scholarly journals Psychological resilience during COVID-19: a meta-review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e051417
Author(s):  
Katie Seaborn ◽  
Mark Chignell ◽  
Jacek Gwizdka
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Psychological Resilience ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Meta Review ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Protocol

IntroductionThe global COVID-19 pandemic continues to have wide-ranging implications for health, including psychological well-being. A growing corpus of research reviews has emerged on the topic of psychological resilience in the context of the pandemic. However, this body of work has not been systematically reviewed for its quality, nor with respect to findings on the effectiveness of tools and strategies for psychological resilience. To this end, a meta-review protocol is proposed with the following objectives: (1) identify review work on the topic of psychological resilience during COVID-19; (2) assess the quality of this review work using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; (3) assess the risk of bias in this work; (4) generate a narrative summary of the key points, strengths and weaknesses; (5) identify the psychological resilience strategies that have been reviewed; (6) identify how these strategies have been evaluated for their effectiveness; (7) identify what outcomes were measured and (8) summarise the findings on strategies for psychological resilience so far, providing recommendations, if possible.Methods and analysisA systematic meta-review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews for Protocols and Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review guidelines. Electronic searches of general databases, especially Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed, will be conducted. Only results from January 2020 onwards will be considered, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. Only results in English will be included. Descriptive statistics, thematic analysis and narrative summaries describing the nature of the reviewed work and evaluation of psychological resilience strategies will be carried out.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not needed for systematic review protocols. The results of the meta-review will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. The raw and summarised data will be shared in the journal or other open venues.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021235288.

scholarly journals Redundant systematic reviews on the same topic in surgery: a study protocol for a meta-epidemiological investigation

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. e017411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morihiro Katsura ◽  
Akira Kuriyama ◽  
Masafumi Tada ◽  
Kazumichi Yamamoto ◽  
Toshi A Furukawa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Major Surgery ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Epidemiological Investigation ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionWe are witnessing an explosive increase in redundant and overlapping publications of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on the same topic, which often present conflicting results and interpretations, in the current medical literature. They represent wasted efforts on the part of investigators and peer reviewers and may confuse and possibly mislead clinicians and policymakers. Here, we present a protocol for a meta-epidemiological investigation to describe how often there are overlapping SRs/MAs on the same topic, to assess the quality of these multiple publications, and to investigate the causes of discrepant results between multiple SRs/MAs in the field of major surgery.Methods and analysisWe will use MEDLINE/PubMed to identify all SRs/MAs of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2015 regarding major surgical interventions. After identifying the ‘benchmark’ SRs/MAs published in 2015, a process of screening in MEDLINE will be carried out to identify the previous SRs/MAs of RCTs on the same topic that were published within 5 years of the ‘benchmark’ SRs/MAs. We will tabulate the number of previous SRs/MAs on the same topic of RCTs, and then describe their variations in numbers of RCTs included, sample sizes, effect size estimates and other characteristics. We will also assess the differences in quality of each SR/MA using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) score. Finally, we will investigate the potential reasons to explain the discrepant results between multiple SRs/MAs.Ethics and disseminationNo formal ethical approval and informed consent are required because this study will not collect primary individual data. The intended audiences of the findings include clinicians, healthcare researchers and policymakers. We will publish our findings as a scientific report in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberIn PROSPERO CRD42017059077, March 2017.

scholarly journals Health outcomes associated with Zika virus infection in humans: a systematic review of systematic reviews

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e032275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphael Ximenes ◽  
Lauren C Ramsay ◽  
Rafael Neves Miranda ◽  
Shaun K Morris ◽  
Kellie Murphy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Zika Virus ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
New Research ◽  
Meta Analyses

ObjectiveWith the emergence of Zika virus (ZIKV) disease in Central and South America in the mid-2010s and recognition of the teratogenic effects of congenital exposure to ZIKV, there has been a substantial increase in new research published on ZIKV. Our objective is to synthesise the literature on health outcomes associated with ZIKV infection in humans.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review (SR) of SRs following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and LILACS (Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde) databases from inception to 22 July 2019, and included SRs that reported ZIKV-associated health outcomes. Three independent reviewers selected eligible studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of included SRs using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) tool. Conflicts were resolved by consensus or consultation with a third reviewer.ResultsThe search yielded 1382 unique articles, of which 21 SRs met our inclusion criteria. The 21 SRs ranged from descriptive to quantitative data synthesis, including four meta-analyses. The most commonly reported ZIKV-associated manifestations and health outcomes were microcephaly, congenital abnormalities, brain abnormalities, neonatal death and Guillain-Barré syndrome. The included reviews were highly heterogeneous. The overall quality of the SRs was critically low with all studies having more than one critical weakness.ConclusionThe evolving nature of the literature on ZIKV-associated health outcomes, together with the critically low quality of existing SRs, demonstrates the need for high-quality SRs to guide patient care and inform policy decision making.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018091087.

