scholarly journals Immediate Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Line Kessel ◽  
Jens Andresen ◽  
Ditte Erngaard ◽  
Per Flesner ◽  
Britta Tendal ◽  
...  

The aim of the present systematic review was to examine the benefits and harms associated with immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) with specific emphasis on the rate of complications, postoperative anisometropia, and subjective visual function in order to formulate evidence-based national Danish guidelines for cataract surgery. A systematic literature review in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central databases identified three randomized controlled trials that compared outcome in patients randomized to ISBCS or bilateral cataract surgery on two different dates. Meta-analyses were performed using the Cochrane Review Manager software. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE method (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). We did not find any difference in the risk of complications or visual outcome in patients randomized to ISBCS or surgery on two different dates. The quality of evidence was rated as low to very low. None of the studies reported the prevalence of postoperative anisometropia. In conclusion, we cannot provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of ISBCS due to the lack of high quality evidence. Therefore, the decision to perform ISBCS should be taken after careful discussion between the surgeon and the patient.

2008 ◽  
Vol 5;12 (5;9) ◽  
pp. 819-850
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti

Observational studies provide an important source of information when randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cannot or should not be undertaken, provided that the data are analyzed and interpreted with special attention to bias. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) stresses the examination of evidence from clinical research and describes it as a shift in medical paradigm, in contrast to intuition, unsystematic clinical experience, and pathophysiologic rationale. While the importance of randomized trials has been created by the concept of the hierarchy of evidence in guiding therapy, much of the medical research is observational. The reporting of observational research is often not detailed and clear enough with insufficient quality and poor reporting, which hampers the assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the study and the generalizability of the mixed results. Thus, in recent years, progress and innovations in health care are measured by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, “the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, clinical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic.” Meta-analysis usually is the final step in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are labor intensive, requiring expertise in both the subject matter and review methodology, and also must follow the rules of EBM which suggests that a formal set of rules must complement medical training and common sense for clinicians to integrate the results of clinical research effectively. While expertise in the review methods is important, the expertise in the subject matter and technical components is also crucial. Even though, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, specifically of RCTs, have exploded, the quality of the systematic reviews is highly variable and consequently, the opinions reached of the same studies are quite divergent. Numerous deficiencies have been described in methodologic assessment of the quality of the individual articles. Consequently, observational studies can provide an important complementary source of information, provided that the data are analyzed and interpreted in the context of confounding bias to which they are prone. Appropriate systematic reviews of observational studies, in conjunction with RCTs, may provide the basis for elimination of a dangerous discrepancy between the experts and the evidence. Steps in conducting systematic reviews of observational studies include planning, conducting, reporting, and disseminating the results. MOOSE, or Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, a proposal for reporting contains specifications including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the MOOSE checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analysis for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision-makers. This manuscript describes systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Authors frequently utilize RCTs and observational studies in one systematic review; thus, they should also follow the reporting standards of the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement, which also provides a checklist. A combined approach of QUOROM and MOOSE will improve reporting of systematic reviews and lead to progress and innovations in health care. Key words: Observational studies, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, metaanalysis, randomized trials, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, confounding bias, QUOROM, MOOSE


Author(s):  
Morteza Arab-Zozani ◽  
Zahra Heidarifard ◽  
Efat Jabarpour

Context: The number of studies on health is increasing rapidly worldwide and in Iran. Systematic review studies, meta-analyses, and economic evaluation are of great importance in evidence-based decision making because of their standing in the evidence-based pyramid. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of Iranian systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies and economic evaluations on healthcare. Evidence Acquisition: PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to find considered studies, including systematic reviews, meta analyses and economic evaluations published from 2005 to 2015. Because of the high volume of review studies, 10% of all systematic reviews and meta-analyses were selected as a random sample. Also, all economic evaluations were included. Articles were evaluated using checklists, including PRISMA, AMSTAR and QHES with a maximum score of 27, 11 and 100, respectively. The quality score for each criterion as well as the epidemiological and descriptive characteristics of all articles was determined. Data were analyzed using SPSS V. 16 software. Results: After searching the databases, 1084 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were obtained, 10% of which were included in the study. A total of 41 economic evaluations were also included. The mean scores of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were 17.04 (5.35) and 5.42 (1.97), respectively, and 68.21 (12.44) for economic evaluations based on QHES. Only three systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles had recorded protocols and 85% of the studies included the terms “systematic review” and “meta-analysis” in their titles. Only one study had been updated. In addition, 81% of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses were published in specialized journals and 47% in Iranian journals. Financial resources and conflict of interests had been mentioned in 33% and 66% of the studies, respectively. Of the selected studies, 60% had evaluated the quality of the articles and 35% of the studies had assessed publication bias. In economic evaluations, 56% had used CEA analysis, 22% CUA analysis, 12% CBA analysis, and one study had used CMA analysis. Of these studies, 54% were model-based health economic studies and 12% were trial-based. The economic perspective was the health care system in most studies. Forty-four percent of the studies had a short time horizon of one year or less, whereas 33% had a lifetime horizon. Moreover, 68% of the studies showed sensitivity analysis and only 5 included the magnitude and direction of the bias. Conclusions: Overall, the reporting and methodological quality of the selected studies were estimated at a moderate level. Based on these results, it is recommended to adopt strategies to reduce preventable errors in studies. Having a primary plan and protocol and registering it as a systematic review can be an important factor in improving the quality of studies. Economic evaluations should also focus on issues, such as economic perspective, time horizon, available bias, and sensitivity analysis.


