Auriculoterapia para o tratamento da ansiedade em estudantes universitários: revisão sistemática

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Lara dos Santos Silva
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Tecnología Educativa

A ansiedade está entre os transtornos mentais de maior prevalência na população mundial, sendo a segunda causa de incapacidade mental no mundo. Dentre a população suscetível à ansiedade, destacam-se os estudantes universitários, em decorrência das situações vivenciadas no âmbito acadêmico. Os tratamentos da ansiedade podem estar pautados em recursos medicamentosos e não medicamentosos. Dentre os não medicamentosos, destacam-se as Práticas Integrativas e Complementares em Saúde e, dentre estas, a auriculoterapia. O objetivo geral deste estudo foi s intetizar as evidências disponíveis na literatura científica sobre o uso da auriculoterapia no tratamento da ansiedade em estudantes universitários. Trata-se de uma revisão sistemática da literatura, realizada em 16 bases de dados, com início em 20 de janeiro e revisão até 27 de março de 2021. Todo o processo de busca e seleção dos artigos foi feito de modo independente e pareado, e, quando necessário, um terceiro pesquisador com experiência na temática auxiliava como ad hoc na resolução dos conflitos. O relato da revisão pautou-se na diretriz Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, e o protocolo da revisão foi cadastrado na plataforma International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registro No CRD42020205968). Utilizou-se as diretrizes Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture, Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool, e escala de JADAD para avaliação dos artigos. A amostra final foi composta por cinco artigos. A análise dos mesmos mostrou que a auriculoterapia contribuiu para tratar a ansiedade de estudantes universitários. O uso desta intervenção deve ser considerado pelas instituições formadoras para promoção da saúde mental nesta população, e pode contribuir para a melhora do desempenho acadêmico, redução das taxas de evasão, e melhora da qualidade de vida aos universitários. O estudo também possibilitou a elaboração de uma tecnologia educativa no formato de cartilha, com o objetivo de esclarecer aos estudantes universitários sobre a ansiedade como um problema de saúde relevante na população, bem como apresentar a auriculoterapia como uma possibilidade terapêutica. Pretende-se que, em momento oportuno, a mesma seja divulgada em formato eletrônico para toda a comunidade acadêmica. Palavras-chave: Auriculoterapia. Terapia auricular. Ansiedade. Estudantes.

Evaluation of Industry Relationships Among Authors of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Regarding Ménières Disease

2021 ◽  
pp. 000348942110518
Author(s):  
David Wenger ◽  
Ross Nowlin ◽  
Austin L. Johnson ◽  
Michael Anderson ◽  
Michael Weaver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Disease Treatment ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

Objectives: To quantify the presence of conflicts of interest (COI) in SRs and MAs of Ménières disease treatment and identify any related secondary characteristics of these articles. Methods: A search was conducted on May 28, 2020 to search MEDLINE and Embase databases for SRs or MAs pertaining to Ménières disease published between September 1, 2016 and June 2, 2020. A risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias assessment criteria. Results: A total of 13 systematic reviews conducted by 49 authors met the inclusion criteria. Of the 49 authors, 7 (14.3%) were found to have some form of COI. Of these 7 authors, 1 (14.3%) completely disclosed all COI within the SR, 1 (14.3%) disclosed one or more COI but were found to have an additional undisclosed COI, and 5 (71.4%) were found to have only undisclosed COI. One of 2 industry funded SRs (50%) had a high risk of bias, and 1 (50%) of the non-industry sponsored SRs were found to have a high risk of bias. Conclusions: Overall authors of SRs pertaining to Ménières disease appear to be properly disclosing COI at higher rates than other fields of medicine; however, further room for improvement has been noted.

scholarly journals Benefits of Qigong as an integrative and complementary practice for health: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruna Francielle Toneti ◽  
Rafael Fernando Mendes Barbosa ◽  
Leandro Yukio Mano ◽  
Luana Okino Sawada ◽  
Igor Goulart de Oliveira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective: to analyze, in the literature, evidence about the benefits of the integrative and complementary practice of Qigong with regard to the health of adults and the elderly. Method: a systematic review by searching for studies in the PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials were included; in Portuguese, English and Spanish; from 2008 to 2018. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses strategy was adopted, as well as the recommendation of the Cochrane Collaboration for assessing the risk of bias in the clinical trials analyzed. Results: 28 studies were selected that indicated the benefit of the practice to the target audience, which can be used for numerous health conditions, such as: cancer; fibromyalgia; Parkinson’s disease; Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease; Burnout; stress; social isolation; chronic low back pain; cervical pain; buzz; osteoarthritis; fatigue; depression; and cardiovascular diseases. However, there was a great risk of bias in terms of the blinding of the research studies. Conclusion: the practice of Qigong produces positive results on health, mainly in the medium and long term. This study contributes to the advancement in the use of integrative and complementary practices in nursing, since it brings together the scientific production in the area from the best research results available.

