scholarly journals Peer support for smoking cessation: a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyun-Ju Seo ◽  
Soo Young Kim ◽  
Dongah Park ◽  
Seung-Soo Sheen ◽  
Miyoung Choi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Peer Support ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Quit Smoking ◽  
Quantitative Synthesis

Abstract Background Peer-support programs are a useful social support strategy for populations trying to quit smoking who are willing to maintain smoking abstinence. This study is a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of peer support for smoking cessation. Methods This protocol will be conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions 6.2. We will conduct a comprehensive search in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ovidEmbase, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ovidMEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Open Grey, as well as the Trials Register of Promoting Health Interventions in EPPI-Centre, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and reference lists of included papers. The review will include randomized controlled trials of peer support interventions aimed to stop smoking in any population. Two reviewers will independently screen and select relevant studies. Version 2 of the Cochrane tool that assesses risk of bias in randomized trials will be used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. The primary outcomes will be defined as the tobacco abstinence rate and adverse events. If a quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, a synthesis without meta-analysis will be undertaken. Discussion This review will provide the best available evidence regarding the effects of peer support interventions to quit smoking. The results from this study will help to inform healthcare providers on the optimal peer support intervention modalities such as intensity, delivery methods, type of support provider, and duration of the intervention. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020196288

scholarly journals Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haonan Tian ◽  
Congman Xie ◽  
Min Lin ◽  
Hongmei Yang ◽  
Aishu Ren
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Canine Retraction ◽  
Temporary Anchorage Devices ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Implant Anchorage

Abstract Background Temporary anchorage devices have been used for decades in orthodontic practice for many applications. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction during the two-step technique. Methods A search was systematically performed for articles published prior to June 30, 2019 in five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled clinical trials (CCTs). The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for the quality assessment. Data concerning the mean difference in mesial molar movement and extent of canine retraction were extracted for statistical analysis. The mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were analyzed for continuous data. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model for comparable outcomes was carried out. Results Three RCTs and five CCTs were finally included. Meta-analysis showed a significant increase not only in anchorage preservation in the implant anchorage group in both the maxilla (1.56 mm, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.98, P < 0.00001) and the mandible (1.62 mm, 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.01, P < 0.00001) but also in canine retraction in the implant anchorage group in both the maxilla (0.43 mm, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.69, P = 0.001) and the mandible (0.26 mm, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.49, P = 0.03). Conclusions There is very low-quality evidence showing that implant anchorage is more efficient than conventional anchorage during canine retraction. Additional high-quality studies are needed.

scholarly journals Relationship between hormonal contraceptives and sleep among women of reproductive age: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e045819
Author(s):  
Jinhui Ma ◽  
Megan Cheng ◽  
Lehana Thabane ◽  
Caihong Ma ◽  
Ning Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Reproductive Age ◽  
Hormonal Contraceptives ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Women Of Reproductive Age

IntroductionThe aetiology of sleep disruptions is unknown, but hormonal fluctuations during the menstrual cycle, pregnancy and menopause have been shown to potentially affect how well a woman sleeps. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether hormonal contraceptives are associated with a decreased quality of sleep and increased sleep duration in women of reproductive age.MethodsThis review will analyse data from randomised controlled trials or non-randomised comparative studies investigating the association between hormonal contraceptives and sleep outcomes among women of reproductive age. Reviews addressing the same research question with similar eligibility criteria will be included. A literature search will be performed using the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to 7 March 2021. The Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias for Randomised Trials V.2.0 and The Risk of Bias for Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool will be used to assess risk of bias for each outcome in eligible studies. Two reviewers will independently assess eligibility of studies and risk of bias and extract the data. All extracted data will be presented in tables and narrative form. For sleep measures investigated by two or more studies with low heterogeneity, we will conduct random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the magnitude of the overall effect of hormonal contraceptives. If studies included in this systematic review form a connected network, a network meta-analysis will be conducted to estimate the comparative effect of different contraceptives. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach will be used to summarise the quality of evidence. Our protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 guidelines.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as data were sourced from previously reported studies. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020199958.

