Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Self Care ◽  
Stroke Survivor ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Systematic Assessment ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionStroke is known as one of the leading causes of mortality and disability worldwide. Self-care plays a significant role in improving the quality of life, self-efficacy and many other outcomes of stroke survivors. However, it is a dyadic phenomenon where patient self-care and the caregiver contribution to self-care are inter-related in terms of predictors and outcomes. Currently, there is still no systematic assessment conducted to examine the overall effectiveness of self-care interventions carried out in stroke survivor–caregiver dyads and explore the effect on stroke survivor and/or caregiver outcomes.MethodsWe plan to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence regarding the self-care interventions carried out in stroke survivor–caregiver dyads. We will undertake a systematic search of multiple databases including PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and four Chinese databases (CNKI, CBM, WANFANG and VIP) from inception to July 2021 for the purpose of collecting the relevant articles. The eligible studies are defined as those original researches, written in English or Chinese, on self-care interventions in stroke survivor–caregiver dyad samples. Two independent researchers will be deployed to identify the eligible trials according to the selection criteria and extract the relevant data. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist has been used for this protocol. We will use the Cochrane Risk for Bias tool to assess the risk of bias for randomised controlled trials.Ethics and disseminationIn our review, any identifiable patient data will be excluded, which removes the need for ethical approval and participant consent. The final results of our study will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed journal, and abstract will be presented at suitable national/international conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021239824.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document