Effects of experimental sleep deprivation on aggressive, sexual and maternal behaviour in animals: a systematic review protocol

ObjectiveBecause of the relevance for the research on sleep deprivation and human behaviour, many preclinical studies have been conducted on aggressive, sexual and maternal behaviours in this field. Considering the available data and the complexity of the factors involved, the most appropriate way to summarise the effects of sleep deprivation on these behaviours is through systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This article describes the protocol for three independent systematic reviews and meta-analyses, evaluating the effects of sleep deprivation on aggressive, sexual and maternal behaviours in animals.Search strategyA bibliographic search will be performed in four databases: Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science and Psychinfo, searching for three domains: sleep deprivation (as the intervention), animals (as the population) and behaviour (as the outcome).Screening and annotationTitles and abstracts will first be screened, followed by analysis of the full text and data extraction.Data management and reportingSYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation ’s risk of bias tool will be used to evaluate risk of bias; visual analysis of funnel plots, Egger’s regression and trim-and-fill will be employed to evaluate publication bias. Effect sizes will be calculated from the articles by either direct or standardised mean difference, depending on the nature of the data. Overall estimates will then be calculated using a random effects model. Heterogeneity will be assessed using both I2 index and Cochran’s Q test. These meta-analyses should be useful to summarise the available data on the relationship between sleep deprivation and behaviour, providing a solid background for future behavioural sleep deprivation experiments, improving their validity.

Download Full-text

Aromatherapy for Symptom Relief in Patients with Burn: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Medicina ◽

10.3390/medicina58010001 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 58 (1) ◽

pp. 1

Author(s):

Hye Won Lee ◽

Lin Ang ◽

Jung Tae Kim ◽

Myeong Soo Lee

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Symptom Relief ◽

Routine Care ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Review Author ◽

Beneficial Effects ◽

Study Selection ◽

Meta Analyses

Background and Objectives: This review aimed to provide an updated review of evidence regarding the effects of aromatherapy in relieving symptoms of burn injuries, focusing on pain and physiological distress. Materials and Methods: Fifteen databases (including five English databases, four Korean medical databases, and four Iranian databases) and trial registries were searched for studies published between their dates of inception and July 2021. Two review authors individually performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, and any discrepancies were solved by a third review author. Results: Eight RCTs met our inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this updated systematic review. Our meta-analyses revealed that inhaled aromatherapy plus routine care showed beneficial effects in relieving pain after dressing, as compared to placebo plus routine care (p < 0.00001) and routine care alone (p = 0.02). Additionally, inhaled aromatherapy plus routine care (p < 0.00001) and aromatherapy massage plus routine care (p < 0.0001) also showed superior effects in calming anxiety, as compared to routine care alone. None of the included studies reported on AEs. Overall, the risk of bias across the studies was concerning. Conclusions: This updated review and synthesis of the studies had brought a more detailed understanding of the potential application of aromatherapy for easing the pain and anxiety of burn patients.

Download Full-text

Identifying patient-important outcomes for treatment of bipolar disorder: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050453 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (12) ◽

pp. e050453

Author(s):

Alessia D'Elia ◽

Olivia Orsini ◽

Stephanie Sanger ◽

Alannah Hillmer ◽

Nitika Sanger ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Bipolar Disorder ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Treatment Effectiveness ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Observational Research ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Randomised Controlled

IntroductionTreatment of bipolar disorder is the focus of several clinical trials, however the understanding of the outcomes for establishing treatment effectiveness within these trials is limited. Further, there is limited literature which reports on the outcomes considered to be important to patients, indicating that patient perspectives are often not considered when selecting outcomes of effectiveness within trials. This protocol describes a systematic review which aims to describe the outcomes being used within trials to measure treatment effectiveness, commenting on the inclusion of patient-important outcomes within previous trials.Methods and analysisThis protocol is reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols statement. OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, OVID APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, the Wiley Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases will be searched for eligible studies. Screening, full-text and data extraction stages will be completed in duplicate using the Covidence platform for systematic reviews. Eligible studies will include clinical trials of interventions in bipolar disorder, in order to identify outcomes used to assess treatment effectiveness, and qualitative studies, to determine which outcomes have been reported as important by patients. Risk of bias for included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomised controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational research.Ethics and disseminationThis review will involve dissemination to key stakeholders, including primary end users such as patients, clinicians and trialists. Knowledge translation tools will be generated to share the relevant conclusions of this review. Results will be communicated to the scientific community through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and workshops. No ethics approval will be sought as this study is based on literature.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021214435.

