scholarly journals Use of glucose for pain management in premature neonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e052901
Author(s):  
Débora Joyce Duarte Oliveira ◽  
Kleyton Santos Medeiros ◽  
Ayane Cristine Alves Sarmento ◽  
Francisca Jennifer Duarte Oliveira ◽  
Ana Paula Ferreira Costa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Subsequent Development ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Premature Neonates ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Quantitative Synthesis ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionTherapeutic management of neonatal pain is essential to reduce changes in initial and subsequent development. Although glucose has been shown to be effective in relieving pain, concentrations and dosages remain to be standardised. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to identify the efficacy of glucose as an analgesic in preterm infants.Methods and analysisThe Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Medline, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature and Embase databases will be researched for randomised studies published until December 2021. This systematic review and meta-analysis will include studies investigating the use of glucose for pain control in premature neonates. The primary outcome will be pain relief. Three independent reviewers will select the studies and extract the data from original publications. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data synthesis will be performed using the Review Manager software (RevMan V.5.2.3). We will evaluate heterogeneity based on I2 statistics. In addition, quantitative synthesis will be performed if the included studies are sufficiently homogeneous.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the research will not be required for this systematic review. The results of this study will be published in an international journal.Trial registration numberThis protocol was submitted to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, number CRD42021236217).

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.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of female condom in preventing HIV and sexually transmitted infections: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e023055 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth KB Mome ◽  
Alison B Wiyeh ◽  
Eugene J Kongnyuy ◽  
Charles Shey Wiysonge
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sexually Transmitted Infections ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Female Condom ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Sexually Transmitted ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Hiv Acquisition

IntroductionThe HIV pandemic continues to evolve with young women being the most vulnerable group to acquire infection. The presence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) further enhances HIV susceptibility and also leads to long-term complications such as infertility and cervical cancer. The female condom is a self-initiated method for STI and HIV prevention but there are controversies on its effects. We aim to assess the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of the use of female condoms for prevention of STI and HIV acquisition among women.Methods and analysisWe will search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and reference lists of relevant publications for potentially eligible studies. We will screen search outputs, select eligible studies, extract data and assess risk of bias in duplicate; resolving discrepancies through discussion and consensus or arbitration. We will combine data from clinically homogenous studies in a fixed effect meta-analysis and assess the certainty of the evidence using the method for Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. We registered the planned systematic review with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) in March 2018 and will finalise the search strategy in August 2018; conduct the searches and select eligible studies between August and October 2018; and collect data, conduct statistical analyses and prepare and submit the manuscript for consideration by a peer-reviewed journal between November 2018 and April 2019.Ethics and disseminationWe will use publicly available data; hence no formal ethical approval is required for this review. We will disseminate the findings of this review through conference presentations and publication in an open-access peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018090710.

scholarly journals Peer support for smoking cessation: a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyun-Ju Seo ◽  
Soo Young Kim ◽  
Dongah Park ◽  
Seung-Soo Sheen ◽  
Miyoung Choi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Peer Support ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Quit Smoking ◽  
Quantitative Synthesis

Abstract Background Peer-support programs are a useful social support strategy for populations trying to quit smoking who are willing to maintain smoking abstinence. This study is a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of peer support for smoking cessation. Methods This protocol will be conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions 6.2. We will conduct a comprehensive search in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ovidEmbase, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ovidMEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Open Grey, as well as the Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions in EPPI-Centre, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and reference lists of included papers. The review will include randomized controlled trials of peer support interventions aimed to stop smoking in any population. Two reviewers will independently screen and select relevant studies. Version 2 of the Cochrane tool that assesses risk of bias in randomized trials will be used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. The primary outcomes will be defined as the tobacco abstinence rate and adverse events. If a quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, a synthesis without meta-analysis will be undertaken. Discussion This review will provide the best available evidence regarding the effects of peer support interventions to quit smoking. The results from this study will help to inform healthcare providers on the optimal peer support intervention modalities such as intensity, delivery methods, type of support provider, and duration of the intervention. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020196288

scholarly journals Risk of colectomy after conservative treatment of diverticulitis of the left hemicolon complicated by abdominal or pelvic abscess: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e042350
Author(s):  
Maximilian Sohn ◽  
Ayman Agha ◽  
Igors Iesalnieks ◽  
Anna Tiefes ◽  
Alfred Hochrein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Emergency Surgery ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Acute Diverticulitis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Pelvic Abscess ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Review Manager

IntroductionAcute diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon is increasingly treated by a non-operative approach. The need for colectomy after recovery from a flare of acute diverticulitis of the left colon, complicated diverticular abscess is still controversial. The primary aim of this study is to assess the risk of interval emergency surgery by systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisThe systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols statement. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE will be screened for the predefined searching term: (Diverticulitis OR Diverticulum) AND (Abscess OR pelvic abscess OR pericolic abscess OR intraabdominal abscess) AND (surgery OR operation OR sigmoidectomy OR drainage OR percutaneous drainage OR conservative therapy OR watchful waiting). All studies published in an English or German-speaking peer-reviewed journal will be suitable for this analysis. Case reports, case series of less than five patients, studies without follow-up information, systematic and non-systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be excluded. Primary endpoint is the rate of interval emergency surgery. Using the Review Manager Software (Review Manager/RevMan, V.5.3, Copenhagen, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012) meta-analysis will be pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method for random effects. The Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool will be used to assess methodological quality of non-randomised studies. Risk of bias in randomised studies will be assessed using the Cochrane developed RoB 2-tool.Ethics and disseminationAs no new data are being collected, ethical approval is exempt for this study. This systematic review is to provide a new insight on the need for surgical treatment after a first attack of acute diverticulitis, complicated by intra-abdominal or pelvic abscesses. The results of this study will be presented at national and international meetings and published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020164813.

