Psychometric Properties of Postpartum Quality of Life Questionnaires: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tahereh Mokhtarian-Gilani ◽  
Nourossadat kariman ◽  
Hamid Sharif-Nia ◽  
Mahbobeh Ahmadi-Doulabi ◽  
Malihe Nasiri
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Quality Of Life Questionnaires ◽  
General Quality

Abstract Background:The postpartum quality of life refers to women's understanding of their standing in the postpartum crisis that differs depending on their health status, social support, cultural status and values, attitudes, goals and standards. The present systematic review will identify, describe, and critically assess the psychometric properties of postpartum quality of life questionnaires.Methods/Design:A systematic review will be conducted in databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from January 2000 to January 2020. The psychometric properties (validity and reliability) of the instruments used in the primary studies will be assessed, and the selection, methodological quality assessment and data extraction processes of the studies will be independently assessed by two reviewers with expertise in conducting systematic reviews, so as to minimize potential personal bias. Eligible resources are selected after any lack of consensus is put to debate.The risk of bias is assessed using the COSMIN RISK of Bias checklist, and to evaluate the quality of the studies, the protocol is written based on the PRISMA-P1 standards. The results of the studies will be judged based on good measurement properties, and the results of all the studies are qualitatively summarized to produce a reference for the general quality of the results. The general quality of the evidence will be determined using a modified GRADE method.Discussion:This study assessed the psychometric properties of questionnaires used for assessing postpartum quality of life and its results can be used to identify the most appropriate tool for health applications in measuring postpartum quality of life. Systematic review registration: reference number in PROSPRO CRD42020166301

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of low and very low carbohydrate diets for type 2 diabetes remission: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished randomized trial data

BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. m4743
Author(s):  
Joshua Z Goldenberg ◽  
Andrew Day ◽  
Grant D Brinkworth ◽  
Junko Sato ◽  
Satoru Yamada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Weight Loss ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Carbohydrate ◽  
Remission Of Diabetes

Abstract Objective To determine the efficacy and safety of low carbohydrate diets (LCDs) and very low carbohydrate diets (VLCDs) for people with type 2 diabetes. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Searches of CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CAB, and grey literature sources from inception to 25 August 2020. Study selection Randomized clinical trials evaluating LCDs (<130 g/day or <26% of a 2000 kcal/day diet) and VLCDs (<10% calories from carbohydrates) for at least 12 weeks in adults with type 2 diabetes were eligible. Data extraction Primary outcomes were remission of diabetes (HbA 1c <6.5% or fasting glucose <7.0 mmol/L, with or without the use of diabetes medication), weight loss, HbA 1c , fasting glucose, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included health related quality of life and biochemical laboratory data. All articles and outcomes were independently screened, extracted, and assessed for risk of bias and GRADE certainty of evidence at six and 12 month follow-up. Risk estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. Outcomes were assessed according to a priori determined minimal important differences to determine clinical importance, and heterogeneity was investigated on the basis of risk of bias and seven a priori subgroups. Any subgroup effects with a statistically significant test of interaction were subjected to a five point credibility checklist. Results Searches identified 14 759 citations yielding 23 trials (1357 participants), and 40.6% of outcomes were judged to be at low risk of bias. At six months, compared with control diets, LCDs achieved higher rates of diabetes remission (defined as HbA 1c <6.5%) (76/133 (57%) v 41/131 (31%); risk difference 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.47; 8 studies, n=264, I 2 =58%). Conversely, smaller, non-significant effect sizes occurred when a remission definition of HbA 1c <6.5% without medication was used. Subgroup assessments determined as meeting credibility criteria indicated that remission with LCDs markedly decreased in studies that included patients using insulin. At 12 months, data on remission were sparse, ranging from a small effect to a trivial increased risk of diabetes. Large clinically important improvements were seen in weight loss, triglycerides, and insulin sensitivity at six months, which diminished at 12 months. On the basis of subgroup assessments deemed credible, VLCDs were less effective than less restrictive LCDs for weight loss at six months. However, this effect was explained by diet adherence. That is, among highly adherent patients on VLCDs, a clinically important reduction in weight was seen compared with studies with less adherent patients on VLCDs. Participants experienced no significant difference in quality of life at six months but did experience clinically important, but not statistically significant, worsening of quality of life and low density lipoprotein cholesterol at 12 months. Otherwise, no significant or clinically important between group differences were found in terms of adverse events or blood lipids at six and 12 months. Conclusions On the basis of moderate to low certainty evidence, patients adhering to an LCD for six months may experience remission of diabetes without adverse consequences. Limitations include continued debate around what constitutes remission of diabetes, as well as the efficacy, safety, and dietary satisfaction of longer term LCDs. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020161795.

