scholarly journals Clinical Considerations for Return to Driving a Car following a Total Knee or Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Annalisa Na ◽  
Kacy Richburg ◽  
Zbigniew Gugala
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Postoperative Management ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Clinical Factors ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Meta Analyses

Aim. The purpose of this study is to systematically review patient characteristics and clinical determinants that may influence return to driving status and time frames following a primary TKA or THA and provide an update of the current literature. Methods. This review was completed per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Final electronic database searches were completed in October 2019 in Medline/PubMed, Medline/OVID, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane Library using preselected search terms. Manuscripts of prospective and nonrandomized studies that examined the return to driving a car after a primary knee or hip arthroplasty patients were included. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies was used to measure study quality. Two authors selected studies and assessed their qualities. All disagreements were resolved through discussion and, as needed, a third reviewer. Data on study title, author(s), country, year, study design, sample size, inclusion and exclusion criteria, age, BMI, gender, statistical analyses, driving measure, follow-up time, surgical approach, laterality, and postoperative management were extracted from each study. Results. A total of 23 studies were eligible, including 12 TKA studies (n=654) with mean ages between 43 and 82 years, 9 THA studies (n=922) with mean ages between 34 and 85 years, and 2 combined TKA and THA (TKA, n=815; THA, n=685), yielded MINORS scores between 6 and 12. Most patients achieved or exceeded preoperative response times between 1 and 8 weeks following a TKA and 2 days to 8 weeks following a THA, and/or self-reported return to driving between 1 week and 6 months. Influences on return to driving time included laterality and pain, but gender was mixed. Discussion/Conclusions. Study results were consistent with previous systematic reviews in that return to driving a car after a primary TKA or THA is highly variable, and most commonly occurs around 4 weeks, but can range between 2 and 8 weeks. While various patient and clinical factors can influence return to driving for a TKA or THA, the most common contributing facts were pain and laterality. The heterogeneous nature of the studies prevented a meta-analysis for determining contributions of return to driving following a primary TKA or THA. Regardless, this study updates previous systematic reviews and presents insight on patient and clinical factors beyond generalized timeframes for return to driving a car. This information and results from future studies are essential to guide clinical recommendations and patient and clinician expectations for return to driving a car after a primary TKA or THA.

scholarly journals A systematic review of pharmacist-led audit and feedback interventions to influence prescribing behaviour in general practice settings

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i34-i35
Author(s):  
M Carter ◽  
N Abutheraa ◽  
N Ivers ◽  
J Grimshaw ◽  
S Chapman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Audit And Feedback ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Prescribing Behaviour ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Introduction Audit and Feedback (A&F) involves measuring data about practice, comparing it with clinical guidelines, professional standards or peer performance, and then feeding back the data to individuals/groups of health professionals to encourage change in practice (if required). A 2012 Cochrane review (1) found A&F was effective in changing health professionals’ behaviour and suggested that the person who delivers the A&F intervention influences its effect. Increasingly, pharmacists work in general practice and often have responsibility for medication review and repeat prescriptions. The effectiveness of pharmacist-led A&F in influencing prescribing behaviour is uncertain. Aim This secondary analysis from an ongoing update of the original Cochrane review aims to identify and describe pharmacist-led A&F interventions and evaluate their impact on prescribing behaviour in general practice compared with no intervention. Methods This sub-review is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42020194355 and complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (2). For the updated Cochrane review, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group searched MEDLINE (1946 to present), EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library (March 2019) to identify randomised trials featuring A&F interventions. For this sub-review, authors screened titles and abstracts (May 2020) to identify trials involving pharmacist-led A&F interventions in primary care, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (RoB) in eligible studies. Review results are summarised descriptively. Heterogeneity will be assessed and a random-effects meta-analysis is planned. Publication bias for selected outcomes and the certainty of the body of evidence will be evaluated and presented. Sub-group analyses will be conducted. Results Titles and abstracts of 295 studies identified for inclusion in the Cochrane A&F review update were screened. Eleven studies (all cluster-randomised trials) conducted in 9 countries (Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Ireland, UK, Australia, Malaysia, USA) were identified for inclusion (Figure 1). Six studies had low RoB, two had high risk due to dissimilarities between trial arms at baseline and/or insufficient detail about randomisation, and three studies had unclear RoB. Studies examined the effect of A&F on prescribing for specific conditions (e.g. hypertension), medications (e.g. antibiotics), populations (e.g. patients >70), and prescribing errors (e.g. inappropriate dose). The pharmacist delivering A&F was a colleague of intervention participants in five studies. Pharmacists’ levels of skill and experience varied; seven studies reported details of pharmacist training undertaken for trial purposes. A&F interventions in nine studies demonstrated changes in prescribing, including reductions in errors or inappropriate prescribing according to the study aims and smaller increases in unwanted prescribing compared with the control group. Data analyses are ongoing (results will be available for the conference). Conclusion The preliminary results demonstrate the effectiveness of pharmacist-led A&F interventions in different countries and health systems with influencing prescribing practice to align more closely with guidance. Studies measured different prescribing behaviours; meta-analysis is unlikely to include all 11 studies. Further detailed analysis including feedback format/content/frequency and pharmacist skill level/experience, work-base (external/internal to recipients), will examine the impact of specific features on intervention effectiveness. References 1. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(6):CD000259. 2. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

