scholarly journals B waves: a systematic review of terminology, characteristics, and analysis methods

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabel Martinez-Tejada ◽  
Alexander Arum ◽  
Jens E. Wilhjelm ◽  
Marianne Juhler ◽  
Morten Andresen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intracranial Pressure ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Morphological Characteristics ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Wave Characteristics ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Review Protocol

Abstract Background Although B waves were introduced as a concept in the analysis of intracranial pressure (ICP) recordings nearly 60 years ago, there is still a lack consensus on precise definitions, terminology, amplitude, frequency or origin. Several competing terms exist, addressing either their probable physiological origin or their physical characteristics. To better understand B wave characteristics and ease their detection, a literature review was carried out. Methods A systematic review protocol including search strategy and eligibility criteria was prepared in advance. A literature search was carried out using PubMed/MEDLINE, with the following search terms: B waves + review filter, slow waves + review filter, ICP B waves, slow ICP waves, slow vasogenic waves, Lundberg B waves, MOCAIP. Results In total, 19 different terms were found, B waves being the most common. These terminologies appear to be interchangeable and seem to be used indiscriminately, with some papers using more than five different terms. Definitions and etiologies are still unclear, which makes systematic and standardized detection difficult. Conclusions Two future lines of action are available for automating macro-pattern identification in ICP signals: achieving strict agreement on morphological characteristics of “traditional” B waveforms, or starting a new with a fresh computerized approach for recognition of new clinically relevant patterns.

scholarly journals 3D photography versus digital planimetry in wound measurement : a systematic review protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parinaz Onikzeh ◽  
◽  
Afshin Heidari ◽  
Aida Kazemi ◽  
Parisa Najjariasl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Area Measurement ◽  
Wound Management ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Wound Area ◽  
Venous Ulcers ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Review Question ◽  
3D Photography

Review question / Objective: The aim of this study is to find whether there is concordance between two methods of wound area measurement: 3D photography and digital planimetry. Condition being studied: One of the most important factors in all types of wound management is wound measurement and two new digital techniques are : digital planimetry and 3D-photography. Eligibility criteria: the articles will be included only if the study cases would be measured by both methods of wound measurement including 3D photography and digital planimetry. patients with wound in any area of their body like diabetic ulcers, venous ulcers or burning. not models or animals.not bite or scar or bruising. without any restriction in age or gender.

scholarly journals Performance of host blood transcriptomic signatures for diagnosing and predicting progression to tuberculosis disease in HIV-negative adults and adolescents: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. e026612 ◽  
Author(s):  
Humphrey Mulenga ◽  
Erick Wekesa Bunyasi ◽  
Stanley Kimbung Mbandi ◽  
Simon C Mendelsohn ◽  
Benjamin Kagina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Messenger Rna ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Host Blood ◽  
True False

IntroductionOne-quarter of the global population, including the majority of adults in tuberculosis (TB) endemic countries, are estimated to beMycobacterium tuberculosis(MTB) infected. An estimated 10 million new TB cases occurred in 2017. One of the biggest challenges confronting TB control is the lack of accurate diagnosis and prediction of prevalent and incident TB disease, respectively. Several host blood transcriptomic messenger RNA (mRNA) signatures that reflect the host immune response following infection with MTB and progression to TB disease in different study populations have recently been published, but these TB biomarkers have not been systematically described. We will conduct a systematic review of the performance of host blood transcriptional signatures for TB diagnosis and prediction of progression to TB disease.Methods and analysisThis systematic review will involve conducting a comprehensive literature search of cohort, case–control, cross-sectional and randomised-controlled studies of the performance of host blood transcriptomic signatures for TB diagnosis and prediction of progression to TB disease. We will search Medline via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and EBSCO libraries, complemented by a search of bibliographies of selected articles for other relevant articles. The literature search will be restricted to studies published in English from 2005 to 2018 and conducted in HIV-uninfected adults and adolescents (≥12 years old). Forest plots and a narrative synthesis of the findings will be provided. The primary outcomes will be sensitivity, specificity, as well as true/false positives and true/false negatives. Heterogeneity resulting from differences in the design, composition and structure of individual signatures will preclude meta-analysis and pooling of results.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this systematic review protocol. The results of this review will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal as well as conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073817.

scholarly journals An assessment of the extent to which the contents of PROSPERO records meet the systematic review protocol reporting items in PRISMA-P

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 773
Author(s):  
Alison Booth ◽  
Alex S. Mitchell ◽  
Andrew Mott ◽  
Sophie James ◽  
Sarah Cockayne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Single Entry ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Source Of Information