2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (12) ◽  
pp. 1006-1016
Author(s):  
Sun-Kyung Park ◽  
Susie Yoon ◽  
Bo Rim Kim ◽  
Suk Hyung Choe ◽  
Jae-Hyon Bahk ◽  
...  

Background and objectivesEpidural analgesia is the gold standard for post-thoracotomy pain management and can be started before or after surgical incision. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated whether pre-emptive epidural analgesia before thoracotomy incision reduces acute and chronic post-thoracotomy pain in adults compared with epidural analgesia after incision.MethodsWe searched databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials comparing epidural analgesia initiated before (pre-emptive group) and after (control group) thoracotomy incision in adults. The primary outcomes were the pain intensity during rest and coughing within 72 hours after surgery and the incidence of pain 1 to 6 months after surgery. Data were combined with random-effects meta-analyses. We rated the quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, and very low using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method.ResultsWe included 19 trials with 1062 participants involving 529 in the pre-emptive group and 533 in the control group. The pain intensity was significantly lower at rest within 72 hours after surgery (19 studies, n=1062) and during coughing within 48 hours after surgery (11 studies, n=638), and the incidence of pain was significantly lower 1 to 6 months after surgery (6 studies, n=276) in the pre-emptive group than in the control group. The quality of evidence was moderate or low in the primary outcomes.ConclusionsOur review provides low-quality evidence that pre-emptive epidural analgesia reduces the intensity of acute pain and the incidence of chronic pain after thoracotomy in adults.Protocol registration numberCRD42019131620.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Oberndorfer ◽  
I Grabovac ◽  
S Haider ◽  
T E Dorner

Abstract Background Reports of the effectiveness of e-cigarettes (ECs) for smoking cessation vary across different studies making implementation recommendations hard to attain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of ECs for smoking cessation. Methods PubMed, PsycInfo and Embase databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing nicotine ECs with non-nicotine ECs or with established smoking cessation interventions (nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and or counselling) published between 01/01/2014 and 01/05/2019. Data from eligible studies were extracted and used for random-effects meta-analyses. Results Our literature review yielded 13190 publications with 10 studies being identified as eligible for systematic review, covering 8362 participants, and 8 for meta-analyses (n = 30 - 6006). Using the last follow-up of eligible studies, the proportion of smokers achieving abstinence was 1.67 [95CI:0.99 - 2.81] times higher in nicotine EC users compared to non-nicotine EC users. The proportion of abstinent smokers was 1.69 [95CI:1.25 - 2.27] times higher in EC users compared to participants receiving NRT. EC users showed a 2.70 [95CI:1.15 - 6.30] times higher proportion of abstinent smokers in comparison to participants solely receiving counselling. Conclusions Our analysis showed modest effects of nicotine-ECs compared to non-nicotine ECs. When compared to NRT or counselling, results suggest that nicotine EC may be more effective for smoking cessation. As ECs also help maintaining routinized behaviour and social aspects of smoking, we hypothesise that this may explain their advantage as a tool for smoking cessation. However, given the small number of included studies, different populations, heterogeneous designs, and the overall moderate to low quality of evidence, it is not possible to offer clear recommendations. More comparable data is needed to strengthen confidence in the quality of evidence. Key messages The number of previous studies assessing the effectiveness of ECs for smoking cessation is limited. Further, comparability of these studies is restricted, weakening the quality of evidence. Although current evidence on the effectiveness of ECs for smoking cessation is inconclusive, our meta-analyses suggest that ECs could be a promising alternative tool in attempts to achieve abstinence.


