scholarly journals Application of smartphone apps in assessment after spine surgeries: a systematic review protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamidreza Sadeghsalehi ◽  
◽  
Parinaz Onikzeh ◽  
Afshin Heidari ◽  
Aida Kazemi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Smartphone Apps ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Postoperative Symptoms ◽  
Assessment And Monitoring ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Review Question ◽  
And Function

Review question / Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to investigate applications of smartphone apps in assessment and monitoring of postoperative symptoms and patient functions after spine surgeries. Condition being studied: Some patients with spinal problems, such as Discopathy, need surgery. These patients need frequent follow-up and assessment of symptoms and function after surgery. Currently, the use of mobile applications is a new way to monitor and evaluate patients after spinal surgeries. Information sources: Following databases were searched until 2021-03-16: Pubmed, Scopus, Embase via Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL via EBSCO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Via Ovid, ACM, Psycinfo.

scholarly journals Lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisca Verdugo-Paiva ◽  
Ariel Izcovich ◽  
Martín Ragusa ◽  
Gabriel Rada
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.DesignThis is the protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question.We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir— as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs — versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating lopinavir/ritonavir in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case no direct evidence from randomised trials is found, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will perform random-effects meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO RegistrationSubmitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).

scholarly journals Overweight and obesity as potential prognostic factors for severity and mortality in patients with COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Bonilla-Untiveros ◽  
Saby Camacho-Lopez ◽  
Eduard Baladia ◽  
Luis E. Ortiz-Muñoz ◽  
Gabriel Rada
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Overweight And Obesity ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Suspected Infection ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Overweight Or Obesity

ObjectiveThis living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary about the impact of overweight or obesity as a prognostic factor for severity and mortality in patients with COVID-19. DesignThis is a protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralized repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include all primary studies that assess patients with confirmed or suspected infection with SARS-CoV-2 and inform the relation of overweight or obesity with death or disease severity. Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates.

Clinical efficacy of chlorhexidine as an adjunct to mechanical therapy of peri-implant disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pengfei Zhao ◽  
Qian Wang ◽  
Peng Zhang ◽  
Xinyi Zhou ◽  
Lulingxiao Nie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Clinical Attachment Level ◽  
Probing Depth ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Mechanical Therapy ◽  
Attachment Level

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of chlorhexidine (CHX) as an adjunctive therapy to mechanical debridement in the treatment of peri-implant diseases. Five databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mechanical debridement combined with CHX to mechanical debridement alone for patients with peri-implant disease were identified. The trial investigators evaluated factors indicating inflammatory levels, including bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL). Six RCTs with 207 patients were ultimately included in this review. Low- to moderate-quality evidence demonstrated that the adjunctive CHX therapy had no significant effect on BOP reduction within 1 month (mean difference [MD], 0.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.06 to 0.25), 3 to 4 months (MD, 0.06; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.15), and 6 to 8 months (MD, 0.06; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.14) follow-up. Significant differences in PD reduction and CAL gain were also not found. However, one subgroup analysis revealed a significant result for the use of CHX solution, but it was clinically slight (MD, 0.09; 95%CI, 0.01 to 0.18). Based on available evidence, adding CHX to mechanical debridement, compared to mechanical debridement alone, did not significantly enhance the clinical results. Therefore, clinicians should consider the negligible effect of adjunctive CHX.

scholarly journals The Effects of Yoga on Pain, Mobility, and Quality of Life in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laidi Kan ◽  
Jiaqi Zhang ◽  
Yonghong Yang ◽  
Pu Wang
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Evidence Database ◽  
And Function

Objective.To systematically assess the effects of yoga on pain, mobility, and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis.Methods.Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), and other sources were searched systematically in this study. Two reviewers identified eligible studies and extracted data independently. Downs and Black’s Quality Index were used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies.Results.A total of 9 articles (6 studies) involving 372 patients with knee osteoarthritis met the inclusion criteria. The most common yoga protocol is 40~90 minutes/session, lasting for at least 8 weeks. The effect of yoga on pain relief and function improvement could be seen after two-week intervention.Conclusion.This systematic review showed that yoga might have positive effects in relieving pain and mobility on patients with KOA, but the effects on quality of life (QOL) are unclear. Besides, more outcome measure related to mental health of yoga effects on people with KOA should be conducted.