Background: PROSPERO is an international prospective register for systematic review protocols. Many of the registrations are the only available source of information about planned methods. This study investigated the extent to which records in PROSPERO contained the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Methods: A random sample of 439 single entry PROSPERO records of reviews of health interventions registered in 2018 was identified. Using a piloted list of 19 PRISMA-P items, divided into 63 elements, two researchers independently assessed the registration records. Where the information was present or not applicable to the review, a score of 1 was assigned. Overall scores were calculated and comparisons made by stage of review at registration, whether or not a meta-analysis was planned and whether or not funding/sponsorship was reported. Results: Some key methodological details, such as eligibility criteria, were relatively frequently reported, but much of the information recommended in PRISMA-P was not stated in PROSPERO registrations. Considering the 19 items, the mean score was 4.8 (SD 1.8; median 4; range 2-11) and across all the assessed records only 25% (2081/8227) of the items were scored as reported. Considering the 63 elements, the mean score was 33.4 (SD 5.8; median 33; range 18-47) and overall, 53% (14,469/27,279) of the elements were assessed as reported. Reporting was more frequent for items required in PROSPERO than optional items. The planned comparisons showed no meaningful differences between groups. Conclusions: PROSPERO provides reviewers with the opportunity to be transparent in their planned methods and demonstrate efforts to reduce bias. However, where the PROSPERO record is the only available source of a priori reporting, there is a significant shortfall in the items reported, compared to those recommended. This presents challenges in interpretation for those wishing to assess the validity of the final review.

Detection of Raised Intracranial Pressure in Craniosynostosis using Optical Coherence Tomography: A Systematic Review Protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sohaib R Rufai ◽  
Noor ul Owase Jeelani ◽  
Rebecca J McLean
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Optical Coherence Tomography ◽  
Intracranial Pressure ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Optical Coherence ◽  
Raised Intracranial Pressure ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Review Protocol

Abstract Introduction Craniosynostosis is characterised by the premature fusion of cranial sutures. This can be associated with raised intracranial pressure (ICP), which can lead to developmental delay, visual impairment and death. Treatment involves surgical expansion of the skull vault. There is no consensus over who to treat and when. Intracranial pressure is difficult to estimate in a child and existing methods possess sub-optimal diagnostic accuracy to be employed as screening tools. Here, we propose a systematic review protocol to examine the role of optical coherence tomography (OCT) in early detection of raised ICP in craniosynostosis. Methods Electronic searches in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase will identify studies featuring OCT in detecting raised ICP in children with craniosynostosis. Two independent researchers will identify studies for inclusion using a screening questionnaire. Quality will be assessed using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. The primary outcome measure is the sensitivity and specificity of OCT in detecting raised ICP in children with craniosynostosis. Secondary outcomes measures include the sensitivity and specificity of other surrogate measures for raised ICP, OCT parameters used and normal ranges for ICP reported. A formal narrative synthesis with descriptive statistics will be presented. Discussion The proposed study will be the first to examine the role of optical coherence tomography in the early recognition of raised intracranial pressure in craniosynostosis, thereby addressing an important clinical problem in paediatric ophthalmology and craniofacial surgery. This systematic review protocol provides transparency to the proposed methods and reduces the possibility of duplication. The proposed methods reflect those prescribed by the Cochrane Collaboration. Systematic review registration International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) number CRD42019147693

scholarly journals Pulmonary rehabilitation for COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

Medwave ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (06) ◽  
pp. e8223-e8223
Author(s):  
Stefanie Arce Pardo ◽  
Shuheng Lai ◽  
Luis Ortiz-Muñoz ◽  
Francisca Verdugo-Paiva ◽  
Gabriel Rada
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pulmonary Rehabilitation ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Traditional Media ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Review Protocol

Objective This living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of pulmonary rehabilitation in the treatment of patients with COVID-19. Design This is the protocol of a living systematic review. Data sources We will conduct searches in the L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that maps PICO questions to a repository maintained through regular searches in electronic databases, preprint servers, trial registries and other resources relevant to COVID-19. No date or language restrictions will be applied. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation as monotherapy or in combination with other interventions-versus sham or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Ethics and dissemination No ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.

scholarly journals Therapeutic Management of COVID-19 Patients: A systematic review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mansour Tobaiqy ◽  
Mohammed Qashqary ◽  
Shrooq Al-Dahery ◽  
Alaa Mujallad ◽  
Almonther Abdullah Hershan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Global Pandemic ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Review Protocol