Abstract 20: The Effect of Resistance Training on Survival and Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Farzane Saeidifard ◽  
Jose R Medina Inojosa ◽  
Colin P West ◽  
Thomas P Olson ◽  
Virend K Somers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Cancer Mortality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cardiovascular Outcomes ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Background: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of resistance training (RT) on survival and other cardiovascular outcomes including ischemic heart disease events and stroke. Methods: An experienced librarian searched databases up to September 25 th , 2017, for randomized trials and cohort studies that evaluated the effect of RT on survival and cardiovascular events in the general population. The databases included Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. Two investigators conducted the screening process independently and in duplicate. Cochrane tools were used to assess the risk of bias in clinical trials and observational studies. We calculated hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals using RevMan and fixed and random effect models and had a subgroup analysis based on doses of RT and for the combination of RT and aerobic exercise (AE) vs no exercise. Results: The search identified 1429 studies from which 10 (one randomized trial) met the inclusion criteria, including 338,254 participants with a mean follow up of 8.14 years. The meta-analysis showed that RT, in comparison with no exercises, is associated with 24% lower all-cause mortality and 48% lower mortality when combined with AE. Based on subgroup analysis, performing 1-2 sessions of RT/week is associated with lower all-cause mortality by 28% (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.66-0.78) whereas > 5 sessions of RT/week has no association with all-cause mortality (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76-1.31). Further, RT alone or combined with AE is associated with lower CV mortality compared to no exercise (Figures). Finally, RT alone also showed a borderline association with lower all-cancer mortality. Heterogeneity was present for several comparisons, and subsequent analysis will explore sources of this variability. Using study design-specific Cochrane risk of bias tools, no major sources of bias were identified in the included studies. One cohort study looked at the effect of RT on coronary heart disease events and found 23% risk reduction in men, while no study specifically assessed the effect of RT on cerebrovascular outcomes. Conclusion: RT is associated with lower all-cause, CV and all-cancer mortality. RT appears to have an additive effect when combined with AE.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haonan Tian ◽  
Congman Xie ◽  
Min Lin ◽  
Hongmei Yang ◽  
Aishu Ren
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Canine Retraction ◽  
Temporary Anchorage Devices ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Implant Anchorage

Abstract Background Temporary anchorage devices have been used for decades in orthodontic practice for many applications. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction during the two-step technique. Methods A search was systematically performed for articles published prior to June 30, 2019 in five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled clinical trials (CCTs). The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for the quality assessment. Data concerning the mean difference in mesial molar movement and extent of canine retraction were extracted for statistical analysis. The mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were analyzed for continuous data. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model for comparable outcomes was carried out. Results Three RCTs and five CCTs were finally included. Meta-analysis showed a significant increase not only in anchorage preservation in the implant anchorage group in both the maxilla (1.56 mm, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.98, P < 0.00001) and the mandible (1.62 mm, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.01, P < 0.00001) but also in canine retraction in the implant anchorage group in both the maxilla (0.43 mm, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.69, P = 0.001) and the mandible (0.26 mm, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.49, P = 0.03). Conclusions There is very low-quality evidence showing that implant anchorage is more efficient than conventional anchorage during canine retraction. Additional high-quality studies are needed.

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.

The effects of non-clinician guidance on effectiveness and process outcomes of digital mental health interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Calista Leung ◽  
Julia Pei ◽  
Kristen Hudec ◽  
Farhud Shams ◽  
Richard Munthali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychosocial Support ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Process Outcomes ◽  
Mental Health Interventions