Quality of life of children treated for unilateral hearing loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. archdischild-2020-320389
Author(s):  
Sarah Nicolas ◽  
Yohan Gallois ◽  
Marie-Noëlle Calmels ◽  
Olivier Deguine ◽  
Bernard Fraysse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
Unilateral Hearing Loss ◽  
Design Selection

ObjectiveTo evaluate the treatments’ consequences for unilateral hearing loss in children.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis (CRD42018109417). The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ISRCTN and ClinicalTrials databases were searched between September 2018 and May 2019. Articles were screened and data were collected independently by two authors following the Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, the National Institute of Health, USA tool and considering the risk of confounding. In the studies with the lowest risk of bias, a meta-analysis was conducted.InterventionsValidated hearing rehabilitation devices.Patients6–15 years old children with moderate to profound unilateral hearing loss.Main outcome measuresThe primary study outcome was children’s quality of life. Academic performances were studied as an additional outcome.Results731 unique articles were identified from the primary search. Of these, 18 articles met the Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes and Study design selection criteria. In the eight studies with the lowest risk of bias, two meta-analysis were conducted. There was not enough data on academic results to conduct a meta-analysis. In 73 children included in a fixed effect meta-analysis (two studies), no effect of treatment could be shown (g=−0.20, p=0.39). In 61 children included in a random-effect meta-analysis (six studies), a strong positive effect of hearing treatment on quality of life was demonstrated (g=1.32, p<0.05).ConclusionsThe treatment of unilateral hearing loss seems to improve children’s quality of life. Further research is needed to identify the most effective treatment and its corresponding indications.

scholarly journals Psychometric properties of the Jefferson Scale of Empathy: a COSMIN systematic review protocol

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett Williams ◽  
Bronwyn Beovich
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Jefferson Scale Of Empathy

Abstract Background Empathy is an important characteristic to possess for healthcare professionals. It has been found to improve communication between professionals and patients and to improve clinical health outcomes. The Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE) was developed to measure this quality and has been used extensively, and psychometrically appraised, with a variety of cohorts and in different cultural environments. However, no study has been undertaken to systematically examine the methodological quality of studies which have assessed psychometric factors of the JSE. This systematic review will examine the quality of published papers that have reported on psychometric factors of the JSE. Methods A systematic review of studies which report on the psychometric properties of the JSE will be conducted. We will use a predefined search strategy to identify studies meeting the following eligibility criteria: original data is reported on for at least one of the psychometric measurement properties described in the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Risk of Bias checklist, examines the JSE in a healthcare cohort (using the student, physician or health profession versions of the JSE), and is published from January 2001 and in the English language. Conference abstracts, editorials and grey literature will be excluded. Six electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, PsychInfo, PubMed, Web of Science and CINAHL) will be systematically searched for articles meeting these criteria and studies will be assessed for eligibility by two review authors. The methodological quality of included papers will be examined using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. Discussion A narrative description of the findings will be presented along with summary tables. Recommendations for use of the JSE with various cohorts and circumstances will be offered which may inform future research in this field. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018111412

Evaluation of cross-cultural adaptation and measurement properties of breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaires: a systematic review