Download Full-text

Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review

JMIR Perioperative Medicine ◽

10.2196/19099 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 3 (2) ◽

pp. e19099

Author(s):

Ben Patel ◽

Arron Thind

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Mobile Health ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Validated Questionnaire ◽

System Usability Scale ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Mhealth Apps

Background Mobile health (mHealth) apps are increasingly used postoperatively to monitor, educate, and rehabilitate. The usability of mHealth apps is critical to their implementation. Objective This systematic review evaluates the (1) methodology of usability analyses, (2) domains of usability being assessed, and (3) results of usability analyses. Methods The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews checklist was consulted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was adhered to. Screening was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers. All included studies were assessed for risk of bias. Domains of usability were compared with the gold-standard mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ). Results A total of 33 of 720 identified studies were included for data extraction. Of the 5 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), usability was never the primary end point. Methodology of usability analyses included interview (10/33), self-created questionnaire (18/33), and validated questionnaire (9/33). Of the 3 domains of usability proposed in the MAUQ, satisfaction was assessed in 28 of the 33 studies, system information arrangement was assessed in 11 of the 33 studies, and usefulness was assessed in 18 of the 33 studies. Usability of mHealth apps was above industry average, with median System Usability Scale scores ranging from 76 to 95 out of 100. Conclusions Current analyses of mHealth app usability are substandard. RCTs are rare, and validated questionnaires are infrequently consulted. Of the 3 domains of usability, only satisfaction is regularly assessed. There is significant bias throughout the literature, particularly with regards to conflicts of interest. Future studies should adhere to the MAUQ to assess usability and improve the utility of mHealth apps.

Download Full-text

Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.19099 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Ben Patel ◽

Arron Thind

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Mobile Health ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Validated Questionnaire ◽

System Usability Scale ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Mhealth Apps

BACKGROUND Mobile health (mHealth) apps are increasingly used postoperatively to monitor, educate, and rehabilitate. The usability of mHealth apps is critical to their implementation. OBJECTIVE This systematic review evaluates the (1) methodology of usability analyses, (2) domains of usability being assessed, and (3) results of usability analyses. METHODS The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews checklist was consulted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was adhered to. Screening was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers. All included studies were assessed for risk of bias. Domains of usability were compared with the gold-standard mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ). RESULTS A total of 33 of 720 identified studies were included for data extraction. Of the 5 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), usability was never the primary end point. Methodology of usability analyses included interview (10/33), self-created questionnaire (18/33), and validated questionnaire (9/33). Of the 3 domains of usability proposed in the MAUQ, satisfaction was assessed in 28 of the 33 studies, system information arrangement was assessed in 11 of the 33 studies, and usefulness was assessed in 18 of the 33 studies. Usability of mHealth apps was above industry average, with median System Usability Scale scores ranging from 76 to 95 out of 100. CONCLUSIONS Current analyses of mHealth app usability are substandard. RCTs are rare, and validated questionnaires are infrequently consulted. Of the 3 domains of usability, only satisfaction is regularly assessed. There is significant bias throughout the literature, particularly with regards to conflicts of interest. Future studies should adhere to the MAUQ to assess usability and improve the utility of mHealth apps.

Download Full-text

P14.71 An assessment of the reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Neuro-Oncology ◽

10.1093/neuonc/noab180.178 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 23 (Supplement_2) ◽

pp. ii51-ii52

Author(s):

A M George ◽

S Gupta ◽

S M Keshwara ◽

M A Mustafa ◽

C S Gillespie ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Neurofibromatosis Type ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

