scholarly journals Bayesian factor analysis in primary care: a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Zhang ◽  
Tibor Schuster
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Bayesian Factor ◽  
Bayesian Factor Analysis

Abstract Background: Bayesian factor analysis allows for efficient use of preliminary data and information that corresponds to the increasing needs of questionnaire construct validation in primary care research. This systematic review will summarise evidence on the current use of Bayesian factor analysis in primary care.Methods: A comprehensive search strategy will be adopted to identify relevant literature (research studies in primary care) indexed in Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library. The search strategy includes terms and synonyms for Bayesian statistics, factor analysis and primary care. Forward and backward searches will be conducted manually on the references of articles that meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria to further identify eligible studies. Multiple reviewers will conduct data extraction independently. The analyses will include descriptive synthesis summarizing features about the use and reporting of the respective Bayesian factor analysis approach in primary care. Discussion: This systematic review will provide a comprehensive overview of the current use of Bayesian factor analysis in primary care and provide recommendations for its proper future use in primary care and beyond.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018114978

scholarly journals Bayesian factor analysis in primary care: a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Zhang ◽  
Tibor Schuster
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Care Family ◽  
Bayesian Factor ◽  
Bayesian Factor Analysis

Abstract Background: Bayesian factor analysis allows for efficient use of preliminary data and information that corresponds to the increasing needs of questionnaire construct validation in primary care research. This systematic review will summarise evidence on the current use of Bayesian factor analysis in primary care.Methods: We will adopt a comprehensive search strategy to identify relevant literature (research studies in primary care) indexed in PubMed, Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library. The search strategy will include terms (and synonyms) for Bayesian statistics, factor analysis and primary care. We will conduct forward and backward searches manually on the references of articles that meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria to further identify eligible studies. Multiple reviewers will conduct data extraction independently. The analyses will include descriptive synthesis summarizing features about the use and reporting of the respective Bayesian factor analysis approach.Discussion: This systematic review will provide a bird view of the current use of Bayesian factor analysis in primary care and provide recommendations for its proper future use in primary care and beyond. Systematic review registration : PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018114978 Keywords: Bayesian, factor analysis, primary care, family medicine

scholarly journals A methodological review protocol of the use of Bayesian factor analysis in primary care

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Zhang ◽  
Tibor Schuster
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Methodological Review ◽  
Bayesian Factor ◽  
Bayesian Factor Analysis

Abstract Background: The development of questionnaires for primary care practice and research is of increasing interest in the literature. In settings where valuable prior knowledge or preliminary data is available, Bayesian factor analysis can be used to incorporate such information when conducting questionnaire construct validation. This protocol outlines a methodological review that will summarize evidence on the current use of Bayesian factor analysis in the primary care literature.Methods: A comprehensive search strategy has been developed and will be used to identify relevant literature (research studies in primary care) indexed in Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library. The search strategy includes terms and synonyms for Bayesian factor analysis and primary care. The reference lists of relevant articles being identified will be screened to find further relevant studies. At least two reviewers will independently extract data and resolve discrepancies through consensus. Descriptive analyses will summarize the use and reporting of Bayesian factor analysis approaches for validating questionnaires applicable to primary care. Discussion: This methodological review will provide a comprehensive overview of the current use and reporting of Bayesian factor analysis in primary care and will provide recommendations for its proper future use.Review registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018114978

scholarly journals A methodological review protocol of the use of Bayesian factor analysis in primary care research

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Zhang ◽  
Tibor Schuster
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Methodological Review ◽  
Bayesian Factor ◽  
Bayesian Factor Analysis

