scholarly journals Estimating ecotoxicological effects of chemicals on tropical reef-building corals; a systematic review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dakis-Yaoba Ouédraogo ◽  
Olivier Perceval ◽  
Christine Ferrier-Pagès ◽  
Isabelle Domart-Coulon ◽  
Laetitia Hédouin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anthropogenic Activities ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Chemical Pollution ◽  
Systematic Map ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Ecotoxicological Effects ◽  
Tropical Coral ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Tropical Reef

Abstract Background Tropical coral reefs cover only ca. 0.1% of the Earth’s surface but host an outstanding biodiversity and provide important ecosystem services to millions of people living nearby. They are currently threatened by global (e.g., climate change) and local (e.g., chemical pollution) stressors that interact in different ways. While global stressors cannot be mitigated by local actions alone, local stressors can be reduced through ecosystem management. A systematic map on the impacts of chemicals arising from anthropogenic activities on tropical reef-building corals, which are the main engineer species of reef ecosystems, was published in 2021. This systematic map gathered an abundant literature (908 articles corresponding to 7937 studies), and identified four well-represented subtopics, amenable to relevant full syntheses. Here, we focused on one of the four subtopics: we aimed to systematically review the evidence on the ecotoxicological effects of chemicals on tropical reef-building corals. Methods The evidence will be identified from the recent systematic map on the impacts of chemicals arising from anthropogenic activities on tropical reef-building corals. Especially, all studies in the map database corresponding to the knowledge cluster “evidence on the ecotoxicological effects of chemicals on corals” will be selected. To identify the evidence produced since then, a search update will be performed using a subset of the search string used for the systematic map, and titles, abstracts and full-texts will be screened according to the criteria defining the selected cluster of the map. In addition, as the eligibility criteria for the systematic review are narrower than those used to define the cluster in the systematic map, additional screening will be carried out. The included studies will then be critically appraised and a low, medium, or high risk of bias will be assigned to each study. Data will be extracted from studies and synthesised according to a strategy depending on the type of exposure and outcome. Synthesis will be mainly quantitative but also narrative, aiming to identify toxicity thresholds of chemicals for corals.

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 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 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 Evaluation of emergency evacuation in school buildings_ Protocol for a Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 75-81
Author(s):  
Raquel Martins ◽  
J. Duarte ◽  
Mário Vaz
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Disaster Preparedness ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Emergency Evacuation ◽  
Relevant Research ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Reduce Risk

Children are amongst the most vulnerable affected groups by natural and human-made disasters. Disaster preparedness education programs have been developed to help reduce risk and increase resilience for hazardous events. A better understanding is needed about children evacuation behaviour in schools and the time of evacuation. Therefore, a systematic review is proposed to search for relevant information about emergency evacuation response in schools. This systematic review protocol was developed to present adequate guidelines that can provide relevant research results to fulfil the sought objective. Sixteen databases will be accessed (Scopus, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect, are some examples) and a total of three keyword expressions will be used. The selection process will be thoroughly described, including detailed data treatment and used eligibility criteria, to contribute to the general research on this field.

scholarly journals Lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisca Verdugo-Paiva ◽  
Ariel Izcovich ◽  
Martín Ragusa ◽  
Gabriel Rada
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.DesignThis is the protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question.We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir— as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs — versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating lopinavir/ritonavir in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomised trials is found, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO RegistrationSubmitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).

Healthcare professionals’ experiences and perspectives on using telehealth for home-based palliative care: a scoping review protocol (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elias David Lundereng ◽  
Andrea Aparecida Goncalves Nes ◽  
Heidi Holmen ◽  
Anette Winger ◽  
Hilde Thygesen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Hand Search ◽  
Home Based ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Analysis Protocol

BACKGROUND Telehealth seems feasible for use in home-based palliative care. However, acceptance among healthcare professionals is essential for the successful delivery of telehealth in practice. No scoping review has mapped the experiences and perspectives of healthcare professionals on the use of telehealth for home-based palliative care. OBJECTIVE To systematically map published studies on healthcare professionals’ experiences and perspectives on the use of telehealth in home-based palliative care. METHODS The proposed scoping review will employ the methodology of Arksey and O’Malley. This protocol is guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P). A systematic search was performed in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PsycINFO, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) and Web of Science (WoS) for studies published between January 2000 to July 5, 2021. We will also hand search the reference lists of included papers to identify additional studies of relevance. The search will be updated in 2022. Pairs of authors will independently assess eligibility of studies and extract data. The two first stages of thematic synthesis will be used to thematically organize the data material. Since the scoping review methodology consists of reviewing and collecting data from publicly available materials, this study does not require ethics approval. RESULTS The database searches were performed on July 5, 2021 and the eligibility criteria were tested in July-August 2021. After removal of 2364 duplicates, the search yielded 2420 citations.We will screen titles, abstracts and full-text papers by fall 2021. Results are anticipated by September 2022. CONCLUSIONS A mapping of studies could identify research gaps regarding healthcare professionals’ experiences and perspectives on the use of telehealth in home-based palliative care and may determine the value and feasibility of conducting a full systematic review.

