scholarly journals Head of bed elevation to relieve gastroesophageal reflux symptoms: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Loai Albarqouni ◽  
Ray Moynihan ◽  
Justin Clark ◽  
Anna Mae Scott ◽  
Anne Duggan ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Overuse of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) – frequently used for relieving symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GORD) – raises long-term safety concerns, warranting evidence-based non-drug interventions. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effect of head-of-bed elevation on relieving symptoms of GORD in adults. Methods We included controlled trials comparing the effect of head-of-bed elevation interventions to control in adults with GORD. Two independent reviewers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed quality of included studies. Primary outcomes were changes in GORD symptoms and use of PPIs. Results We screened 1206 records; and included five trials (four cross-over and one factorial) comprising 228 patients. All five included trials were judged to be at high-risk of performance bias and four of selection bias. Of five included trials, two used ‘bed blocks’ under the bed legs; one used ‘sleeping on a wedge’ pillow, and two used both. High heterogeneity in outcome measures and reported outcomes data precluded meta-analyses. The four studies that reported on GORD symptoms found an improvement among participants in the head-of-bed elevation; a high-quality crossover trial showed a clinical important reduction in symptom scores at 6 weeks (risk ratio of 2.1; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.6). These results are supported by the observed improvement in physiological intra-oesophageal pH measurements. Conclusions Methodological and reporting limitations in available literature preclude definitive recommendations. However, head-of-bed elevation could be still considered as a cheap and safe alternative to drug interventions with unfavourable safety profiles. Protocol registration Open Science Framework: http://osf.io/2hz3j

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawid Pieper ◽  
Tanja Rombey

Abstract Background Prospective registration aims to reduce bias in the conduct and reporting of research and to increase transparency. In addition, prospective registration of systematic reviews is argued to help preventing unintended duplication, thereby reducing research waste. PROSPERO was launched in 2011 as the first prospective register for systematic reviews. While it has long been the only option to prospectively register systematic reviews, recently there have been new developments. Our aim was to identify and characterize current options to prospectively register a systematic review to assist review authors in choosing a suitable register. Methods To identify systematic review registers, we independently performed internet searches in January 2021 using keywords related to systematic reviews and prospective registration. “Registration” was defined as the process of entering information about a planned systematic review into a database before starting the systematic review process. We collected data on the characteristics of the identified registries and contacted the responsible party of each register for verification of the data related to their registry. Results Overall, we identified five options to prospectively register a systematic review: PROSPERO, the Registry of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Research Registry, and INPLASY, which are specific to systematic reviews, and the Open Science Framework Registries and protocols.io, which represent generic registers open to any study type. Detailed information on each register is presented in tables in the main text. Regarding the systematic-review-specific registries, authors have to trade-off between the costs of registration and the processing time of their registration record. All registers provide an option to search for systematic reviews already registered in the register. However, it is unclear how useful these search functions are. Conclusion Authors can prospectively register their systematic review in five registries, which come with different characteristics and features. The research community should discuss fair and sustainable financing models for registers that are not operated by for-profit organizations.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0249088
Author(s):  
Fadzai Chikwava ◽  
Reinie Cordier ◽  
Anna Ferrante ◽  
Melissa O’Donnell ◽  
Renée Speyer ◽  
...  

Introduction Over the past decade there has been a marked growth in the use of linked population administrative data for child protection research. This is the first systematic review of studies to report on research design and statistical methods used where population-based administrative data is integrated with longitudinal data in child protection settings. Methods The systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The electronic databases Medline (Ovid), PsycINFO, Embase, ERIC, and CINAHL were systematically searched in November 2019 to identify all the relevant studies. The protocol for this review was registered and published with Open Science Framework (Registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/96PX8) Results The review identified 30 studies reporting on child maltreatment, mental health, drug and alcohol abuse and education. The quality of almost all studies was strong, however the studies rated poorly on the reporting of data linkage methods. The statistical analysis methods described failed to take into account mediating factors which may have an indirect effect on the outcomes of interest and there was lack of utilisation of multi-level analysis. Conclusion We recommend reporting of data linkage processes through following recommended and standardised data linkage processes, which can be achieved through greater co-ordination among data providers and researchers.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e043784
Author(s):  
Naichuan Su ◽  
Michiel van der Linden ◽  
Geert JMG van der Heijden ◽  
Stefan Listl ◽  
Stefan Schandelmaier ◽  
...  

