scholarly journals Interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness during COVID-19 physical distancing measures: A rapid systematic review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0247139
Author(s):  
Christopher Y. K. Williams ◽  
Adam T. Townson ◽  
Milan Kapur ◽  
Alice F. Ferreira ◽  
Rebecca Nunn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Social Isolation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Social Distancing ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background A significant proportion of the worldwide population is at risk of social isolation and loneliness as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to identify effective interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness that are compatible with COVID-19 shielding and social distancing measures. Methods and findings In this rapid systematic review, we searched six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SCOPUS) from inception to April 2020 for systematic reviews appraising interventions for loneliness and/or social isolation. Primary studies from those reviews were eligible if they included: 1) participants in a non-hospital setting; 2) interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness that would be feasible during COVID-19 shielding measures; 3) a relevant control group; and 4) quantitative measures of social isolation, social support or loneliness. At least two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Downs and Black checklist. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020178654. We identified 45 RCTs and 13 non-randomised controlled trials; none were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The nature, type, and potential effectiveness of interventions varied greatly. Effective interventions for loneliness include psychological therapies such as mindfulness, lessons on friendship, robotic pets, and social facilitation software. Few interventions improved social isolation. Overall, 37 of 58 studies were of “Fair” quality, as measured by the Downs & Black checklist. The main study limitations identified were the inclusion of studies of variable quality; the applicability of our findings to the entire population; and the current poor understanding of the types of loneliness and isolation experienced by different groups affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions Many effective interventions involved cognitive or educational components, or facilitated communication between peers. These interventions may require minor modifications to align with COVID-19 shielding/social distancing measures. Future high-quality randomised controlled trials conducted under shielding/social distancing constraints are urgently needed.

scholarly journals Adverse events of exercise therapy in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (18) ◽  
pp. 1073-1080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andre Niemeijer ◽  
Hans Lund ◽  
Signe Nilssen Stafne ◽  
Thomas Ipsen ◽  
Cathrine Luhaäär Goldschmidt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Relative Risk ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Exercise Therapy ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo evaluate the relative risk (RR) of serious and non-serious adverse events in patients treated with exercise therapy compared with those in a non-exercising control group.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPrimary studies were identified based on The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews investigating the effect of exercise therapy.Eligibility criteriaAt least two of the authors independently evaluated all identified reviews and primary studies. Randomised controlled trials were included if they compared any exercise therapy intervention with a non-exercising control. Two authors independently extracted data. The RR of serious and non-serious adverse events was estimated separately.Results180 Cochrane reviews were included and from these, 773 primary studies were identified. Of these, 378 studies (n=38 368 participants) reported serious adverse events and 375 studies (n=38 517 participants) reported non-serious adverse events. We found no increase in risk of serious adverse events (RR=0.96 (95%CI 0.90 to 1.02, I2: 0.0%) due to exercise therapy. There was, however, an increase in non-serious adverse events (RR=1.19 (95%CI 1.09 to 1.30, I2: 0.0%). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome for non-serious adverse events was 6 [95%CI 4 to 11).ConclusionParticipating in an exercise intervention increased the relative risk of non-serious adverse events, but not of serious adverse events. Exercise therapy may therefore be recommended as a relatively safe intervention.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42014014819.

scholarly journals Impact of social distancing measures for preventing coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishna Regmi ◽  
Cho Mar Lwin
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
World Health ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
List Type ◽  
Social Distancing ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact

AbstractIntroductionSocial distancing measures (SDMs) protect public health from the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the impact of SDMs has been inconsistent and unclear. This study aims to assess the effects of SDMs (e.g. isolation, quarantine) for reducing the transmission of COVID-19.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review meta-analysis research of both randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied & Complementary Medicine, COVID-19 Research and WHO database on COVID-19 for primary studies assessing the effects of SDMs (e.g. isolation, quarantine) for reducing the transmission of COVID-19, and will be reported in accordance with PRISMA statement. The PRISMA-P checklist will be used while preparing this protocol. We will use Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines (JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists) to assess the methodological qualities and synthesised performing thematic analysis. Two reviewers will independently screen the papers and extracted data. If sufficient data are available, the random-effects model for meta-analysis will be performed to measure the effect size of SDMs or the strengths of relationships. To assess the heterogeneity of effects, I2 together with the observed effects (Q-value, with degrees of freedom) will be used to provide the true effects in the analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval and consent will not be required for this systematic review of the literature as it does not involve human participation. We will be able to disseminate the study findings using the following strategies: we will be publishing at least one paper in peer-reviewed journals, and an abstract will be presented at suitable national/international conferences or workshops. We will also share important information with public health authorities as well as with the World Health Organization. In addition, we may post the submitted manuscript under review to bioRxiv, medRxiv, or other relevant pre-print servers.Strengths and limitations of this studyTo our knowledge, this study will be the first systematic review to examine the impact of social distancing measures to reduce transmission of COVID-19.This study will offer highest level of evidence for informed decisions, drawing a broader framework.This protocol reduces the possibility of duplication, provides transparency to the methods and procedures that will be used, minimise potential biases and allows peer-review.This research is not externally funded, and therefore time and resource will be constrained.If included studies will be variable in sample size, quality and population, which may open to bias, and the heterogeneity of data will preclude a meaningful meta-analysis to measure the impact of specific SDMs