Simultaneous compared to interval administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for medical abortion up to 10+0 weeks' gestation: a systematic review with meta-analyses

2020 ◽  
pp. bmjsrh-2019-200448
Author(s):  
Mia Schmidt-Hansen ◽  
Jonathan Lord ◽  
Elise Hasler ◽  
Sharon Cameron
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Medical Abortion ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundMedical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol usually involves an interval of 36–48 hours between administering these drugs; however, it is possible that the clinical efficacy at early gestations may be maintained when the drugs are taken simultaneously. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the safety and effectiveness of simultaneous compared with interval administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for abortion up to 10+0 weeks’ gestation.MethodsWe searched Embase Classic, Embase; Ovid MEDLINE(R) including Daily, and Epub Ahead-of-Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; and Cochrane Library on 11 December 2019. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published in English from 1985, comparing simultaneous to interval administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for early abortion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration checklist for RCTs. Meta-analysis of risk ratios (RRs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method were performed. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.ResultsMeta-analyses of three RCTs (n=1280) showed no differences in ‘ongoing pregnancy’ (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 8.36), ‘haemorrhage requiring transfusion or ≥500 mL blood loss’ (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.03) and ‘incomplete abortion with the need for surgical intervention’ (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.25) between the interventions. Individual study results showed no difference in patient satisfaction, or ‘need for repeat misoprostol’, although ‘time to onset of bleeding or cramping’ was longer after simultaneous than interval administration. The quality of evidence was very low to moderate.ConclusionThe published data support the use of simultaneous mifepristone and misoprostol for medical abortion up to 9+0 weeks in women who prefer this method of administration.

scholarly journals Management of haemorrhoids: protocol of an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e035287
Author(s):  
Min Chen ◽  
Tai-Chun Tang ◽  
Tao-Hong He ◽  
Yong-Jun Du ◽  
Di Qin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Effect Model ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionThe prevalence of haemorrhoidal diseases was high in general population, and many treatments are proposed for the management of haemorrhoids. The treatments include conservative and surgical interventions; the credibility and strength of current evidence of their effectiveness are not comprehensively evaluated. We aim to evaluate the credibility of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that assess the effectiveness of the treatments for haemorrhoidal diseases through an umbrella review.Methods and analysisWe will search Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane library and Web of Science from inception to March 2020 without any language restriction. We will include meta-analyses that examine the effectiveness of treatments in the management of haemorrhoids. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts of retrieved articles, and they will extract data from the included meta-analyses. For each meta-analysis, we will estimate the effect size of a treatment through the random-effect model and the fixed-effect model, and we will evaluate between-study heterogeneity (Cochrane’s Q and I2statistics) and small-study effect (Egger’s test); we will also estimate the evidence of excess significance bias. Evidence of each treatment will be graded according to prespecified criteria. Methodological quality of each meta-analysis will be evaluated by using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2. The corrected cover area method will be used to assess the impact of overlap in reviews on the findings of the umbrella review.Ethics and disseminationWe will present the results of the umbrella review at conferences and publish the final report in a peer-reviewed journal. The umbrella review does not require ethical approval.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019140702.