BACKGROUND Digital mental health interventions are increasingly prevalent in the current context of rapidly evolving technology, and research indicates that they yield effectiveness outcomes comparable to in-person treatment. Integrating professionals (i.e. psychologists, physicians) into digital mental health interventions has been common, and the inclusion of guidance within programs can increase adherence to interventions. However, employing professionals to enhance mental health programs may undermine the scalability of digital interventions. Therefore, delegating guidance tasks to paraprofessionals (peer supporters, technicians, lay counsellors, or other non-clinicians) can help reduce costs and increase accessibility. OBJECTIVE This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness, adherence, and other process outcomes of non-clinician guided digital mental health interventions. METHODS Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PSYCInfo) were searched for randomized controlled trials published between 2010 and 2020 examining digital mental health interventions. Three journals focused on digital intervention were also hand searched and grey literature was searched using ProQuest and the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL). Two researchers independently assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2. Data were collected on effectiveness, adherence, and other process outcomes, and meta-analyses were conducted for effectiveness and adherence outcomes. Non-clinician guided interventions were compared with treatment as usual, clinician-guided interventions, and unguided interventions. RESULTS Thirteen studies qualified for inclusion. Results indicate that non-clinician guided interventions yielded higher post-treatment effectiveness outcomes when compared to conditions involving control programs (e.g. online psychoeducation, monitored attention control) or waitlist controls (k=7, Hedges g=-0.73 (95% CI -1.08 to -0.38)). There are significant differences between non-clinician guided interventions and unguided interventions as well (k=6, Hedges g=-0.17 (95% CI -0.23 to -0.11)). In addition, non-clinician guided interventions did not differ in effectiveness from clinician-guided interventions (k=3, Hedges g=0.08 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.17)). These results suggest that guided digital mental health interventions are helpful to improve mental health outcomes regardless of the qualification, and that the presence of a non-clinician guide improves effectiveness outcomes more than no guidance. Non-clinician guided interventions did not yield significantly different effects on adherence outcomes when compared with unguided interventions (k=3, OR 1.58 (95% CI 0.51 to 4.92)), although a general trend of improved adherence was observed within non-clinician guided interventions. CONCLUSIONS Integrating paraprofessionals and non-clinicians appear to improve outcomes of digital mental health interventions, and may also enhance adherence outcomes (though the trend was nonsignificant). Further research should focus on the specific types of tasks these paraprofessionals can successfully provide (i.e. psychosocial support, therapeutic alliance, technical augmentation) and their associated outcomes. CLINICALTRIAL The protocol is preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42020191226).

scholarly journals Psychological interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain: protocol of a systematic review with network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e034996
Author(s):  
Emma Ho ◽  
Manuela Ferreira ◽  
Lingxiao Chen ◽  
Milena Simic ◽  
Claire Ashton-James ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Psychological Interventions ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Fear Avoidance

IntroductionPsychological factors such as fear avoidance beliefs, depression, anxiety, catastrophic thinking and familial and social stress, have been associated with high disability levels in people with chronic low back pain (LBP). Guidelines endorse the integration of psychological interventions in the management of chronic LBP. However, uncertainty surrounds the comparative effectiveness of different psychological approaches. Network meta-analysis (NMA) allows comparison and ranking of numerous competing interventions for a given outcome of interest. Therefore, we will perform a systematic review with a NMA to determine which type of psychological intervention is most effective for adults with chronic non-specific LBP.Methods and analysisWe will search electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, SCOPUS and CINAHL) from inception until 22 August 2019 for randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions to any comparison interventions in adults with chronic non-specific LBP. There will be no restriction on language. The primary outcomes will include physical function and pain intensity, and secondary outcomes will include health-related quality of life, fear avoidance, intervention compliance and safety. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) tool and confidence in the evidence will be assessed using the Confidence in NMA (CINeMA) framework. We will conduct a random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach to estimate relative effects for all comparisons between treatments and rank treatments according to the mean rank and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. All analyses will be performed in Stata.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required. The research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019138074.

scholarly journals Should home-based ovulation predictor kits be offered as an additional approach for fertility management for women and couples desiring pregnancy? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. e001403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ping Teresa Yeh ◽  
Caitlin E Kennedy ◽  
Sheryl Van der Poel ◽  
Thabo Matsaseng ◽  
Laura Bernard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Pregnancy Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Time To Pregnancy ◽  
Fertility Management ◽  
Home Based ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionTo inform the WHO Guideline on self-care interventions, we conducted a systematic review of the impact of ovulation predictor kits (OPKs) on time-to-pregnancy, pregnancy, live birth, stress/anxiety, social harms/adverse events and values/preferences.MethodsIncluded studies had to compare women desiring pregnancy who managed their fertility with and without OPKs, measure an outcome of interest and be published in a peer-reviewed journal. We searched for studies on PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS and EMBASE through November 2018. We assessed risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Evidence Project tool for observational studies, and conducted meta-analysis using random effects models to generate pooled estimates of relative risk (RR).ResultsFour studies (three RCTs and one observational study) including 1487 participants, all in high-income countries, were included. Quality of evidence was low. Two RCTs found no difference in time-to-pregnancy. All studies reported pregnancy rate, with mixed results: one RCT from the 1990s among couples with unexplained or male-factor infertility found no difference in clinical pregnancy rate (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.32); two more recent RCTs found higher self-reported pregnancy rates among OPK users (pooled RR: 1.40, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.80). A small observational study found higher rates of pregnancy with lab testing versus OPKs among women using donor insemination services. One RCT found no increase in stress/anxiety after two menstrual cycles using OPKs, besides a decline in positive affect. No studies measured live birth or social harms/adverse events. Six studies presented end-users’ values/preferences, with almost all women reporting feeling satisfied, comfortable and confident using OPKs.ConclusionA small evidence base, from high-income countries and with high risk of bias, suggests that home-based use of OPKs may improve fertility management when attempting to become pregnant with no meaningful increase in stress/anxiety and with high user acceptability.Systematic review registration numberPROSPERO registration number CRD42019119402.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document