2021 ◽  
pp. 003435522110432
Author(s):  
Areum Han

Objective: Mindfulness- and acceptance-based intervention (MABI) is an emerging evidenced-based practice, but no systematic review incorporating meta-analyses for MABIs in stroke survivors has been conducted. The objective of this systematic review was to measure the effectiveness of MABIs on outcomes in people with stroke. Method: Three electronic databases, including PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, were searched to identify relevant studies published in peer-reviewed journals. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed. Data were extracted and combined in a meta-analysis with a random-effect model to compute the size of the intervention effect. Results: A total of 11 studies met the eligibility criteria. Meta-analyses found a small-to-moderate effect of MABIs on depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.12, 0.66]) and a large effect on mental fatigue (SMD = 1.22, 95% CI = [0.57, 1.87]). No statistically significant effect of MABIs on anxiety, quality of life, and mindfulness was found, but there was a trend in favor of MABIs overall. Conclusions: This meta-analysis found positive effects of MABIs on depressive symptoms and mental fatigue in stroke survivors, but future high-quality studies are needed to guarantee treatment effects of MABIs on varied outcomes in stroke survivors.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alaa Abd-alrazaq ◽  
Dari Alhuwail ◽  
Eiman Al-Jafar ◽  
Arfan Ahmed ◽  
Shuja Mohd Reagu ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Memory, one of the main cognitive functions, is known to decline by age. Serious games have been used for improving memory among the elderly. The effectiveness of serious games in improving memory has been investigated by several systematic reviews; however, they are limited by design and methodological weaknesses. OBJECTIVE This study aims to assess the effectiveness of serious games in improving memory among the elderly with cognitive impairment. METHODS A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was carried out. The search sources included searching 8 databases, screening reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews, and checking studies that cited the included studies. Two reviewers independently carried out the study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and quality of evidence appraisal. Extracted data were synthesized using a narrative approach and a statistical approach (i.e., meta-analysis), as appropriate. RESULTS Out of 466 citations retrieved, 18 studies met the eligibility criteria of this review. Of those, 15 RCTs were eventually included in 10 meta-analyses. We found that serious games are more effective than no or passive interventions in improving non-verbal memory (P=0.002) and working memory (P=0.02), but not verbal memory (P=0.13). The review also showed that serious games are more effective than conventional exercises in improving verbal memory (P=0.004), but not for non-verbal memory (P=0.12) and working memory (P=0.49). Serious games were as effective as conventional cognitive activities in improving verbal memory (P=0.07), non-verbal memory (P=0.94), and working memory (P=0.08) among the elderly with cognitive impairment. Lastly, the effect of adaptive serious games on working memory was comparable to non-adaptive serious games (P=0.08). CONCLUSIONS Serious games have the potential to improve verbal, non-verbal, and working memory among elderly people with cognitive impairment. However, our findings should be interpreted cautiously given that most meta-analyses were based on a few studies (≤3) and judged to have a low quality of evidence. Therefore, serious games should be offered as supplemental to existing proven and safe interventions, rather than a complete substitute until further, more robust evidence is available. Future studies should investigate the short and long-term effects of serious games on memory and other cognitive abilities among people from different age groups with or without cognitive impairment.


Author(s):  
Paul Harrison ◽  
Philip Cowen ◽  
Tom Burns ◽  
Mina Fazel

‘Evidence-based approaches to psychiatry’ describes the application of evidence-based medicine (EBM) to psychiatric practice. The chapter covers the key processes in EBM, including the formulation of a clinically relevant question, the systematic search for high-quality evidence and the meta-analytic synthesis of data. It demonstrates how evidence-based approaches to psychiatry have led to important developments showing quantitative effects of different treatments through advanced meta-analysis of data from randomized trials. This has underpinned the development of clinical guidelines that have the aim of improving the reliability and quality of treatments that patients receive. The chapter also describes how meta-analyses should be critically reviewed, as well as their problems and limitations. Not all relevant questions in psychiatric research are susceptible to the quantitative approach offered by EBM, and the chapter also outlines how qualitative methodologies can play a key role in answering important questions related, for example, to the patient experience.


Author(s):  
Iramar Nascimento ◽  
Guilherme Dienstmann ◽  
Matheus de Souza ◽  
Raquel Fleig ◽  
Carla Hoffmann ◽  
...  

Objective Does the use of metformin have an influence on the outcomes of preeclampsia (PE)? Sources of Data The descriptors pregnancy, metformin, treatment, and preeclampsia associated with the Boolean operators AND and OR were found in the MEDLINE, LILACS, Embase and Cochrane databases. A flowchart with exclusion criteria and inclusion strategy using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol, and eligibility criteria was used. Data were extracted regarding the type of study, the applied dosage, treatment time, segment, bias risks, and the Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) strategy to identify the quality of the study. Selection of Studies Total number of journals in the initial search (n = 824); exclusions from repeated articles on different search engines (n = 253); exclusions after reading the titles, when the title had no correlations with the proposed theme (n = 164); exclusions due to incompatibility with the criteria established in the methodological analysis (n = 185), exclusion of articles with lower correlation with the objective of the present study (n = 187); and final bibliographic selection (n = 35). Data Collection At first, a systematic review of the literature was performed. Subsequently, from the main selection, randomized and non-randomized trials with metformin that presented their results in absolute and relative numbers of PE outcomes were selected. The variables were treated statistically in the meta-analysis with the Review Manager software (RevMan), version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Denmark in the Hovedistaden region. Synthesis of Data The study showed that metmorfin presented greater preventive effects for pregnancy-induced hypertension and was less effective for PE. Conclusion Metformin may gain place in preventive treatments for PE, once the dosages, the gestational age, and treatment time are particularly evaluated. A methodological strategy with an improved perspective of innovative and/or carefully progressive dosages during pregnancy to avoid side effects and the possibility of maternal-fetal risks is suggested.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 373-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sakineh Hajebrahimi ◽  
Ali Janati ◽  
Morteza Arab-Zozani ◽  
Mobin Sokhanvar ◽  
Elaheh Haghgoshayie ◽  
...  

