scholarly journals Genetic Variants Associated with the Occurrence and Progression of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Systematic Review Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Terhune ◽  
Patricia C Heyn ◽  
Christi R Piper ◽  
Nancy Hadley-Miller
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Idiopathic Scoliosis ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Data Transfer ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Spinal Curvature

Abstract BackgroundAdolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a structural lateral spinal curvature of ≥ 10° with rotation. Approximately 2–3% of children in most populations are affected with AIS, and this condition is responsible for approximately $1.1 billion in surgical costs to the U.S. healthcare system. Although a genetic factor for AIS has been demonstrated for decades, with multiple loci identified across populations, treatment options have remained limited to bracing and surgery.MethodsThe databases MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Google Scholar, and Ovid MEDLINE will be searched and limited to articles in English. We will conduct title and abstract, full-text, and data extraction screening through Covidence, followed by data transfer to a custom REDCap database. Quality assessment will be confirmed by multiple reviewers. Studies containing variant-level data (i.e. GWAS, exome sequencing) for AIS subjects and controls will be considered. Outcomes of interest will include presence/absence of AIS, scoliosis curve severity, scoliosis curve progression, and presence/absence of nucleotide-level variants. Analyses will include odds ratios and relative risk assessments, and subgroup analysis (i.e. males vs. females, age groups) may be applied. Quality assessment tools will include GRADE and Q-Genie for genetic studies.DiscussionIn this systematic review we seek to evaluate the quality of genetic evidence for AIS to better inform research efforts, to ultimately improve the quality of patient care and diagnosis.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration #CRD42021243253

scholarly journals Coccydynia – the efficacy of available treatment options: a systematic review protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mads Moss Jensen ◽  
Gustav Østerheden Andersen ◽  
Stefan Milosevic ◽  
Mikkel Østerheden Andersen ◽  
Leah Carreon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Painful Condition ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Background Context

Abstract Background context: Coccydynia is a painful condition which may severely impair quality of life in affected patients. Treatment of coccydynia is a field of interest with limited knowledge. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of current available treatments for coccydynia in adults, by systematically reviewing existing original peer-reviewed publications according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.Methods/design: A systematic literature search will be conducted in EMBASE.com, PubMed.com, Scopus and Web of Science bibliographic databases from their inception to January 17th, 2020, alongside a search for published studies and Epubs ahead of print in journals with relevance to spine surgery. Studies eligible for inclusion are original peer-reviewed papers addressing treatment of chronic coccydynia in adults. The articles will be screened by two authors independently, involving a third author in case of disagreement. Quality assessment and data extraction will be conducted using Covidence software. A meta-analysis will be conducted given that data is suitable.Discussion: This systematic review and meta-analysis may contribute to the existing knowledge on the efficacy of treatment options for coccydynia.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO submission-ID: 166379

scholarly journals Assessment Tools for Health Literacy among the General Population: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (8) ◽  
pp. 1711 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hongyan Liu ◽  
Huan Zeng ◽  
Yang Shen ◽  
Fan Zhang ◽  
Manoj Sharma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Literacy ◽  
General Population ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Literacy Assessment ◽  
Healthy City ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Key Indicators

Health literacy is an important determinant of health, and is one of the key indicators of a healthy city. Developing and improving methods to measure health literacy is prudent and necessary. This review summarizes the findings of published tools for assessing health literacy among the general population to provide a reference for establishing health literacy assessment tools in the future. In this systematic review, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were used to search articles regarding tools for assessing health literacy among the general population published up to 10 January 2018. Two researchers independently conducted literature screening, quality assessment of methodology, and data extraction according to preset inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality assessment of the research was examined with the use of the specifications of the reporting guidelines for survey research (SURGE). Eleven articles met the inclusion criteria. All included instruments in monitoring the health literacy of the general population were presented through the form of questionnaires. The multistage process of making all the scales generally involved the following steps: item development, pre-testing, and evaluation of readability. However, the specific methods were different. Internal consistency for all the instruments was acceptable but with weak consistency among the subscales for some instruments. Most of the identified instruments derived from the definition of health literacy or were based on existing health literacy theory. Approximately 30% of the performed studies provided no description of the important features specified in the SURGE. This review indicates a trend in the increasing tools for assessing the health literacy of the general population by using multidimensional structures and comprehensive measurement approaches. However, no clear “consensus” was observed in the dimensions of health literacy tools.