scholarly journals Pharmacotherapeutic Options for Managing Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Giulia Di Stefano ◽  
Andrea Di Lionardo ◽  
Giuseppe Di Pietro ◽  
Giorgio Cruccu ◽  
Andrea Truini
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Fatty Acid Amide Hydrolase ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Acid Amide ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Despite an increasing number of available therapies, the treatment of neuropathic pain remains a major issue. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses indicate that only a minority of patients with neuropathic pain have an adequate response to pharmacological treatment and that most drugs have dose-limiting side effects. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials published in the last five years. We searched for relevant papers within PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Clinical Trials database (ClinicalTrials.gov). Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion, data extraction, and bias assessment. We identified 39 randomised controlled trials and included 16 in the meta-analysis. Trial outcomes were generally modest even for first-line drugs such as tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, and gabapentinoids. Many drugs acting on new pain targets are currently under development. Clinical data are currently available for sodium channel isoform-specific antagonists, anti-nerve growth factor molecules, and fatty acid amide hydrolase inhibitors.

scholarly journals Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomised controlled trials in diabetes and pregnancy: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e052506
Author(s):  
Christine Newman ◽  
Oratile Kgosidialwa ◽  
Louise Dervan ◽  
Delia Bogdanet ◽  
Aoife Maria Egan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Medical Subject Headings ◽  
Metabolic Complication ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionDiabetes mellitus is the most common metabolic complication of pregnancy and its prevalence worldwide is rising. The number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) being conducted in people with diabetes is also increasing. Many studies preferentially publish findings on clinical endpoints and do not report patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In studies that do include PROs, PRO reporting is often of poor quality.MethodsWe will conduct this systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Using a combination of medical subject headings and keywords (combined using Boolean operators), we will search web-based databases (PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE) for RCTs published in English between 2013 and 2021. Two reviewers will review titles and abstracts. We will review the full texts of any relevant abstracts and extract the following data: date of publication or recruitment period, journal of publication, country of study, multicentre or single centre, population and number of participants, type of intervention, frequency of PRO assessment and type of PRO (or PRO measurement) used. We will also record if the PRO was a primary, secondary or exploratory outcome. We will exclude reviews, observational studies, unpublished data for example, conference abstracts and trial protocols. Any published RCT that includes data on a PRO as a primary or secondary outcome will then be compared against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials—Patient-Reported Outcome extension checklist, a structured and approved framework for the publication of results of PROs.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval to conduct this study was obtained from the ethics committee at Galway University Hospitals on 24 March 2021 (CA 2592). We aim to publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present our findings at national and international conferences.Systematic review registrationThis systematic review was registered prospectively with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Registration number CRD42021234917.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review to Assess the Effectiveness of Technology-Based Interventions to Address Obesity in Children

