scholarly journals Should we establish chest pain observation units in the UK? A systematic review and critical appraisal of the literature

2000 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. W Goodacre
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Observation Units ◽  
The Uk

What factors influence measles, mumps and rubella vaccine hesitancy among parents? A systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 143-152
Author(s):  
Jade Stewart ◽  
Lynn Sayer
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Parental Knowledge ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Attitudes And Beliefs ◽  
Rubella Vaccine ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Health Choices ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Free Status

Background The United Kingdom lost its measles free status in 2019 because of an increase in measles cases, resulting from lowered vaccination uptake. Aims This review aims to gather a deeper understanding about parents' health choices for their children related to this vaccination. Methods A systematic review was carried out with a literature search using CINHAL, MEDLINE and OVID databases to identify information published between September 2016 and February 2020. A critical appraisal of seven studies was completed and a mixed methods synthesis was used to explore the results. Results The review identified factors that contribute to a parent's decision to vaccinate their child against measles, mumps and rubella. Five themes emerged: parental knowledge, attitudes and beliefs; safety concerns; specific groups related to religion and natural lifestyles; socioeconomic factors; and the source of health information. Conclusions Ongoing health promotion is required for the UK to work towards regaining its measles free status.

scholarly journals Optimal Application of Forced Air Warming to Prevent Peri-Operative Hypothermia during Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 2517
Author(s):  
Yoonyoung Lee ◽  
Kisook Kim
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Abdominal Surgery ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Upper Body ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Forced Air Warming ◽  
Forced Air ◽  
Full Body

Patients who undergo abdominal surgery under general anesthesia develop hypothermia in 80–90% of the cases within an hour after induction of anesthesia. Side effects include shivering, bleeding, and infection at the surgical site. However, the surgical team applies forced air warming to prevent peri-operative hypothermia, but these methods are insufficient. This study aimed to confirm the optimal application method of forced air warming (FAW) intervention for the prevention of peri-operative hypothermia during abdominal surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to provide a synthesized and critical appraisal of the studies included. We used PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library CENTRAL to systematically search for randomized controlled trials published through March 2020. Twelve studies were systematically reviewed for FAW intervention. FAW intervention effectively prevented peri-operative hypothermia among patients undergoing both open abdominal and laparoscopic surgery. Statistically significant effect size could not be confirmed in cases of only pre- or peri-operative application. The upper body was the primary application area, rather than the lower or full body. These findings could contribute detailed standards and criteria that can be effectively applied in the clinical field performing abdominal surgery.

scholarly journals Discrimination capability of pretest probability of stable coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis suggesting how to improve validation procedures

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e047677
Author(s):  
Pierpaolo Mincarone ◽  
Antonella Bodini ◽  
Maria Rosaria Tumolo ◽  
Federico Vozzi ◽  
Silvia Rocchiccioli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Stable Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
First Line ◽  
Discrimination Capability ◽  
Artery Disease

ObjectiveExternally validated pretest probability models for risk stratification of subjects with chest pain and suspected stable coronary artery disease (CAD), determined through invasive coronary angiography or coronary CT angiography, are analysed to characterise the best validation procedures in terms of discriminatory ability, predictive variables and method completeness.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesGlobal Health (Ovid), Healthstar (Ovid) and MEDLINE (Ovid) searched on 22 April 2020.Eligibility criteriaWe included studies validating pretest models for the first-line assessment of patients with chest pain and suspected stable CAD. Reasons for exclusion: acute coronary syndrome, unstable chest pain, a history of myocardial infarction or previous revascularisation; models referring to diagnostic procedures different from the usual practices of the first-line assessment; univariable models; lack of quantitative discrimination capability.MethodsEligibility screening and review were performed independently by all the authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus among all the authors. The quality assessment of studies conforms to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). A random effects meta-analysis of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values for each validated model was performed.Results27 studies were included for a total of 15 models. Besides age, sex and symptom typicality, other risk factors are smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and dyslipidaemia. Only one model considers genetic profile. AUC values range from 0.51 to 0.81. Significant heterogeneity (p<0.003) was found in all but two cases (p>0.12). Values of I2 >90% for most analyses and not significant meta-regression results undermined relevant interpretations. A detailed discussion of individual results was then carried out.ConclusionsWe recommend a clearer statement of endpoints, their consistent measurement both in the derivation and validation phases, more comprehensive validation analyses and the enhancement of threshold validations to assess the effects of pretest models on clinical management.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019139388.

scholarly journals Prevalence of potential respiratory symptoms in survivors of hospital admission after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 147997312110022
Author(s):  
Kevin Cares-Marambio ◽  
Yessenia Montenegro-Jiménez ◽  
Rodrigo Torres-Castro ◽  
Roberto Vera-Uribe ◽  
Yolanda Torralba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Hospital Admission ◽  
Respiratory Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Recent Onset ◽  
Persistent Symptoms