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 Riscos, complexidade e incertezas na cadeia de suprimentos

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-294
Author(s):  
Idoneu Mitrano Lima Junior ◽  
Alba Regina Pereira Rodrigues ◽  
José André Villas Boas Mello
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Supply Chain ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Supply Chain Risk Management ◽  
Supply Chain Risk ◽  
Meta Analyses

Este artigo tem como objetivo conduzir uma revisão sistemática de literatura e meta-análise sobre o tema Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM), no contexto dos países Brasil e China. Para tanto, os autores apoiaram-se na metodologia PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), seguindo orientações da comunidade científica Cochrane Collaboration. A partir de pesquisa eletrônica nas bases Web of Science, Scopus e SciELO, os resultados open access sumarizados apontaram que há escassez de publicações sobre o tema SCRM no Brasil e na China, com apenas 6 e 8 resultados, respectivamente, no período de 2008 a 2020. Portanto, complementa as revisões sistemáticas publicadas anteriormente, auxiliando novos pesquisadores e traz como diferencial nova abordagem, evidenciando territórios sub representados nas bases analisadas.

scholarly journals The development of a new generic risk-of-bias measure for systematic reviews of surveys

Methodology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 278-298
Author(s):  
Gabriel Nudelman ◽  
Kathleen Otto
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Weighted Kappa ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Interrater Agreement ◽  
Bias Measure ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Initial List

It is important to evaluate risk of bias of the primary studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Since tools pertinent to surveys are scarce, the goal of the current research was to develop a measure to address this need. In Study 1, an initial list of 10 relevant topics was compiled from previous measures. In Study 2, the list was refined into an eight-item risk-of-bias measure via discussion and a pilot study. In Study 3, experienced researchers used the measure to asses 70 studies, demonstrating high interrater agreement (weighted Kappa = .82). Inexperienced raters also utilized the measure to code 26 different studies included in a prior meta-analysis, which resulted in adequate interrater agreement (weighted Kappa = .64) and excellent convergent validity (r = .66). Thus, the new measure, designed to be accessible and flexible, can increase standardization of risk-of-bias evaluations and contribute to the interpretation of systematic reviews and meta-analytic findings.

scholarly journals Processed Meat Consumption and the Risk of Cancer: A Critical Evaluation of the Constraints of Current Evidence from Epidemiological Studies

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (10) ◽  
pp. 3601
Author(s):  
Mina Nicole Händel ◽  
Jeanett Friis Rohde ◽  
Ramune Jacobsen ◽  
Berit Lilienthal Heitmann
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meat Products ◽  
Meat Consumption ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Processed Meat ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Risk Of Cancer ◽  
Processed Meat Consumption

Based on a large volume of observational scientific studies and many summary papers, a high consumption of meat and processed meat products has been suggested to have a harmful effect on human health. These results have led guideline panels worldwide to recommend to the general population a reduced consumption of processed meat and meat products, with the overarching aim of lowering disease risk, especially of cancer. We revisited and updated the evidence base, evaluating the methodological quality and the certainty of estimates in the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examined the association between processed meat consumption and the risk of cancer at different sites across the body, as well as the overall risk of cancer mortality. We further explored if discrepancies in study designs and risks of bias could explain the heterogeneity observed in meta-analyses. In summary, there are severe methodological limitations to the majority of the previously published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examined the consumption of processed meat and the risk of cancer. Many lacked the proper assessment of the methodological quality of the primary studies they included, or the literature searches did not fulfill the methodological standards needed in order to be systematic and transparent. The primary studies included in the reviews had a potential risk for the misclassification of exposure, a serious risk of bias due to confounding, a moderate to serious risk of bias due to missing data, and/or a moderate to serious risk of selection of the reported results. All these factors may have potentially led to the overestimation of the risk related to processed meat intake across all cancer outcomes. Thus, with the aim of lowering the risk of cancer, the recommendation to reduce the consumption of processed meat and meat products in the general population seems to be based on evidence that is not methodologically strong.

scholarly journals Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project)

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Kwasi Korang ◽  
Sophie Juul ◽  
Emil Eik Nielsen ◽  
Joshua Feinberg ◽  
Faiza Siddiqui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Viral Vector ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Harmful Effects

