scholarly journals A Protocol for a Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Interprofessional Education Interventions in Pre-Licensure Health Professions Education

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Azzam ◽  
Anton Puvirajah
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Interprofessional Education ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
The Past ◽  
Implementation Studies ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

Abstract Background: A growing body of research demonstrates that interprofessional education (IPE) has the potential to lead to successful interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP). In turn, IPCP has potential to mitigate the negative effects associated with an underfunded and shrinking healthcare workforce and population growth. Nonetheless, over the past decade, there has been a lack of systematic reviews that have examined the effectiveness of IPE in preparing pre-licensure health professions students for IPCP. The purpose of this paper is to provide a protocol for a systematic review that will explore and identify (1) whether IPE interventions in the past decade have addressed the shortcomings of past interventions, (2) the effectiveness of recent IPE in preparing students for IPCP, and (3) current knowledge gaps within the field. Methods: We used the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines to articulate this protocol. Furthermore, we used the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study Design (PICOS) framework to formulate our research questions, “What are the major trends and findings of IPE implementation studies conducted over the last decade (2010–2020)?” and “How do the trends and findings of IPE studies conducted over the last decade compare with IPE studies in the decade prior?” Discussion: The systematic review is ongoing. We expect to complete it by September 2021. This systematic review will provide a useful synthesis of best practices in the implementation of IPE between 2010 and 2020 as well as their effectiveness in preparing health professions students for IPCP. Systematic review registration: We submitted this protocol with PROSPERO on January 19th, 2021.

scholarly journals Effect of Composite Core Materials on Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies

Polymers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (14) ◽  
pp. 2251
Author(s):  
Maciej Zarow ◽  
Marzena Dominiak ◽  
Katarzyna Szczeklik ◽  
Louis Hardan ◽  
Rim Bourgi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
In Vitro Studies ◽  
Endodontically Treated Teeth ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Core Materials

Various material properties are involved in the success of endodontically treated restorations. At present, restorative composites are commonly employed as core build-up materials. This study aimed to systematically review the literature to assess the effect of using composite core materials on the in vitro fracture of endodontically treated teeth. Two different reviewers screened the literature, up to June 2021, in five distinct electronic databases: PubMed (MedLine), Scopus, Scielo, ISI Web of Science, and EMBASE. Only in vitro studies reporting the effect of the use of composite core materials on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth were included. A meta-analysis was carried out using a software program (Review Manager v5.4.1; The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). The risk of bias in each study was assessed following the parameters of another systematic review. A total of 5016 relevant papers were retrieved from all databases. After assessing the title and abstract, five publications remained for qualitative analysis. From these, only three studies remained for meta-analysis. The fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth where a core build-up composite was used was statistically significantly higher than the control (p = 0.04). Most of the analyses showed a high heterogenicity. The in vitro evidence suggests that the composite core build-up with higher filler content tended to improve the fracture resistance of the endodontically treated teeth, in comparison with conventional composite resins. This research received no external funding. Considering that this systematic review was only carried out on in vitro papers, registration was not performed. Furthermore, there were no identified clinical studies assessing core build-up materials; therefore, more well-designed research on these materials is needed.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Preeclampsia Results after Use of Metformin in Gestation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (11) ◽  
pp. 713-721 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iramar Nascimento ◽  
Guilherme Dienstmann ◽  
Matheus de Souza ◽  
Raquel Fleig ◽  
Carla Hoffmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Time Segment ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Lower Correlation

