scholarly journals Are Physical Education Lessons Suitable for Sport Talent Identification? A Systematic Review of the Literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 1965
Author(s):  
Alejandro Prieto-Ayuso ◽  
Juan Carlos Pastor-Vicedo ◽  
Sixto González-Víllora ◽  
Javier Fernández-Río
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Physical Education ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Alternative Programs ◽  
Gradual Change ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Talent Identification ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Shed Light

Objectives: The goal of this study was to shed light on the existent knowledge, internationally published over the last decade (2009–2019), on how to deal with talented children in physical education (PE). Methods: A mixed systematic review (SR) was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number: CRD42019117211. Study eligibility criteria: The articles included were selected using the following criteria: (a) studies published in peer-reviewed international journals; (b) studies published from 2009 to 2019 (both inclusive); (c) studies that included quantitative and/or qualitative methods and findings; (d) research conducted within school contexts; (e) articles that focused on both talent/gift and PE, and (f) studies published in English or Spanish. Results: A total of 11 articles were identified. Results showed a gradual change in both methods and instruments used for talent identification (TI) in PE, focused currently on children’s health and involvement in sports. Second, there is consensus on the lack of clarity in schools’ policies and guidelines on how to deal with talented children in PE. Conclusions: Finally, there are alternative programs to elite athlete models that better fit in PE to deal with talented children and to avoid child disengagement in PE and sports.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017868
Author(s):  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
Sheyu Li ◽  
Wan-Jie Gu ◽  
Hao Chen ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Coronary Revascularisation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Collection Form ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.

scholarly journals Programme frequency, type, time and duration do not explain the effects of balance exercise in older adults: a systematic review with a meta-regression analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (16) ◽  
pp. 996-1002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie K Farlie ◽  
Lauren Robins ◽  
Romi Haas ◽  
Jennifer L Keating ◽  
Elizabeth Molloy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Centre Of Mass ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Exercise Interventions ◽  
Balance Exercise ◽  
Control Centre ◽  
Meta Analyses

ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to examine the effects of different balance exercise interventions compared with non-balance exercise controls on balance task performance in older adults.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched until July 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised trials of balance exercise interventions for older adults were identified for extraction of eligible randomised trials. Eligibility criteria for inclusion of randomised trials in meta-analyses were comparison of a balance exercise intervention with a control group that did not perform balance exercises, report of at least one end-intervention balance outcome measurement that was consistent with the five subgroups of balance exercise identified, and full-text article available in English.ResultsNinety-five trials were included in meta-analyses and 80 in meta-regressions. For four balance exercise types (control centre of mass, multidimensional, mobility and reaching), significant effects for balance exercise interventions were found in meta-analyses (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.31–0.50), however with considerable heterogeneity in observed effects (I2: 50.4%–80.6%). Risk of bias assessments (Physiotherapy Evidence Database score and funnel plots) did not explain heterogeneity. One significant relationship identified in the meta-regressions of SMD and balance exercise frequency, time and duration explained 2.1% of variance for the control centre of mass subgroup.ConclusionLimitations to this study included the variability in design of balance interventions, incomplete reporting of data and statistical heterogeneity. The design of balance exercise programmes provides inadequate explanation of the observed benefits of these interventions.

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Spine Surgery—How Good Are They in Methodological Quality? A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muthu Sathish ◽  
Ramakrishnan Eswar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Critical Flaw ◽  
Meta Analyses

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria. Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.

scholarly journals How defensive medicine is defined and understood in European medical literature: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e034300
Author(s):  
Nathalie Baungaard ◽  
Pia Skovvang ◽  
Elisabeth Assing Hvidt ◽  
Helle Gerbild ◽  
Merethe Kirstine Andersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Defensive Medicine ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
The Us ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionThe term defensive medicine, referring to actions motivated primarily by litigious concerns, originates from the USA and has been used in medical research literature since the late 1960s. Differences in medical legal systems between the US and most European countries with no tort legislation raise the question whether the US definition of defensive medicine holds true in Europe.AimTo present the protocol of a systematic review investigating variations in definitions and understandings of the term ‘defensive medicine’ in European research articles.Methods and analysisIn concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review of all medical research literature that investigate defensive medicine will be performed by two independent reviewers. The databases PubMed, Embase and Cochrane will be systematically searched on the basis of predetermined criteria. Data from all included European studies will systematically be extracted including the studies’ definitions and understandings of defensive medicine, especially the motives for doing medical actions that the study regards as ‘defensive’.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics clearance is required as no primary data will be collected. The results of the systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed, international journal.PROSPERO registration numberThis review has been submitted to International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and is awaiting registration.

