scholarly journals Writing a Systematic Review for Publication in a Health-Related Degree Program (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clemens Scott Kruse
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Graduate Students ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Traditional Instruction ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Health Administration ◽  
Graduate Courses ◽  
Instructional Videos ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Meta Analyses

BACKGROUND The protocol in this manuscript was designed to help graduate students publish. It is the result of a challenge from our provost in 2013. I developed this protocol over the last 6 years and have exercised the protocol for the last 5 years. The current version of the protocol has remained mostly static for the last 2 years—only small changes have been made to the process. OBJECTIVE The objective of this protocol is to enable students to learn a valuable skill of conducting a systematic review and to write the review in a way that can be published. I have designed the protocol to fit into the schedule of a traditional semester, but also used it in compressed semesters. METHODS An image map was created in HTML 5.0 and imported into a learning management system. It augments traditional instruction by providing references to published articles, examples, and previously recorded instructional videos. Students use the image map outside the classroom after traditional instruction. The image map helps students create manuscripts that follow established practice and are reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and whose authorship follows guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. RESULTS Since its inception, this protocol has helped 77 students publish 27 systematic reviews in nine journals worldwide. Some manuscripts take multiple years to progress through multiple review processes at multiple journals submitted in sequence. Two other professors in the School of Health Administration have used this protocol in their classes. CONCLUSIONS So far, this method has helped 51% of graduate students who used it in my graduate courses publish articles (with more manuscripts under consideration whose numbers have remained uncounted in this sum). I wish success to others who might use this protocol.

scholarly journals Writing a Systematic Review for Publication in a Health-Related Degree Program

10.2196/15490 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e15490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clemens Scott Kruse
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Graduate Students ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Traditional Instruction ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Health Administration ◽  
Graduate Courses ◽  
Instructional Videos ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background The protocol in this manuscript was designed to help graduate students publish. It is the result of a challenge from our provost in 2013. I developed this protocol over the last 6 years and have exercised the protocol for the last 5 years. The current version of the protocol has remained mostly static for the last 2 years—only small changes have been made to the process. Objective The objective of this protocol is to enable students to learn a valuable skill of conducting a systematic review and to write the review in a way that can be published. I have designed the protocol to fit into the schedule of a traditional semester, but also used it in compressed semesters. Methods An image map was created in HTML 5.0 and imported into a learning management system. It augments traditional instruction by providing references to published articles, examples, and previously recorded instructional videos. Students use the image map outside the classroom after traditional instruction. The image map helps students create manuscripts that follow established practice and are reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and whose authorship follows guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Results Since its inception, this protocol has helped 77 students publish 27 systematic reviews in nine journals worldwide. Some manuscripts take multiple years to progress through multiple review processes at multiple journals submitted in sequence. Two other professors in the School of Health Administration have used this protocol in their classes. Conclusions So far, this method has helped 51% of graduate students who used it in my graduate courses publish articles (with more manuscripts under consideration whose numbers have remained uncounted in this sum). I wish success to others who might use this protocol.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Conversational Agents (Virtual Assistants) in Health Care: Protocol for a Systematic Review

10.2196/16934 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e16934 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline de Cock ◽  
Madison Milne-Ives ◽  
Michelle Helena van Velthoven ◽  
Abrar Alturkistani ◽  
Ching Lam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Conversational Agents ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Care Protocol ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background Conversational agents (also known as chatbots) have evolved in recent decades to become multimodal, multifunctional platforms with potential to automate a diverse range of health-related activities supporting the general public, patients, and physicians. Multiple studies have reported the development of these agents, and recent systematic reviews have described the scope of use of conversational agents in health care. However, there is scarce research on the effectiveness of these systems; thus, their viability and applicability are unclear. Objective The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of conversational agents in health care and to identify limitations, adverse events, and areas for future investigation of these agents. Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols will be used to structure this protocol. The focus of the systematic review is guided by a population, intervention, comparator, and outcome framework. A systematic search of the PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases will be conducted. Two authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts of the identified references and select studies according to the eligibility criteria. Any discrepancies will then be discussed and resolved. Two reviewers will independently extract and validate data from the included studies into a standardized form and conduct quality appraisal. Results As of January 2020, we have begun a preliminary literature search and piloting of the study selection process. Conclusions This systematic review aims to clarify the effectiveness, limitations, and future applications of conversational agents in health care. Our findings may be useful to inform the future development of conversational agents and promote the personalization of patient care. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/16934

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Conversational Agents (Virtual Assistants) in Health Care: Protocol for a Systematic Review (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline de Cock ◽  
Madison Milne-Ives ◽  
Michelle Helena van Velthoven ◽  
Abrar Alturkistani ◽  
Ching Lam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Conversational Agents ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Care Protocol ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Meta Analyses

