scholarly journals Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Patel ◽  
Arron Thind
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Validated Questionnaire ◽  
System Usability Scale ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Mhealth Apps

BACKGROUND Mobile health (mHealth) apps are increasingly used postoperatively to monitor, educate, and rehabilitate. The usability of mHealth apps is critical to their implementation. OBJECTIVE This systematic review evaluates the (1) methodology of usability analyses, (2) domains of usability being assessed, and (3) results of usability analyses. METHODS The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews checklist was consulted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was adhered to. Screening was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers. All included studies were assessed for risk of bias. Domains of usability were compared with the gold-standard mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ). RESULTS A total of 33 of 720 identified studies were included for data extraction. Of the 5 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), usability was never the primary end point. Methodology of usability analyses included interview (10/33), self-created questionnaire (18/33), and validated questionnaire (9/33). Of the 3 domains of usability proposed in the MAUQ, satisfaction was assessed in 28 of the 33 studies, system information arrangement was assessed in 11 of the 33 studies, and usefulness was assessed in 18 of the 33 studies. Usability of mHealth apps was above industry average, with median System Usability Scale scores ranging from 76 to 95 out of 100. CONCLUSIONS Current analyses of mHealth app usability are substandard. RCTs are rare, and validated questionnaires are infrequently consulted. Of the 3 domains of usability, only satisfaction is regularly assessed. There is significant bias throughout the literature, particularly with regards to conflicts of interest. Future studies should adhere to the MAUQ to assess usability and improve the utility of mHealth apps.

scholarly journals Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review

10.2196/19099 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. e19099
Author(s):  
Ben Patel ◽  
Arron Thind
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Validated Questionnaire ◽  
System Usability Scale ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Mhealth Apps

Background Mobile health (mHealth) apps are increasingly used postoperatively to monitor, educate, and rehabilitate. The usability of mHealth apps is critical to their implementation. Objective This systematic review evaluates the (1) methodology of usability analyses, (2) domains of usability being assessed, and (3) results of usability analyses. Methods The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews checklist was consulted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was adhered to. Screening was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers. All included studies were assessed for risk of bias. Domains of usability were compared with the gold-standard mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ). Results A total of 33 of 720 identified studies were included for data extraction. Of the 5 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), usability was never the primary end point. Methodology of usability analyses included interview (10/33), self-created questionnaire (18/33), and validated questionnaire (9/33). Of the 3 domains of usability proposed in the MAUQ, satisfaction was assessed in 28 of the 33 studies, system information arrangement was assessed in 11 of the 33 studies, and usefulness was assessed in 18 of the 33 studies. Usability of mHealth apps was above industry average, with median System Usability Scale scores ranging from 76 to 95 out of 100. Conclusions Current analyses of mHealth app usability are substandard. RCTs are rare, and validated questionnaires are infrequently consulted. Of the 3 domains of usability, only satisfaction is regularly assessed. There is significant bias throughout the literature, particularly with regards to conflicts of interest. Future studies should adhere to the MAUQ to assess usability and improve the utility of mHealth apps.

scholarly journals Effect of Probiotic, Prebiotic, or Synbiotic Supplement on Children, Adolescents, or Infants: A Protocol of an Umbrella Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shunlian 付顺链 Fu ◽  
Qian Zhou ◽  
Lijun Yuan ◽  
Zi-nan Li ◽  
Qiu Chen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Qualitative Comparison ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have studied the association between probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics and children, adolescents, or Infants. With the promotion of probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics in our life and medical practice, more and more attention has been paid to them. Therefore, it is necessary to make a systematic summary of them. When the information was obtained in the identified systematic review, it will be compared with a control group that do not use probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics. In addition, our aim is to assess the quality of the included systematic reviews.Methods: We will conduct a comprehensive systematic search by summarizing systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials which have studied effect of probiotic, prebiotic, or synbiotic supplement on children, adolescents, or Infants. Four electronic databases (Embase, PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) will be searched. Two reviewers will independently screen the retrieved papers. Two reviewers will independently extract the data by reference to the JBI Data Extraction Form for Review for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. We will also assess methodological quality and assessment of certainty in the findings by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Review version 2 (AMSTAR-2) and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We will calculate the corrected covered area (CCA). We will recalculate the summary effect and 95% CIs by using fixed-effect or random-effect models.Discussion: Through quantitative and qualitative comparison by conducting an umbrella review, we hope our results will service better for future clinical practice.Systematic review registration: This protocol have finished the registration in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (registration number: CRD42021244923).

