scholarly journals Effects of natural environment on mental health: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahbub Hossain ◽  
Abida Sultana ◽  
Ping Ma ◽  
Qiping Fan ◽  
Rachit Sharma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Natural Environment ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Mental Wellbeing ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Data Extraction Tool ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objectives: To synthesize the evidence on the effects of exposure to natural environment on mental health to inform future policymaking, practice, and research. Methods: A systematic search of nine major databases and additional sources were conducted using relevant keywords for the natural environment and mental health till November 2019. We included systematic reviews or meta-analyses reporting any measures of associations between the natural environment and mental health. The data on study characteristics and research findings were extracted using the JBI data extraction tool and synthesized narratively.Results: Twenty reviews were included in this umbrella review reporting both correlational and experimental studies. Among diverse population groups, the exposure to the natural environment was associated with improvements in depressive symptoms, anxiety, mood disorders, stress, cognitive and emotional functions, affect, happiness, and overall mental wellbeing. Conclusions: The findings of this review inform beneficial mental health outcomes associated with exposure to the natural environment. This umbrella review suggests collaborative policymaking, advanced research, and evidence-based practice protecting the natural environment and improving mental health across populations.

scholarly journals Prevalence of mental disorders in South Asia: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Md Mahbub Hossain ◽  
Neetu Purohit ◽  
Abida Sultana ◽  
Ping Ma ◽  
E. Lisako J. McKyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
South Asia ◽  
South Asian ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Asian Countries ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objectives: Mental disorders are highly prevalent in eight South Asian countries, yet there is a gap of a synthesized overview of the prevalence of mental disorders in this region. This umbrella review aims to summarize the prevalence of mental disorders from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of South Asian studies.Materials and methods: A systematic search of 11 major databases and additional sources was conducted until December 11, 2019. Articles were included if they were systematic reviews or meta-analyses, reported the prevalence of mental disorders, and reported primary studies conducted in South Asian countries only. Results: Among 2591 citations, a total of 23 reviews met all the criteria of this umbrella review. The synthesized findings from those reviews suggest high prevalence rates for mental disorders, including depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, mood disorders, suicidal behavior and self-harm, schizophrenia, substance use disorders, neurodevelopmental disorders, dementia, and other mental health problems. Also, findings suggest a high burden of maternal depression, psychiatric comorbidities in chronic physical illnesses, and various mental disorders among children, elderly adults, refugees, and other vulnerable populations. Most studies were from India whereas evidence from Afghanistan, Bhutan, and Maldives was limited.Conclusion: The findings of this review are constrained with heterogeneity in prevalence estimations, methodologies, sampling issues, and limitations in the existing literature, which should be addressed in future research. The evidence synthesized in this review provides national and regional overview of the prevalence of mental disorders, which may inform better policymaking and practice advancing mental health in South Asia.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Atopic Dermatitis Treatments and Interventions

Dermatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Vanessa Lin ◽  
Raahi Patel ◽  
Alexis Wirtz ◽  
Deepika Mannem ◽  
Ryan Ottwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atopic Dermatitis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Included Study ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analyses

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Spin – the misrepresentation of a study’s results – has been identified in abstracts of studies focused on a variety of disorders from multiple fields of medicine. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> This study’s primary objective was to evaluate the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on the treatment of atopic dermatitis for the nine most severe forms of spin. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We systematically searched Embase and MEDLINE for systematic reviews of atopic dermatitis therapies. Screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion. Each included study was evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin and other study characteristics. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Our searches retrieved 2,456 studies, of which 113 were included for data extraction. Spin was found in 74.3% of our included studies (84/113). Spin type 6 occurred most frequently (68/113, 60.2%). Spin types 1, 2, and 9 were not identified. All industry-funded systematic reviews contained spin in their abstract. The presence of spin was not associated with any specific study characteristics, including the methodological quality of the study. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Severe forms of spin were found in the majority of abstracts for systematic reviews of atopic dermatitis treatments. Steps should be taken to prevent spin to improve the quality of reporting in abstracts.

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 Do we need to improve the reporting of evidence in tendinopathy management? A critical appraisal of systematic reviews with recommendations on strength of evidence assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. e000920
Author(s):  
Dimitris Challoumas ◽  
Neal L Millar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Strength Of Evidence ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

