The impact of bereavement support on psychological distress in family members: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-233
Author(s):  
*Louise I Rait ◽  
◽  
*Nikki Y Yeo ◽  
*Equal first authors ◽  
Yasmine Ali Abdelhamid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Bereavement Support ◽  
Impact Of Event Scale ◽  
Event Scale ◽  
Bereaved Family ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND: Persistent psychological distress occurs frequently in family members of patients who die in an intensive care unit (ICU). OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of bereavement interventions in reducing persisting psychological distress in bereaved family members after death in an adult ICU. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed the effect of bereavement interventions on persisting psychological distress in bereaved family members of ICU patients. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and APA Psycinfo databases were searched until April 2020. REVIEW METHODS: Two of us independently screened titles and abstracts of identified studies, and then completed full text evaluation of selected studies. We assessed risk of bias using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, which is designed to assess the quality of non-randomised studies in meta-analyses. We also used random effects meta-analysis to assess the effect of various interventions on total Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores. RESULTS: From 664 citations, five studies were included — three multicentre randomised clinical trials and two single centre observational studies. Three studies tested the intervention of written bereavement support materials and two studies used narration of family members' experiences in the ICU. All studies reported HADS scores. Scores for Impact of Event Scale, Impact of Event Scale–Revised and Inventory of Complicated Grief were measured in some but not all studies. There was no effect of an intervention on HADS scores (weighted mean difference, −0.79 [95% confidence interval, −3.81 to 2.23]; Ι2 = 65.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Owing to limited data, and clinical and statistical heterogeneity, there is considerable uncertainty regarding whether bereavement support strategies reduce, increase or have no effect on psychological distress in bereaved family members.

scholarly journals O-195 The impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on psychological distress due to the cancellation of ART. A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Z Donarelli ◽  
G Lo Coco ◽  
S Gullo ◽  
V Oieni ◽  
A Volpes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Infertile Couples ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Infertile Patients

Abstract Study question Is there evidence that infertile patients have been more likely to experience distress during the COVID-19 outbreak with the consequent interruption of treatment plans? Summary answer High levels of psychological distress among infertile patients have been found during the COVID-19 pandemic, greater than that reported in the general population. What is known already Preliminary research on the negative consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak on mental health evidenced heightened levels of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress in some clinical populations as well as in community samples. However, little is known about the impact of COVID-19 on psychological distress of infertile patients who have been forced to suspend infertility treatment and postpone parenthood goals during the pandemic. The aim of this meta-analytic review is to summarize extant literature on the prevalence of psychological distress symptoms in infertile patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Study design, size, duration A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the PRISMA guidelines on PsycInfo, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, MedRxiv from March 2020 to mid-December 2020. Study inclusion criteria were specified according to the PICOS guideline. All naturalistic or RCT studies published in 2020 that examined infertility as the primary diagnosis and had a quantitative measurement of distress, were eligible. The primary outcomes were symptoms of psychological distress and secondary outcomes were indicators of psychological health. Participants/materials, setting, methods The database search identified 144 papers. Two reviewers independently screened potential studies by title and abstracts based on the inclusion criteria. The full texts were then screened for eligibility. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to judge the methodological quality of the studies. In order to estimate the pooled prevalence of distress, Odds Ratios with 95% Confidence Interval were calculated as the effect size by using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was tested using I2 statistics. Main results and the role of chance Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were summarized for the systematic review (N = 6473). Only six studies did not include males although, in the surveys, females made up 92% of the total sample. Ten studies adopted a cross-sectional study design. 100% gathered data through an online survey. Nine studies showed a high risk of bias, and five had a moderate risk. Review results showed that 56,4% of patients wished to resume treatment; participants were mostly worried about the delay in treatment because of their age (>35 years) or diminished ovarian reserve, or money constraints and low education level. Only five studies examined the role of protective factors such as social support, coping, optimism trait and intolerance of uncertainty. Nine studies were included for meta-analysis. The prevalence of psychological distress was 0.58 (95% CI 0.32÷0.84). The pooled point estimates of prevalence for anxiety (N = 6) were 0.56 (95% CI 0.24÷0.88), whereas the prevalence for depression (N = 5) was 0.46 (95% CI 0.15÷0.77). There was significant heterogeneity among studies to estimate the prevalence (I² ranging from 99% to 100%). Limitations, reasons for caution Results are preliminary, given the small number of studies and their cross-sectional data. The risk of bias was high or moderate across studies. Wider implications of the findings Infertile couples reported high levels of distress due to cancellation of their diagnostic procedures or treatment; they would benefit from information, appropriate support and advice from healthcare professionals, with an important role in maintaining the wishes of infertile couples to continue their parenthood goals. Trial registration number not applicable