scholarly journals Coccydynia – the efficacy of available treatment options: a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mads Moss Jensen ◽  
Gustav Østerheden Andersen ◽  
Stefan Milosevic ◽  
Mikkel Østerheden Andersen ◽  
Leah Carreon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Treatment ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Painful Condition ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Background Context

Abstract Background context: Coccydynia is a painful condition which may severely impair quality of life in affected patients. Treatment of coccydynia is a field of interest with limited knowledge. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of current available treatments for coccydynia in adults, by systematically reviewing existing original peer-reviewed publications according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Methods/design: A systematic literature search will be conducted in EMBASE.com, PubMed.com, Scopus and Web of Science bibliographic databases from their inception to January 17th, 2020, alongside a search for published studies and Epubs ahead of print in journals with relevance to spine surgery. Studies eligible for inclusion are original peer-reviewed papers addressing treatment of chronic coccydynia in adults. The articles will be screened by two authors independently, involving a third author in case of disagreement. Quality assessment and data extraction will be conducted using Covidence software. A meta-analysis will be conducted given that data is suitable. Discussion: This systematic review and meta-analysis may contribute to the existing knowledge on the efficacy of treatment options for coccydynia. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO submission-ID: 166379 Keywords: Coccydynia, Pain, Treatment, Efficacy

scholarly journals Evaluating Approaches to Quality Assessment in Library and Information Science LIS Systematic Reviews: A Methodology Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Maden ◽  
Eleanor Kotas
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective – Systematic reviews are becoming increasingly popular within the Library and Information Science (LIS) domain. This paper has three aims: to review approaches to quality assessment in published LIS systematic reviews in order to assess whether and how LIS reviewers report on quality assessment a priori in systematic reviews, to model the different quality assessment aids used by LIS reviewers, and to explore if and how LIS reviewers report on and incorporate the quality of included studies into the systematic review analysis and conclusions. Methods – The authors undertook a methodological study of published LIS systematic reviews using a known cohort of published systematic reviews of LIS-related research. Studies were included if they were reported as a “systematic review” in the title, abstract, or methods section. Meta-analyses that did not incorporate a systematic review and studies in which the systematic review was not a main objective were excluded. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies. Data were extracted on the type of synthesis, whether quality assessment was planned and undertaken, the number of reviewers involved in assessing quality, the types of tools or criteria used to assess the quality of the included studies, how quality assessment was assessed and reported in the systematic review, and whether the quality of the included studies was considered in the analysis and conclusions of the review. In order to determine the quality of the reporting and incorporation of quality assessment in LIS systematic reviews, each study was assessed against criteria relating to quality assessment in the PRISMA reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & The PRISMA Group, 2009) and the AMSTAR tool (Shea et al., 2007). Results – Forty studies met the inclusion criteria. The results demonstrate great variation on the breadth, depth, and transparency of the quality assessment process in LIS systematic reviews. Nearly one third of the LIS systematic reviews included in this study did not report on quality assessment in the methods, and less than one quarter adequately incorporated quality assessment in the analysis, conclusions, and recommendations. Only nine of the 26 systematic reviews that undertook some form of quality assessment incorporated considerations of how the quality of the included studies impacted on the validity of the review findings in the analysis, conclusion, and recommendations. The large number of different quality assessment tools identified reflects not only the disparate nature of the LIS evidence base (Brettle, 2009) but also a lack of consensus around criteria on which to assess the quality of LIS research. Conclusion – Greater clarity, definition, and understanding of the methodology and concept of “quality” in the systematic review process are required not only by LIS reviewers but also by editors of journals in accepting such studies for publication. Further research and guidance is needed on identifying the best tools and approaches to incorporate considerations of quality in LIS systematic reviews. LIS reviewers need to improve the robustness and transparency with which quality assessment is undertaken and reported in systematic reviews. Above all, LIS reviewers need to be explicit in coming to a conclusion on how the quality of the included studies may impact on their review findings.