Is grey literature essential for a better control of publication bias in psychiatry? An example from three meta-analyses of schizophrenia

2005 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 550-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Luis R. Martin ◽  
Víctor Pérez ◽  
Montse Sacristán ◽  
Enric Álvarez
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Medical Databases ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Heterogeneous Nature ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Literature Material

AbstractSystematic reviews in mental health have become useful tools for health professionals in view of the massive amount and heterogeneous nature of biomedical information available today. In order to determine the risk of bias in the studies evaluated and to avoid bias in generalizing conclusions from the reviews it is therefore important to use a very strict methodology in systematic reviews. One bias which may affect the generalization of results is publication bias, which is determined by the nature and direction of the study results. To control or minimize this type of bias, the authors of systematic reviews undertake comprehensive searches of medical databases and expand on the findings, often undertaking searches of grey literature (material which is not formally published). This paper attempts to show the consequences (and risk) of generalizing the implications of grey literature in the control of publication bias, as was proposed in a recent systematic work. By repeating the analyses for the same outcome from three different systematic reviews that included both published and grey literature our results showed that confusion between grey literature and publication bias may affect the results of a concrete meta-analysis.

scholarly journals Pharmacological interventions for preventing post-operative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a network meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. e018544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoqin Wang ◽  
Liang Yao ◽  
Long Ge ◽  
Lun Li ◽  
Fuxiang Liang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Patient Consent ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionPostoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common complication following cardiac surgery, and randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews have been conducted to compare and evaluate different pharmacological interventions for preventing POAF. This study aimed to explore the effect of different pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis against POAF after cardiac surgery using network meta-analysis (NMA).Methods and analysisA systematic search will be performed in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library to identify RCTs, systematic reviews, meta-analyses or NMA of different pharmacological interventions for POAF. We will evaluate the risk of bias of the included RCTs according to the Cochrane Handbook V.5.1.0, and use GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. Standard pairwise meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis will be used to compare the efficacy of different pharmacological interventions.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval and patient consent are not required as this study is a meta-analysis based on published studies. The results of this NMA and trial sequential analysis will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.Protocol registration numberCRD42017067492.

scholarly journals Oral Microbiome Response to Powered vs Manual Toothbrush: Protocol for a Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abanoub Riad ◽  
Jitka Klugarova ◽  
Veronika Chuchmova ◽  
Simona Slezakova ◽  
Andrea Pokorna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Microbiome ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Process Data ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Study Results

Abstract Background: Subclinical changes in response to different types of toothbrushes represent a challenging knowledge gap in the context of self-administered oral hygiene regimes; therefore, this systematic review will be the first to evaluate the oral microbiome response to powered versus manual toothbrushes.Methods: We will conduct a systematic review using the Cochrane Handbook’s guidelines and will adhere to a standardized reporting format: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A comprehensive search strategy will be conducted in the following databases for published studies: Ovid MEDLINE(R), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest Central, ProQuest Dissertations Theses Global, Bibliographia Medica Cechoslovaca, and Dentistry Oral Sciences Source. Following a two-level screening process, data including the full reference, objectives, target population, description of the intervention and control intervention, outcome measures, design, length of the post-intervention follow-up period, and the study results will be extracted, synthesized, and reported. Risk of bias and quality of the studies will also be assessed.Discussion: No primary data collection will be undertaken; therefore, no formal ethical assessment is required. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Registration: The protocol has been registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020153557) since April 28th, 2020.

scholarly journals A systematic review protocol for examining 30-day readmission costs for atrial fibrillation patients

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e032101
Author(s):  
Taylor-Jade Woods ◽  
Peter Speck ◽  
Billingsley Kaambwa
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Primary Diagnosis ◽  
Index Admission ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Forest Plot ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cost

IntroductionAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia and readmissions of AF patients place a huge burden on the healthcare system, including economically. With an increasing prevalence, the burden of AF will continue evolving. To illuminate the readmission-specific economic burden, we aim to provide quality evidence on the cost of readmissions within 30 days where AF has been the primary diagnosis at the index admission.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of all peer-reviewed articles examining readmission costs for AF patients. We will search MedLine, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus and Cochrane Library for articles written in English, published in peer-reviewed journals from inception to 2019. Reporting of this protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols checklist. Studies will be included if patients were aged 18 years and over, AF was the primary diagnosis of index admission and costs of readmission within 30 days were reported. Quality assessment of studies will be done using a modified Evers checklist. Study results will be summarised in a Forest plot and heterogeneity tested for using the Cochran’s Q and I2statistic. A random-effects model will be applied for meta-analysis if studies are sufficiently homogeneous. The cost of readmission to hospital within 30 days for AF patients is the main outcome of interest while additional outcomes are 30-day readmission rate, predictors of readmission and predictors of readmission costs.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval is not required as no patients will be involved. Dissemination of results will be through a peer-reviewed publication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019132017