scholarly journals Comparison of health-related quality of life in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with catheter ablation or antiarrhythmic drug therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. e017577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine S Allan ◽  
Shaunattonie Henry ◽  
Theresa Aves ◽  
Laura Banfield ◽  
J Charles Victor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Related Quality ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Review Protocol

IntroductionAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia and causes patients considerable burden; symptoms such as palpitations and dyspnoea are common, leading to frequent emergency room visits. Patients with AF report reduced health-related quality of life (HQOL) compared with the general population; thus, treatments focus on the restoration of sinus rhythm to improve symptoms. Catheter ablation (CA) is a primary treatment strategy to treat AF-related burden in select patient populations; however, repeat procedures are often needed, there is a risk of major complications and the procedure is quite costly in comparison to medical therapy. As the outcomes after CA are mixed, an updated review that synthesises the available literature, on outcomes that matter to patients, is needed so that patients and their healthcare providers can make quality treatment decisions. The purpose of this review protocol is to extend previous findings by systematically analysing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CA in patients with AF and using meta-analytic techniques to identify the benefits and risks of CA with respect to HQOL and AF-related symptoms.Methods and analysisWe will include all RCTs that compare CA with antiarrhythmic drugs, or radiofrequency CA with cryoballoon CA, in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF. To locate studies we will perform comprehensive electronic database searches from database inception to 4 April 2017, with no language restrictions. We will conduct a quantitative synthesis of the effect of CA on HQOL as well as AF-related symptoms and the number of CA procedures needed for success, using meta-analytic techniques.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical issues are foreseen and ethical approval is not required given that this is a protocol. The findings of the study will be reported at national and international conferences, and in a peer-reviewed journal using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.Trial registration numberIn accordance with the guidelines, our systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 6 March 2017 and was last updated on 6 March 2017 (registration number CRD42017057427).Protocol amendmentsAny protocol amendments will be documented on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and in the final manuscript and indicated as such.

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

BMJ Open ◽  
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

scholarly journals Social network interventions in mental healthcare: a protocol for an umbrella review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e052831
Author(s):  
Marta Chmielowska ◽  
Yaara Zisman-Ilani ◽  
Rob Saunders ◽  
Stephen Pilling
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Mental Healthcare ◽  
Psychosocial Interventions ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionSocial networks (SNs) can play a crucial role in the process of recovery from mental illness. Yet there is no standard best practice for involving SNs to optimise patient recovery. It is therefore critical to explore the diversity of SN approaches in mental health, highlight gaps in the evidence and suggest future directions for research and practice. This protocol describes the methods for an umbrella review of SN interventions for the care and/or treatment of mental illness.Methods and analysisNine electronic databases will be searched for the relevant journal articles: CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Ovid PsycINFO. We will include reviews which extracted information about the quantity, structure and quality of patient’s SNs as well as frequency of contact. The range of publication dates of the included articles will be from 2010 and 2021, as recommended by Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 tool and ratings of the quality of evidence will be used to assess the quality of the included reviews. The results will be presented in accordance with guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement. Findings will inform the development of an SN framework to guide the design and evaluation of psychosocial interventions.Ethics and disseminationThis umbrella review will involve secondary data analysis and ethical approval is not required. The target audience includes clinicians, researchers and service users, who will be reached with tailored materials through journal publications, conference presentations and social media. The presentation of the results will provide a more complete picture of relevant evidence and explicit basis from which to improve psychosocial well-being for people diagnosed with a mental illness.PROSPERO registration numberThis protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (http:/ /www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO), registration number CRD42020192873.

Quality of meta-analyses of non-opioid, pharmacological, perioperative interventions for chronic postsurgical pain: a systematic review