BACKGROUND Conversational agents (also known as chatbots) have evolved in recent decades to become multimodal, multifunctional platforms with potential to automate a diverse range of health-related activities supporting the general public, patients, and physicians. Multiple studies have reported the development of these agents, and recent systematic reviews have described the scope of use of conversational agents in health care. However, there is scarce research on the effectiveness of these systems; thus, their viability and applicability are unclear. OBJECTIVE The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of conversational agents in health care and to identify limitations, adverse events, and areas for future investigation of these agents. METHODS The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols will be used to structure this protocol. The focus of the systematic review is guided by a population, intervention, comparator, and outcome framework. A systematic search of the PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases will be conducted. Two authors will independently screen the titles and abstracts of the identified references and select studies according to the eligibility criteria. Any discrepancies will then be discussed and resolved. Two reviewers will independently extract and validate data from the included studies into a standardized form and conduct quality appraisal. RESULTS As of January 2020, we have begun a preliminary literature search and piloting of the study selection process. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review aims to clarify the effectiveness, limitations, and future applications of conversational agents in health care. Our findings may be useful to inform the future development of conversational agents and promote the personalization of patient care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/16934

scholarly journals Effectiveness of psychological interventions in the treatment of perinatal depression: A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariana Branquinho ◽  
María de la Fe Rodriguez-Muñoz ◽  
Berta Rodrigues Maia ◽  
Mariana Marques ◽  
Marcela Matos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Perinatal Depression ◽  
Psychological Interventions ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals Students’ preparedness for disasters in schools: a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e000913
Author(s):  
Hamed Seddighi ◽  
Homeira Sajjadi ◽  
Sepideh Yousefzadeh ◽  
Mónica López López ◽  
Meroe Vameghi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Disaster Preparedness ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Narrative Synthesis ◽  
Ethics Code ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionChildren are one of the most vulnerable groups in disasters. Improving students’ knowledge and skills to prepare for disasters can play a major role in children’s health. School as a place to teach children can make a significant contribution to provide the necessary skills. This study aims to identify the effects, strengths and weaknesses of interventions in schools to prepare children for disasters.Methods and analysisWe use Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to develop a protocol for this systematic review. The included studies will report on the results of interventions targeting ‘schoolchildren’ defined as individuals between 4 and under 18 years old studying in schools. Different electronic databases will be used for a comprehensive literature search, including MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE to identify the records that match the mentioned inclusion criteria published till December 2020. The main search terms are ‘disaster’, ‘preparedness’, ‘children’ and ‘school’. Four types of data will be extracted from the qualified studies including study characteristics (study design, year of publication and geographical region where the study was conducted), participant characteristics (sample size, age and gender), intervention characteristics (aim of intervention, intervention facilitators and barriers) and intervention outcomes. The quality appraisal of the selected papers will be conducted using Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias for quantitative studies and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for qualitative studies. We use a narrative synthesis for this systematic review. The narrative synthesis refers to an approach to systematic reviews which focuses mostly on applying words and texts to summarise and explain findings.Ethics and disseminationThis paper is a part of a Ph.D. thesis of Hamed Seddighi at University of Social welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences with ethics code IR.USWR.REC.1399.008 approved by the Ethics Committee of the above-mentioned university.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020146536.

scholarly journals Consequences of the COVID-19 Syndemic for Nutritional Health: A Systematic Review

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 1168
Author(s):  
Cristian Neira ◽  
Rejane Godinho ◽  
Fabio Rincón ◽  
Rodrigo Mardones ◽  
Janari Pedroso
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Physical Contact ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Eating Style ◽  
Healthy Nutrition ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Confinement at home, quarantine, and social distancing are some measures adopted worldwide to prevent the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2), which has been generating an important alteration in the routines and qualities of life of people. The impact on health is still being evaluated, and consequences in the nutritional field are not entirely clear. The study objective was to evaluate the current evidence about the impact that preventive measures of physical contact restriction causes in healthy nutrition. A systematic review was carried out according to the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” PRISMA Group and Cochrane method for rapid systematic reviews. Searching was performed in six electronic databases and evaluated articles published between 2010 and 2020, including among their participants adult subjects who had been exposed to the preventive measures of physical contact restriction. Seven studies met the selection criteria and reported an overall increase in food consumption, weight, Body Mass Index (BMI), and a change in eating style. Findings suggest that healthy nutrition is affected by preventive measures to restrict physical contact as a result of the COVID-19 syndemic.

scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol examining the clinical characteristics and epidemiological features of olfactory dysfunction (OD) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemond Qian-Xiu Tan ◽  
Wai Tak Victor Li ◽  
Wing-Zi Shum ◽  
Sheung Chit Chu ◽  
Hang-Long Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Olfactory Dysfunction ◽  
Statistical Analyses ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Analysis Protocol

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused recurring and major outbreaks in multiple human populations around the world. The plethora of clinical presentations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been described extensively, of which olfactory dysfunction (OD) was established as an important and common extrapulmonary manifestation of COVID-19 infection. The aim of this protocol is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on peer-reviewed articles which described clinical data of OD in COVID-19 patients. Methods This research protocol has been prospectively registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42020196202). CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed, as well as Chinese medical databases China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP and WANFANG, will be searched using keywords including ‘COVID-19’, ‘coronavirus disease’, ‘2019-nCoV’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, ‘novel coronavirus’, ‘anosmia’, ‘hyposmia’, ‘loss of smell’, and ‘olfactory dysfunction’. Systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Articles will be screened according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria to extract studies that include new clinical data investigating the effect of COVID-19 on olfactory dysfunction. Included articles will be reviewed in full; data including patient demographics, clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD, methods of olfactory assessment and relevant clinical outcomes will be extracted. Statistical analyses will be performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3. Discussion This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol will aim to collate and synthesise all available clinical evidence regarding COVID-19-related OD as an important neurosensory dysfunction of COVID-19 infection. A comprehensive search strategy and screening process will be conducted to incorporate broad clinical data for robust statistical analyses and representation. The outcome of the systematic review and meta-analysis will aim to improve our understanding of the symptomatology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD and identify knowledge gaps in its disease process, which will guide future research in this specific neurosensory defect. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020196202.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document