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 1179-1195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Indiara Soares Oliveira ◽  
Lucíola da Cunha Menezes Costa ◽  
Felipe Ribeiro Cabral Fagundes ◽  
Cristina Maria Nunes Cabral
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cultural Adaptation ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Cross Cultural Adaptation ◽  
Quality Of Life Questionnaires

scholarly journals Psychometric properties of vision-related quality of life questionnaires: a systematic review

2004 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 257-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michiel R. de Boer ◽  
Annette C. Moll ◽  
Henrica C. W. de Vet ◽  
Caroline B. Terwee ◽  
Hennie J. M. Volker-Dieben ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Quality Of Life Questionnaires ◽  
Related Quality

scholarly journals Quality of life in cancer patients treated with mistletoe: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Loef ◽  
Harald Walach
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Mistletoe Extracts

AbstractBackgroundMistletoe extracts are used as an adjunct therapy for cancer patients, but there is dissent as to whether this therapy has a positive impact on quality of life (QoL).MethodsWe conducted a systematic review searching in several databases (Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Science Citation Index, clinicaltrials.gov, opengrey.org) by combining terms that cover the fields of “neoplasm”, “quality of life” and “mistletoe”. We included prospective controlled trials that compared mistletoe extracts with a control in cancer patients and reported QoL or related dimensions. The quality of the studies was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool version 2.We conducted a quantitative meta-analysis.ResultsWe included 26 publications with 30 data sets. The studies were heterogeneous. The pooled standardized mean difference (random effects model) for global QoL after treatment with mistletoe extracts vs. control was d = 0.61 (95% CI 0.41-0.81; p<0,00001). The effect was stronger for younger patients, with longer treatment, in studies with lower risk of bias, in randomized and blinded studies. Sensitivity analyses support the validity of the finding. 50% of the QoL subdomains (e.g. pain, nausea) show a significant improvement after mistletoe treatment. Most studies have a high risk of bias or at least raise some concern.ConclusionMistletoe extracts produce a significant, medium-sized effect on QoL in cancer. Risk of bias in the analyzed studies is likely due to the specific type of treatment, which is difficult to blind; yet this risk is unlikely to affect the outcome.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019137704

scholarly journals Effectiveness and safety of low-level laser therapy in diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lin Lin ◽  
Jingjing Li ◽  
Jingshan Lin ◽  
Shiheng Tang ◽  
Yuxia Li
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Level Laser Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Medical Treatments ◽  
Level Laser

Abstract Background Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the most common chronic complications of diabetes mellitus. The main symptoms of DPN include numbness or pain in both extremities and paresthesia (such as formication or burning sensations), which greatly affect patients’ quality of life. Pharmacological treatments for DPN are associated with both uncertain therapeutic effects and adverse effects, as well as with high costs. Some clinical studies have reported that low-level laser therapy (LLLT) relieves clinical symptoms and improves nerve function in patients with DPN. We intend to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to further evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LLLT for DPN. Methods The following electronic databases will be searched to retrieve literature from their inception until December 2020: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science (the Science and Social Science Citation Index), CNKI, VIP, WanFang, and SinoMed. Simultaneously, clinical registration tests and gray literature will also be retrieved. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LLLT with either sham LLLT, no (specific) treatment, or active conventional medical treatments will be included. The primary outcomes will be nerve conduction velocity as well as clinical scores that assess neurological function and related symptoms. The risk of bias of each study and quality of evidence will be assessed using the updated Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and GRADE approach, respectively. A meta-analysis will then be conducted using Review Manager software version 5.3. Discussion This study will integrate RCTs and analyze data to provide a detailed summary of the evidence relating to the effects and safety of LLLT in patients with DPN. LLLT will be compared with sham LLLT, no (specific) treatment, or active conventional medical treatments, especially in terms of neurological function, quality of life, and adverse events. In conclusion, this systematic review will generate evidence regarding the use of LLLT to treat DPN, in terms of both its efficacy and safety. Systematic review registration This protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on April 2020 (registration number: CRD42020170625).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document