Prevalence of multimorbid degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) are prevalent conditions in the aging population and published literature suggests they share many symptoms and often are present at the same time in patients. However, no prevalence estimates of multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA are currently available. The primary objective of this systematic review is therefore to estimate the prevalence of multimorbid LSS with knee and/or hip OA using radiological, clinical, and combined case definitions. Methods This systematic review protocol has been designed according to the guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. A comprehensive search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL. Forward citation tracking will be performed in Web of Science. No restriction for publication date and language will be applied in the literature search, but only articles in English will be included. The search strategy will include the following domains: LSS, knee OA, and hip OA. Retrieved citations will be screened by two authors independently. Disagreements will be discussed until consensus, and a third reviewer will be consulted if consensus cannot be reached. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias assessment will be done by two authors independently, using a standardized data extraction form and a modified risk of bias tool for prevalence studies. Meta-analysis estimating prevalence with 95% CI will be performed using a random effects model. Meta-regression analyses will be performed to investigate the impact of the following covariates: LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and other patient characteristics on prevalence estimates for multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA. Discussion The results of this review will provide the first estimates of the prevalence of multimorbid LSS and hip and knee OA based on various case definitions. The impact of covariates such as LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and patient characteristics on prevalence estimates will also be presented. Systematic review registration PROSPERO, awaiting registration

Download Full-text

Prevalence of multimorbid degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-20819/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

James J. Young ◽

Jan Hartvigsen ◽

Rikke K. Jensen ◽

Ewa M. Roos ◽

Carlo Ammendolia ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Hip Osteoarthritis ◽

Healthcare Setting ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Sample Population ◽

Case Definitions ◽

Prevalence Estimates ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) are prevalent conditions in the aging population and published literature suggests they share many symptoms and often are present at the same time in patients. However, no prevalence estimates of multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA are currently available. The primary objective of this systematic review is therefore to estimate the prevalence of multimorbid LSS with knee and/or hip OA using radiological, clinical, and combined case definitions. Methods: This systematic review protocol has been designed according to the guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration and are reported according the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. A comprehensive search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL. Forward citation tracking will be performed in Web of Science. No restriction for publication data and language will be applied in the literature search, but only articles in English will be included. The search strategy will include the following domains: LSS, knee OA, and hip OA. Retrieved citations will be screened by two authors independently. Disagreements will be discussed until consensus, and a third reviewer will be consulted if consensus cannot be reached. Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be done by two authors independently, using a standardized data extraction form and a modified Risk of Bias Tool for Prevalence studies. Meta-analysis estimating prevalence with 95% CI will be performed using a random effects model. Meta-regression analyses will be performed to investigate the impact of the following covariates: LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and other patient characteristics on prevalence estimates for multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA.Discussion: The results of this review will provide the first estimates of the prevalence of multimorbid LSS and hip and knee OA based on various case definitions. The impact of covariates such as LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and patient characteristics on prevalence estimates will also be presented. Systematic review registration: Submitted to PROSPERO, awaiting registration

Download Full-text

Prevalence of multimorbid degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-20819/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

James J. Young ◽

Jan Hartvigsen ◽

Rikke K. Jensen ◽

Ewa M. Roos ◽

Carlo Ammendolia ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Spinal Stenosis ◽

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Hip Osteoarthritis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Sample Population ◽

Prevalence Estimates ◽

Lumbar Spinal ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) are prevalent conditions in the aging population and previous literature suggests they share many symptoms and are present at the same time in patients. However, no prevalence estimates of multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA are currently available. The primary objective of this systematic review is therefore to estimate the prevalence of multimorbid LSS with knee and/or hip OA using radiological, clinical, and combined case definitions. Methods: This systematic review protocol has been designed according to the guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration and are reported according the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. A comprehensive search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL. Web of Science will be used for forward citation tracking. No restriction in the search for publication data and language will be applied, but only articles in English will be included. The search strategy will include the following domains: LSS, knee OA, and hip OA. Retrieved citations will be screened by two authors independently. Disagreements will be discussed until consensus, or a third reviewer will be consulted if consensus cannot be reached. Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be done by two authors independently, using a standardized data extraction form and modified Risk of Bias Tool for Prevalence studies. Meta-analysis estimating prevalence with 95% CI will be performed using a random effects model. Meta-regression analyses will be performed to investigate the impact of LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and other patient characteristics on prevalence estimates for multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA. Discussion: The results of this review will provide the first estimates of the prevalence of multimorbid LSS and hip and knee OA based on various case definitions. The impact of covariates such as LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and patient characteristics on prevalence estimates will also be presented. These findings will help to better understand the relationship between LSS and knee and/or hip OA and identify future research priorities. Systematic review registration: Submitted to PROSPERO, awaiting registration Keywords: Lumbar spinal stenosis, Hip osteoarthritis, Knee osteoarthritis, Multimorbidity, Prevalence, Systematic review protocol

Download Full-text

Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis

10.1101/2021.02.19.21252094 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Benjamin Woolf ◽

