scholarly journals Cannabis related side effects in otolaryngology: a scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jobanjit S. Phulka ◽  
Joel W. Howlett ◽  
Amanda Hu
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cannabis Use ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Levels Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Studies ◽  
Scoping Reviews

Abstract Background Cannabis has been rapidly legalized in North America; however, limited evidence exists around its side effects. Health Canada defines side effect as a harmful and unintended response to a health product. Given drug safety concerns, this study’s purpose was to review the unintended side effects of cannabis in otolaryngology. Methods The Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) protocol was used to conduct a scoping review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases. (PROSPERO: CRD42020153022). English studies in adults were included from inception to the end of 2019. In-vitro, animal, and studies with n < 5 were excluded. Primary outcome was defined as unintended side effects (defined as any Otolaryngology symptom or diagnosis) following cannabis use. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine: Levels of Evidence and risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in randomized trials (RoB 2) and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools were assessed.. Two authors independently reviewed all studies; the senior author settled any discrepancies. Results Five hundred and twenty-one studies were screened; 48 studies were analysed. Subspecialties comprised: Head and Neck (32), Otology (8), Rhinology (5), Airway (5), Laryngology (1). Cannabis use was associated with unintended tinnitus, vertigo, hearing loss, infection, malignancy, sinusitis, allergic rhinitis, thyroid dysfunction, and dyspnea. About half (54.1%) of studies showed increased side effects, or no change in symptoms following cannabis use. Oxford Levels of Evidence was 2–4 with substantial heterogeneity. Risk of bias assessment with RoB2 was low to high and ROBINS-1 was moderate to critical. Conclusion This was the first comprehensive scoping review of unintended side effects of cannabis in Otolaryngology. The current literature is limited and lacks high-quality research Future randomized studies are needed to focus on therapeutic effects of cannabis in otolaryngology. Substantial work remains to guide clinicians to suggest safe, evidence-based choices for cannabis use. Graphic abstract

scholarly journals Implementation of evidence-based parenting programs under real-world conditions: Protocol for a scoping review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. e0256392
Author(s):  
Rita Pinto ◽  
Catarina Canário ◽  
Orlanda Cruz ◽  
Maria José Rodrigo
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Parenting Programs ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Evidence Based Programs

Protecting children is recognized as a public health priority and supporting parents through the implementation of evidence-based programs is a well-known strategy to achieve this. However, researchers highlight that these programs remain insufficiently implemented in real-world contexts. A knowledge gap exists between the intended implementation of evidence-based parenting programs and their actual implementation on real-world dynamics. This scoping review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how evidence-based parenting programs have been implemented under real-world conditions by providing a map of available evidence and identifying knowledge gaps. The overall research question is: "How have evidence-based parenting programs been implemented under real-world conditions?". The proposed scoping review follows the framework originally described by Arksey and O’Malley, Levac and colleagues, and the Joanna Briggs Institute: (1) identifying the research questions; (2) identifying the relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data; (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results; (6) consultation. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) will inform the search strategy. The results will be described in relation to the research questions and in the context of the purpose of the review. This scoping review will help to bridge the implementation gap between research evidence and its translation into practice.

scholarly journals Strategies for communicating health evidence to health policymakers and the population. Scoping review protocol.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco ◽  
Rafael Leite Pacheco ◽  
Angela Maria Bagattini ◽  
Roberta F C Moreira ◽  
Rachel Riera
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Future Studies ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Comprehensive Mapping

Evidence-based health information is provided by evidence synthesis and health technology assessments. Nevertheless, this information is complex for public understanding, pointing to the need to disseminate clearly. This scoping review aims to identify different strategies for communicating health evidence to policymakers and the general population. A scoping review will be conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Scoping Reviews. This comprehensive mapping will contribute to identifying the literature on health evidence-based information, identify the most appropriate approaches for each audience, and the literature gaps to guide future studies.

scholarly journals Use of menstruation and fertility app trackers: a scoping review of the evidence

2020 ◽  
pp. bmjsrh-2019-200488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Earle ◽  
Hannah R Marston ◽  
Robin Hadley ◽  
Duncan Banks
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Pregnancy Prevention ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Health Tracking ◽  
Mobile Health Applications ◽  
Development Evaluation ◽  
Mhealth Apps ◽  
Health Applications

IntroductionThere has been a phenomenal worldwide increase in the development and use of mobile health applications (mHealth apps) that monitor menstruation and fertility. Critics argue that many of the apps are inaccurate and lack evidence from either clinical trials or user experience. The aim of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the research literature on mHealth apps that track menstruation and fertility.MethodsThis project followed the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. The ACM, CINAHL, Google Scholar, PubMed and Scopus databases were searched for material published between 1 January 2010 and 30 April 2019. Data summary and synthesis were used to chart and analyse the data.ResultsIn total 654 records were reviewed. Subsequently, 135 duplicate records and 501 records that did not meet the inclusion criteria were removed. Eighteen records from 13 countries form the basis of this review. The papers reviewed cover a variety of disciplinary and methodological frameworks. Three main themes were identified: fertility and reproductive health tracking, pregnancy planning, and pregnancy prevention.ConclusionsMotivations for fertility app use are varied, overlap and change over time, although women want apps that are accurate and evidence-based regardless of whether they are tracking their fertility, planning a pregnancy or using the app as a form of contraception. There is a lack of critical debate and engagement in the development, evaluation, usage and regulation of fertility and menstruation apps. The paucity of evidence-based research and absence of fertility, health professionals and users in studies is raised.