Abstract Background : The development of questionnaires for primary care practice and research is of increasing interest in the literature. In settings where valuable prior knowledge or preliminary data is available, Bayesian factor analysis can be used to incorporate such information when conducting questionnaire construct validation. This protocol outlines a methodological review that will summarize evidence on the current use of Bayesian factor analysis in the primary care literature. Methods : A comprehensive search strategy has been developed and will be used to identify relevant literature (research studies in primary care) indexed in Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library. The search strategy includes terms and synonyms for Bayesian factor analysis and primary care. The reference lists of relevant articles being identified will be screened to find further relevant studies. At least two reviewers will independently extract data and resolve discrepancies through consensus. Descriptive analyses will summarize the use and reporting of Bayesian factor analysis approaches for validating questionnaires applicable to primary care. Discussion: This methodological review will provide a comprehensive overview of the current use and reporting of Bayesian factor analysis in primary care and will provide recommendations for its proper future use.

scholarly journals A methodological review protocol of the use of Bayesian factor analysis in primary care research

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao Zhang ◽  
Tibor Schuster
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Methodological Review ◽  
Bayesian Factor ◽  
Bayesian Factor Analysis

Abstract Background The development of questionnaires for primary care practice and research is of increasing interest in the literature. In settings where valuable prior knowledge or preliminary data is available, Bayesian factor analysis can be used to incorporate such information when conducting questionnaire construct validation. This protocol outlines a methodological review that will summarize evidence on the current use of Bayesian factor analysis in the primary care literature. Methods A comprehensive search strategy has been developed and will be used to identify relevant literature (research studies in primary care) indexed in MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. The search strategy includes terms and synonyms for Bayesian factor analysis and primary care. The reference lists of relevant articles being identified will be screened to find further relevant studies. At least two reviewers will independently extract data and resolve discrepancies through consensus. Descriptive analyses will summarize the use and reporting of Bayesian factor analysis approaches for validating questionnaires applicable to primary care. Discussion This methodological review will provide a comprehensive overview of the current use and reporting of Bayesian factor analysis in primary care and will provide recommendations for its proper future use. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018114978

scholarly journals Barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of multi-disciplinary care pathways in primary care: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Seckler ◽  
Verena Regauer ◽  
Thomas Rotter ◽  
Petra Bauer ◽  
Martin Müller
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Complex Interventions ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Care Pathways ◽  
Perfect Agreement

Abstract Background : Care pathways (CPWs) are complex interventions that have the potential to reduce treatment errors and optimize patient outcomes by translating evidence into local practice. To design an optimal implementation strategy, potential barriers to and facilitators of implementation must be considered. The objective of this systematic review is to identify barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of CPWs in primary care (PC). Methods : A systematic search via Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and MEDLINE via PubMed supplemented by hand searches and citation tracing was carried out. We considered articles reporting on CPWs targeting patients at least 65 years of age in outpatient settings that were written in the English or German language and were published between 2007 and 2019. We considered (non-)randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies ( main project reports ) as well as associated process evaluation reports of either methodology. Two independent researchers performed the study selection; the data extraction and critical appraisal were duplicated until the point of perfect agreement between the two reviewers. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, a narrative synthesis was performed. Results : 14 studies (seven main project reports and seven process evaluation reports) of the identified 8,154 records in the search update were included in the synthesis. The structure and content of the interventions as well as the quality of evidence of the studies varied. The identified barriers and facilitators were classified using the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions framework . The identified barriers were inadequate staffing, insufficient education, lack of financial compensation, low motivation and lack of time. Adequate skills and knowledge through training activities for health professionals, good multi-disciplinary communication and individual tailored interventions were identified as facilitators. Conclusions : In the implementation of CPWs in PC, a multitude of barriers and facilitators must be considered, and most of them can be modified through the careful design of intervention and implementation strategies. Furthermore, process evaluations must become a standard component of implementing CPWs to enable other projects to build upon previous experience. Trial registration : PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018087689

scholarly journals Barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of multi-disciplinary care pathways in primary care: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Seckler ◽  
Verena Regauer ◽  
Thomas Rotter ◽  
Petra Bauer ◽  
Martin Müller
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Complex Interventions ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Care Pathways ◽  
Perfect Agreement