Knowledge on the sequelae of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains limited due to the relatively recent onset of this pathology. However, the literature on other types of coronavirus infections prior to COVID-19 reports that patients may experience persistent symptoms after discharge. To determine the prevalence of respiratory symptoms in survivors of hospital admission after COVID-19 infection. A living systematic review of five databases was performed in order to identify studies which reported the persistence of respiratory symptoms in COVID-19 patients after discharge. Two independent researchers reviewed and analysed the available literature, and then extracted and assessed the quality of those articles. Of the 1,154 reports returned by the initial search nine articles were found, in which 1,816 patients were included in the data synthesis. In the pooled analysis, we found a prevalence of 0.52 (CI 0.38–0.66, p < 0.01, I 2 = 97%), 0.37 (CI 0.28–0.48, p < 0.01, I 2 = 93%), 0.16 (CI 0.10–0.23, p < 0.01, I 2 = 90%) and 0.14 (CI 0.06–0.24, p < 0.01, I 2 = 96%) for fatigue, dyspnoea, chest pain, and cough, respectively. Fatigue, dyspnoea, chest pain, and cough were the most prevalent respiratory symptoms found in 52%, 37%, 16% and 14% of patients between 3 weeks and 3 months, after discharge in survivors of hospital admission by COVID-19, respectively.

scholarly journals Human glycocalyx shedding: Systematic review and critical appraisal

2021 ◽  
Vol 65 (5) ◽  
pp. 590-606
Author(s):  
Robert G. Hahn ◽  
Vasu Patel ◽  
Randal O. Dull
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critical Appraisal

scholarly journals Factors affecting consultant attitudes to undertaking undergraduate medical student teaching in the UK: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e042653
Author(s):  
Isobel Marion Harris ◽  
Heather McNeilly ◽  
Hani Benamer ◽  
Derek J Ward ◽  
Alice J Sitch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Medical Students ◽  
Student Teaching ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Undergraduate Medical Students ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Persistent Problem ◽  
Medical Student Teaching ◽  
The Uk

ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to explore consultant attitudes towards teaching undergraduate medical students in the UK.DesignSystematic review.MethodologyStandard systematic review methodology was followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE and OpenGrey were searched from inception to August 2019 to identify studies exploring senior doctors’ attitudes towards teaching undergraduate medical students. Two reviewers independently carried out key methodological steps including study screening/selection, quality assessment and data extraction. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.ResultsFive studies were included in the review dating 2003–2015. Two studies used questionnaires, and three used focus groups/semistructured interviews. Key findings identified across all studies were consultants generally found teaching undergraduate medical students enjoyable, and consultants identified time constraints as a barrier to teaching. Other findings were consultants feeling there was a lack of recognition for time spent teaching, and a lack of training/guidance regarding teaching students.ConclusionsThis is the first systematic review to explore senior hospital doctors’ attitudes towards teaching undergraduate medical students. Despite these five studies spanning 12 years, the same attitudes and issues regarding teaching are identified by all, suggesting lack of time particularly is a persistent problem regarding consultant-based teaching. An anecdotal impression is that consultants are no longer as enthusiastic about teaching as they once were, but it is evident over the 12 years of these studies that enjoyment levels, and presumably enthusiasm, have not changed significantly.

scholarly journals Chest pain in general practice: a systematic review of prediction rules

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e027081 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralf E Harskamp ◽  
Simone C Laeven ◽  
Jelle CL Himmelreich ◽  
Wim A M Lucassen ◽  
Henk C P M van Weert
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Chest Pain ◽  
Coronary Disease ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Clinical Judgement ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Heart Score ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Rule Out

ObjectiveTo identify and assess the performance of clinical decision rules (CDR) for chest pain in general practice.DesignSystematic review of diagnostic studies.Data sourcesMedline/Pubmed, Embase/Ovid, CINAHL/EBSCO and Google Scholar up to October 2018.Study selectionStudies that assessed CDRs for intermittent-type chest pain and for rule out of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) applicable in general practice, thus not relying on advanced laboratory, computer or diagnostic testing.Review methodsReviewers identified studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence (using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2)), independently and in duplicate.ResultsEight studies comprising five CDRs met the inclusion criteria. Three CDRs are designed for rule out of coronary disease in intermittent-type chest pain (Gencer rule, Marburg Heart Score, INTERCHEST), and two for rule out of ACS (Grijseels rule, Bruins Slot rule). Studies that examined the Marburg Heart Score had the highest methodological quality with consistent sensitivity (86%–91%), specificity (61%–81%) and positive (23%–35%) and negative (97%–98%) predictive values (PPV and NPV). The diagnostic performance of Gencer (PPV: 20%–34%, NPV: 95%–99%) and INTERCHEST (PPV: 35%–43%, NPV: 96%–98%) appear comparable, but requires further validation. The Marburg Heart Score was more sensitive in detecting coronary disease than the clinical judgement of the general practitioner. The performance of CDRs that focused on rule out of ACS were: Grijseels rule (sensitivity: 91%, specificity: 37%, PPV: 57%, NPV: 82%) and Bruins Slot (sensitivity: 97%, specificity: 10%, PPV: 23%, NPV: 92%). Compared with clinical judgement, the Bruins Slot rule appeared to be safer than clinical judgement alone, but the study was limited in sample size.ConclusionsIn general practice, there is currently no clinical decision aid that can safely rule out ACS. For intermittent chest pain, several rules exist, of which the Marburg Heart Score has been most extensively tested and appears to outperform clinical judgement alone.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document