scholarly journals Health outcomes associated with Zika virus infection in humans: a systematic review of systematic reviews

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e032275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphael Ximenes ◽  
Lauren C Ramsay ◽  
Rafael Neves Miranda ◽  
Shaun K Morris ◽  
Kellie Murphy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Zika Virus ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
New Research ◽  
Meta Analyses

ObjectiveWith the emergence of Zika virus (ZIKV) disease in Central and South America in the mid-2010s and recognition of the teratogenic effects of congenital exposure to ZIKV, there has been a substantial increase in new research published on ZIKV. Our objective is to synthesise the literature on health outcomes associated with ZIKV infection in humans.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review (SR) of SRs following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and LILACS (Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde) databases from inception to 22 July 2019, and included SRs that reported ZIKV-associated health outcomes. Three independent reviewers selected eligible studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of included SRs using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) tool. Conflicts were resolved by consensus or consultation with a third reviewer.ResultsThe search yielded 1382 unique articles, of which 21 SRs met our inclusion criteria. The 21 SRs ranged from descriptive to quantitative data synthesis, including four meta-analyses. The most commonly reported ZIKV-associated manifestations and health outcomes were microcephaly, congenital abnormalities, brain abnormalities, neonatal death and Guillain-Barré syndrome. The included reviews were highly heterogeneous. The overall quality of the SRs was critically low with all studies having more than one critical weakness.ConclusionThe evolving nature of the literature on ZIKV-associated health outcomes, together with the critically low quality of existing SRs, demonstrates the need for high-quality SRs to guide patient care and inform policy decision making.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018091087.

P14.71 An assessment of the reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii51-ii52
Author(s):  
A M George ◽  
S Gupta ◽  
S M Keshwara ◽  
M A Mustafa ◽  
C S Gillespie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neurofibromatosis Type ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract BACKGROUND Systematic reviews and meta-analyses constitute the highest level of research evidence and for a disease with limited clinical trial activity, are often relied upon to help inform clinical practice. This review of reviews evaluates both the reporting & methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS Potentially eligible meningioma reviews published between 1st January 1990 and 31st December 2020 were identified from eight electronic databases. Inclusion required the study to meet the Cochrane guideline definition of a systematic review or meta-analysis. Reviews concerning neurofibromatosis type 2, spinal and pediatric meningiomas were excluded. The reporting and methodological quality of articles were assessed against the following modified guidelines: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) guidelines. RESULTS 117 systematic reviews were identified, 57 of which included meta-analysis (48.7%). The number of meningioma systematic reviews published each year has increased with 63 studies (53.9%) published between 01/2018 and 12/2020. A median of 17 studies (IQR 9–29) were included per review. Impact factor of journals publishing a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis was similar (median 2.3 vs 1.8, P=0.397). The mean PRISMA scores for systematic reviews with a meta-analysis was 21.11 (SD 4.1, 78% adherence) and without was 13.89 (SD 3.4, 63% adherence). Twenty-nine systematic reviews with meta-analysis (51%) and 11 without meta-analysis (18%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA recommendations. Methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR2 revealed one study (0.9%) as high quality whilst 111 (94.8%) studies were graded as critically low. One hundred and two articles (87.2%) did not utilize a comprehensive search strategy as defined by the AMSTAR2 tool. Ninety-nine studies (84.6%) obtained a high level of concern for potential bias as per the ROBIS assessment. One hundred and eight articles (92.3%) failed to present information that a protocol had been established prior to study commencement and 76 articles (65.0%) did not conduct a risk of bias assessment. Across the three tools, domains relating to the establishment of a protocol prior to review commencement and conducting appropriate risk of bias assessments were frequently low scoring. CONCLUSION Overall reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews was sub-optimal. Established critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should be utilized a priori to assist in producing high-quality systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Ketamine for the treatment of mental health and substance use disorders: comprehensive systematic review

