Understanding loneliness: a systematic review of the impact of social prescribing initiatives on loneliness

Aims: The aim of this systematic literature review is to assess the impact of social prescribing (SP) programmes on loneliness among participants and the population. Methods: We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to search EBSCOHost (CINAHL Complete, eBook Collection, E-Journals, MEDLINE with Full Text, Open Dissertations, PsycARTICLES, and PsycINFO), UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Web of Science Core Collection, and grey literature. We included studies measuring the effectiveness and impact of SP programmes in terms of loneliness. We excluded systematic reviews and studies without evaluations. Due to the absence of confidence intervals and the low number of studies, we conduct no meta-analysis. Results: From 4415 unique citations, nine articles met the inclusion criteria. The studies do not use uniform measures or randomised samples. All nine studies report positive individual impacts; three report reductions in general practitioner (GP), A&E, social worker, or inpatient/outpatient services; and one shows that belonging to a group reduces loneliness and healthcare usage. Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review indicate that individuals and service providers view SP as a helpful tool to address loneliness. However, evidence variability and the small number of studies make it difficult to draw a conclusion on the extent of the impact and the pathways to achieving positive change. More research is needed into the impact of SP programmes on participants, populations, and communities in terms of loneliness, isolation, and connectedness, especially in light of the surge in SP activity as a key part of pandemic response.

Download Full-text

Does pain influence force steadiness? A protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042525 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

pp. e042525

Author(s):

Michail Arvanitidis ◽

Deborah Falla ◽

Andy Sanderson ◽

Eduardo Martinez-Valdes

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Force Steadiness ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Ethical Approval ◽

Registration Number ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionPerforming contractions with minimum force fluctuations is essential for everyday life as reduced force steadiness impacts on the precision of voluntary movements and functional ability. Several studies have investigated the effect of experimental or clinical musculoskeletal pain on force steadiness but with conflicting findings. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the current literature to determine whether pain, whether it be clinical or experimental, influences force steadiness.Methods and analysisThis protocol for a systematic review was informed and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Key databases will be searched from inception to 31 August 2020, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, ZETOC and Web of Science. Grey literature and key journals will be also reviewed. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa tool, and the quality of the cumulative evidence assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. If homogeneity exists between groups of studies, meta-analysis will be conducted. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis approach and a vote-counting method will be used, while the results will be presented as net increases or decreases of force steadiness.Ethics and disseminationThe findings will be presented at conferences and the review will be also submitted for publication in a refereed journal. No ethical approval was required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020196479

Download Full-text

Impact of treatment as usual on efficacy estimates of face-to-face and internet-based psychotherapy for depression: A pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

10.31219/osf.io/5s6ap ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Thomas Munder ◽