2022 ◽  
pp. rapm-2021-102981
Author(s):  
Rachel H McGregor ◽  
Freda M Warner ◽  
Lukas D Linde ◽  
Jacquelyn J Cragg ◽  
Jill A Osborn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Critical Element ◽  
Postsurgical Pain ◽  
Chronic Postsurgical Pain ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundIn an attempt to aggregate observations from clinical trials, several meta-analyses have been published examining the effectiveness of systemic, non-opioid, pharmacological interventions to reduce the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain.ObjectiveTo inform the design and reporting of future studies, the purpose of our study was to examine the quality of these meta-analyses.Evidence reviewWe conducted an electronic literature search in Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Published meta-analyses, from the years 2010 to 2020, examining the effect of perioperative, systemic, non-opioid pharmacological treatments on the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain in adult patients were identified. Data extraction focused on methodological details. Meta-analysis quality was assessed using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) critical appraisal tool.FindingsOur search yielded 17 published studies conducting 58 meta-analyses for gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin), ketamine, lidocaine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and mexiletine. According to AMSTAR 2, 88.2% of studies (or 15/17) were low or critically low in quality. The most common critical element missing was an analysis of publication bias. Trends indicated an improvement in quality over time and association with journal impact factor.ConclusionsWith few individual trials adequately powered to detect treatment effects, meta-analyses play a crucial role in informing the perioperative management of chronic postsurgical pain. In light of this inherent value and despite a number of attempts, high-quality meta-analyses are still needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021230941.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of aliskiren combination therapy: a protocol for an umbrella review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e043807
Author(s):  
Jiantong Shen ◽  
Wenming Feng ◽  
Yike Wang ◽  
Qiyuan Zhao ◽  
Billong Laura Flavorta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Third Person ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionEfficacy of aliskiren combination therapy with other antihypertensive has been evaluated in the treatment of patients with hypertension in recent systematic reviews. However, most previous reviews only focused on one single health outcome or one setting, none of them made a full summary that assessed the impact of aliskiren combination treatment comprehensively. As such, this umbrella review based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses is aimed to synthesise the evidences on efficacy, safety and tolerability of aliskiren-based therapy for hypertension and related comorbid patients.Methods and analysisA comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI published from inception to August 2020 will be conducted. The selected articles are systematic reviews which evaluated efficacy, safety and tolerability of aliskiren combination therapy. Two reviewers will screen eligible articles, extract data and evaluate quality independently. Any disputes will be resolved by discussion or the arbitration of a third person. The quality of reporting evidence will be assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews V.2 tool tool. We will take a mixed-methods approach to synthesising the review literatures, reporting summary of findings tables and iteratively mapping the results.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for the study, as we would only collect data from available published materials. This umbrella review will be also submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication after completion.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020192131.

scholarly journals Digital health interventions in palliative care: a systematic meta-review

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne M. Finucane ◽  
Hannah O’Donnell ◽  
Jean Lugton ◽  
Tilly Gibson-Watt ◽  
Connie Swenson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Psychological Symptoms ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Information Provision ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Meta Review

AbstractDigital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of palliative care but heterogeneity amongst existing systematic reviews presents a challenge for evidence synthesis. This meta-review applied a structured search of ten databases from 2006 to 2020, revealing 21 relevant systematic reviews, encompassing 332 publications. Interventions delivered via videoconferencing (17%), electronic healthcare records (16%) and phone (13%) were most frequently described in studies within reviews. DHIs were typically used in palliative care for education (20%), symptom management (15%), decision-making (13%), information provision or management (13%) and communication (9%). Across all reviews, mostly positive impacts were reported on education, information sharing, decision-making, communication and costs. Impacts on quality of life and physical and psychological symptoms were inconclusive. Applying AMSTAR 2 criteria, most reviews were judged as low quality as they lacked a protocol or did not consider risk of bias, so findings need to be interpreted with caution.

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Published in Indexed Portuguese Medical Journals: Time Trends and Critical Appraisal.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luísa Prada ◽  
Ana Prada ◽  
Miguel Antunes ◽  
Ricardo Fernandes ◽  
João Costa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Electronic Search ◽  
Potential Impact

Abstract Introduction:Over the last years, the number of systematic reviews published is steadily increasing due to the global interest in this type of evidence synthesis. However, little is known about the characteristics of this research published in Portuguese medical journals. This study aims to evaluate the publication trends and overall quality of these systematic reviews.Material and Methods:Systematic reviews were identified through an electronic search up to August 2020, targeting Portuguese Medical journals indexed in MEDLINE. Systematic reviews selection and data extraction were done independently by three authors. The overall quality critical appraisal using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR II) was independently assessed by three authors. Disagreements were solved by consensus.Results:Seventy systematic reviews published in 5 Portuguese medical journals were included. Most (n=57; 81,4%) were systematic reviews without meta-analysis. Until 2010, the number of systematic reviews per year increased. Since then, the number of reviews published has not remained stable and no less than 3 SRs were published per year. According to the systematic reviews’ typology, most have been predominantly conducted to assess the effectiveness of health interventions (n=28; 40,0%). General and Internal Medicine (n=26; 37,1%) was the most addressed field. Most systematic reviews (n=45; 64,3%) were rated as being of “critically low-quality”.Conclusions:There were consistent flaws in the methodological quality report of the systematic reviews included, particularly in establishing a prior protocol and not assessing the potential impact of the risk of bias on the results.Through the years, the number of systematic reviews published increased, yet their quality is suboptimal. There is a need to improve the reporting of systematic reviews in Portuguese medical journals, which can be achieved by better adherence to quality checklists/tools.Systematic review registration: INPLASY202090105

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document