High Quality ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract BACKGROUND Systematic reviews and meta-analyses constitute the highest level of research evidence and for a disease with limited clinical trial activity, are often relied upon to help inform clinical practice. This review of reviews evaluates both the reporting & methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS Potentially eligible meningioma reviews published between 1st January 1990 and 31st December 2020 were identified from eight electronic databases. Inclusion required the study to meet the Cochrane guideline definition of a systematic review or meta-analysis. Reviews concerning neurofibromatosis type 2, spinal and pediatric meningiomas were excluded. The reporting and methodological quality of articles were assessed against the following modified guidelines: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) guidelines. RESULTS 117 systematic reviews were identified, 57 of which included meta-analysis (48.7%). The number of meningioma systematic reviews published each year has increased with 63 studies (53.9%) published between 01/2018 and 12/2020. A median of 17 studies (IQR 9–29) were included per review. Impact factor of journals publishing a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis was similar (median 2.3 vs 1.8, P=0.397). The mean PRISMA scores for systematic reviews with a meta-analysis was 21.11 (SD 4.1, 78% adherence) and without was 13.89 (SD 3.4, 63% adherence). Twenty-nine systematic reviews with meta-analysis (51%) and 11 without meta-analysis (18%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA recommendations. Methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR2 revealed one study (0.9%) as high quality whilst 111 (94.8%) studies were graded as critically low. One hundred and two articles (87.2%) did not utilize a comprehensive search strategy as defined by the AMSTAR2 tool. Ninety-nine studies (84.6%) obtained a high level of concern for potential bias as per the ROBIS assessment. One hundred and eight articles (92.3%) failed to present information that a protocol had been established prior to study commencement and 76 articles (65.0%) did not conduct a risk of bias assessment. Across the three tools, domains relating to the establishment of a protocol prior to review commencement and conducting appropriate risk of bias assessments were frequently low scoring. CONCLUSION Overall reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews was sub-optimal. Established critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should be utilized a priori to assist in producing high-quality systematic reviews.

Download Full-text

Issues and Advances in the Systematic Review of Single-Case Research: A Commentary on the Exemplars

Remedial and Special Education ◽

10.1177/0741932517726143 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 38 (6) ◽

pp. 387-393 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Rumen Manolov ◽

Georgina Guilera ◽

Antonio Solanas

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Visual Analysis ◽

Single Case ◽

Special Section ◽

Case Research ◽

Functional Relations ◽

Single Case Research ◽

Meta Analyses

The current text comments on three systematic reviews published in the special section Issues and Advances in the Systematic Review of Single-Case Research: An Update and Exemplars. The commentary is provided in relation to the need to combine the assessment of the methodological quality of the studies included in systematic reviews, the assessment of the presence of functional relations via visual analysis following objective rules, and the quantification of the magnitudes of effect, providing meaningful information. Although it was not required that the exemplars follow specific guidelines for conduct and reporting, we applied an existing methodological quality checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Finally, we point at specific signs of advance in the field of performing systematic reviews of single-case design studies, as identified in the three exemplars, and we also suggest some issues requiring further research and discussion.

Download Full-text

Effects of Caffeine Supplementation on Physical Performance of Soccer Players: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Sports Health A Multidisciplinary Approach ◽

10.1177/1941738121998712 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 194173812199871

Author(s):

Raphael Einsfeld Simões Ferreira ◽

Rafael Leite Pacheco ◽

Carolina de Oliveira Cruz Latorraca ◽

Rachel Riera ◽

Ricardo Guilherme Eid ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Perceived Exertion ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Rating Of Perceived Exertion ◽

Soccer Players ◽

Meta Analyses

Context: Caffeine is 1 of the most popular supplements consumed by athletes, and the evidence for improving soccer performance remains limited. Objective: To investigate and update the effects (benefits and harms) of caffeine to improve performance on soccer players. Data Sources: Electronic search in Medline (via PubMed), CENTRAL, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and LILACS, from inception to March 28, 2020. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of caffeine on the performance of soccer players. Study Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Level of Evidence: Level 1. Data Extraction: Data extraction was conducted independently by 2 authors using a piloted form. We assessed methodological quality (Cochrane risk-of-bias [RoB] table) and the certainty of the evidence (GRADE [Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation] approach). Results: Sixteen RCTs were included. Overall methodological quality was classified as unclear to low risk of bias. When assessing aerobic endurance, meta-analyses did not demonstrate the differences between caffeine and placebo (mean difference [MD], 44.9 m; 95% confidence interval [CI], −77.7 to 167.6). Similarly, no difference was observed during time to fatigue test (MD, 169.8 seconds; 95% CI, −71.8 to 411.6). Considering anaerobic power, meta-analyses also did not find differences for vertical jump (MD, 1.01 cm; 95% CI, −0.68 to 2.69) and repeated sprint tests (MD, −0.02 seconds; 95% CI, −0.09 to 0.04), as well as reaction time agility test (MD, 0.02 seconds; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.04) and rating of perceived exertion (MD, 0.16 points; 95% CI, −0.55 to 0.87). Regarding safety, a few minor adverse events were reported. Based on the GRADE approach, the certainty of this evidence was classified as very low to low. Conclusions: We found no significant improvement in soccer-related performance with caffeine compared with placebo or no intervention. However, caffeine appears to be safe.