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zach Walsh ◽  
Ozden Merve Mollaahmetoglu ◽  
Joseph Rootman ◽  
Shannon Golsof ◽  
Johanna Keeler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Mental Health Disorders ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Health Disorders ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background In the past two decades, subanaesthetic doses of ketamine have been demonstrated to have rapid and sustained antidepressant effects, and accumulating research has demonstrated ketamine's therapeutic effects for a range of psychiatric conditions. Aims In light of these findings surrounding ketamine's psychotherapeutic potential, we systematically review the extant evidence on ketamine's effects in treating mental health disorders. Method The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (identifier CRD42019130636). Human studies investigating the therapeutic effects of ketamine in the treatment of mental health disorders were included. Because of the extensive research in depression, bipolar disorder and suicidal ideation, only systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. We searched Medline and PsycINFO on 21 October 2020. Risk-of-bias analysis was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) Checklist. Results We included 83 published reports in the final review: 33 systematic reviews, 29 randomised controlled trials, two randomised trials without placebo, three non-randomised trials with controls, six open-label trials and ten retrospective reviews. The results were presented via narrative synthesis. Conclusions Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide support for robust, rapid and transient antidepressant and anti-suicidal effects of ketamine. Evidence for other indications is less robust, but suggests similarly positive and short-lived effects. The conclusions should be interpreted with caution because of the high risk of bias of included studies. Optimal dosing, modes of administration and the most effective forms of adjunctive psychotherapeutic support should be examined further.

Quality of meta-analyses of non-opioid, pharmacological, perioperative interventions for chronic postsurgical pain: a systematic review

2022 ◽  
pp. rapm-2021-102981
Author(s):  
Rachel H McGregor ◽  
Freda M Warner ◽  
Lukas D Linde ◽  
Jacquelyn J Cragg ◽  
Jill A Osborn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Critical Element ◽  
Postsurgical Pain ◽  
Chronic Postsurgical Pain ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundIn an attempt to aggregate observations from clinical trials, several meta-analyses have been published examining the effectiveness of systemic, non-opioid, pharmacological interventions to reduce the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain.ObjectiveTo inform the design and reporting of future studies, the purpose of our study was to examine the quality of these meta-analyses.Evidence reviewWe conducted an electronic literature search in Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Published meta-analyses, from the years 2010 to 2020, examining the effect of perioperative, systemic, non-opioid pharmacological treatments on the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain in adult patients were identified. Data extraction focused on methodological details. Meta-analysis quality was assessed using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) critical appraisal tool.FindingsOur search yielded 17 published studies conducting 58 meta-analyses for gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin), ketamine, lidocaine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and mexiletine. According to AMSTAR 2, 88.2% of studies (or 15/17) were low or critically low in quality. The most common critical element missing was an analysis of publication bias. Trends indicated an improvement in quality over time and association with journal impact factor.ConclusionsWith few individual trials adequately powered to detect treatment effects, meta-analyses play a crucial role in informing the perioperative management of chronic postsurgical pain. In light of this inherent value and despite a number of attempts, high-quality meta-analyses are still needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021230941.

scholarly journals Effects of experimental sleep deprivation on aggressive, sexual and maternal behaviour in animals: a systematic review protocol

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. e000041 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Natan Pires ◽  
Andréia Gomes Bezerra ◽  
Rob B M de Vries ◽  
Cathalijn H C Leenaars ◽  
Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sleep Deprivation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Visual Analysis ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Maternal Behaviour ◽  
Bias Effect ◽  
Trim And Fill ◽  
Meta Analyses

ObjectiveBecause of the relevance for the research on sleep deprivation and human behaviour, many preclinical studies have been conducted on aggressive, sexual and maternal behaviours in this field. Considering the available data and the complexity of the factors involved, the most appropriate way to summarise the effects of sleep deprivation on these behaviours is through systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This article describes the protocol for three independent systematic reviews and meta-analyses, evaluating the effects of sleep deprivation on aggressive, sexual and maternal behaviours in animals.Search strategyA bibliographic search will be performed in four databases: Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science and Psychinfo, searching for three domains: sleep deprivation (as the intervention), animals (as the population) and behaviour (as the outcome).Screening and annotationTitles and abstracts will first be screened, followed by analysis of the full text and data extraction.Data management and reportingSYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation ’s risk of bias tool will be used to evaluate risk of bias; visual analysis of funnel plots, Egger’s regression and trim-and-fill will be employed to evaluate publication bias. Effect sizes will be calculated from the articles by either direct or standardised mean difference, depending on the nature of the data. Overall estimates will then be calculated using a random effects model. Heterogeneity will be assessed using both I2 index and Cochran’s Q test. These meta-analyses should be useful to summarise the available data on the relationship between sleep deprivation and behaviour, providing a solid background for future behavioural sleep deprivation experiments, improving their validity.