scholarly journals Macrolides for the treatment of COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catalina Verdejo ◽  
Laura Vergara-Merino ◽  
Natalia Carvajal-Juliá ◽  
Nicolás Meza ◽  
Eva Madrid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Direct Evidence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Protocol

ObjectiveThis living systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of macrolides for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.Data sources We will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will cover the period until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods We adapted an already published common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews to the specificities of this question. We will include randomised trials evaluating the effect of macrolides — as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs — versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomised trials evaluating macrolides in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomised studies in COVID-19 will be searched in case we find no direct evidence from randomised trials, or if the direct evidence provides low- or very low-certainty for critical outcomes.Two reviewers will independently screen each study for eligibility, extract data, and assess the risk of bias. We will pool the results using meta-analysis and will apply the GRADE system to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates.Ethics and dissemination No ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO Registration number CRD42020181032

scholarly journals Algorithm based smartphone apps to assess risk of skin cancer in adults: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karoline Freeman ◽  
Jacqueline Dinnes ◽  
Naomi Chuchu ◽  
Yemisi Takwoingi ◽  
Sue E Bayliss ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Skin Cancer ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Skin Lesions ◽  
Premalignant Lesions ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Smartphone Apps ◽  
Expert Recommendations

Abstract Objective To examine the validity and findings of studies that examine the accuracy of algorithm based smartphone applications (“apps”) to assess risk of skin cancer in suspicious skin lesions. Design Systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies. Data sources Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CPCI, Zetoc, Science Citation Index, and online trial registers (from database inception to 10 April 2019). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies of any design that evaluated algorithm based smartphone apps to assess images of skin lesions suspicious for skin cancer. Reference standards included histological diagnosis or follow-up, and expert recommendation for further investigation or intervention. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed validity using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool). Estimates of sensitivity and specificity were reported for each app. Results Nine studies that evaluated six different identifiable smartphone apps were included. Six verified results by using histology or follow-up (n=725 lesions), and three verified results by using expert recommendations (n=407 lesions). Studies were small and of poor methodological quality, with selective recruitment, high rates of unevaluable images, and differential verification. Lesion selection and image acquisition were performed by clinicians rather than smartphone users. Two CE (Conformit Europenne) marked apps are available for download. No published peer reviewed study was found evaluating the TeleSkin skinScan app. SkinVision was evaluated in three studies (n=267, 66 malignant or premalignant lesions) and achieved a sensitivity of 80% (95% confidence interval 63% to 92%) and a specificity of 78% (67% to 87%) for the detection of malignant or premalignant lesions. Accuracy of the SkinVision app verified against expert recommendations was poor (three studies). Conclusions Current algorithm based smartphone apps cannot be relied on to detect all cases of melanoma or other skin cancers. Test performance is likely to be poorer than reported here when used in clinically relevant populations and by the intended users of the apps. The current regulatory process for awarding the CE marking for algorithm based apps does not provide adequate protection to the public. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016033595.

scholarly journals Disparities in Usage of Telemedicine in Era of CoVid-19: A Scoping Review Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afshin Heidari ◽  
◽  
Saeed Biroudian ◽  
Hadi Zamanian
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
Information Sources ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Global Index ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Review Question ◽  
Delivery Of Health Services

Review question / Objective: This study aims to distinguish disparities in usage and telemedicine access in the era of CoVid-19 from diverse perspectives. Condition being studied: Telemedicine is the distribution and delivery of health services through remote telecommunications. Since the beginning of the CoVid-19 Pandemic, the application of telemedicine services has been grown; and by increasing the usage of telemedicine, the access gaps of telemedicine are multiplied. The disparities of telemedicine access and use are being reviewed and discussed in this review. Information sources: Pubmed, Embase (via Ovid), Psychinfo (via Ovid), WHO Global Index Medicus, Global Health (via Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and CINAHL(EBSCO).