scholarly journals Psychological interventions for chronic non-specific low back pain: protocol of a systematic review with network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e034996
Author(s):  
Emma Ho ◽  
Manuela Ferreira ◽  
Lingxiao Chen ◽  
Milena Simic ◽  
Claire Ashton-James ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Psychological Interventions ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Fear Avoidance

IntroductionPsychological factors such as fear avoidance beliefs, depression, anxiety, catastrophic thinking and familial and social stress, have been associated with high disability levels in people with chronic low back pain (LBP). Guidelines endorse the integration of psychological interventions in the management of chronic LBP. However, uncertainty surrounds the comparative effectiveness of different psychological approaches. Network meta-analysis (NMA) allows comparison and ranking of numerous competing interventions for a given outcome of interest. Therefore, we will perform a systematic review with a NMA to determine which type of psychological intervention is most effective for adults with chronic non-specific LBP.Methods and analysisWe will search electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, SCOPUS and CINAHL) from inception until 22 August 2019 for randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions to any comparison interventions in adults with chronic non-specific LBP. There will be no restriction on language. The primary outcomes will include physical function and pain intensity, and secondary outcomes will include health-related quality of life, fear avoidance, intervention compliance and safety. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) tool and confidence in the evidence will be assessed using the Confidence in NMA (CINeMA) framework. We will conduct a random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach to estimate relative effects for all comparisons between treatments and rank treatments according to the mean rank and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. All analyses will be performed in Stata.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required. The research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019138074.

scholarly journals Use of glucose for pain management in premature neonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e052901
Author(s):  
Débora Joyce Duarte Oliveira ◽  
Kleyton Santos Medeiros ◽  
Ayane Cristine Alves Sarmento ◽  
Francisca Jennifer Duarte Oliveira ◽  
Ana Paula Ferreira Costa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Subsequent Development ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Premature Neonates ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Quantitative Synthesis ◽  
Registration Number

IntroductionTherapeutic management of neonatal pain is essential to reduce changes in initial and subsequent development. Although glucose has been shown to be effective in relieving pain, concentrations and dosages remain to be standardised. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to identify the efficacy of glucose as an analgesic in preterm infants.Methods and analysisThe Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Medline, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature and Embase databases will be researched for randomised studies published until December 2021. This systematic review and meta-analysis will include studies investigating the use of glucose for pain control in premature neonates. The primary outcome will be pain relief. Three independent reviewers will select the studies and extract the data from original publications. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data synthesis will be performed using the Review Manager software (RevMan V.5.2.3). We will evaluate heterogeneity based on I2 statistics. In addition, quantitative synthesis will be performed if the included studies are sufficiently homogeneous.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the research will not be required for this systematic review. The results of this study will be published in an international journal.Trial registration numberThis protocol was submitted to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, number CRD42021236217).

scholarly journals Effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction and anchorage preservation during the two-step technique: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haonan Tian ◽  
Congman Xie ◽  
Min Lin ◽  
Hongmei Yang ◽  
Aishu Ren
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Canine Retraction ◽  
Temporary Anchorage Devices ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Implant Anchorage

Abstract Background: Temporary anchorage devices have been used for decades in orthodontic practice for many applications. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices in canine retraction during the two-step technique. Methods: A search was systematically performed for articles published prior to June 30, 2019 in five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool for controlled clinical trials (CCTs) . The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for the quality assessment. Data concerning the mean difference in mesial molar movement and extent of canine retraction were extracted for statistical analysis. The mean difference s and 95% confidence intervals were analyzed for continuous data. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model for comparable outcomes was carried out. Results: Three RCTs and five CCTs were finally included. Meta-analysis showed a significant increase not only in anchorage preservation in the implant anchorage group in both the maxilla (1. 56 mm , 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.98, P <0.00001 ) and the mandible (1.62 mm , 95% CI: 1.24 to 2.01, P <0.00001 ) but also in canine retraction in the implant anchorage group in both the maxilla (0.43 mm , 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.69, P =0.001 ) and the mandible (0.26 mm , 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.49, P =0.03 ). Conclusions: There is very low-quality evidence showing that implant anchorage is more efficient than conventional anchorage during canine retraction. Additional high-quality studies are needed. Keywords: Orthodontic implants; Canine retraction; Systematic review; Meta-analysis

scholarly journals Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Third Molar Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol

2021 ◽  
pp. 194338752110162
Author(s):  
Gaston A. Salas ◽  
Shuheng A. Lai ◽  
Francisca Verdugo-Paiva ◽  
Roberto A. Requena
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Third Molar Surgery ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Platelet Rich Fibrin

Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness and safety of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) in third molar surgery. Data Sources: A comprehensive search strategy is meant to be used in an attempt to identify all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), ongoing investigation reported in specialty congresses and trials regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press and in progress). Searches will be conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PUBMED, Embase, Lilacs, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov , US National Institutes of Health (NIH), grey literature and in specialized congresses and conferences. Eligibility Criteria: We will include randomized trials evaluating the effect of PRF on wound healing after third molar surgery. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, data extraction and risk of bias assessment using Cochrane “risk of bias” tool. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Ethics and Dissemination: As researchers will not access information that could lead to the identification of an individual participant, obtaining ethical approval was waived.

scholarly journals Impact of levothyroxine in women with positive thyroid antibodies on pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e043751
Author(s):  
Lorraine Lau ◽  
Jamie L Benham ◽  
Patricia Lemieux ◽  
Jennifer Yamamoto ◽  
Lois E Donovan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Preterm Delivery ◽  
Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of levothyroxine therapy on pregnancy outcomes compared with placebo or no treatment in women without overt hypothyroidism with presence of thyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPOAb) and/or thyroglobulin antibodies (TgAb).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trialsStudy eligibility criteriaPrespecified criteria for inclusion were: randomised trials of levothyroxine versus control (placebo or no treatment) among women with positive TPOAb or TgAb who were pregnant or considering conception.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from 1980 to 5 November 2020.Outcome measuresPrespecified data elements were extracted and where appropriate, meta-analyses were conducted. Main outcomes include pregnancy achieved, miscarriage, preterm delivery and live birth.Risk of bias assessmentCochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Quality Assessment of Randomised Controlled Trials.ResultsFrom 3023 citations, 79 citations were identified for full-text review. Of these, six trials (total of 2263 women) were included for qualitative and quantitative analyses. Risk of bias was deemed low for only one trial. There was no significant difference in the relative risk (RR) of pregnancy achieved (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13), miscarriage (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14), preterm delivery (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.10) or live births (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.89 to 1.16) in thyroid autoimmune women treated with levothyroxine compared with controls. Sensitivity analyses of preterm birth identified study quality and timing of levothyroxine initiation as sources of heterogeneity.ConclusionsAmong pregnant women or women planning conception, with thyroid autoimmunity, there is a lack of evidence of benefit for levothyroxine use (moderate to high Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations). Recommendations to use levothyroxine in this setting need to be reconsidered.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019130459.

Effect of Kangaroo Mother Care on Successful Breastfeeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morteza Ghojazadeh ◽  
Sakineh Hajebrahimi ◽  
Fatemeh Pournaghi-Azar ◽  
Mohammad Mohseni ◽  
Naser Derakhshani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Breast Feeding ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Kangaroo Mother Care ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background & Aims: Evaluating the effect of Kangaroo Mother Care (KMC) on breastfeeding success shows conflicting results. Regarding the importance of breastfeeding and uncertainties about its effect, this study intended to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on the effect of KMC on success of breastfeeding. </P><P> Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis study, required data were collected by searching the following keywords: breastfeeding, Breast-Feeding, “skin-to-skin”, “Kangaroo Mother Care”, randomized clinical trial. The following databases were searched: Google Scholar, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Two authors independently extracted the data. To estimate the Breast-Feeding outcome variables, CMA2 software was used. The risk of bias of studies was assessed with the criteria developed in the Cochrane Handbook. Results: Twenty articles were included. In the KMC and CNC groups, 1,432 and 1,410 neonates were examined. Breastfeeding success rate was higher in the KMC group within different time slots, however this difference was not statistically significant (RR=1.11(95CI, 0.93-1.34) and RR=1.13(95%CI, 0.92-1.34) based on the time slot and birth weight, respectively). The inter-groups differences in the mean scores of Infant Breast-Feeding Assessment Tool (IBFAT) were statistically significant (P<0.05). Breastfeeding was initiated very sooner in the KMC group, suggesting a statistically significant inter-groups difference -0.72(95%CI, from -0.92 to -0.53) (P<0.05). Majority of the studies had a high risk of bias. Conclusion: Findings indicated a superiority of KMC over CNC in terms of breastfeeding success. Assessment of the complications and costs of KMC implementation is recommended.

