scholarly journals The Psychological and Physical Effects of Forests on Human Health: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 1770
Author(s):  
Marita Stier-Jarmer ◽  
Veronika Throner ◽  
Michaela Kirschneck ◽  
Gisela Immich ◽  
Dieter Frisch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Primary School Children ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Therapeutic Effects ◽  
Physical Effects ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: The aim of this systematic review of systematic reviews was to identify, summarise, and synthesise the available evidence of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) on the preventative and therapeutic psychological and physical effects of forest-based interventions. Methods: Both bibliographic databases and grey literature sources were searched for SRs and MAs published until May 2020. Eight databases were searched for relevant articles: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, CiNii, EBSCO, and Scopus. Grey literature was sourced from Google Scholar and other web-based search tools. SRs and MAs that included randomised controlled (RCT), non-randomised controlled (NRCT), and non-controlled trials (NCT) on health-related effects of forest-based interventions were eligible if they had searched at least two databases. The methodological quality of eligible reviews was assessed by AMSTAR-2. Results: We evaluated 11 systematic reviews covering 131 different primary intervention studies, mostly from Asian countries, three of which included supplementary meta-analyses. The quality assessment resulted in moderate confidence in the results of two reviews, low confidence in six, and critically low confidence in three. The results of the eight moderate and low-rated reviews indicated that forest-based interventions are beneficial to the cardiovascular system, immune system, and mental health (in the areas of stress, depression, anxiety, and negative emotions). Evidence for the effectiveness of forest-based interventions on metabolic parameters in adults, the severity of atopic dermatitis in children and adolescents, and social skills and sociality in healthy primary school children was weak. Discussion/Conclusions: Evidence suggests beneficial therapeutic effects of forest-based interventions on hypertension, stress, and mental-health disorders, such as depression and anxiety. Changes in immunological and inflammatory parameters after forest therapy should be verified in bio-geographically native forests. In the future, more attention should be paid to careful planning, implementation, and reporting of primary studies and to systematic reviews on the effects of forest-based interventions.

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.

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Head Lice ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

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 An overview of systematic reviews of complementary and alternative therapies for infantile colic

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Perry ◽  
Verity Leach ◽  
Chris Penfold ◽  
Philippa Davies
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Infantile Colic ◽  
Breastfed Infants ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Complementary And Alternative

Abstract Background Infantile colic is a distressing condition characterised by excessive crying in the first few months of life. The aim of this research was to update the synthesis of evidence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) research literature on infantile colic and establish what evidence is currently available. Methods Medline, Embase and AMED (via Ovid), Web of Science and Central via Cochrane library were searched from their inception to September 2018. Google Scholar and OpenGrey were searched for grey literature and PROSPERO for ongoing reviews. Published systematic reviews that included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of infants aged up to 1 year, diagnosed with infantile colic using standard diagnostic criteria, were eligible. Reviews of RCTs that assessed the effectiveness of any individual CAM therapy were included. Three reviewers were involved in data extraction and quality assessment using the AMSTAR-2 scale and risk of bias using the ROBIS tool. Results Sixteen systematic reviews were identified. Probiotics, fennel extract and spinal manipulation show promise to alleviate symptoms of colic, although some concerns remain. Acupuncture and soy are currently not recommended. The majority of the reviews were assessed as having high or unclear risk of bias and low confidence in the findings. Conclusion There is clearly a need for larger and more methodologically sound RCTs to be conducted on the effectiveness of some CAM therapies for IC. Particular focus on probiotics in non-breastfed infants is pertinent. Systematic review registration PROSPERO: CRD42018092966.

Simultaneous compared to interval administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for medical abortion up to 10+0 weeks' gestation: a systematic review with meta-analyses

2020 ◽  
pp. bmjsrh-2019-200448
Author(s):  
Mia Schmidt-Hansen ◽  
Jonathan Lord ◽  
Elise Hasler ◽  
Sharon Cameron
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Medical Abortion ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundMedical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol usually involves an interval of 36–48 hours between administering these drugs; however, it is possible that the clinical efficacy at early gestations may be maintained when the drugs are taken simultaneously. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the safety and effectiveness of simultaneous compared with interval administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for abortion up to 10+0 weeks’ gestation.MethodsWe searched Embase Classic, Embase; Ovid MEDLINE(R) including Daily, and Epub Ahead-of-Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; and Cochrane Library on 11 December 2019. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), published in English from 1985, comparing simultaneous to interval administration of mifepristone and misoprostol for early abortion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration checklist for RCTs. Meta-analysis of risk ratios (RRs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method were performed. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.ResultsMeta-analyses of three RCTs (n=1280) showed no differences in ‘ongoing pregnancy’ (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 8.36), ‘haemorrhage requiring transfusion or ≥500 mL blood loss’ (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.03) and ‘incomplete abortion with the need for surgical intervention’ (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.25) between the interventions. Individual study results showed no difference in patient satisfaction, or ‘need for repeat misoprostol’, although ‘time to onset of bleeding or cramping’ was longer after simultaneous than interval administration. The quality of evidence was very low to moderate.ConclusionThe published data support the use of simultaneous mifepristone and misoprostol for medical abortion up to 9+0 weeks in women who prefer this method of administration.

scholarly journals Theory of change for the delivery of talking therapies by lay workers to survivors of humanitarian crises in low-income and middle-income countries: protocol of a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e018193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grace Kathryn Ryan ◽  
Andreas Bauer ◽  
Judith K Bass ◽  
Julian Eaton
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Tertiary Education ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Theory Of Change ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Humanitarian Crises