Alessia Geisshüsler ◽

Tobias Krieger ◽

Johannes Zimmermann ◽

Markus Wolf ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Control Group ◽

Randomised Trials ◽

Control Groups ◽

Treatment As Usual ◽

Face To Face ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

The Impact

Background: Treatment as usual (TAU) is the most frequently used control group in randomised trials of psychotherapy for depression and meta-analyses that summarise these trials. Concerns have been raised over imprecise and biased efficacy estimates because of substantial variability in the treatments provided in TAU. We set out to investigate the impact of the control group intensity (i.e., quantitative and qualitative aspects of treatments in control groups) on results of trials of psychotherapy for depression and confounding due to systematic differences in this intensity in trials of face-to-face (F2F) and internet-based (INT) psychotherapy.Methods: We conducted a pre-registered systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PsycINFO for systematic reviews of psychotherapy for depression from Jan 1, 2015 to Jan 3, 2020 and retrieved all references of trials included in these systematic reviews. We searched Cochrane’s Central Register of Controlled Trials and PsycINFO for randomised trials from Jan 1, 2018 to Jan 3, 2020. We included trials that compared (individual or group) F2F or (self-guided or guided) INT with TAU or waiting list (WL) in the acute treatment of patients with symptoms of unipolar depression. We excluded trials published before 2000. All information was extracted by two independent researchers. Six dichotomous indicators were used to create a score that expressed the intensity of TAU and WL. Primary outcome: Standardised mean differences (SMD) of treatment and control groups in depressive symptoms at treatment termination. SMDs were extracted from trial reports. A protocol was pre-registered with the Center for Open Science (www.osf.io/4mzyd).Findings: We included 89 eligible trials that randomised 14,474 patients to 113 eligible psychotherapy arms (8,284 patients) and 89 control arms (6,190 patients). TAU was used as control group in 42 trials (47.19%) and WL in 47 trials (52.81%). F2F was investigated in 37 trials (42.05%) and INT in 51 trials (57.95%). Intensity of control groups did not differ between F2F trials (M = 0.86, SD = 1.42) and INT trials (M = 0.39, SD = 0.63, p = .255). Intensity of control group was a significant predictor of trial results in the main analysis (one-sided p = .042), in pre-registered sensitivity analyses, and in all further exploratory analyses. Heterogeneity estimates were high (I2 = 69.30% to 95.37%). The final analysis found psychotherapy effects to be SMD = -0.287 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.483 to -0.091, one-sided p = .002, I2 = 76.13%) smaller in 24 trials with higher intensity TAU compared to 16 trials with lower intensity TAU. Interpretation: Our findings suggest that the variability of treatments in TAU influences the results of trials on psychotherapy for depression and is likely to introduce imprecision into meta-analyses of these trials. Source of funding: None

Download Full-text

Measuring the impact of screening automation on meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-019-1162-x ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Christopher R. Norman ◽

Mariska M. G. Leeflang ◽

Raphaël Porcher ◽

Aurélie Névéol

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Diagnostic Test ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Estimation Error ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Diagnostic Test Accuracy ◽

Test Accuracy ◽

Screening Process ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background The large and increasing number of new studies published each year is making literature identification in systematic reviews ever more time-consuming and costly. Technological assistance has been suggested as an alternative to the conventional, manual study identification to mitigate the cost, but previous literature has mainly evaluated methods in terms of recall (search sensitivity) and workload reduction. There is a need to also evaluate whether screening prioritization methods leads to the same results and conclusions as exhaustive manual screening. In this study, we examined the impact of one screening prioritization method based on active learning on sensitivity and specificity estimates in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Methods We simulated the screening process in 48 Cochrane reviews of diagnostic test accuracy and re-run 400 meta-analyses based on a least 3 studies. We compared screening prioritization (with technological assistance) and screening in randomized order (standard practice without technology assistance). We examined if the screening could have been stopped before identifying all relevant studies while still producing reliable summary estimates. For all meta-analyses, we also examined the relationship between the number of relevant studies and the reliability of the final estimates. Results The main meta-analysis in each systematic review could have been performed after screening an average of 30% of the candidate articles (range 0.07 to 100%). No systematic review would have required screening more than 2308 studies, whereas manual screening would have required screening up to 43,363 studies. Despite an average 70% recall, the estimation error would have been 1.3% on average, compared to an average 2% estimation error expected when replicating summary estimate calculations. Conclusion Screening prioritization coupled with stopping criteria in diagnostic test accuracy reviews can reliably detect when the screening process has identified a sufficient number of studies to perform the main meta-analysis with an accuracy within pre-specified tolerance limits. However, many of the systematic reviews did not identify a sufficient number of studies that the meta-analyses were accurate within a 2% limit even with exhaustive manual screening, i.e., using current practice.

Download Full-text

Misuse of medication in adult substance misuse services: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047283 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (6) ◽

pp. e047283

Author(s):

Rosalind Gittins ◽

Louise Missen ◽

Ian Maidment

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Substance Misuse ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Opioid Analgesics ◽