Purpose Visit time is a crucial aspect of patient–physician interaction; its inadequacy can negatively impact the efficiency of treatment and diagnosis. In addition, visit time is a fundamental demand of patients, and it is one of the rights of every patient. The purpose of this paper is to determine factors influencing the consultation length of physicians and to compare consultation length in different countries. Design/methodology/approach MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, Cochrane, ProQuest, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched. In addition, references of references were checked, and publication lists of individual scholars in the field were examined. We used data sources up to June 2018, without language restriction. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analyses. Meta-analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version (CMA) 3.0. Findings Of 16,911 identified studies, 189 studies were assessed of which 125 cases (67 percent) have been conducted in the USA. A total of 189 studies, 164 (86.77 percent) involved face-to face-consultations. The effects of three variables, physician gender, patient gender, and type of consultation were analyzed. According to moderate and strong evidence studies, no significant difference was found in the consultation lengths of female and male doctors (Q=42.72, df=8, I2=81.27, p=0.891) and patients’ gender (Q=55.98, df=11, I2=80.35, p=0.314). In addition, no significant difference was found in the telemedicine or face-to-face visits (Q=41.25, df=5, I2=87.88, p=0.170). Originality/value In this systematic review and meta-analysis, all of physicians’ visits in 34 countries were surveyed. The evidence suggests that specified variables do not influence the length of consultations. Good relationship is essential to a safe and high-quality consultation and referral process. A high-quality consultation can improve decisions and quality of visits, treatment effectiveness, efficiency of service, quality of care, patient safety and physician and patient satisfaction.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kwuntida Uthaisar Kotepui ◽  
Manas Kotepui

Abstract Background Plasmodium spp. and hepatitis B virus (HBV) are among the most common infectious diseases in underdeveloped countries. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection in people living in endemic areas of both diseases and to assess the risk factors related to this co-infection. Methods The PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched. Observational cross-sectional studies and retrospective studies assessing the prevalence of Plasmodium species and HBV co-infection were examined. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), a tool for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses, and heterogeneity among the included studies was assessed with Cochran's Q test and the I2 (inconsistency) statistic. The pooled prevalence of the co-infection and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using the random-effects model, depending on the amount of heterogeneity there was among the included studies. The pooled odds ratio (OR) represented the difference in qualitative variables, whereas the pooled mean difference (MD) represented the difference in quantitative variables. Meta-analyses of the potential risk factors for Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection, including patient age and gender, were identified and represented as pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% CIs. Publication bias among the included studies was assessed by visual inspection of a funnel plot to search for asymmetry. Results Twenty-two studies were included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis. Overall, the pooled prevalence estimate of Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection was 6% (95% CI 4–7%, Cochran's Q statistic < 0.001, I2: 95.8%), with prevalences of 10% in Gambia (95% CI: 8–12%, weight: 4.95%), 8% in Italy (95% CI 5–12%, weight: 3.8%), 7% in Nigeria (95% CI 4–10%, weight: 53.5%), and 4% in Brazil (95% CI 2–5%, weight: 19.9%). The pooled prevalence estimate of Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection was higher in studies published before 2015 (7%, 95% CI 4–9%, Cochran's Q statistic < 0.001, I2: 96%) than in those published since 2015 (3%, 95% CI 1–5%, Cochran's Q statistic < 0.001, I2: 81.3%). No difference in age and risk of Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection group was found between the Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection and the Plasmodium monoinfection group (p: 0.48, OR: 1.33, 95% CI 0.60–2.96). No difference in gender and risk of Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection group was found between the Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection and HBV co-infection group and the Plasmodium monoinfection group (p: 0.09, OR: 2.79, 95% CI 0.86–9.10). No differences in mean aspartate aminotransferase (AST), mean alanine aminotransferase (ALT), or mean total bilirubin levels were found (p > 0.05) between the Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection group and the Plasmodium monoinfection group. Conclusions The present study revealed the prevalence of Plasmodium spp. and HBV co-infection, which will help in understanding co-infection and designing treatment strategies. Future studies assessing the interaction between Plasmodium spp. and HBV are recommended.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document