Effects of patient navigation on satisfaction with cancer care: A systematic review.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18088-e18088
Author(s):  
Pascal Jean-Pierre
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Patient Navigation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Optimal Health

e18088 Background: Patient navigation (PN) is a model of health care coordination designed to ameliorate health disparities by reducing barriers to achieving optimal health outcomes. Systematic reviews that evaluate whether PN is associated with higher patient satisfaction with cancer care are lacking. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to synthesize evidence of comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of PN programs to improve satisfaction with cancer-related care. We included studies reported in English that: 1) evaluated a PN intervention designed to increase satisfaction with cancer care; and 2) involved a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or observational design. We abstracted data from studies using standardized forms, and evaluated these studies for methodological quality. Data were summarized qualitatively and synthesized under a random effects model. Results: The initial search yielded 831 citations, of which 3 RCTs and 6 observational studies met inclusion criteria. These nine studies involving 4,200 surveyed patients revealed either a neutral or positive effect in patient satisfaction in the majority of studies of PN and cancer-related care. However, only 5 studies (1 RCT and 4 observational) had adequate datato include in the meta-analysis. Methodological quality of eight of the included studies ranged from weak to moderate to strong, with half rated as weak. Findings of the RCT showed a statistically significant increase in satisfaction with cancer care involving PN [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 2.30; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.79, 2.80, p < .001]. Pooled results from non-RCTs showed no significant association between PN and satisfaction with cancer-related care (SMD = 0.39; 95% CI: -0.02, 0.80, p = .06). Conclusions: More systematic reviews are needed to characterize the relationship between PN and satisfaction with cancer-related care across the cancer care continuum and across different types of cancer.

scholarly journals Efficacy of pre-operative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis on incidence of venous thromboembolism following major gynecologic and gynecologic oncology surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. ijgc-2020-001991
Author(s):  
Steven Bisch ◽  
Rachelle Findley ◽  
Christina Ince ◽  
Maria Nardell ◽  
Gregg Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Gynecologic Surgery ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Pharmacologic Prophylaxis ◽  
Pharmacologic Thromboprophylaxis

IntroductionVenous thromboembolism remains a significant complication following major gynecologic surgery. Evidence is lacking on whether it is beneficial to give pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis pre-operatively. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the role of pre-operative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in preventing post-operative venous thromboembolism.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials were searched to find randomized controlled, cohort, and case–control trials comparing pre-operative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis to no prophylaxis, mechanical prophylaxis, or only post-operative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis for open and minimally invasive major gynecologic surgery (benign and malignant conditions). Two authors independently assessed abstracts, full-text articles, and methodological quality. Data were extracted and pooled using ORs for random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was explored using forest plots, Q-statistic, and I2 statistics. Planned subgroup analysis of use of sequential compression devices, equivalent versus non-equivalent post-operative prophylaxis, cancer diagnosis, and methodological quality were performed.ResultsSome 503 unique studies were found, and 16 studies (28 806 patients) were included in the systematic review. Twelve studies (14 273 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. The OR for incidence of post-operative venous thromboembolism was 0.59 (95% CI 0.39, 0.89), favoring pre-operative pharmacologic thromboembolism prophylaxis compared with no pre-operative pharmacologic prophylaxis (Q=13.80, I2=20.30). In studies where post-operative care was equivalent between groups, the OR for venous thromboembolism was 0.56 (95% CI 0.22, 1.40). Pre-operative pharmacologic prophylaxis demonstrated greatest benefit when utilized with both intra-operative and post-operative sequential compression devices (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30, 0.64) compared with when no sequential compression devices were utilized (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.63, 2.56). When looking at only studies determined to be of high quality, the results no longer reached significance (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.36, 1.46).ConclusionsPre-operative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis decreases the odds of venous thromboembolism in the peri-operative period for major gynecologic oncology surgery by approximately 40%. It remains unclear whether this benefit is present in benign and minor procedures. Adequately powered studies are needed.

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Spine Surgery—How Good Are They in Methodological Quality? A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muthu Sathish ◽  
Ramakrishnan Eswar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Critical Flaw ◽  
Meta Analyses

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria. Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.