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) which has rapidly spread worldwide. Several human randomized clinical trials assessing potential vaccines are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living systematic review that continuously assesses the beneficial and harmful effects of all available vaccines for COVID-19. Methods/design We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any vaccine aiming to prevent COVID-19 (including but not limited to messenger RNA; DNA; non-replicating viral vector; replicating viral vector; inactivated virus; protein subunit; dendritic cell; other vaccines) with any comparator (placebo; “active placebo;” no intervention; standard care; an “active” intervention; another vaccine for COVID-19) for participants in all age groups. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality; a diagnosis of COVID-19; and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be quality of life and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analyses, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Within-study bias will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approaches will be used to assess certainty of evidence. Observational studies describing harms identified during the search for trials will also be included and described and analyzed separately. Discussion COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review assessing the beneficial and harmful effects of different vaccines is urgently needed. This living systematic review will regularly inform best practice in vaccine prevention and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020196492

scholarly journals The benefits and harms of therapeutic exercise on physical and psychosocial outcomes in people with multimorbidity: Protocol for a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 2235042X2092045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessio Bricca ◽  
Lasse K Harris ◽  
Madalina Saracutu ◽  
Susan M Smith ◽  
Carsten B Juhl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hip Osteoarthritis ◽  
Diabetes Type 2 ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Therapeutic Exercise ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

Aim: The aim of this study is to investigate the benefits and harms of therapeutic exercise in people with multimorbidity defined as the combination of two or more of the following conditions: knee and hip osteoarthritis, hypertension, diabetes type 2, depression, heart failure, ischaemic heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, by performing a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: This study will be performed according to the recommendations from the Cochrane Collaboration and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We will search for RCTs investigating the effect of therapeutic exercise in multimorbidity, as defined above, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL from 1990. Cochrane reviews on the effect of therapeutic exercise for each of the aforementioned conditions and references of the included studies will be checked for eligible studies and citation tracking will be performed in Web of Science. We will assess the risk of bias of the included studies using the Cochrane ‘Risk of Bias Tool’ 2.0 and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment for judging the overall quality of evidence. Meta-analyses will be performed, if possible, using a random-effects model as heterogeneity is expected due to differences in interventions and participant characteristics and outcome measures. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses will be performed to explore potential predictors of outcomes. Dissemination: The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-review journal, presented at national and international conferences and made available to end users via infographics, podcasts, press releases and videos.

scholarly journals When poorly conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses can mislead: a critical appraisal and update of systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining the effects of probiotics in the treatment of functional constipation in children

2019 ◽  
Vol 110 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca G Harris ◽  
Elizabeth P Neale ◽  
Isabel Ferreira
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Treatment Success ◽  
Functional Constipation ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Defecation Frequency ◽  
Meta Analyses

ABSTRACT Background Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of functional constipation in children have yielded conflicting results. Objectives The aim of this study was to critically review and update the evidence in this field by mapping all the steps involved against those reported in previous reviews, in an attempt to understand the nature of their conflicting results. Methods Four literature databases, trial registries, and citations were searched through December 1, 2018. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effects of probiotics compared with placebo or treatment as usual on defecation frequency [bowel movements (BMs)/wk] or treatment success rates in children with functional constipation. Independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed risk of bias in each RCT. Data were pooled with (inverse variance) random-effects models. Results We identified 17 RCTs, of which 14 and 11 provided sufficient data to enable meta-analysis of the effects of probiotics compared with control on defecation frequency (n = 965) or treatment success (n = 835), respectively. When compared to (any) control intervention, probiotics did not significantly increase defecation frequency [weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.28 BMs/wk; 95% CI: −0.12, 0.69; P = 0.165] but were more efficacious in achieving treatment success (RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.50; P = 0.024). These effects did not differ by type of control (i.e., active or inactive) intervention. However, in analyses confined to the RCTs that were free of high risk of bias (only 5), probiotics did not confer any beneficial effects on defecation frequency (WMD: −0.55 BMs/wk; 95% CI: −1.37, 0.26; P = 0.185) and achievement of treatment success (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.13; P = 0.873), compared with control interventions. Conclusions The current evidence thus does not support the use of probiotics as a single or coadjuvant therapy for treatment of functional constipation in children and refutes recently published reviews reporting favorable effects of probiotics. Conflicting findings of previous reviews resulted from methodologic errors, highlighting the susceptibility of evidence synthesis to oversights in study selection, quality assessments, and data extraction and collation. This review was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42019119109.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document