Perceived Risk of Developing Diabetes in the General Population and Asian Americans: Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 188-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angelina Phuong-Uyen Nguyen ◽  
Lois J. Loescher ◽  
Marylyn Morris McEwen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
General Population ◽  
Asian Americans ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Perceived Risk ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Diabetes Risk ◽  
Eligibility Determination ◽  
Asian Populations ◽  
Meta Analyses

Introduction: The purpose of this systematic review was to explore perceived diabetes risk with foci on prediabetic persons and Asian Americans. Persons with prediabetes and of Asian descent are at higher risk for developing diabetes, but little is known about their perceived diabetes risk. Method: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guided this systematic review. Electronic searches were conducted in three databases. The authors conducted eligibility determination, data extraction, synthesis, and evaluation. Twelve articles were selected. Results: Key findings include (1) limited studies including Asian populations, (2) a low percentage of persons in the general population with moderate to high levels of perceived diabetes risk, (3) a lack of congruency between actual and perceived diabetes risk in the general population, and (4) no interventions effectively changing the level of perceived diabetes risk. Discussion: More studies regarding perceived diabetes risk are needed, especially with a focus on Asian Americans.

Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Systematic Reviews Regarding the Management of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain with Opioids Analgesics

Pain Medicine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Connor Polson ◽  
Parker Siex ◽  
J Michael Anderson ◽  
Michael Weaver ◽  
Will Roberts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Opioid Analgesics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Review Author ◽  
High Prevalence ◽  
Disclosure Statement ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Objective We sought to determine whether author conflict of interest (disclosed or undisclosed) or industry sponsorship influenced the favorability of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating the use of opioid analgesics for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. Methods Our search included the MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) databases. Study sponsorship was determined using the funding statement provided in each systematic review. Author COI information was extracted from the COI disclosure statement. This information was cross-referenced with information available on the CMS Open Payments Database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and previously published COI disclosures. Results Eight systematic reviews authored by 83 authors were included. Of these authors, 19 (23.0%) were found to have a COI, of which the majority (17/19; 89.5%) had at least one undisclosed COI. Despite nearly one-quarter of authors having a COI, we found no association between the presence of a COI and the favorability of results (P = 0.64) or conclusions (P = 0.07). Conclusions COI are common and frequently undisclosed among systematic review authors investigating opioid analgesics for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. Despite a high prevalence of COI, we did not find that these author-industry relationships had a significant influence on the favorability of results and conclusions; however, our findings should be considered a lower bound estimate of the true influence author COI have on outcomes of pain medicine systematic reviews secondary to the low sample size included in the present study.

scholarly journals Reliability of studies published as SR/MA on nutrition in cancer prevention - a systematic survey

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
D Storman ◽  
M M Bala ◽  
M Koperny ◽  
J Zajac ◽  
P Tobola ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Prevention ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Nutritional Interventions ◽  
Public Media ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background In several fields of medicine, the quality of studies published as systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs) is low. Similar problems may exist for SR/MA on nutrition in cancer prevention. We aimed to assess overall quality and risk of bias (RoB) of studies published as SR/MA on nutritional interventions in cancer prevention with two instruments: AMSTAR 2 ('a measurement tool to assess systematic review 2') and ROBIS ('Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews') respectively. Methods Following a systematic search in 3 databases we included studies identified as SR/MA published between 2010 and 2018 assessing any nutritional interventions in cancer prevention in the general population or among people with cancer risk (Protocol in PROSPERO CRD42019121116). All the steps of study selection and data extraction were done by two independent reviewers with conflicts solved by discussion or by the third reviewer. Results We focused on a subsample of 101 SR/MA randomly selected from 737 included SR/MA. Included SR/MA on average searched 2 databases with Medline in 98% and included cohort studies (93%). They focused on specific food (36%), specific nutrients (27%) or beverages (24%, mostly tea and coffee). The assessment using AMSTAR 2 tool indicated that 93% of SR/MA had no pre-specified methodology, in 77% - research questions and inclusion criteria did not include the components of PICO, RoB assessment of primary studies was not used or did not contain all elements (87%) and RoB was not accounted for in the interpretation of the results (75%). Overall, the quality of 97% of studies was assessed as critically low. In the ROBIS tool for 97% of included studies, the overall high risk of bias was detected. The most important methodological flaws in ROBIS were similar to identified in AMSTAR tool. Conclusions Poor quality of SR/MA due to flawed methodology may lead to many concerns and mislead public media and consumers. Key messages Poor quality of SR/MA due to flawed methodology may lead to many concerns and mislead public media and consumers. The studies published as SR/MAs addressing nutrition for cancer prevention have major flaws, which limit the reliability of their conclusions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document