scholarly journals A scoping review protocol of evidence-based guidance published by general practitioner professional organisations

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Emer O'Brien ◽  
Barbara Clyne ◽  
Susan M. Smith ◽  
Noirin O'Herlihy ◽  
Velma Harkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
General Practitioner ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Scoping Reviews

Introduction: General practitioners (GPs) strive to use a patient centred approach to achieve shared decision making by integrating clinical evidence, clinical judgement, and patient priorities. This protocol outlines a scoping review to identify what evidence-based guidance is produced by general practitioner professional organisations internationally to support general practice clinical decision making. Methods: This scoping review will be conducted using the framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), will be used to guide the reporting. Two researchers will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus), grey literature sources and contact international GP professional organisations directly to identify appropriate studies for inclusion. Key information will be categorised and classified to generate a summary of the methods used internationally to develop and implement evidence-based guides for general practitioners and a narrative synthesis will be conducted. Conclusions: This scoping review will identify the role of GP professional organisations in generating, endorsing and/or disseminating evidence-based guidance for supporting general practitioner’s clinical decision making to benefit patient care.

scholarly journals The Volume and Tone of Twitter Posts About Cannabis Use During Pregnancy: A Scoping Review Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liam Cresswell ◽  
Lisette Espín-Noboa ◽  
Malia Su-Qin Murphy ◽  
Serine Ramlawi ◽  
Mark C. Walker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Health Effect ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Application Programming Interface ◽  
Cannabis Use ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Application Programming

Introduction: Cannabis use has increased in Canada since its legalization in 2018, including among pregnant women who may be motivated to use cannabis to reduce symptoms of nausea and vomiting. However, a growing body of research suggests that cannabis use during pregnancy may harm the developing fetus. Patients increasingly seek medical advice from online sources, but these platforms are often used to spread anecdotal descriptions or misinformation. Given the possible disconnect between online messaging and evidence-based research about the effects of cannabis use during pregnancy, there is a potential for advice taken from social media to cause harm. We propose a scoping review of Twitter to quantify the volume and tone of English-language posts related to cannabis use in pregnancy from January 2012 to July 2021.Methods and Analysis: Using Arksey and O’Malley’s framework for scoping reviews, we will collect publicly available posts from Twitter that mention cannabis use during pregnancy and employ the Twitter Application Programming Interface (API) for Academic Research to extract data from tweets, including public metrics such as the number of likes, retweets and quotes, as well as health effect mentions, sentiment, location and users interests. These data will be used to quantify how cannabis use during pregnancy is discussed on Twitter and to build a qualitative profile of supportive and opposing posters.Ethics and Dissemination: Research ethics approval is not required for publicly accessible Twitter data. We will disseminate this review’s findings through traditional channels, including preprint and peer-reviewed publications and presentations at academic conferences. In addition, we will share our findings through professional and institutional social media accounts and web pages associated with the research team.

scholarly journals Evidence to support the management of medical conditions during long duration spaceflight: a scoping review protocol (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim-Anh Tran ◽  
Neal William Pollock ◽  
Caroline Rhéaume ◽  
Payal Sonya Razdan ◽  
Félix-Antoine Fortier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Space Exploration ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Medical Conditions ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Space Agency ◽  
Long Duration ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Communication Time ◽  
Stage 1

BACKGROUND Future long duration space exploration missions such as travel to Mars will require higher levels of medical autonomy as communication time-delays or disruptions increase, and as an emergency return to Earth will no longer be a viable option for ensuring timely treatment. Although crew selection is proposed as the first line of defence to minimize medical risk for future missions, the second proposed line of defense is medical preparedness and autonomy of crew members. In an effort to develop a decision support system, the Canadian Space Agency mandated a team of scientists from Thales Research and Technology Canada (Québec, QC) and Université Laval (Québec, QC) to create an evidence-based medical condition database linking mission-critical human conditions with key causal factors, diagnostic and treatment information, and probable outcomes. OBJECTIVE To complement this database, a scoping review is currently conducted to better understand the depth and breadth of evidence about managing medical conditions in space. METHODS This scoping review was planned in adherence to standards of quality for scoping reviews employing the Levac, Colquhoun and O’Brien's six-stage methodology, with the results reported following the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. In Stage 1, the research question was identified in collaboration with the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), the main knowledge user. Ten medical conditions were prioritized: acute coronary syndrome, atrial fibrillation, eye penetration, herniated disk, nephrolithiasis, pulmonary embolism, retinal detachment, sepsis, stroke and spaceflight associated neuro-ocular syndrome. In Stage 2, papers were identified with the help of an information specialist from Cochrane Canada Francophone. ARC, Embase, IeeeXplore, Medline Ovid, PsychINFO and Web of science were searched. In Stage 3, studies will be selected and assessed using a three-step process and emerging refined exclusion criteria. In Stage 4, the data will be charted in a table based on parameters required by the CSA and developed using Google Spreadsheets for shared access. In Stage 5, evidence-based descriptive summaries will be produced for each condition, as well as descriptive analyses of collected data. Finally, in Stage 6, the findings will be shared with the CSA to guide the completion of this project. RESULTS This study was planned in December 2018. Stage 1 has been completed. The initial database search strategy with all target conditions combined identified a total of 10,403 citations to review through title and abstract screening and after duplicate removal. Stages 2 to 6 are planned to be completed by the beginning of 2021. CONCLUSIONS This scoping review will map the literature on the management of 10 priority medical conditions in space. It will also enable us to identify knowledge gaps important to address for future research to ensure a successful and medically safe mission as mankind plans to explore new frontiers in space exploration.