scholarly journals The Effect of Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Synbiotics on CD4 Counts in HIV-Infected Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Yuan-Sheng Fu ◽  
Qin-Shu Chu ◽  
Akililu Alemu Ashuro ◽  
Dong-Sheng Di ◽  
Qi Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Cd4 Counts ◽  
Cell Counts ◽  
Significant Difference

Background. Probiotics as a potential adjuvant therapy may improve the restoration of the intestinal CD4+ T-cell population in HIV-infected patients, whereas findings from clinical trials are inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to quantify the effects of probiotic, prebiotic, and synbiotic supplementation on CD4 counts in HIV-infected patients. Methods. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant articles published up to March 20, 2020. Two authors independently performed the study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Data were pooled by using the random effects model, and weighted mean difference (WMD) was considered the summary effect size. Publication bias was evaluated by a funnel plot and Egger’s test. Results. The search strategy identified 1712 citations. After screening, a total of 16 RCTs with 19 trials were included in the meta-analysis. Pooling of the extracted data indicated no significant difference between the probiotics/prebiotics/synbiotics and placebo groups on CD4 counts ( WMD = 3.86 , 95% confidence interval (CI) -24.72 to 32.45, P = 0.791 ). In subgroup analysis, a significant increase in CD4 counts was found in the study with high risk of bias ( WMD = 188 , 95% CI 108.74 to 227.26, P ≤ 0.001 ). Egger’s test showed no evidence of significant publication bias ( P = 0.936 ). Conclusions. In summary, the evidence for the efficacy of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics in improving HIV-infected patients’ CD4 counts as presented in currently published RCTs is insufficient. Therefore, further comprehensive studies are needed to reveal the exact effect of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on CD4+ cell counts.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of psychological, psychoeducational and psychosocial interventions to prevent postpartum depression in adolescent and adult mothers: study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. e034424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Martín-Gómez ◽  
Patricia Moreno-Peral ◽  
Juan A Bellón ◽  
Sonia Conejo Cerón ◽  
Henar Campos-Paino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Postpartum Depression ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Psychosocial Interventions ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionThe prevalence of postpartum depression (PPD) is 17%, and the incidence is 12% worldwide. Adverse consequences for mothers and babies have been associated with this disease. To assess the effectiveness of psychological, psychoeducational and psychosocial interventions in preventing PPD, a systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) will be conducted.Methods and analysisA SR/MA will be performed following the indications of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies will be identified through MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, OpenGrey, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov and evidencebasedtherapy.org from inception until 31 January 2020. Bridging searches will be also conducted until the review is completed. The selection criteria will be as follows: (1) subjects will be pregnant females or females who have given birth in the last 12 months and who were non-depressive at baseline; (2) psychological, psychoeducational and psychosocial interventions; (3) comparator will be usual care, attention control, waiting list or no intervention; (4) outcomes will be specific results on PPD; and (5) the design of the studies will be randomised controlled trials. No restrictions regarding the year of publication, the setting of the intervention or the language of publication will be considered. Pooled standardised mean differences and 95% CIs will be calculated. The risk of bias of the studies will be assessed through the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Heterogeneity between the studies will be determined by the I2 and Cochran’s Q statistics. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses will also be performed. Publication bias will be checked with funnel plots and Egger’s test. Heterogeneity will be explored by random-effects meta-regression analysis.Ethics and disseminationThe ethical assessment was not required. The results will be presented at conferences and disseminated through publications.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018109981.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document