Phil Edwards

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Bias Assessment ◽

Response Data ◽

Randomised Control Trials ◽

Study Participants ◽

The Impact

AbstractBackgroundQuestionnaires remain one of the most common forms of data collection in epidemiology, psychology and other human-sciences. However, results can be badly affected by non-response. One way to potentially reduce non-response is by sending potential study participants advance communication. The last systematic review to examine the effect of questionnaire pre-notification on response is ten years old, and lacked a risk of bias assessment.ObjectivesUpdate Edwards et al. (2009) to include 1) recently published studies, 2) an assessment of risk of bias.MethodsData sources: Edwards et al. (2009); 13 data-bases; the references in, and citations of included studies. Eligibility criteria: Randomised control trials examining the impact of pre-notification on response. Data extraction: data extraction was done twice by a single unblinded reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and funnel plots.Results103 trials were included. Over-all pre-notification increased response, OR = 1.38 (95%CI: 1.25-1.53). However, when studies at high or unclear risk of bias were excluded the effect was greatly reduced (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.01-1.21).ConclusionsThe evidence implies that while pre-notification does increase response rates, this may not be of clinical utility.

Download Full-text

Physical activity referral scheme components: a study protocol for systematic review and meta-regression

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049549 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (6) ◽

pp. e049549

Author(s):

Eriselda Mino ◽

Wolfgang Geidl ◽

Inga Naber ◽

Anja Weissenfels ◽

Sarah Klamroth ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Physical Activity ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Physical Activity Promotion ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Intervention Component ◽

Activity Promotion ◽

Meta Regression ◽

The Impact

IntroductionIn its attempt to establish effective physical activity promotion methods, research on physical activity referral schemes (PARS) is attracting significant attention. Sometimes known as physical activity on prescription schemes, PARS involve a well-defined procedure whereby a primary healthcare professional introduces a participant to the topic of physical activity and employs prescription or referral forms to connect the participant to physical activity opportunities, such as local fitness offers. The planned systematic review will focus on these referral routes and scheme components and how they are integrated into various PARS models worldwide. We seek to identify the evidence-based core components that play the most important roles in the effectiveness of PARS.Methods and analysisThe development and reporting of the protocol follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines. We plan to conduct a systematic main literature search on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, HTA, SpringerLink and other databases. We will include studies that report outcomes on physical activity, PARS uptake and adherence rates or descriptive information about PARS models. We intend for all review stages, citation screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment to be conducted by at least two independent reviewers. As a broad spectrum of study designs, including randomised and non-randomised studies of interventions and mixed methods, will be eligible, we will use three separate tools to assess the risk of bias in individual studies. The data will be primarily synthesised narratively, following Intervention Component Analysis. If the data allow, we will perform a random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression to investigate the impact of specific PARS components on effect sizes.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review does not require formal ethics approval. The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and international conferences to reach the scientific community.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021233229.

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

Prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040997 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

pp. e040997

Author(s):

Varo Kirthi ◽

Paul Nderitu ◽

Uazman Alam ◽

Jennifer Evans ◽

Sarah Nevitt ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Diabetic Retinopathy ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

International Diabetes Federation ◽

Current Data ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Fundus Photography ◽

Primary Data ◽

Cochrane Library

IntroductionThere is growing evidence of a higher than expected prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes. This paper presents the protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis of retinopathy in prediabetes. The aim of the review is to estimate the prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes and to summarise the current data.Methods and analysisThis protocol is developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A comprehensive electronic bibliographic search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. Eligible studies will report prevalence data for retinopathy on fundus photography in adults with prediabetes. No time restrictions will be placed on the date of publication. Screening for eligible studies and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers independently, using predefined inclusion criteria and prepiloted data extraction forms. Disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved by discussion, and if required, a third (senior) reviewer will arbitrate.The primary outcome is the prevalence of any standard features of diabetic retinopathy (DR) on fundus photography, as per International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (ICDRSS) classification. Secondary outcomes are the prevalence of (1) any retinal microvascular abnormalities on fundus photography that are not standard features of DR as per ICDRSS classification and (2) any macular microvascular abnormalities on fundus photography, including but not limited to the presence of macular exudates, microaneurysms and haemorrhages. Risk of bias for included studies will be assessed using a validated risk of bias tool for prevalence studies. Pooled estimates for the prespecified outcomes of interest will be calculated using random effects meta-analytic techniques. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as this is a protocol for a systematic review and no primary data are to be collected. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international meetings including Diabetes UK, European Association for the Study of Diabetes, American Diabetes Association and International Diabetes Federation conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184820.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of Antalgic Therapies in Patients with Vertebral Bone Metastasis: A Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph18083991 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 18 (8) ◽

pp. 3991

Author(s):

Antonio Jose Martin-Perez ◽

María Fernández-González ◽

Paula Postigo-Martin ◽

Marc Sampedro Pilegaard ◽

Carolina Fernández-Lao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Bone Metastasis ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Pharmacological Intervention ◽

Vertebral Metastasis ◽

Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

There is no systematic review that has identified existing studies evaluating the pharmacological and non-pharmacological intervention for pain management in patients with bone metastasis. To fill this gap in the literature, this systematic review with meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of different antalgic therapies (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) in the improvement of pain of these patients. To this end, this protocol has been written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020135762). A systematic search will be carried out in four international databases: Medline (Via PubMed), Web of Science, Cochrane Library and SCOPUS, to select the randomized controlled clinical trials. The Risk of Bias Tool developed by Cochrane will be used to assess the risk of bias and the quality of the identified studies. A narrative synthesis will be used to describe and compare the studies, and after the data extraction, random effects model and a subgroup analyses will be performed according to the type of intervention, if possible. This protocol aims to generate a systematic review that compiles and synthesizes the best and most recent evidence on the treatment of pain derived from vertebral metastasis.