AbstractBackgroundSARS-CoV-2 is the cause of the COVID-19 that has been declared a global pandemic by the WHO in 2020. The COVID-19 treatment guidelines vary in each country, and yet there is no approved therapeutic for COVID-19.Aims of the studythis review aimed to report any evidence of therapeutics used for the management of COVID-19 patients in clinical practice since the emergence of the virus.MethodsA systematic review protocol was developed based on PRISMA Statement. Articles for review were selected from electronic databases (Embase, Medline and Google Scholar). Readily accessible peer-reviewed full articles in English published from December 1 st, 2019 to March 26 th, 2020 were included. The search terms included combinations of: COVID, SARS-COV-2, glucocorticoids, convalescent plasma, antiviral, antibacterial. There were no restrictions on the type of study design eligible for inclusion.ResultsAs of March 26, 2020, of the initial manuscripts identified (n=449) articles. Forty-one studies were included, of which clinical trials (n=3), (case reports n=7), case series (n=10), retrospective (n=11) and prospective (n=10) observational studies. Thirty-six studies were conducted in China (88%).The most common mentioned and reported medicine in this systematic review was corticosteroids (n=25), followed by Lopinavir (n=21) and oseltamivir (n=16).ConclusionsThis is the first systematic review up to date related to the therapeutics used in COVID-19 patients. Only forty-one research articles on COVID-19 and therapeutics were found eligible to be included, most conducted in China, corticosteroid therapy was found to be the most used medicine in these studies.

scholarly journals How to prepare and manage a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 213-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Berstock ◽  
Michael R. Whitehouse
Keyword(s):  
External Validity ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Clinical Question ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Review Protocol

Use the PICO framework to formulate a specific clinical question. Formulate a search strategy. Prospectively register the review protocol. Execute the literature search. Apply eligibility criteria to exclude irrelevant studies. Extract data and appraise each study for risk of bias and external validity. Provide a narrative review. If appropriate data are available, perform a meta-analysis. Report the review findings in the context of the risk of bias assessment, any sensitivity analyses and the analysis of risk of publication bias. Useful resources include the Cochrane Handbook, PROSPERO, GRADE and PRISMA. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:213-220. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180049

scholarly journals An assessment of the extent to which the contents of PROSPERO records meet the systematic review protocol reporting items in PRISMA-P

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 773
Author(s):  
Alison Booth ◽  
Alex S. Mitchell ◽  
Andrew Mott ◽  
Sophie James ◽  
Sarah Cockayne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Single Entry ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Source Of Information

Background: PROSPERO is an international prospective register for systematic review protocols. Many of the registrations are the only available source of information about planned methods. This study investigated the extent to which records in PROSPERO contained the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Methods: A random sample of 439 single entry PROSPERO records of reviews of health interventions registered in 2018 was identified. Using a piloted list of 19 PRISMA-P items, divided into 63 elements, two researchers independently assessed the registration records. Where the information was present or not applicable to the review, a score of 1 was assigned. Overall scores were calculated and comparisons made by stage of review at registration, whether or not a meta-analysis was planned and whether or not funding/sponsorship was reported. Results: Some key methodological details, such as eligibility criteria, were relatively frequently reported, but much of the information recommended in PRISMA-P was not stated in PROSPERO registrations. Considering the 19 items, the mean score was 4.8 (SD 1.8; median 4; range 2-11) and across all the assessed records only 25% (2081/8227) of the items were scored as reported. Considering the 63 elements, the mean score was 33.4 (SD 5.8; median 33; range 18-47) and overall, 53% (14,469/27,279) of the elements were assessed as reported. Reporting was more frequent for items required in PROSPERO than optional items. The planned comparisons showed no meaningful differences between groups. Conclusions: PROSPERO provides reviewers with the opportunity to be transparent in their planned methods and demonstrate efforts to reduce bias. However, where the PROSPERO record is the only available source of a priori reporting, there is a significant shortfall in the items reported, compared to those recommended. This presents challenges in interpretation for those wishing to assess the validity of the final review.

scholarly journals The effectiveness and usability of online, group-based interventions for people with severe obesity: Systematic review protocol (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Madison Milne-Ives ◽  
Dawn Swancutt ◽  
Lorna Burns ◽  
Jonathan Pinkney ◽  
Mark Tarrant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Severe Obesity ◽  
Adult Population ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Access To Treatment ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Online Group

BACKGROUND Globally, obesity is a growing crisis. Despite obesity being preventable, over a quarter of the UK adult population is currently considered clinically obese (typically BMI≥35kg/m2). Access to treatment for people with severe obesity is limited by long wait times and local availability. Online and group-based interventions provide means of increasing the accessibility of obesity prevention and treatment services. However, there has been no prior review of the effectiveness of group-based interventions delivered online for people with severe obesity. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this systematic review protocol is to provide an evaluation of the effectiveness and usability of different types of online, group-based interventions for people with severe obesity. METHODS The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) and the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) frameworks were used to structure this review. The review will systematically search six databases: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, APA PsycNet, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Two authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts of identified articles, select studies for inclusion based on the eligibility criteria, and extract data into a standardized form. Any disagreements will be discussed and resolved by a third reviewer if necessary. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool and a descriptive analysis will be used to evaluate effectiveness and usability. RESULTS The systematic review has not yet been started. It is expected to be completed and submitted for publication by May 2021. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review will summarize the effectiveness and usability of online, group-based interventions for people with obesity. It will identify the types of online delivery that have the strongest support to help inform the development of more useful and engaging interventions for people with severe obesity. CLINICALTRIAL N/A

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document