The Effectiveness of Telemedicine Solutions for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression

2021 ◽  
pp. 193229682110646
Author(s):  
Stine Hangaard ◽  
Sisse H. Laursen ◽  
Jonas D. Andersen ◽  
Thomas Kronborg ◽  
Peter Vestergaard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Sufficient Information ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Previous systematic reviews have aimed to clarify the effect of telemedicine on diabetes. However, such reviews often have a narrow focus, which calls for a more comprehensive systematic review within the field. Hence, the objective of the present systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression is to evaluate the effectiveness of telemedicine solutions versus any comparator without the use of telemedicine on diabetes-related outcomes among adult patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We considered telemedicine randomized controlled trials (RCT) including adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with T2D. Change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c, %) was the primary outcome. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched on October 14, 2020. An overall treatment effect was estimated using a meta-analysis performed on the pool of included studies based on the mean difference (MD). The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was applied and the certainty of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Results: The final sample of papers included a total of 246, of which 168 had sufficient information to calculate the effect of HbA1c%. The results favored telemedicine, with an MD of −0.415% (95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.482% to −0.348%). The heterogeneity was great (I2 = 93.05%). A monitoring component gave rise to the higher effects of telemedicine. Conclusions: In conclusion, telemedicine may serve as a valuable supplement to usual care for patients with T2D. The inclusion of a telemonitoring component seems to increase the effect of telemedicine.

scholarly journals How should systematic reviewers handle conference abstracts? A view from the trenches

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberta W. Scherer ◽  
Ian J. Saldanha
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Effect Estimate ◽  
Main Body ◽  
Unpublished Studies ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Positive Results

Abstract Background While identifying and cataloging unpublished studies from conference proceedings is generally recognized as a good practice during systematic reviews, controversy remains whether to include study results that are reported in conference abstracts. Existing guidelines provide conflicting recommendations. Main body The main argument for including conference abstracts in systematic reviews is that abstracts with positive results are preferentially published, and published sooner, as full-length articles compared with other abstracts. Arguments against including conference abstracts are that (1) searching for abstracts is resource-intensive, (2) abstracts may not contain adequate information, and (3) the information in abstracts may not be dependable. However, studies comparing conference abstracts and fully published articles of the same study find only minor differences, usually with conference abstracts presenting preliminary results. Other studies that have examined differences in treatment estimates of meta-analyses with and without conference abstracts report changes in precision, but usually not in the treatment effect estimate. However, in some cases, including conference abstracts has made a difference in the estimate of the treatment effect, not just its precision. Instead of arbitrarily deciding to include or exclude conference abstracts in systematic reviews, we suggest that systematic reviewers should consider the availability of evidence informing the review. If available evidence is sparse or conflicting, it may be worthwhile to search for conference abstracts. Further, attempts to contact authors of abstracts or search for protocols or trial registers to supplement the information presented in conference abstracts is prudent. If unique information from conference abstracts is included in a meta-analysis, a sensitivity analysis with and without the unique results should be conducted. Conclusions Under given circumstances, it is worthwhile to search for and include results from conference abstracts in systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Systematic review versus internet search: considerations about availability and reliability of medical information regarding pregnancy in women with multiple sclerosis

2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 896-903 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yara Dadalti Fragoso ◽  
Suely Dadalti Fragoso ◽  
Alessandro Finkelsztejn ◽  
Joseph Bruno Bidin Brooks ◽  
Rebeca Recupero Rebs
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Computer Mediated Communication ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Meta Analyses

OBJECTIVE: To compare the results from a systematic medical review and meta-analysis on the subject of pregnancy and multiple sclerosis (MS) with an internet review based on lay sites conducted by experts in computer-mediated communication, on the same subject. METHODS: The two reviews were carried out independently in English. Three medical doctors with experience in systematic reviews and two communication experts with experience in internet searching tools performed the study. RESULTS: Data from the medical systematic review showed some differences from that of highly accessed websites. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based studies conducted under the strictest rules for careful systematic reviews and meta-analyses should be available with open access, i.e. accessible without payment of a fee, thereby enabling worldwide knowledge on matters of great interest to healthcare providers and patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document