Objective Does the use of metformin have an influence on the outcomes of preeclampsia (PE)? Sources of Data The descriptors pregnancy, metformin, treatment, and preeclampsia associated with the Boolean operators AND and OR were found in the MEDLINE, LILACS, Embase and Cochrane databases. A flowchart with exclusion criteria and inclusion strategy using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol, and eligibility criteria was used. Data were extracted regarding the type of study, the applied dosage, treatment time, segment, bias risks, and the Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) strategy to identify the quality of the study. Selection of Studies Total number of journals in the initial search (n = 824); exclusions from repeated articles on different search engines (n = 253); exclusions after reading the titles, when the title had no correlations with the proposed theme (n = 164); exclusions due to incompatibility with the criteria established in the methodological analysis (n = 185), exclusion of articles with lower correlation with the objective of the present study (n = 187); and final bibliographic selection (n = 35). Data Collection At first, a systematic review of the literature was performed. Subsequently, from the main selection, randomized and non-randomized trials with metformin that presented their results in absolute and relative numbers of PE outcomes were selected. The variables were treated statistically in the meta-analysis with the Review Manager software (RevMan), version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Denmark in the Hovedistaden region. Synthesis of Data The study showed that metmorfin presented greater preventive effects for pregnancy-induced hypertension and was less effective for PE. Conclusion Metformin may gain place in preventive treatments for PE, once the dosages, the gestational age, and treatment time are particularly evaluated. A methodological strategy with an improved perspective of innovative and/or carefully progressive dosages during pregnancy to avoid side effects and the possibility of maternal-fetal risks is suggested.

scholarly journals Dental implants in immunocompromised patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabian Duttenhoefer ◽  
Marc Anton Fuessinger ◽  
Yasmin Beckmann ◽  
Rainer Schmelzeisen ◽  
Knut A. Groetz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Immunocompromised Patients ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Life Saving ◽  
Impaired Health ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

Abstract Objective Impaired health conditions and related lack of adequate host healing are among the most important conditions that account for dental implant failure. Today clinicians face an increasing number of immunocompromised patients requesting implant-based rehabilitation. To provide clinical evidence for prospective decision-making, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyse the influence of immunodeficiency on dental implant survival. Methods The study was conducted according to the PRISMA Statement and the principles of the Cochrane Collaboration. MEDLINE and Web of Science were searched. Results were calculated by the pooled incidence of implant loss. Reported odds ratios (OR) from fully adjusted models were preferred. Distinct risk estimates were synthesised with 95% confidence intervals. Results A total of 62 publications including 1751 endosseous implants placed in immunocompromised patients were included. For the follow-up of 24 months and longer, the mean survival rate of implants in patients with HIV was 93.1%, chemotherapy was 98.8%, autoimmune disease was 88.75%, after organ transplantation was 100%. Crohn’s disease showed a significant effect on early implant failure and resulted in increased, however not significant, implant loss. Conclusion No significant effect of immunocompromised conditions on implant survival was detectable. Implant-based therapy in immunocompromised patients should not aggravate the general morbidity and must not interfere in life-saving therapies. A careful risk stratification prior implant therapy is fundamental. To further decipher the role of immunosuppression on dental implantology, more data from controlled and randomised studies are needed.

How to Write a Systematic Review of the Literature

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debajyoti Pati ◽  
Lesa N. Lorusso
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Quality Level ◽  
Methodological Rigor ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Level Of Understanding ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

This article provides a step-by-step approach to conducting and reporting systematic literature reviews (SLRs) in the domain of healthcare design and discusses some of the key quality issues associated with SLRs. SLR, as the name implies, is a systematic way of collecting, critically evaluating, integrating, and presenting findings from across multiple research studies on a research question or topic of interest. SLR provides a way to assess the quality level and magnitude of existing evidence on a question or topic of interest. It offers a broader and more accurate level of understanding than a traditional literature review. A systematic review adheres to standardized methodologies/guidelines in systematic searching, filtering, reviewing, critiquing, interpreting, synthesizing, and reporting of findings from multiple publications on a topic/domain of interest. The Cochrane Collaboration is the most well-known and widely respected global organization producing SLRs within the healthcare field and a standard to follow for any researcher seeking to write a transparent and methodologically sound SLR. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), like the Cochrane Collaboration, was created by an international network of health-based collaborators and provides the framework for SLR to ensure methodological rigor and quality. The PRISMA statement is an evidence-based guide consisting of a checklist and flowchart intended to be used as tools for authors seeking to write SLR and meta-analyses.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of multicomponent treatment in patients with fibromyalgia: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felipe Araya-Quintanilla ◽  
Hector Gutierrez-Espinoza ◽  
Jorge Fuentes ◽  
Fernanda Prieto-Lafrentz ◽  
Leonardo Pavez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Pain Catastrophizing ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Grade Scale ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