P14.71 An assessment of the reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii51-ii52
Author(s):  
A M George ◽  
S Gupta ◽  
S M Keshwara ◽  
M A Mustafa ◽  
C S Gillespie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neurofibromatosis Type ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract BACKGROUND Systematic reviews and meta-analyses constitute the highest level of research evidence and for a disease with limited clinical trial activity, are often relied upon to help inform clinical practice. This review of reviews evaluates both the reporting & methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS Potentially eligible meningioma reviews published between 1st January 1990 and 31st December 2020 were identified from eight electronic databases. Inclusion required the study to meet the Cochrane guideline definition of a systematic review or meta-analysis. Reviews concerning neurofibromatosis type 2, spinal and pediatric meningiomas were excluded. The reporting and methodological quality of articles were assessed against the following modified guidelines: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) guidelines. RESULTS 117 systematic reviews were identified, 57 of which included meta-analysis (48.7%). The number of meningioma systematic reviews published each year has increased with 63 studies (53.9%) published between 01/2018 and 12/2020. A median of 17 studies (IQR 9–29) were included per review. Impact factor of journals publishing a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis was similar (median 2.3 vs 1.8, P=0.397). The mean PRISMA scores for systematic reviews with a meta-analysis was 21.11 (SD 4.1, 78% adherence) and without was 13.89 (SD 3.4, 63% adherence). Twenty-nine systematic reviews with meta-analysis (51%) and 11 without meta-analysis (18%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA recommendations. Methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR2 revealed one study (0.9%) as high quality whilst 111 (94.8%) studies were graded as critically low. One hundred and two articles (87.2%) did not utilize a comprehensive search strategy as defined by the AMSTAR2 tool. Ninety-nine studies (84.6%) obtained a high level of concern for potential bias as per the ROBIS assessment. One hundred and eight articles (92.3%) failed to present information that a protocol had been established prior to study commencement and 76 articles (65.0%) did not conduct a risk of bias assessment. Across the three tools, domains relating to the establishment of a protocol prior to review commencement and conducting appropriate risk of bias assessments were frequently low scoring. CONCLUSION Overall reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews was sub-optimal. Established critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should be utilized a priori to assist in producing high-quality systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Evaluating the Quality of the Iranian Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Economic Evaluations in Healthcare from 2005 to 2015

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morteza Arab-Zozani ◽  
Zahra Heidarifard ◽  
Efat Jabarpour
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Economic Perspective ◽  
Meta Analyses

Context: The number of studies on health is increasing rapidly worldwide and in Iran. Systematic review studies, meta-analyses, and economic evaluation are of great importance in evidence-based decision making because of their standing in the evidence-based pyramid. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of Iranian systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies and economic evaluations on healthcare. Evidence Acquisition: PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to find considered studies, including systematic reviews, meta analyses and economic evaluations published from 2005 to 2015. Because of the high volume of review studies, 10% of all systematic reviews and meta-analyses were selected as a random sample. Also, all economic evaluations were included. Articles were evaluated using checklists, including PRISMA, AMSTAR and QHES with a maximum score of 27, 11 and 100, respectively. The quality score for each criterion as well as the epidemiological and descriptive characteristics of all articles was determined. Data were analyzed using SPSS V. 16 software. Results: After searching the databases, 1084 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were obtained, 10% of which were included in the study. A total of 41 economic evaluations were also included. The mean scores of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were 17.04 (5.35) and 5.42 (1.97), respectively, and 68.21 (12.44) for economic evaluations based on QHES. Only three systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles had recorded protocols and 85% of the studies included the terms “systematic review” and “meta-analysis” in their titles. Only one study had been updated. In addition, 81% of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses were published in specialized journals and 47% in Iranian journals. Financial resources and conflict of interests had been mentioned in 33% and 66% of the studies, respectively. Of the selected studies, 60% had evaluated the quality of the articles and 35% of the studies had assessed publication bias. In economic evaluations, 56% had used CEA analysis, 22% CUA analysis, 12% CBA analysis, and one study had used CMA analysis. Of these studies, 54% were model-based health economic studies and 12% were trial-based. The economic perspective was the health care system in most studies. Forty-four percent of the studies had a short time horizon of one year or less, whereas 33% had a lifetime horizon. Moreover, 68% of the studies showed sensitivity analysis and only 5 included the magnitude and direction of the bias. Conclusions: Overall, the reporting and methodological quality of the selected studies were estimated at a moderate level. Based on these results, it is recommended to adopt strategies to reduce preventable errors in studies. Having a primary plan and protocol and registering it as a systematic review can be an important factor in improving the quality of studies. Economic evaluations should also focus on issues, such as economic perspective, time horizon, available bias, and sensitivity analysis.

scholarly journals Good Statistical Practices for Contemporary Meta-Analysis: Examples Based on a Systematic Review on COVID-19 in Pregnancy

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 64-76
Author(s):  
Yuxi Zhao ◽  
Lifeng Lin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Worked Examples ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Sufficient Information ◽  
Good Practices ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
In Pregnancy