ObjectiveTo critically appraise the quality of published systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in tendinopathy with regard to handling and reporting of results with special emphasis on strength of evidence assessment.Data sourcesMedline from inception to June 2020.Study eligibilityAll SRs of RCTs assessing the effectiveness of any intervention(s) on any location of tendinopathy.Data extraction and synthesisIncluded SRs were appraised with the use of a 12-item tool devised by the authors arising from the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and other relevant guidance. Subgroup analyses were performed based on impact factor (IF) of publishing journals and date of publication.ResultsA total of 57 SRs were included published in 38 journals between 2006 and 2020. The most commonly used risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment tool and strength of evidence assessment tool were the Cochrane Collaboration RoB tool and the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group tool, respectively. The mean score on the appraisal tool was 46.5% (range 0%–100%). SRs published in higher IF journals (>4.7) were associated with a higher mean score than those in lower IF journals (mean difference 26.4%±8.8%, p=0.004). The mean score of the 10 most recently published SRs was similar to that of the first 10 published SRs (mean difference 8.3%±13.7%, p=0.54). Only 23 SRs (40%) used the results of their RoB assessment in data synthesis and more than half (n=30; 50%) did not assess the strength of evidence of their results. Only 12 SRs (21%) assessed their strength of evidence appropriately.ConclusionsIn light of the poor presentation of evidence identified by our review, we provide recommendations to increase transparency and reproducibility in future SRs.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of aliskiren combination therapy: a protocol for an umbrella review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e043807
Author(s):  
Jiantong Shen ◽  
Wenming Feng ◽  
Yike Wang ◽  
Qiyuan Zhao ◽  
Billong Laura Flavorta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Third Person ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionEfficacy of aliskiren combination therapy with other antihypertensive has been evaluated in the treatment of patients with hypertension in recent systematic reviews. However, most previous reviews only focused on one single health outcome or one setting, none of them made a full summary that assessed the impact of aliskiren combination treatment comprehensively. As such, this umbrella review based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses is aimed to synthesise the evidences on efficacy, safety and tolerability of aliskiren-based therapy for hypertension and related comorbid patients.Methods and analysisA comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI published from inception to August 2020 will be conducted. The selected articles are systematic reviews which evaluated efficacy, safety and tolerability of aliskiren combination therapy. Two reviewers will screen eligible articles, extract data and evaluate quality independently. Any disputes will be resolved by discussion or the arbitration of a third person. The quality of reporting evidence will be assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews V.2 tool tool. We will take a mixed-methods approach to synthesising the review literatures, reporting summary of findings tables and iteratively mapping the results.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for the study, as we would only collect data from available published materials. This umbrella review will be also submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication after completion.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020192131.

scholarly journals Frailty Status and All-Cause Mortality in the Community-Dwelling Older People: An Umbrella Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 488-489
Author(s):  
A R M Saifuddin Ekram ◽  
Joanne Ryan ◽  
Carlene Britt ◽  
Sara Espinoza ◽  
Robyn Woods
Keyword(s):  
Older People ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Frailty Phenotype ◽  
Frailty Status ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Community Dwelling Older People ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Frailty is increasingly recognised for its association with adverse health outcomes including mortality. However, various measures are used to assess frailty, and the strength of association could vary depending on the specific definition used. This umbrella review aimed to map which frailty scale could best predict the relationship between frailty and all-cause mortality among community-dwelling older people. According to the PRISMA guidelines, Medline, Embase, EBSCOhost and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses which examined the association between frailty and all-cause mortality in the community-dwelling older people. Relevant data were extracted and summarised qualitatively. Methodological quality was assessed by AMSTAR-2 checklist. Five moderate-quality systematic reviews with a total of 374,529 participants were identified. Of these, two examined the frailty phenotype and its derivatives, two examined the cumulative deficit models and the other predominantly included studies assessing frailty with the FRAIL scale. All of the reviews found a significant association between frailty status and all-cause mortality. The magnitude of association varied between individual studies, with no consistent pattern related to the frailty measures that were used. In conclusion, regardless of the measure used to assess frailty status, it is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality.

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 How have systematic reviews and meta-analyses benefited psychiatry?

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 142-144
Author(s):  
Alex J. Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Meta Analyses

SummaryThe article by Smith et al (2016) provides a valuable summary on the usefulness and interpretation of systematic reviews. This commentary adds a discussion of confirmation bias and a summary of some of the most useful influential systematic reviews and meta-analyses in mental health.

scholarly journals Relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and outcomes in joint arthroplasty: protocol for a suite of systematic reviews and dose–response meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e022797 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiang-Dong Wu ◽  
Meng-Meng Liu ◽  
Ya-Ying Sun ◽  
Zhi-Hu Zhao ◽  
Quan Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Joint Arthroplasty ◽  
Surgeon Volume ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Records Management ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionJoint arthroplasty is a particularly complex orthopaedic surgical procedure performed on joints, including the hip, knee, shoulder, ankle, elbow, wrist and even digit joints. Increasing evidence from volume–outcomes research supports the finding that patients undergoing joint arthroplasty in high-volume hospitals or by high-volume surgeons achieve better outcomes, and minimum case load requirements have been established in some areas. However, the relationships between hospital/surgeon volume and outcomes in patients undergoing arthroplasty are not fully understood. Furthermore, whether elective arthroplasty should be restricted to high-volume hospitals or surgeons remains in dispute, and little is known regarding where the thresholds should be set for different types of joint arthroplasties.Methods and analysesThis is a protocol for a suite of systematic reviews and dose–response meta-analyses, which will be amended and updated in conjunction with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. Electronic databases, including PubMed and Embase, will be searched for observational studies examining the relationship between the hospital or surgeon volume and clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing primary or revision of joint arthroplasty. We will use records management software for study selection and a predefined standardised file for data extraction and management. Quality will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed using Stata statistical software. Once the volume–outcome relationships are established, we will examine the potential non-linear relationships between hospital/surgeon volume and outcomes and detect whether thresholds or turning points exist.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required, because these studies are based on aggregated published data. The results of this suite of systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017056639.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document