Download Full-text

Effects of open-label placebos in clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Scientific Reports ◽

10.1038/s41598-021-83148-6 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Melina von Wernsdorff ◽

Martin Loef ◽

Brunna Tuschen-Caffier ◽

Stefan Schmidt

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Medical Condition ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Open Label ◽

Cancer Related Fatigue ◽

Promising Treatment ◽

Irritable Bowel

AbstractOpen-label placebos (OLPs) are placebos without deception in the sense that patients know that they are receiving a placebo. The objective of our study is to systematically review and analyze the effect of OLPs in comparison to no treatment in clinical trials. A systematic literature search was carried out in February 2020. Randomized controlled trials of any medical condition or mental disorder comparing OLPs to no treatment were included. Data extraction and risk of bias rating were independently assessed. 1246 records were screened and thirteen studies were included into the systematic review. Eleven trials were eligible for meta-analysis. These trials assessed effects of OLPs on back pain, cancer-related fatigue, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, allergic rhinitis, major depression, irritable bowel syndrome and menopausal hot flushes. Risk of bias was moderate among all studies. We found a significant overall effect (standardized mean difference = 0.72, 95% Cl 0.39–1.05, p < 0.0001, I2 = 76%) of OLP. Thus, OLPs appear to be a promising treatment in different conditions but the respective research is in its infancy. More research is needed, especially with respect to different medical and mental disorders and instructions accompanying the OLP administration as well as the role of expectations and mindsets.

Download Full-text

Clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease ◽

10.1177/17534666211028077 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 15 ◽

pp. 175346662110280

Author(s):

Roberto Ariel Abeldaño Zuñiga ◽

Ruth Ana María González-Villoria ◽

María Vanesa Elizondo ◽

Anel Yaneli Nicolás Osorio ◽

David Gómez Martínez ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Clinical Improvement ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Clinical Effectiveness ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Hospitalized Patients ◽

Low Risk ◽

Controlled Clinical Trials

Aims: Given the variability of previously reported results, this systematic review aims to determine the clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma employed in the treatment of hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of controlled clinical trials assessing treatment with convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The outcomes were mortality, clinical improvement, and ventilation requirement. Results: A total of 51 studies were retrieved from the databases. Five articles were finally included in the data extraction and qualitative and quantitative synthesis of results. The overall risk of bias in the reviewed articles was established at low-risk only in two trials. The meta-analysis suggests that there is no benefit of convalescent plasma compared with standard care or placebo in reducing the overall mortality and the ventilation requirement. However, there could be a benefit for the clinical improvement in patients treated with plasma. Conclusion: Current results led to assume that the convalescent plasma transfusion cannot reduce the mortality or ventilation requirement in hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. More controlled clinical trials conducted with methodologies that ensure a low risk of bias are still needed. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Download Full-text

Racecadotril for acute diarrhoea in children: systematic review and meta-analyses

Archives of Disease in Childhood ◽

10.1136/archdischild-2015-309676 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 101 (3) ◽

pp. 234-240 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Morris Gordon ◽

Anthony Akobeng

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Acute Diarrhoea ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Duration Of Symptoms ◽

Duration Of Illness ◽

Significant Difference

ObjectiveRacecadotril is an antisecretory agent that can prevent fluid/electrolyte depletion from the bowel as a result of acute diarrhoea without affecting intestinal motility. An up-to-date systematic review is indicated to summarise the evidence on racecadotril for the treatment of acute diarrhoea in children.DesignA Cochrane format systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.PatientsChildren with acute diarrhoea, as defined by the primary studies.InterventionsRCTs comparing racecadotril with placebo or other interventions.Main outcome measursDuration of illness, stool output/volume and adverse events.ResultsSeven RCTs were included, five comparing racecadotril with placebo or no intervention, one with pectin/kaolin and one with loperamide. Moderate to high risk of bias was present in all studies. There was no significant difference in efficacy or adverse events between racecadotril and loperamide. A meta-analysis of three studies with 642 participants showed significantly shorter duration of symptoms with racecadotril compared with placebo (mean difference −53.48 h, 95% CI −65.64 to −41.33). A meta-analysis of five studies with 949 participants showed no significant difference in adverse events between racecadotril and placebo (risk ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.34).ConclusionsThere is some evidence that racecadotril is more effective than placebo or no intervention in reducing the duration of illness and stool output in children with acute diarrhoea. However, the overall quality of the evidence is limited due to sparse data, heterogeneity and risk of bias. Racecadotril appears to be safe and well tolerated.

Download Full-text