Abstract Background : Care pathways (CPWs) are complex interventions that have the potential to reduce treatment errors and optimize patient outcomes by translating evidence into local practice. To design an optimal implementation strategy, potential barriers to and facilitators of implementation must be considered. The objective of this systematic review is to identify barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of CPWs in primary care (PC). Methods : A systematic search via Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and MEDLINE via PubMed supplemented by hand searches and citation tracing was carried out. We considered articles reporting on CPWs targeting patients at least 65 years of age in outpatient settings that were written in the English or German language and were published between 2007 and 2019. We considered (non-)randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies ( main project reports ) as well as associated process evaluation reports of either methodology. Two independent researchers performed the study selection; the data extraction and critical appraisal were duplicated until the point of perfect agreement between the two reviewers. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, a narrative synthesis was performed. Results : 14 studies (seven main project reports and seven process evaluation reports) of the identified 8,154 records in the search update were included in the synthesis. The structure and content of the interventions as well as the quality of evidence of the studies varied. The identified barriers and facilitators were classified using the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions framework . The identified barriers were inadequate staffing, insufficient education, lack of financial compensation, low motivation and lack of time. Adequate skills and knowledge through training activities for health professionals, good interprofessional communication and individual tailored interventions were identified as facilitators. Conclusions : In the implementation of CPWs in PC, a multitude of barriers and facilitators must be considered, and most of them can be modified through the careful design of intervention and implementation strategies. Furthermore, process evaluations must become a standard component of implementing CPWs to enable other projects to build upon previous experience.

scholarly journals Laparoscopic appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis—a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Franziska Köhler ◽  
Anne Hendricks ◽  
Carolin Kastner ◽  
Sophie Müller ◽  
Kevin Boerner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Antibiotic Therapy ◽  
Antibiotic Treatment ◽  
Laparoscopic Appendectomy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Uncomplicated Appendicitis ◽  
Absence From Work

Abstract Background Over the last years, laparoscopic appendectomy has progressively replaced open appendectomy and become the current gold standard treatment for suspected, uncomplicated appendicitis. At the same time, though, it is an ongoing discussion that antibiotic therapy can be an equivalent treatment for patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the safety and efficacy of antibiotic therapy and compare it to the laparoscopic appendectomy for acute, uncomplicated appendicitis. Methods The PubMed database, Embase database, and Cochrane library were scanned for studies comparing laparoscopic appendectomy with antibiotic treatment. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection and data extraction. The primary endpoint was defined as successful treatment of appendicitis. Secondary endpoints were pain intensity, duration of hospitalization, absence from work, and incidence of complications. Results No studies were found that exclusively compared laparoscopic appendectomy with antibiotic treatment for acute, uncomplicated appendicitis. Conclusions To date, there are no studies comparing antibiotic treatment to laparoscopic appendectomy for patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, thus emphasizing the lack of evidence and need for further investigation.

scholarly journals Mitochondrial transplantation therapy for ischemia reperfusion injury: a systematic review of animal and human studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kei Hayashida ◽  
Ryosuke Takegawa ◽  
Muhammad Shoaib ◽  
Tomoaki Aoki ◽  
Rishabh C. Choudhary ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Reperfusion Injury ◽  
Animal Studies ◽  
Ischemia Reperfusion Injury ◽  
Myocardial Dysfunction ◽  
Ischemia Reperfusion ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Human Studies ◽  
Cochrane Library