Download Full-text

Parent–Infant Interventions to Promote Parental Sensitivity During NICU Hospitalization: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal of Early Intervention ◽

10.1177/1053815121991928 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 105381512199192

Author(s):

Andréane Lavallée ◽

Gwenaëlle De Clifford-Faugère ◽

Ariane Ballard ◽

Marilyn Aita

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Standard Care ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Parental Sensitivity ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Implementation Failure ◽

Meta Analyses

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of parent–infant interventions for parents of preterm infants on parental sensitivity compared to standard care or active comparators. This review follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration ID: CRD42016047083). Database searches were performed from inception to 2020 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and quality of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. A total of 19 studies ( n = 2,111 participants) were included and 14 were suitable to be pooled in our primary outcome meta-analysis. Results show no significant effect of parent–infant interventions over standard care or basic educational programs, on parental sensitivity. Results may not necessarily be due to the ineffectiveness of the interventions but rather due to implementation failure or high risk of bias of included studies.

Download Full-text

Association between vision impairment and mortality: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037556 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (6) ◽

pp. e037556

Author(s):

Joshua R Ehrlich ◽

Jacqueline Ramke ◽

David Macleod ◽

Bonnielin K Swenor ◽

Helen Burn ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Global Health ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Vision Impairment ◽

Published Data ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Evaluation Approach ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionDue to growth and ageing of the world’s population, the number of individuals worldwide with vision impairment (VI) and blindness is projected to increase rapidly over the coming decades. VI and blindness are an important cause of years lived with disability. However, the association of VI and blindness with mortality, including the risk of bias in published studies and certainty of the evidence, has not been adequately studied in an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods and analysisThe planned systematic review and meta-analysis will adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Databases, including MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid and Global Health, will be searched for relevant studies. Two reviewers will then screen studies and review full texts to identify studies for inclusion. Data extraction will be performed, and for included studies, the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. The prognostic factor in this study is visual function, which must have been measured using a standard objective ophthalmic clinical or research instrument. We will use standard criteria from WHO to categorise VI and blindness. All-cause mortality may be assessed by any method one or more years after baseline assessment of vision. Results from included studies will be meta-analysed according to relevant sections of the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist.Ethics and disseminationThis review will only include published data; therefore, ethics approval will not be sought. The findings of this review and meta-analysis will be published in an open-access, peer-reviewed journal and will be included in the ongoing Lancet Global Health Commission on Global Eye Health.

Download Full-text

The incidence and prevalence of delirium across palliative care settings: A systematic review

Palliative Medicine ◽

10.1177/0269216319854944 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 33 (8) ◽

pp. 865-877 ◽

Cited By ~ 24

Author(s):

Christine L Watt ◽

Franco Momoli ◽

Mohammed T Ansari ◽

Lindsey Sikora ◽

Shirley H Bush ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Palliative Care ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Point Prevalence ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Included Patient ◽

Study Heterogeneity ◽

Palliative Care Units ◽

Meta Analyses

Background: Delirium is a common and distressing neurocognitive condition that frequently affects patients in palliative care settings and is often underdiagnosed. Aim: Expanding on a 2013 review, this systematic review examines the incidence and prevalence of delirium across all palliative care settings. Design: This systematic review and meta-analyses were prospectively registered with PROSPERO and included a risk of bias assessment. Data sources: Five electronic databases were examined for primary research studies published between 1980 and 2018. Studies on adult, non-intensive care and non-postoperative populations, either receiving or eligible to receive palliative care, underwent dual reviewer screening and data extraction. Studies using standardized delirium diagnostic criteria or valid assessment tools were included. Results: Following initial screening of 2596 records, and full-text screening of 153 papers, 42 studies were included. Patient populations diagnosed with predominantly cancer ( n = 34) and mixed diagnoses ( n = 8) were represented. Delirium point prevalence estimates were 4%–12% in the community, 9%–57% across hospital palliative care consultative services, and 6%–74% in inpatient palliative care units. The prevalence of delirium prior to death across all palliative care settings ( n = 8) was 42%–88%. Pooled point prevalence on admission to inpatient palliative care units was 35% (confidence interval = 0.29–0.40, n = 14). Only one study had an overall low risk of bias. Varying delirium screening and diagnostic practices were used. Conclusion: Delirium is prevalent across all palliative care settings, with one-third of patients delirious at the time of admission to inpatient palliative care. Study heterogeneity limits meta-analyses and highlights the future need for rigorous studies.

Download Full-text