scholarly journals Multimorbidity, Loneliness, and Social Isolation. A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (22) ◽  
pp. 8688 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Hajek ◽  
Benedikt Kretzler ◽  
Hans-Helmut König
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Social Isolation ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Future Studies ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
Final Synthesis

No systematic review has appeared so far synthesizing the evidence regarding multimorbidity and loneliness, social isolation, or social frailty. Consequently, our aim was to fill this gap. Three electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) were searched in our study. Observational studies examining the link between multimorbidity and loneliness, social isolation, and social frailty were included, whereas disease-specific samples were excluded. Data extraction included methods, characteristics of the sample, and the main results. A quality assessment was conducted. Two reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. In sum, eight studies were included in the final synthesis. Some cross-sectional and longitudinal studies point to an association between multimorbidity and increased levels of loneliness. However, the associations between multimorbidity and social isolation as well as social frailty remain largely underexplored. The quality of the studies included was rather high. In conclusion, most of the included studies showed a link between multimorbidity and increased loneliness. However, there is a lack of studies examining the association between multimorbidity and social isolation as well as social frailty. Future studies are required to shed light on these important associations. This is particularly important in times of the COVID-19 pandemic.

scholarly journals Coccydynia – the efficacy of available treatment options: a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mads Moss Jensen ◽  
Gustav Østerheden Andersen ◽  
Stefan Milosevic ◽  
Mikkel Østerheden Andersen ◽  
Leah Carreon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Pain Treatment ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Painful Condition ◽  
Review Protocol

Abstract Background: Coccydynia is a painful condition which may severely impair quality of life in affected patients. Treatment of coccydynia is a field of interest with limited knowledge. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of current available treatments for coccydynia in adults, by systematically reviewing existing original peer-reviewed publications according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Methods/design: A systematic literature search will be conducted in EMBASE.com, PubMed.com, Scopus and Web of Science bibliographic databases from their inception to January 17th, 2020, alongside a search for published studies and Epubs ahead of print in journals with relevance to spine surgery. Studies eligible for inclusion are original peer-reviewed papers addressing treatment of chronic coccydynia in adults. The articles will be screened by two authors independently, involving a third author in case of disagreement. Quality assessment and data extraction will be conducted using Covidence software. A meta-analysis will be conducted given that data is suitable. Discussion: This systematic review and meta-analysis may contribute to the existing knowledge on the efficacy of treatment options for coccydynia. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO submission-ID: 166379 Keywords: Coccydynia, Pain, Treatment, Efficacy

Assessing Medical Evidence

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Stegenga
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Allocation Concealment ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Medical Evidence ◽  
Empirical Methods ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Order Methods

Medical scientists employ ‘quality assessment tools’ to assess evidence from medical research, especially from randomized trials. These tools are designed to take into account methodological details of studies, including randomization, subject allocation concealment, and other features of studies deemed relevant to minimizing bias. There are dozens of such tools available. They differ widely from each other, and empirical studies show that they have low inter-rater reliability and low inter-tool reliability. This is an instance of a more general problem called here the underdetermination of evidential significance. Disagreements about the quality of evidence can be due to different—but in principle equally good—weightings of the methodological features that constitute quality assessment tools. Thus, the malleability of empirical research in medicine is deep: in addition to the malleability of first-order empirical methods, such as randomized trials, there is malleability in the tools used to evaluate first-order methods.

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.

scholarly journals Mini-Implant-Retained Overdentures for the Rehabilitation of Completely Edentulous Maxillae: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (8) ◽  
pp. 4377
Author(s):  
Serena Vi ◽  
Damon Pham ◽  
Yu Yian Marina Du ◽  
Himanshu Arora ◽  
Santosh Kumar Tadakamadla
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Full Text Review