IntroductionSpin is defined as reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and create misleading conclusions by suggesting more favourable results. Such unjustifiable and misleading misrepresentation may negatively influence the development of further studies, clinical practice and healthcare policies. Spin manifests in various patterns in different sections of publications (titles, abstracts and main texts). The primary aim of this study is to identify reported spin patterns and assess the prevalence of spin in general, and the prevalence of spin patterns reported in biomedical literature based on previously published systematic reviews and literature reviews on spin.Methods and analysisPubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS will be searched to identify systematic or literature reviews on spin in biomedicine. To improve the comprehensiveness of the search, the snowballing method will be used to broaden the search. The data on spin-related outcomes and characteristics of the included studies will be extracted. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed with selective items of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 checklist. A new classification scheme for spin patterns will be developed if the classifications of spin patterns identified in the included studies vary. The prevalence of spin and spin patterns will be pooled based on meta-analyses if the classification schemes for spin are comparable across included studies. Otherwise, the prevalence will be described qualitatively. The seriousness of spin patterns will be assessed based on a Delphi consensus study.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam Ethics Review Committee (2020250). The study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.RegistrationOpen Science Framework: osf.io/hzv6e


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 1155
Author(s):  
Fernanda Loureiro ◽  
Margarida Ferreira ◽  
Paula Sarreira-de-Oliveira ◽  
Vanessa Antunes

Schools are particularly suitable contexts for the implementation of interventions focused on adolescent sexual behavior. Sexual education and promotion have a multidisciplinary nature. Nurses’ role and the spectrum of the carried-out interventions is not clear. We aimed to identify interventions that promote a healthy sexuality among school adolescents. Our review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews and was registered in the Open Science Framework. Published articles on sexuality in adolescents in school contexts were considered. The research limitations included primary studies; access in full text in English, Spanish, or Portuguese; and no data publication limitation. Research was carried out on the EBSCOhost, PubMed, SciELO, and Web of Science platforms; gray literature and the bibliographies of selected articles were also searched. A total of 56 studies were included in the sample. The studies used a broad range of research methods, and 10 types of interventions were identified. Multi-interventional programs and socio-emotional interventions showed a greater impact on long-term behavioral changes, and continuity seemed to be a key factor. Long-term studies are needed to reach a consensus on the effectiveness of interventions. Nurses’ particular role on the multidisciplinary teams was found to be a gap in the research, and must be further explored.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Navin Kumar ◽  
Nathan Walter ◽  
Kate Nyhan ◽  
Kaveh Khoshnood ◽  
Joseph D Tucker ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The duration and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic depends in a large part on individual and societal actions which is influenced by the quality and salience of the information to which they are exposed. Unfortunately, COVID-19 misinformation has proliferated. To date, no systematic efforts have been made to evaluate interventions that mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation. We plan to conduct a scoping review that seeks to fill several of the gaps in the current knowledge of interventions that mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation.Methods: A scoping review focusing on interventions that mitigate COVID-19 misinformation will be conducted. We will search (from January 2020 onwards) MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Africa-Wide Information, Global Health, WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease Database, WHO Global Index Medicus, and Sociological Abstracts. Grey literature will be identified using Disaster Lit, Google Scholar, Open Science Framework, governmental websites and preprint servers (e.g. EuropePMC, PsyArXiv, MedRxiv, JMIR Preprints). Study selection will conform to Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2020 Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. Only English language, original studies will be considered for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. A narrative summary of findings will be conducted. Data analysis will involve quantitative (e.g. frequencies) and qualitative (e.g. content and thematic analysis) methods.Discussion: Original research is urgently needed to design interventions to mitigate COVID-19 misinformation. The planned scoping review will help to address this gap.Systematic Review registrations: Systematic Review Registration: Open Science Framework (osf/io/etw9d).


PeerJ ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. e3557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abigail R. Bradshaw ◽  
Dorothy V.M. Bishop ◽  
Zoe V.J. Woodhead

The involvement of the right and left hemispheres in mediating language functions has been measured in a variety of ways over the centuries since the relative dominance of the left hemisphere was first known. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) presents a useful non-invasive method of assessing lateralisation that is being increasingly used in clinical practice and research. However, the methods used in the fMRI laterality literature currently are highly variable, making systematic comparisons across studies difficult. Here we consider the different methods of quantifying and classifying laterality that have been used in fMRI studies since 2000, with the aim of determining which give the most robust and reliable measurement. Recommendations are made with a view to informing future research to increase standardisation in fMRI laterality protocols. In particular, the findings reinforce the importance of threshold-independent methods for calculating laterality indices, and the benefits of assessing heterogeneity of language laterality across multiple regions of interest and tasks. This systematic review was registered as a protocol on Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/hyvc4/.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 16
Author(s):  
Aniello Alfieri ◽  
Sveva Di Franco ◽  
Maria Beatrice Passavanti ◽  
Maria Caterina Pace ◽  
Agata Stanga ◽  
...  