IntroductionThere is a severe shortage of specialist mental healthcare providers in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) affected by humanitarian crises. In these settings, talking therapies may be delivered by non-specialists, including lay workers with no tertiary education or formal certification in mental health. This systematic review will synthesise the literature on the implementation and effectiveness of talking therapies delivered by lay workers in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises, in order to develop a Theory of Change (ToC).Methods and analysisQualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods studies assessing the implementation or effectiveness of lay-delivered talking therapies for common mental disorders provided to adult survivors of humanitarian crises in LMICs will be eligible for inclusion. Studies set in high-income countries will be excluded. No restrictions will be applied to language or year of publication. Unpublished studies will be excluded. Seven electronic databases will be searched: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PsycEXTRA, Global Health, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov. Contents pages of three peer-reviewed journals will be hand-searched. Sources of grey literature will include resource directories of two online mental health networks (MHPSS.net and MHInnovation.net) and expert consultation. Forward and backward citation searches of included studies will be performed. Two reviewers will independently screen studies for inclusion, extract data and assess study quality. A narrative synthesis will be conducted, following established guidelines. A ToC map will be amended iteratively to take into account the review results and guide the synthesis.Ethics and disseminationFindings will be presented in a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated through a coordinated communications strategy targeting knowledge generators, enablers and users.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017058287.

PP109 Use Of Speech Recognition In Medical Reports: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 107-107
Author(s):  
Thomas Poder ◽  
Véronique Déry ◽  
Jean-Francois Fisette
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Medical Doctor ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Medical Specialties ◽  
Medical Reports ◽  
End Use

Introduction:Speech recognition is increasingly used in medical reporting. The aim of this article is to identify in the literature the advantages and weaknesses of this technology, as well as barriers and facilitators to its implementation.Methods:A systematic review of systematic reviews has been conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Center for Reviews and Dissemination up to August 2017. The grey literature has also been consulted. The quality of systematic reviews has been assessed with the AMSTAR checklist. Inclusion criteria were to use speech recognition for medical reporting (front or back-end). A Survey has also been conducted in Quebec, Canada, to identify the dissemination of this technology in this province, as well as the factors of success or failure in its implementation.Results:Five systematic reviews were identified. These reviews indicated a high level of heterogeneity across studies. The quality of the studies reported was generally poor. Speech recognition is not as accurate as human transcription but can dramatically reduce the turnaround times for reporting. In front-end use, medical doctors need to spend more time for dictation and correction than with human transcription. With speech recognition, major errors can be up to three times more frequent. In back-end use, a potential increase in the productivity of transcriptionist is noted.Conclusions:Speech recognition offers some advantages for medical reporting, the main one being a reduction in turnaround times. However, these advantages are challenged by an increased burden for medical doctor and risks of additional errors in medical reports. It is also hard to identify for which medical specialties and which clinical activities the use of speech recognition will be the most beneficial.

scholarly journals Identifying patient-important outcomes for treatment of bipolar disorder: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e050453
Author(s):  
Alessia D'Elia ◽  
Olivia Orsini ◽  
Stephanie Sanger ◽  
Alannah Hillmer ◽  
Nitika Sanger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bipolar Disorder ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Treatment Effectiveness ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Observational Research ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionTreatment of bipolar disorder is the focus of several clinical trials, however the understanding of the outcomes for establishing treatment effectiveness within these trials is limited. Further, there is limited literature which reports on the outcomes considered to be important to patients, indicating that patient perspectives are often not considered when selecting outcomes of effectiveness within trials. This protocol describes a systematic review which aims to describe the outcomes being used within trials to measure treatment effectiveness, commenting on the inclusion of patient-important outcomes within previous trials.Methods and analysisThis protocol is reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols statement. OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, OVID APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, the Wiley Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases will be searched for eligible studies. Screening, full-text and data extraction stages will be completed in duplicate using the Covidence platform for systematic reviews. Eligible studies will include clinical trials of interventions in bipolar disorder, in order to identify outcomes used to assess treatment effectiveness, and qualitative studies, to determine which outcomes have been reported as important by patients. Risk of bias for included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomised controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational research.Ethics and disseminationThis review will involve dissemination to key stakeholders, including primary end users such as patients, clinicians and trialists. Knowledge translation tools will be generated to share the relevant conclusions of this review. Results will be communicated to the scientific community through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and workshops. No ethics approval will be sought as this study is based on literature.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021214435.

scholarly journals Animal-Assisted Interventions for the Improvement of Mental Health Outcomes in Higher Education Students: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (20) ◽  
pp. 10768
Author(s):  
Charlotte Parbery-Clark ◽  
Marvellas Lubamba ◽  
Louise Tanner ◽  
Elaine McColl
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Higher Education ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Mental Health Outcomes ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of Animal-Assisted Interventions (AAIs), particularly Animal-Assisted Therapy (AAT) and Animal-Assisted Activity (AAA), in improving mental health outcomes for students in higher education. The number of students in higher education reporting mental health problems and seeking support from universities’ student support services has risen over recent years. Therefore, providing engaging interventions, such as AAIs, that are accessible to large groups of students are attractive. Methods: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched from relative inception to end of April 2020. Additionally, a grey literature search was undertaken. Independent screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were completed, with varying percentages, by two reviewers. Results: After de-duplication, 6248 articles were identified of which 11 studies were included in the narrative synthesis. The evidence from randomised controlled trials suggests that AAIs could provide short-term beneficial results for anxiety in students attending higher education but with limited evidence for stress, and inconclusive evidence for depression, well-being and mood. For the non-statistically significant results, the studies either did not include a power calculation or were under-powered. Conclusions: Potential emerging evidence for the short-term benefits of AAI for anxiety, and possibly stress, for students in higher education was found.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document