Abstract Background The purpose of this protocol is to provide new and clear data on the systematic review with meta-analysis with the current Cochrane methodology to compare the effectiveness of multicomponent treatment versus other interventions for patients with fibromyalgia. Methods This protocol conforms to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. An electronic search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, LILACS, CINAHL, and PEDro, from the inception until January 2021. There will be no language restrictions. The Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias (RoB2) will be used. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) scale will be used to evaluate the strength of the evidence. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects of Mantel-Haenszel fixed effects methods will be used, depending on the heterogeneity. To compute a pooled estimate of mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD), and respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain intensity, physical function, pain catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, quality of life, sleep quality, and level of depression. Discussion This systematic review will synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of multicomponent treatment in patients with fibromyalgia. This systematic review could add important evidence in the treatment of FM that could improve the clinical practice and the making of decisions and actions in this field. The novel statistical analysis will try to show the effects of multicomponent treatment by type and dose of exercise in patients with FM. The results will be disseminated by publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Ethics approval will not be needed because the data used for this systematic review will be obtained from individual trials and there will be no concerns about privacy. PROSPERO systematic review registration number: CRD42020142082

scholarly journals Repercussions of melatonin on the risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 65 (5) ◽  
pp. 699-705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Carvalho de Arruda Veiga ◽  
Ricardo Simões ◽  
Vitor E Valenti ◽  
Jose Cipolla-Neto ◽  
Luiz Carlos Abreu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Reproductive Period ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Language Data ◽  
Low Levels ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
And Control

SUMMARY Breast Cancer is common in women, but its etiology is not yet fully understood. Several factors may contribute to its genesis, such as genetics, lifestyle, and the environment. Melatonin may be involved in the process of breast cancer. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of the levels of melatonin on breast cancer through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We performed a systematic review according to PRISMA recommendations. The primary databases MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane were consulted. There was no restriction on the year of publication and language. Data of systematic reviews from April 2017 to September to 2017 were analyzed. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. From a total of 570 articles, 9 manuscripts were included in this review. They analy onzed women with breast cancer and control patients, of which 10% and 90% were in the reproductive period and after menopause, respectively. The lowest level of melatonin was found in approximately 55% of studies with breast cancer in post-menopause. The metanalyses of the studies demonstrated low levels of melatonin in breast cancer patients (n=963) compared with control patients (n= 1332), with a mean difference between the studies of −3.54 (CI −6.01, −1.06). Another difference found was in the comparison between smoking patients, with an average difference between 1.80 [0.97-2.63]. Our data suggest that low levels of melatonin might be a risk factor for breast cancer.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of pharmacological treatments in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e029341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Pascual Morena ◽  
Vicente Martinez-Vizcaino ◽  
Celia Álvarez-Bueno ◽  
Ruben Fernández Rodríguez ◽  
Estela Jiménez López ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy ◽  
Muscular Dystrophy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Walking Distance ◽  
Pharmacological Treatments ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

IntroductionIn recent years, important advances have been made in the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). This protocol proposes a methodology for carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis that aims to: (1) improve the evidence of the benefits of different pharmacological treatments in boys with DMD, and (2) compare the benefit of treatments specifically aimed at delaying the progression of disease in the functional outcomes.Methods and analysisThis protocol is guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and by the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. A thorough selection of the literature will be done through the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases. The search will be conducted in English and Spanish. The Risk of Bias 2.0 tool from the Cochrane Collaboration will be used to assess the risk of bias. A narrative synthesis of the data will be performed. Meta-analysis will be conducted for effect of treatment on the 6 min walking distance (6MWD), North Star Ambulatory Assessment and Timed Functional Tests. Subgroup analyses will be performed by age or baseline values of the 6MWD, and overall bias.Ethics and disseminationThe approval of an ethical committee is not required. All the included trials will comply with the current ethical standards and the Declaration of Helsinki. The results of this proposed systematic review and meta-analysis will provide a general overview and evidence concerning the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Findings will be disseminated to academic audiences through peer-reviewed publications, as well as to clinical audiences, patients’ associations and policy makers, and may influence guideline developers in order to improve outcomes for these patients.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018102207

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document