Physical And Mental Health ◽

Qualitative Synthesis ◽

Treatment Services ◽

The Impact

IntroductionThere is a growing concern about the misuse of over the counter (OTC) and prescription only medication (POM) because of the impact on physical and mental health, drug interactions, overdoses and drug-related deaths. These medicines include opioid analgesics, anxiolytics such as pregabalin and diazepam and antidepressants. This protocol outlines how a systematic review will be undertaken (during June 2021), which aims to examine the literature on the pattern of OTC and POM misuse among adults who are accessing substance misuse treatment services. It will include the types of medication being taken, prevalence and demographic characteristics of people who access treatment services.Methods and analysisAn electronic search will be conducted on the Cochrane, OVID Medline, Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science databases as well as grey literature. Two independent reviewers will conduct the initial title and abstract screenings, using predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion. If selected for inclusion, full-text data extraction will be conducted using a pilot-tested data extraction form. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be reached. Quality and risk of bias assessment will be conducted for all included studies. A qualitative synthesis and summary of the data will be provided. If possible, a meta-analysis with heterogeneity calculation will be conducted; otherwise, Synthesis Without Meta-analysis will be undertaken for quantitative data. The reporting of this protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Findings will be peer reviewed, published and shared verbally, electronically and in print, with interested clinicians and policymakers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020135216.

Download Full-text

Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Paediatrics Open ◽

10.1136/bmjpo-2021-001129 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. e001129

Author(s):

Bill Stevenson ◽

Wubshet Tesfaye ◽

Julia Christenson ◽

Cynthia Mathew ◽

Solomon Abrha ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Randomised Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Head Lice ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

Download Full-text

Effects of Sport-Based Interventions on Children’s Executive Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Brain Sciences ◽

10.3390/brainsci11060755 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (6) ◽

pp. 755

Author(s):

Falonn Contreras-Osorio ◽

Christian Campos-Jara ◽

Cristian Martínez-Salazar ◽

Luis Chirosa-Ríos ◽

Darío Martínez-García

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Working Memory ◽

Executive Function ◽

Inhibitory Control ◽

Cognitive Flexibility ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Healthy Children ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

The Impact

One of the most studied aspects of children’s cognitive development is that of the development of the executive function, and research has shown that physical activity has been demonstrated as a key factor in its enhancement. This meta-analysis aims to assess the impact of specific sports interventions on the executive function of children and teenagers. A systematic review was carried out on 1 November 2020 to search for published scientific evidence that analysed different sports programs that possibly affected executive function in students. Longitudinal studies, which assessed the effects of sports interventions on subjects between 6 and 18 years old, were identified through a systematic search of the four principal electronic databases: Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCO. A total of eight studies, with 424 subjects overall, met the inclusion criteria and were classified based on one or more of the following categories: working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility. The random-effects model for meta-analyses was performed with RevMan version 5.3 to facilitate the analysis of the studies. Large effect sizes were found in all categories: working memory (ES −1.25; 95% CI −1.70; −0.79; p < 0.0001); inhibitory control (ES −1.30; 95% CI −1.98; −0.63; p < 0.00001); and cognitive flexibility (ES −1.52; 95% CI −2.20; −0.83; p < 0.00001). Our analysis concluded that healthy children and teenagers should be encouraged to practice sports in order to improve their executive function at every stage of their development.

Download Full-text

A protocol for the systematic review and meta-analysis of thigmotactic behaviour in the open field test in rodent models associated with persistent pain

BMJ Open Science ◽

10.1136/bmjos-2020-100135 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. e100135

Author(s):

Xue Ying Zhang ◽

Jan Vollert ◽

Emily S Sena ◽

Andrew SC Rice ◽

Nadia Soliman

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Outcome Measure ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Persistent Pain ◽