Abstract Background Mitochondria are essential organelles that provide energy for cellular functions, participate in cellular signaling and growth, and facilitate cell death. Based on their multifactorial roles, mitochondria are also critical in the progression of critical illnesses. Transplantation of mitochondria has been reported as a potential promising approach to treat critical illnesses, particularly ischemia reperfusion injury (IRI). However, a systematic review of the relevant literature has not been conducted to date. Here, we systematically reviewed the animal and human studies relevant to IRI to summarize the evidence for mitochondrial transplantation. Methods We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, and Embase and performed a systematic review of mitochondrial transplantation for IRI in both preclinical and clinical studies. We developed a search strategy using a combination of keywords and Medical Subject Heading/Emtree terms. Studies including cell-mediated transfer of mitochondria as a transfer method were excluded. Data were extracted to a tailored template, and data synthesis was descriptive because the data were not suitable for meta-analysis. Results Overall, we identified 20 animal studies and two human studies. Among animal studies, 14 (70%) studies focused on either brain or heart IRI. Both autograft and allograft mitochondrial transplantation were used in 17 (85%) animal studies. The designs of the animal studies were heterogeneous in terms of the route of administration, timing of transplantation, and dosage used. Twelve (60%) studies were performed in a blinded manner. All animal studies reported that mitochondrial transplantation markedly mitigated IRI in the target tissues, but there was variation in biological biomarkers and pathological changes. The human studies were conducted with a single-arm, unblinded design, in which autologous mitochondrial transplantation was applied to pediatric patients who required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for IRI–associated myocardial dysfunction after cardiac surgery. Conclusion The evidence gathered from our systematic review supports the potential beneficial effects of mitochondrial transplantation after IRI, but its clinical translation remains limited. Further investigations are thus required to explore the mechanisms of action and patient outcomes in critical settings after mitochondrial transplantation. Systematic review registration The study was registered at UMIN under the registration number UMIN000043347.

scholarly journals Prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e040997
Author(s):  
Varo Kirthi ◽  
Paul Nderitu ◽  
Uazman Alam ◽  
Jennifer Evans ◽  
Sarah Nevitt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
International Diabetes Federation ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Fundus Photography ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Cochrane Library

IntroductionThere is growing evidence of a higher than expected prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes. This paper presents the protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis of retinopathy in prediabetes. The aim of the review is to estimate the prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes and to summarise the current data.Methods and analysisThis protocol is developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A comprehensive electronic bibliographic search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. Eligible studies will report prevalence data for retinopathy on fundus photography in adults with prediabetes. No time restrictions will be placed on the date of publication. Screening for eligible studies and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers independently, using predefined inclusion criteria and prepiloted data extraction forms. Disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved by discussion, and if required, a third (senior) reviewer will arbitrate.The primary outcome is the prevalence of any standard features of diabetic retinopathy (DR) on fundus photography, as per International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (ICDRSS) classification. Secondary outcomes are the prevalence of (1) any retinal microvascular abnormalities on fundus photography that are not standard features of DR as per ICDRSS classification and (2) any macular microvascular abnormalities on fundus photography, including but not limited to the presence of macular exudates, microaneurysms and haemorrhages. Risk of bias for included studies will be assessed using a validated risk of bias tool for prevalence studies. Pooled estimates for the prespecified outcomes of interest will be calculated using random effects meta-analytic techniques. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as this is a protocol for a systematic review and no primary data are to be collected. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international meetings including Diabetes UK, European Association for the Study of Diabetes, American Diabetes Association and International Diabetes Federation conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184820.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Antalgic Therapies in Patients with Vertebral Bone Metastasis: A Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (8) ◽  
pp. 3991
Author(s):  
Antonio Jose Martin-Perez ◽  
María Fernández-González ◽  
Paula Postigo-Martin ◽  
Marc Sampedro Pilegaard ◽  
Carolina Fernández-Lao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Metastasis ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Pharmacological Intervention ◽  
Vertebral Metastasis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

There is no systematic review that has identified existing studies evaluating the pharmacological and non-pharmacological intervention for pain management in patients with bone metastasis. To fill this gap in the literature, this systematic review with meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of different antalgic therapies (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) in the improvement of pain of these patients. To this end, this protocol has been written according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020135762). A systematic search will be carried out in four international databases: Medline (Via PubMed), Web of Science, Cochrane Library and SCOPUS, to select the randomized controlled clinical trials. The Risk of Bias Tool developed by Cochrane will be used to assess the risk of bias and the quality of the identified studies. A narrative synthesis will be used to describe and compare the studies, and after the data extraction, random effects model and a subgroup analyses will be performed according to the type of intervention, if possible. This protocol aims to generate a systematic review that compiles and synthesizes the best and most recent evidence on the treatment of pain derived from vertebral metastasis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document