scholarly journals A protocol and novel tool for systematically reviewing the effects of mindful walking on mental and cardiovascular health

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. e0258424
Author(s):  
Dustin W. Davis ◽  
Bryson Carrier ◽  
Brenna Barrios ◽  
Kyle Cruz ◽  
James W. Navalta
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cardiovascular Health ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Meta Analyses

To our knowledge, no published systematic review has described the effects of mindful walking on mental and cardiovascular health. We have aimed to fill this gap by first establishing our systematic review protocol. Our protocol was adapted from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and is registered in PROSPERO (Registration Number: CRD42021241180). The protocol is described step-by-step in this paper, which we wrote to achieve three objectives: to adhere to the best practices stated in the PRISMA guidelines, to ensure procedural transparency, and to enable readers to co-opt our protocol for future systematic reviews on mindful walking and related topics. To achieve our third objective, we provide and explain a novel tool we created to track the sources we will find and screen for our review. Ultimately, the protocol and novel tool will lead to the first published systematic review about mindful walking and will also facilitate future systematic reviews.

scholarly journals What components of smoking cessation care during pregnancy are implemented by health providers? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e026037 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian Sandra Gould ◽  
Laura Twyman ◽  
Leah Stevenson ◽  
Gabrielle R Gribbin ◽  
Billie Bonevski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Health Providers ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundPregnancy is an opportunity for health providers to support women to stop smoking.ObjectivesIdentify the pooled prevalence for health providers in providing components of smoking cessation care to women who smoke during pregnancy.DesignA systematic review synthesising original articles that reported on (1) prevalence of health providers’ performing the 5As (‘Ask’, ‘Advise’, ‘Assess’, ‘Assist’, ‘Arrange’), prescribing nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and (2) factors associated with smoking cessation care.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases searched using ‘smoking’, ‘pregnancy’ and ‘health provider practices’.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies included any design except interventions (self-report, audit, observed consultations and women’s reports), in English, with no date restriction, up to June 2017.ParticipantsHealth providers of any profession.Data extraction, appraisal and analysisData were extracted, then appraised with the Hawker tool. Meta-analyses pooled percentages for performing each of the 5As and prescribing NRT, using, for example, ‘often/always’ and ‘always/all’. Meta-regressions were performed of 5As for ‘often/always’.ResultsOf 3933 papers, 54 were included (n=29 225 participants): 33 for meta-analysis. Health providers included general practitioners, obstetricians, midwives and others from 10 countries. Pooled percentages of studies reporting practices ‘often/always’ were: ‘Ask’ (n=9) 91.6% (95% CI 88.2% to 95%); ‘Advise’ (n=7) 90% (95% CI 72.5% to 99.3%), ‘Assess’ (n=3) 79.2% (95% CI 76.5% to 81.8%), ‘Assist (cessation support)’ (n=5) 59.1% (95% CI 56% to 62.2%), ‘Arrange (referral)’ (n=6) 33.3% (95% CI 20.4% to 46.2%) and ‘prescribing NRT’ (n=6) 25.4% (95% CI 12.8% to 38%). Heterogeneity (I2) was 95.9%–99.1%. Meta-regressions for ‘Arrange’ were significant for year (p=0.013) and country (p=0.037).ConclusionsHealth providers ‘Ask’, ‘Advise’ and ‘Assess’ most pregnant women about smoking. ‘Assist’, ‘Arrange’ and ‘prescribing NRT’ are reported at lower rates: strategies to improve these should be considered.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42015029989.

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.