scholarly journals Evidence on the impacts of chemicals arising from human activity on tropical reef-building corals; a systematic map

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dakis-Yaoba Ouédraogo ◽  
Mathilde Delaunay ◽  
Romain Sordello ◽  
Laetitia Hédouin ◽  
Magalie Castelin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Coral Reefs ◽  
Nutrient Enrichment ◽  
Human Activities ◽  
Additional Stress ◽  
Chemical Pollution ◽  
Systematic Map ◽  
Search String ◽  
Tropical Reef ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Tropical coral reefs cover ca. 0.1% of the Earth’s surface but host an outstanding biodiversity and provide important ecosystem services to millions of people living nearby. They are currently threatened by local stressors (e.g. nutrient enrichment and chemical pollution arising from poor land management, sewage effluents, agriculture, industry) and global stressors (mainly seawater warming and acidification, i.e. climate change). Global and local stressors interact in different ways, but the presence of one stressor often reduces the tolerance to additional stress. While global stressors cannot be mitigated solely by local actions, local stressors can be reduced through ecosystem management, therefore minimizing the impact of climate change on coral reefs. We systematically mapped the evidence of impacts of chemicals arising from anthropogenic activities on tropical reef-building corals, which are the main engineer species of reef ecosystems, to inform decision-makers on the available evidence on this topic. Methods We searched the relevant literature using English terms combined in a tested search string in two publication databases (Scopus and Web Of Science Core Collection). The search string combined terms describing the population (tropical reef-building corals) and the exposure (chemicals). We searched for additional literature through three search engines, three dissertations repositories, 11 specialist websites, and through a call to local stakeholders. Titles, abstracts, and full-texts were successively screened using pre-defined eligibility criteria. A database of all studies included in the map with coded metadata was produced. The evidence was described and knowledge clusters and gaps were identified through the distribution and frequency of studies into types of exposure and/or types of outcomes and/or types of study. Review findings The initial searches identified 23,403 articles which resulted in 15,177 articles after duplicate removal. Among them, 908 articles were retained after screening process, corresponding to 7937 studies (a study being the combination of a taxon, an exposure, and an outcome). Among these studies, 30.5% dealt with the impact of nutrient enrichment on corals while 25% concerned the impact of human activities without reference to a chemical. The most measured outcomes were those related to the chemical concentration in corals (bioaccumulation, 25.8%), to coral physiology (16.9%), cover (14%), and mortality (9%). Half of the studies (48.4%) were experimental—the exposure was controlled by the researchers—and were conducted in laboratory conditions (39.4%) and in situ (9%). The most studied taxa, exposure, and outcomes were different between experimental and observational studies. Conclusions We identified four well-represented subtopics that may be amenable to relevant full syntheses via systematic reviews: (1) evidence on bioaccumulation of chemicals by corals; (2) evidence on the effects of nutrient enrichment on corals; (3) evidence on the effects of human activities on corals; and (4) evidence on the ecotoxicological effects of chemicals on corals (except nutrient enrichment). The systematic map shows that corals in their natural environment can be exposed to many categories of chemicals, and that there is a complete gap in experimental research on the combined effects of more than two categories of chemicals. We therefore encourage research on this topic.

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 FALSE-NEGATIVE RESULTS OF INITIAL RT-PCR ASSAYS FOR COVID-19: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez ◽  
Diana Buitrago-Garcia ◽  
Daniel Simancas-Racines ◽  
Paula Zambrano-Achig ◽  
Rosa Del Campo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Repeated Testing ◽  
Rt Pcr ◽  
Systematic Map ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Mixed Effect ◽  
Initial Testing ◽  
Negative Results

ABSTRACTBackgroundCases with negative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results at initial testing for suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and found to be positive in a subsequent test, are considered as RT-PCR false-negative cases. False-negative cases have important implications for COVID-19 management, isolation, and risk of transmission. We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the proportion of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and critical appraisal of literature with high involvement of stakeholders in the review process. We searched on MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the WHO database of COVID-19 publications, the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19, and the living systematic review developed by the University of Bern (ISPM). Two authors screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data of included studies (no-independent verification). Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the false-negative proportion with the corresponding 95% CI using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model using STATA 16®. Certainty of the evidence about false-negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. The information is current up to 6 April 2020.FindingsFive studies enrolling 957 patients were included. All studies were affected by several biases and applicability concerns. Pooled estimation of false-negative proportion was 0.085 (95% CI= 0.034 to 0.196; tau-squared = 1.08; 95% CI= 0.27 to 8.28; p<0.001); however, this estimation is highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity, and its interpretation should be avoided. The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low, due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues.ConclusionsThe collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection given that up to 29% of patients could have an initial RT-PCR false-negative result.Systematic review registrationProtocol available on OSF website: https://osf.io/gp38w/

scholarly journals Technology-based Health Solutions for Cancer Caregivers to Better Shoulder the Impact of COVID-19: A Systematic Review Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaohui Su ◽  
Dean McDonnell ◽  
Bin Liang ◽  
Jennifer Kue ◽  
Xiaoshan Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Healthcare Needs ◽  
Protocol Registration ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Cancer Caregivers ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document