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been increasingly used to pool research findings from multiple studies in medical sciences. The reliability of the synthesized evidence depends highly on the methodological quality of a systematic review and meta-analysis. In recent years, several tools have been developed to guide the reporting and evidence appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and much statistical effort has been paid to improve their methodological quality. Nevertheless, many contemporary meta-analyses continue to employ conventional statistical methods, which may be suboptimal compared with several alternative methods available in the evidence synthesis literature. Based on a recent systematic review on COVID-19 in pregnancy, this article provides an overview of select good practices for performing meta-analyses from statistical perspectives. Specifically, we suggest meta-analysts (1) providing sufficient information of included studies, (2) providing information for reproducibility of meta-analyses, (3) using appropriate terminologies, (4) double-checking presented results, (5) considering alternative estimators of between-study variance, (6) considering alternative confidence intervals, (7) reporting prediction intervals, (8) assessing small-study effects whenever possible, and (9) considering one-stage methods. We use worked examples to illustrate these good practices. Relevant statistical code is also provided. The conventional and alternative methods could produce noticeably different point and interval estimates in some meta-analyses and thus affect their conclusions. In such cases, researchers should interpret the results from conventional methods with great caution and consider using alternative methods.

scholarly journals Effects of patient navigation on satisfaction with cancer care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 1369-1382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen J. Wells ◽  
Kevin Campbell ◽  
Ambuj Kumar ◽  
Tatianna Clark ◽  
Pascal Jean-Pierre
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Patient Navigation ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Small-sided games: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0247067
Author(s):  
Filipe Manuel Clemente ◽  
José Afonso ◽  
Hugo Sarmento
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Aerobic Capacity ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Acute Effects ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective This umbrella review was conducted to summarize the evidence and qualify the methodological quality of SR and SRMA published on small-sided games in team ball sports. Methods A systematic review of Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results From the 176 studies initially identified, 12 (eight SR and four SRMA) were fully reviewed, and their outcome measures were extracted and analyzed. Methodological quality (with the use of AMSTAR-2) revealed that seven reviews had low quality and five had critically low quality. Two major types of effects of SSGs were observed: (i) short-term acute effects and (ii) long-term adaptations. Four broad dimensions of analysis were found: (i) physiological demands (internal load); (ii) physical demands (external load) or fitness status; (iii) technical actions; and (iv) tactical behavior and collective organization. The psychological domain was reduced to an analysis of enjoyment. The main findings from this umbrella review revealed that SSGs present positive effects in improving aerobic capacity and tactical/technical behaviors, while neuromuscular adaptations present more heterogeneous findings. Factors such as sex, age group, expertise, skill level, or fitness status are also determinants of some acute effects and adaptations. Conclusion The current umbrella review allowed to identify that most of the systematic review and meta-analysis conducted in SSGs presents low methodological quality considering the standards. Most of the systematic reviews included in this umbrella revealed that task constraints significantly change the acute responses in exercise, while SSGs are effective in improving aerobic capacity. Future original studies in this topic should improve the methodological quality and improve the experimental study designs for assessing changes in tactical/technical skills.

Trials and Tribulations of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Hematology ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 2007 (1) ◽  
pp. 493-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Crowther ◽  
Deborah J. Cook
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Optimal Health ◽  
Bodies Of Evidence ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Key Steps

Abstract Systematic reviews can help practitioners keep abreast of the medical literature by summarizing large bodies of evidence and helping to explain differences among studies on the same question. A systematic review involves the application of scientific strategies, in ways that limit bias, to the assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies that address a specific clinical question. A meta-analysis is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several primary studies. Because the review process itself (like any other type of research) is subject to bias, a useful review requires rigorous methods that are clearly reported. Used increasingly to inform medical decision making, plan future research agendas, and establish clinical policy, systematic reviews may strengthen the link between best research evidence and optimal health care. In this article, we discuss key steps in how to critically appraise and how to conduct a systematic review or meta-analysis.

scholarly journals Living systematic review: new inputs and challenges

Medwave ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. e8092-e8092
Author(s):  
Laura Vergara-Merino ◽  
Catalina Verdejo ◽  
Cynthia Carrasco ◽  
Manuel Vargas-Peirano
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Clinical Epidemiology ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Health Decision ◽  
New Evidence

This is the second article from a collaborative methodological series of biostatistics and clinical epidemiology narrative reviews. This review aims to describe living systematic reviews’ relevance, the considerations that should be taken when producing one, and the challenges proper of this type of review. The living systematic review is a continuous update that maintains a systematic review’s rigor and methodological quality. The living format is appropriate when the review aims to answer a priority question in terms of health decision-making, the existent certainty of the evidence for this question is low or very low, and new evidence will likely appear soon. To carry out a successful living systematic review, researchers should consider different things, such as: having a continuous and automated search, having update criteria, evaluating how to update the meta-analysis and how to perform the editorial process, and publishing in a friendly format, among others. As living systematic reviews are a new proposal, they will likely change in the future to improve their performance, so we will have to keep an eye on its future updates.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document