scholarly journals Prognostic factors for severity and mortality in patients infected with COVID-19: A living systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariel Izcovich ◽  
Martín Ragusa ◽  
Verónica Sanguine ◽  
Fernando Tortosa ◽  
Federico Espinosa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Traditional Media ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTObjectiveThe objective of our systematic review is to identify prognostic factors that can potentially be used in decision-making related to the care of patients infected with COVID-19.DesignThis is the protocol of a living systematic review.Data sourcesWe will conduct searches in PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), grey literature and in a centralised repository in L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence covered and customised to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. The search will continue until the day before submission to a journal.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methodsWe will follow a common protocol for multiple parallel systematic reviews, already published and submitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).We will include studies that assess patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection and inform the relation between potential prognostic factors and death or disease severity. Two groups of two reviewers will independently screen studies for eligibility, extract data and assess the risk of bias. We will perform meta-analyses and use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each prognostic factor and outcome.A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it if the conclusions change or there are substantial updates.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is considered necessary. The results of this review will be widely disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, social networks and traditional media.PROSPERO RegistrationSubmitted to PROSPERO (awaiting ID allocation).

Functional cortical changes associated with shoulder instability – a systematic review

2021 ◽  
pp. 175857322110190
Author(s):  
Morissa F Livett ◽  
Deborah Williams ◽  
Hayley Potter ◽  
Melinda Cairns
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Joint Instability ◽  
Glenohumeral Joint ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Cortical Function ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Central Register ◽  
Rehabilitative Measures ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background Glenohumeral joint instability is associated with structural deficits and/or alterations in sensory and motor processing; however, a proportion of patients with glenohumeral joint instability fail to respond to surgical and rehabilitative measures. This systematic review aimed to establish if functional cortical changes occur in patients with glenohumeral joint instability. Methods AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Medline, PEDro, Pubmed, PsychINFO and Scopus were searched from inception to 17 March 2021. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised trials were included and quality was appraised using the Downs and Black tool. Results One thousand two hundred seventy-nine records were identified of which five were included in the review. All studies showed altered cortical function when comparing instability patients with healthy controls and included areas associated with higher cortical functions. Discussion The findings of this systematic review offer some insight as to why interventions addressing peripheral pathoanatomical factors in patients with glenohumeral joint instability may fail in some cases due to functional cortical changes. However, data are of moderate to high risk of bias. Further high-quality research is required to ascertain the degree of functional cortical changes associated with the type and duration of glenohumeral joint instability.

Use of opioids in patients with cancer with hepatic impairment—a systematic review

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2021-003065
Author(s):  
Lewis Thomas Hughes ◽  
David Raftery ◽  
Paul Coulter ◽  
Barry Laird ◽  
Marie Fallon
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Hepatic Impairment ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hepatic Function ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Central Register

PurposeOpioids are recommended for moderate-to-severe cancer pain; however, in patients with cancer, impaired hepatic function can affect opioid metabolism. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence for the use of opioids in patients with cancer with hepatic impairment.MethodsA systematic review was conducted and the following databases searched: AMED (−2021), MEDLINE (−2021), EMBASECLASSIC + EMBASE (−2021) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (−2021). Eligible studies met the following criteria: patients with cancer-related pain, taking an opioid (as defined by the WHO Guidelines for the pharmacological and radiotherapeutic management of cancer pain in adults and adolescents); >18 years of age; patients with hepatic impairment defined using recognised or study-defined definitions; clinical outcome hepatic impairment related; and primary studies. All eligible studies were appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.ResultsThree studies (n=95) were eligible but heterogeneity meant meta-analysis was not possible. Each individual study focused on only one each of oxycodone±hydrocotarnine, oxycodone/naloxone and morphine. No recommendations could be formulated on the preferred opioid in patients with hepatic impairment.ConclusionsMorphine is the preferred opioid in hepatic impairment owing to clinical experience and pharmacokinetics. This review, however, found little clinical evidence to support this. Dose adjustments of morphine and the oxycodone formulations reviewed remain necessary in the absence of quality evidence. Overall, the quality of existing evidence on opioid treatments in cancer pain and hepatic impairment is low and there remains a need for high-quality clinical studies examining this.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document