Anatomy of Ankle Syndesmotic Ligaments: A Systematic Review of Cadaveric Studies

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 341-350
Author(s):  
Akilesh Anand Prakash
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Surgical Management ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Current Understanding ◽  
Study Quality ◽  
Quality Appraisal ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Diagnosis And Management ◽  
Meta Analyses

Diagnosis and management of isolated syndesmotic injuries are controversial and highly debated. Hence, the aim of this study is to explore and gain the current understanding pertaining to detailed anatomy of syndesmotic ligaments through a systematic review of published cadaveric studies. A systematic review was conducted online for literature published in English using PubMed and Google Scholar, as per PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, up to April 30, 2019. Predefined eligibility criteria were applied, and the data thus compiled was analyzed. Study quality was assessed based on Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies (QUACS) scale. A total of 12 studies reporting 365 ankles were included in this review. Considerable inconsistency in the naming and description of syndesmotic ligaments was observed, with only 2 studies reporting the vasculature of the ligaments. Hence further investigation of the anatomy of the syndesmotic ligaments is recommended so as to better inform clinical practice, as awareness of anatomy is critical for assessment, healing, and successful surgical management. Levels of Evidence: Level III: Systematic review of anatomical dissections

scholarly journals Does pain influence force steadiness? A protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e042525
Author(s):  
Michail Arvanitidis ◽  
Deborah Falla ◽  
Andy Sanderson ◽  
Eduardo Martinez-Valdes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Force Steadiness ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionPerforming contractions with minimum force fluctuations is essential for everyday life as reduced force steadiness impacts on the precision of voluntary movements and functional ability. Several studies have investigated the effect of experimental or clinical musculoskeletal pain on force steadiness but with conflicting findings. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the current literature to determine whether pain, whether it be clinical or experimental, influences force steadiness.Methods and analysisThis protocol for a systematic review was informed and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Key databases will be searched from inception to 31 August 2020, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, ZETOC and Web of Science. Grey literature and key journals will be also reviewed. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa tool, and the quality of the cumulative evidence assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. If homogeneity exists between groups of studies, meta-analysis will be conducted. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis approach and a vote-counting method will be used, while the results will be presented as net increases or decreases of force steadiness.Ethics and disseminationThe findings will be presented at conferences and the review will be also submitted for publication in a refereed journal. No ethical approval was required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020196479

scholarly journals Improving the usefulness of evidence concerning the effectiveness of implementation strategies for knowledge products in primary healthcare: Protocol for a series of systematic reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun ◽  
José Massougbodji ◽  
André Bussières ◽  
Aliki Thomas ◽  
Dahlia Kairy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Primary Healthcare ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Psychosocial Health ◽  
Performance Outcomes ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: The literature on the implementation of knowledge products is extensive. However, this literature is still difficult to interpret for policymakers and other stakeholders when faced with choosing implementation strategies likely to bring about successful change in their health systems. This work has the particularity to examine the scope of this literature, and to clarify the effectiveness of implementation strategies for different knowledge products. Consequently, we aim to: 1) determine the strengths and weaknesses of existing literature overviews; 2) produce a detailed portrait of the literature on implementation strategies for various knowledge products; and 3) assess the effectiveness of implementation strategies for each knowledge product identified and classify them.Methods: We will use a three-phase approach consisting of a critical analysis of existing literature overviews, a systematic review of systematic reviews, and a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We will follow the Cochrane Methodology for each of three phases. Our eligibility criteria are defined following a PICOS approach: Population, individuals or stakeholders participating in healthcare delivery, specifically, healthcare providers, caregivers, and end users; Intervention, any type of strategy aiming to implement a knowledge product including, but not limited to, a decision support tool, a clinical practice guideline, a policy brief, or a decision-making tool, a one-pager, or a health intervention; Comparison, any comparator will be considered; Outcomes, Phases 1 and 2 – any outcome related to implementation strategies including, but not limited to, the measures of adherence/fidelity to the use of knowledge products, their acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, adaptability, implementation costs, penetration/reach and sustainability; Phase 3 – any additional outcome related to patients (psychosocial, health behavioral, and clinical outcomes) or healthcare professionals (behavioral and performance outcomes); Setting, primary healthcare has to be covered. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from their inception onwards. For each phase, two reviewers will independently perform the selection of studies, data extraction, and assess their methodological quality. We will analyze extracted data, and perform narrative syntheses, and meta-analyses when possible.Discussion: Our results could inform not only the overviews’ methodology, but also the development of an online platform for the implementation strategies of knowledge products. This platform could be useful for stakeholders in implementation science.Systematic review registration: Protocol registered on Open science Framework, https://osf.io/hqbx8

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document