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan McMullan ◽  
Rachel Millar ◽  
Jayne Woodside
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Childhood Obesity ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
English Language ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Use Of Technology ◽  
Active Video ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Childhood obesity is associated with a multitude of co-morbidities, including hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Childhood obesity can also affect a young person’s social, emotional and mental health if they encounter negative prejudice and social marginalisation. Given the prevalence of overweight and obese children globally, it is imperative that effective interventions are developed. Children are receptive to information conveyed via digital means, therefore, the use of technology may play a crucial role in interventions to reduce childhood obesity. This systematic review aimed to review and critically appraise the literature published to date in relation to the effectiveness of technology-based interventions, employed as secondary prevention, in addressing childhood obesity.Methods An electronic search strategy was undertaken in Medline and Embase, covering publications up to and including 12th July 2018. Randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of technology-based interventions on weight-related outcomes in children, aged 8 to 18, published only in the English language, were included.Results From an initial search total of 1,012 studies, 11 met the inclusion criteria. They were assessed for methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomised Controlled Trials and were analysed using a narrative approach. The findings of this review showed a limited potential of technology-based interventions, employed as secondary prevention, to address childhood obesity. Of the eleven studies reviewed, three (27%) showed a positive relationship between technology-based interventions and weight-related outcomes in overweight or obese children.Conclusions This review suggests that technology-based interventions, primarily active video games, as well as internet or web-based interventions and mobile phone communications, may, with further research, have the potential to impact positively on weight-related outcomes. It is difficult to determine the degree of efficacy of these technology-based interventions, as only two databases were searched, selecting only English language articles. Moreover, the included studies demonstrated a lack of high-quality evidence. The lack and heterogeneity of studies with technology-based interventions is a further limitation.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review to Assess the Effectiveness of Technology-Based Interventions to Address Obesity in Children

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan McMullan ◽  
Rachel Millar ◽  
Jayne Woodside
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Childhood Obesity ◽  
Secondary Prevention ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
English Language ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Obese Children ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Active Video ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background: Childhood obesity is associated with a multitude of co-morbidities, including hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Childhood obesity can also affect a young person’s social, emotional and mental health if they encounter negative prejudice and social marginalisation. Given the prevalence of overweight and obese children globally, it is imperative that effective interventions are developed. Children are receptive to information conveyed via digital means, therefore, the use of technology may play a crucial role in interventions to reduce childhood obesity. This systematic review aimed to review and critically appraise the literature published to date in relation to the effectiveness of technology-based interventions, employed as secondary prevention, in addressing childhood obesity.Methods: An electronic search strategy was undertaken in Medline and Embase, covering publications up to and including 12th July 2018. Randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of technology-based interventions on weight-related outcomes in children, aged 8 to 18, published only in the English language, were included. Results: From an initial search total of 1,012 studies, 11 met the inclusion criteria. They were assessed for methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomised Controlled Trials and were analysed using a narrative approach. The findings of this review showed a limited potential of technology-based interventions, employed as secondary prevention, to address childhood obesity. Of the eleven studies reviewed, three (27%) showed a positive relationship between technology-based interventions and weight-related outcomes in overweight or obese children. Conclusions: This review suggests that technology-based interventions, primarily active video games, as well as internet or web-based interventions and mobile phone communications, may, with further research, have the potential to impact positively on weight-related outcomes. It is difficult to determine the degree of efficacy of these technology-based interventions, as only two databases were searched, selecting only English language articles. Moreover, the included studies demonstrated a lack of high-quality evidence. The lack and heterogeneity of studies with technology-based interventions is a further limitation.

scholarly journals Management of social isolation and loneliness in community-dwelling older adults: protocol for a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e042828
Author(s):  
Ahreum Lee ◽  
Caitlin McArthur ◽  
Areti Angeliki Veroniki ◽  
Monika Kastner ◽  
George Ioannidis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Social Isolation ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Central Registry ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionSocial isolation and loneliness in older adults are significant public health issues. Various interventions such as exercise programmes or social activities are used in the management of social isolation and loneliness in older adults. Network meta-analysis (NMA) provides effect estimates for all comparisons by considering the relative efficacy of multiple intervention alternatives. Therefore, this study will determine the comparative efficacy of intervention to alleviate social isolation and loneliness of older adults in community dwelling by comparing direct and indirect interventions through systematic review and NMA.Methods and analysisWe will include all relevant randomised controlled trials for interventions of social isolation and loneliness in older adults written in English without any limitation of publication date through electronic databases: MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO and CINAHL. Independent teams of reviewers will screen trial eligibility, collect data, identify duplication and assess risk of bias, by using the Cochrane revised risk of bias tool. The interventions for the management of social isolation and loneliness will be included. The primary outcome is social isolation. The secondary outcomes are loneliness and health-related quality of life. We will conduct an NMA through a Bayesian hierarchical model, by testing assumption (ie, transitivity) for NMA. We will also estimate the ranking probabilities for all interventions at each possible rank for each intervention. For estimation of each intervention efficacy, we will assess the certainty and credibility using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval will not be obtained for this systematic review as it will be conducted with published papers. The review results will be presented at a field-specific conference and published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020155789.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document