Effect Sizes ◽

Bias Assessment ◽

Animal Pain ◽

Trim And Fill ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

The Impact

ObjectiveThigmotaxis is an innate predator avoidance behaviour of rodents and is enhanced when animals are under stress. It is characterised by the preference of a rodent to seek shelter, rather than expose itself to the aversive open area. The behaviour has been proposed to be a measurable construct that can address the impact of pain on rodent behaviour. This systematic review will assess whether thigmotaxis can be influenced by experimental persistent pain and attenuated by pharmacological interventions in rodents.Search strategyWe will conduct search on three electronic databases to identify studies in which thigmotaxis was used as an outcome measure contextualised to a rodent model associated with persistent pain. All studies published until the date of the search will be considered.Screening and annotationTwo independent reviewers will screen studies based on the order of (1) titles and abstracts, and (2) full texts.Data management and reportingFor meta-analysis, we will extract thigmotactic behavioural data and calculate effect sizes. Effect sizes will be combined using a random-effects model. We will assess heterogeneity and identify sources of heterogeneity. A risk-of-bias assessment will be conducted to evaluate study quality. Publication bias will be assessed using funnel plots, Egger’s regression and trim-and-fill analysis. We will also extract stimulus-evoked limb withdrawal data to assess its correlation with thigmotaxis in the same animals. The evidence obtained will provide a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and limitations of using thigmotactic outcome measure in animal pain research so that future experimental designs can be optimised. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines and disseminate the review findings through publication and conference presentation.

Download Full-text

Consequences of the COVID-19 Syndemic for Nutritional Health: A Systematic Review

Nutrients ◽

10.3390/nu13041168 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (4) ◽

pp. 1168

Author(s):

Cristian Neira ◽

Rejane Godinho ◽

Fabio Rincón ◽

Rodrigo Mardones ◽

Janari Pedroso

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Preventive Measures ◽

Physical Contact ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Study Objective ◽

Eating Style ◽

Healthy Nutrition ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

The Impact

Confinement at home, quarantine, and social distancing are some measures adopted worldwide to prevent the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2), which has been generating an important alteration in the routines and qualities of life of people. The impact on health is still being evaluated, and consequences in the nutritional field are not entirely clear. The study objective was to evaluate the current evidence about the impact that preventive measures of physical contact restriction causes in healthy nutrition. A systematic review was carried out according to the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” PRISMA Group and Cochrane method for rapid systematic reviews. Searching was performed in six electronic databases and evaluated articles published between 2010 and 2020, including among their participants adult subjects who had been exposed to the preventive measures of physical contact restriction. Seven studies met the selection criteria and reported an overall increase in food consumption, weight, Body Mass Index (BMI), and a change in eating style. Findings suggest that healthy nutrition is affected by preventive measures to restrict physical contact as a result of the COVID-19 syndemic.

Download Full-text

A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol examining the clinical characteristics and epidemiological features of olfactory dysfunction (OD) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-021-01624-6 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Rosemond Qian-Xiu Tan ◽

Wai Tak Victor Li ◽

Wing-Zi Shum ◽

Sheung Chit Chu ◽

Hang-Long Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Data ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Clinical Characteristics ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Olfactory Dysfunction ◽

Statistical Analyses ◽

Human Populations ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Analysis Protocol

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused recurring and major outbreaks in multiple human populations around the world. The plethora of clinical presentations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been described extensively, of which olfactory dysfunction (OD) was established as an important and common extrapulmonary manifestation of COVID-19 infection. The aim of this protocol is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on peer-reviewed articles which described clinical data of OD in COVID-19 patients. Methods This research protocol has been prospectively registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42020196202). CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed, as well as Chinese medical databases China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP and WANFANG, will be searched using keywords including ‘COVID-19’, ‘coronavirus disease’, ‘2019-nCoV’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, ‘novel coronavirus’, ‘anosmia’, ‘hyposmia’, ‘loss of smell’, and ‘olfactory dysfunction’. Systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Articles will be screened according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria to extract studies that include new clinical data investigating the effect of COVID-19 on olfactory dysfunction. Included articles will be reviewed in full; data including patient demographics, clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD, methods of olfactory assessment and relevant clinical outcomes will be extracted. Statistical analyses will be performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3. Discussion This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol will aim to collate and synthesise all available clinical evidence regarding COVID-19-related OD as an important neurosensory dysfunction of COVID-19 infection. A comprehensive search strategy and screening process will be conducted to incorporate broad clinical data for robust statistical analyses and representation. The outcome of the systematic review and meta-analysis will aim to improve our understanding of the symptomatology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD and identify knowledge gaps in its disease process, which will guide future research in this specific neurosensory defect. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020196202.

Download Full-text