Purpose: Mini-dental implants (MDIs) have been used to support and retain overdentures, providing patients with a less invasive placement procedure. Although lucrative, the use of MDIs to retain a maxillary overdenture is still not an established treatment modality. This systematic review aims to answer the question: Do mini-implant-retained maxillary overdentures provide a satisfactory treatment outcome for complete edentulism? Methods: A systematic search for relevant articles was conducted to include articles published until April 2021 in the following electronic databases: CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. All empirical studies evaluating the biological, survival, or patient-reported outcomes after placing mini-implant-retained overdentures in maxilla were considered for inclusion. The risk of bias was assessed by utilizing the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist. Study screening and data extraction were conducted by three reviewers independently. Results: The electronic search retrieved 1276 titles after omitting duplicates. Twenty articles were considered for full-text review, of which six studies were included in this systematic review. The included studies evaluated a total of 173 participants with a mean age of 66.3 years. The overall mini-implant survival rate was 77.1% (95% CI: 64.7–89.5%) with a mean follow-up time of 1.79 years (range: 6 months to 3 years). Implant survival differed significantly when comparing complete and partial palatal coverage overdentures. Those with complete palatal coverage exhibited less bone loss overall compared to partial coverage overdentures. Participants of all studies reported an increase in the quality of life and in satisfaction after rehabilitation treatment with MDIs. Conclusions: The survival rate of mini-implants retaining an overdenture in the maxilla was observed to be lower than the values reported for traditional implants in the literature. Improvements were observed in all aspects in terms of patient satisfaction, quality of life, oromyofunction, and articulation after the treatment.

scholarly journals POS0716 FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH FERTILITY OUTCOMES IN WOMEN WITH SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHEMATOSUS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 607.2-608
Author(s):  
S. Giambalvo ◽  
C. Garaffoni ◽  
E. Silvagni ◽  
F. Furini ◽  
M. Govoni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Ovarian Failure ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Study Quality ◽  
Systemic Lupus ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Study Quality Assessment

Background:Fertility is thought to be not reduced in women affected by systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), however disease-related factors, psychosocial effects of chronic disease as well as medication exposure might impair gonadal function.Objectives:The aim of this systematic review was to explore clinical, hormonal, serological, instrumental and management factors associated with fertility outcomes in women of childbearing age with SLE.Methods:This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for systematic reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. All articles available in English, published from 1972 to 15th August 2020 in Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Library. Study selection and data collection were performed by two independent reviewers. All data were extracted using a standardized template. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed by using the NIH risk-of-bias tool [1].Results:Of 788 abstracts, we included in the review 45 studies of which 1 systematic literature reviews, 16 cross-sectional studies, 15 cohort studies, 12 observational studies and 1 case-series study, with a total of 4656 patients. The mean age was 33.5 ± 5.4 years, while the mean disease duration was 97.4 ± 65.2 months. Figure 1 illustrates the quality of the included studies. Definitions of fertility/premature ovarian failure (POF) adopted in the studies varied in terms of the number of months of amenorrhea considered. Most studies did not use a hormonally based definition of fertility. Clinical factors associated with the development of POF were older age at the time initiation of therapy and older age at the onset of SLE disease. Cyclophosphamide exposure (CYC) and its cumulative dose influenced gonadal function in SLE women, leading to amenorrhoea and ovarian failure, as reported in 19 studies. Mycophenolate, azathioprine, calcineurin inhibitors and steroids seem to be associated with a lower risk of ovarian failure compared to CYC. 3 studies demonstrated that POF was more frequent in patients treated with CYC not receiving gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues (GnRH) in comparison to those co-treated with GnRH. 11 studies evaluated the impact of damage and disease activity on ovarian reserve in patients with SLE with conflicting evidence. Finally, 18 studies investigated exposure to hormonal and serological factors able to influence fertility outcomes; among others nor Anti-Müllerian Hormone, neither anti-corpus luteum antibodies were associated with POF.Conclusion:The role of disease activity on fertility in SLE patients is contradictory. Regarding management factors associated with fertility in SLE women of childbearing age, the strongest evidence is about the treatment with CYC and its cumulative dose. Hormonal and serological factors did not impact on fertility outcome but might be used as a surrogate of fertility, especially after treatment with disease-specific drugs.References:[1]Study Quality Assessment Tools NIH. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools.[2]Andreoli L. et al. EULAR recommendations for women’s health and the management of family planning, assisted reproduction, pregnancy and menopause in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and/or antiphospholipid syndrome. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017; 76: 476–485.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document