scholarly journals Barriers and facilitators to buprenorphine use for opioid agonist treatment: protocol for a scoping review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e032285
Author(s):  
Pamela Leece ◽  
Triti Khorasheh ◽  
Kimberly Corace ◽  
Carol Strike ◽  
Ahmed M Bayoumi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Professional ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Treatment Protocol ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
System Level ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Opioid Agonist ◽  
Professional Organisation ◽  
Scoping Reviews

IntroductionIn the context of the opioid crisis in North America, the benefits of evidence-based opioid agonist treatments such as buprenorphine/naloxone have not been optimised due to low uptake. Numerous factors contribute to the underuse of buprenorphine, and theory-informed approaches to identify and address implementation barriers and facilitators are needed. This scoping review aims to characterise the barriers and facilitators at the patient, healthcare professional, organisation and system level according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), and identify gaps to inform practice and policy.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a scoping review using established methods and follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. We will identify English and French-language peer-reviewed literature by searching five electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and SocINDEX), from inception and use Google, websites of key organisations, and two or more custom search engines to identify relevant grey literature. Eligible records will be quantitative or qualitative studies that examine barriers and facilitators to buprenorphine use at the patient, healthcare professional, organisation and system level, and involve participants with diagnosis of opioid use disorder or professionals involved in their care. Two reviewers will be involved in independently screening, reviewing and charting the data and calibration exercises will be conducted at each stage. We will conduct descriptive analysis for the charted data, and deductively code barriers and facilitators using the TDF.Ethics and disseminationAs a scoping review of the literature, this study does not require ethics approval. Our dissemination strategy will focus on developing tailored activities to meet the needs of diverse knowledge user audiences. Barriers and facilitators mapped to the TDF can be linked to evidence-based strategies for change to improve buprenorphine use and access, and enable practice to reduce opioid-related harms.

Optimising the process for conducting scoping reviews

2020 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2020-111452
Author(s):  
Colleen Pawliuk ◽  
Helen L Brown ◽  
Kim Widger ◽  
Tammie Dewan ◽  
Anne-Mette Hermansen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Knowledge Synthesis ◽  
Systematic Search ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Current Guidance ◽  
Based Medicine

Knowledge synthesis constitutes a key part of evidence-based medicine and a scoping review is a type of knowledge synthesis that maps the breadth of literature on a topic. Conducting a scoping review is resource intensive and, as a result, it can be challenging to maintain best practices throughout the process. Much of the current guidance describes a scoping review framework or broad ways to conduct a scoping review. However, little detailed guidance exists on how to complete each stage to optimise the process. We present five recommendations based on our experience when conducting a particularly challenging scoping review: (1) engage the expertise of a librarian throughout the process, (2) conduct a truly systematic search, (3) facilitate communication and collaboration, (4) explore new tools or repurpose old ones, and (5) test every stage of the process. These recommendations add to the literature by providing specific and detailed advice on each stage of a scoping review. Our intent is for these recommendations to aid other teams that are undertaking knowledge synthesis projects.

Evidence-Based Medicine

2018 ◽  
pp. 59-63
Author(s):  
S. Nassir Ghaemi
Keyword(s):  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Levels Of Evidence ◽  
Confounding Bias ◽  
Randomized Studies ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Based Medicine

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is the view that there are levels of evidence, with higher ones being more valid than lower ones. The higher levels of evidence have less confounding bias, with randomization being the best method to minimize such bias. Lower levels of evidence have more confounding bias, with clinical experience being the worst setting for such bias. However, evidence-based medicine is misinterpreted if it is oversimplified. The EBM literature has various definitions of specific levels of evidence. Standard EBM text uses letters (A through D). One could also use numbers (I through V). The basic idea is that randomized studies are higher levels of evidence than non-randomized studies, and that the lowest level of evidence consists of case reports, expert opinion, or the consensus of the opinion of clinicians or investigators. The pros and cons of the EBM approach are scrutinized in this chapter.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document