Our objective is to review the scientific literature on the use of antimicrobial lock therapy (ALT). To achieve this result, our scoping review will address the following seven key questions: (1) Who are the patients who will benefit from this technique? (2) What are the techniques utilized? (3) What are the settings in which the technique is performed? (4) When the technique is performed? (5) Why the technique is performed? (6) How the technique is performed? (7) In how much amount, of such technique performed? This review considers all studies published in full and in peer-reviewed journals, with no restrictions on language, on the year of publication and age of the participants. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies will be included. This scoping review has been planned on a five-stage framework: 1. Identifying the review question; 2. identifying relevant studies; 3. study selection; 4. charting the data; 5. collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. It is conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Guidelines. The databases utilized will include MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Grey Literature. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/vphwm/.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaohui Su ◽  
Dean McDonnell ◽  
Bin Liang ◽  
Jennifer Kue ◽  
Xiaoshan Li ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Cancer patients are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19, partially owing to their compromised immune systems and curbed or cut cancer healthcare services caused by the pandemic. As a result, cancer caregivers may have to shoulder triple crises: the COVID-19 pandemic, pronounced healthcare needs from the patient, and elevated need for care from within. While technology-based health interventions have the potential to address unique challenges cancer caregivers face amid COVID-19, limited insights are available. Thus, to bridge this gap, we aim to identify technology-based interventions designed for cancer caregivers and report the characteristics and effects of these interventions concerning cancer caregivers' distinctive challenges amid COVID-19. Methods: A systematic search of the literature will be conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus from the database inception to the end of March, 2021. Articles that center on technology-based interventions for cancer caregivers will be included in the review. The search strategy will be developed in consultation with an academic librarian who is experienced in systematic review studies. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles will be screened against eligibility criteria developed a priori. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses procedures will be followed for the reporting process. Conclusions: COVID-19 has upended cancer care as we know it. Findings of this study can shed light on evidence-based and practical solutions cancer caregivers can utilize to mitigate the unique challenges they face amid COVID-19. Furthermore, results of this study will also offer valuable insights for researchers who aim to develop interventions for cancer caregivers in the context of COVID-19. In addition, we also expect to be able to identify areas for improvement that need to be addressed in order for health experts to more adequately help cancer caregivers weather the storm of global health crises like COVID-19 and beyond. Study Protocol Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020196301


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Évèhouénou Lionel Adisso ◽  
Monica Taljaard ◽  
Louis-Paul Rivest ◽  
Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun ◽  
Pierre Jacob Durand ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The stepped wedge cluster randomised trial is an increasingly common trial design. The design can be useful for informing real-world clinical decision-making, including decisions about the effectiveness of interventions in particular subgroups. However, there is little existing guidance about how to perform subgroup analyses in the stepped wedge design. We aim to determine the prevalence of subgroup analyses and describe statistical methods used to perform them in stepped wedge cluster randomised trials.Methods: We will conduct a systematic review following the methodology recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We report this protocol according to the PRISMA-P checklist. The protocol has been registered in the Open Science Framework. We will search for terms related to ‘stepped wedge’. Sources will be PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Current Controlled Trials Register up to 16 October 2020. Studies will be eligible if they are written in English, involve human participants and are primary or secondary reports of planned or completed stepped wedge cluster randomised trials. Two reviewers will first screen the titles and abstracts, then full texts, to select studies that should be included in the review. Disagreements will be solved by consensus through discussion with a third reviewer. We will extract data related to study characteristics including presence or absence of subgroup analyses, characteristics of subgroup variables examined, statistical methods used to perform subgroup analyses, and adherence to the most consistently recommendations suggested for subgroup analyses in general including in clinical trials. We will perform a qualitative synthesis of the extracted data.Discussion: This protocol offers a reproducible and transparent procedure for a systematic review of the literature. It will provide a portrait of the frequency and types of subgroup analyses performed in stepped wedge cluster randomised trials. These results will inform the development of recommendations for subgroup analyses in such trials.Systematic review registration: This protocol has been registered on Open Science Framework, Registration ID: https://osf.io/2kwrz.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manoosh Mehrabi ◽  
Ali Reza Safarpour ◽  
Abbas Ali Keshtkar

Abstract BackgroundRecently, massive open online courses (MOOCs) have received increasing popularity throughout the world. Regardless of the subject taught and the university providing the course, the dropout rate of MOOCs is one of the most important challenges ahead.Methods This systematic review will search MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), Embase (Embase.com), ASSIA, CINAHL, Education Research, BEI, and Eric databases systematically according to predefined criteria without language restrictions to retrieve prospective and retrospective observational studies conducted between the 1st of January 2000 and 30th of March 2020 which evaluated the frequency of leaving MOOCs throughout the world. In the absence of severe methodological heterogeneity, the data will be combined and a meta-analysis will be performed. DiscussionAs dropout rate is one of the most challenges that universities may encounter, this systematic review will help universities extend their view, save their resources or maybe design their MOOCs differently.RegistrationRegistered in Open Science Framework, available at: https://osf.io/jgyqx/


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document