scholarly journals Evaluation of tools to assess psychological distress: how to measure psychological stress reactions in citizen responders– a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrid Rolin Kragh ◽  
Fredrik Folke ◽  
Linn Andelius ◽  
Emma Slebsager Ries ◽  
Rasmus Vedby Rasmussen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Traumatic Event ◽  
Traumatic Events ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Stress Reactions ◽  
Impact Of Event Scale ◽  
Event Scale ◽  
Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Dispatched citizen responders are increasingly involved in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation which can lead to severe stress. It is unknown which psychological assessment tools are most appropriate to evaluate psychological distress in this population. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate existing assessment tools used to measure psychological distress with emphasis on citizen responders who attempted resuscitation. Methods A systematic literature search conducted by two reviewers was carried out in March 2018 and revised in July 2018. Four databases were searched: PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus, and The Social Sciences Citation Index. A total of 504 studies examining assessment tools to measure psychological distress reactions after acute traumatic events were identified, and 9 fulfilled the inclusion criteria for further analysis. The selected studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Results The Impact of Event Scale (IES) and The Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) were the preferred assessment tools, and were used on diverse populations exposed to various traumatic events. One study included lay rescuers performing bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and this study used the IES. The IES and the IES-R also have proven a high validity in various other populations. The Clinical administered PTSD scale (CAPS) was applied in two studies. Though the CAPS is comparable to both the IES-R and the IES, the CAPS assess PTSD symptoms in general and not in relation to a specific experienced event, which makes the scale less suitable when measuring stress due to a specific resuscitation attempt. Conclusions The IES and the IES-R seem to be solid measures for psychological distress among people experiencing an acute psychological traumatic event. However, only one study has assessed psychological distress among citizen responders in OHCA for which the IES-R scale was used, and therefore, further research on this topic is warranted.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Tools to Assess Psychological Distress: How to Measure Psychological Stress Reactions in Citizen Responders– A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrid Rolin Kragh ◽  
Fredrik Folke ◽  
Linn Andelius ◽  
Emma Slebsager Ries ◽  
Rasmus Vedby Rasmussen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Traumatic Event ◽  
Traumatic Events ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Stress Reactions ◽  
Impact Of Event Scale ◽  
Event Scale ◽  
Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Dispatched citizen responders are increasingly involved in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation which can lead to severe stress. It is unknown which psychological assessment tools are most appropriate to evaluate psychological distress in this population. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate existing assessment tools used to measure psychological distress with emphasis on citizen responders who attempted resuscitation. Methods A systematic literature search conducted by two reviewers was carried out in March 2018 and revised in July 2018. Four databases were searched: PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus, and The Social Sciences Citation Index. A total of 504 studies examining assessment tools to measure psychological distress reactions after acute traumatic events were identified, and 9 fulfilled the inclusion criteria for further analysis. The selected studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Results The Impact of Event Scale (IES) and The Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) were the preferred assessment tools, and were used on diverse populations exposed to various traumatic events. One study included lay rescuers performing bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and this study used the IES. The IES and the IES-R also have proven a high validity in various other populations. The Clinical administered PTSD scale (CAPS) was applied in two studies. Though the CAPS is comparable to both the IES-R and the IES, the CAPS assess PTSD symptoms in general and not in relation to a specific experienced event, which makes the scale less suitable when measuring stress due to a specific resuscitation attempt. Conclusions The IES and the IES-R seem to be solid measures for psychological distress among people experiencing an acute psychological traumatic event. However, only one study has assessed psychological distress among citizen responders in OHCA for which the IES-R scale was used, and therefore, further research on this topic is warranted.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Tools to Assess Psychological Distress: How to Measure Psychological Stress Reactions in Citizen Responders– A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrid Rolin Kragh ◽  
Fredrik Folke ◽  
Linn Andelius ◽  
Emma Slebsager Ries ◽  
Rasmus Vedby Rasmussen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Traumatic Event ◽  
Traumatic Events ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Stress Reactions ◽  
Impact Of Event Scale ◽  
Event Scale ◽  
Bystander Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Dispatched citizen responders are increasingly involved in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation which can lead to severe stress. It is unknown which psychological assessment tools are most appropriate to evaluate psychological distress in this population. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and evaluate existing assessment tools used to measure psychological distress with emphasis on citizen responders who attempted resuscitation. Methods A systematic literature search conducted by two reviewers was carried out in March 2018 and revised in July 2018. Four databases were searched: PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus, and The Social Sciences Citation Index. A total of 504 studies examining assessment tools to measure psychological distress reactions after acute traumatic events were identified, and 9 fulfilled the inclusion criteria for further analysis. The selected studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Results The Impact of Event Scale (IES) and The Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) were the preferred assessment tools, and were used on diverse populations exposed to various traumatic events. One study included lay rescuers performing bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and this study used the IES. The IES and the IES-R also have proven a high validity in various other populations. The Clinical administered PTSD scale (CAPS) was applied in two studies. Though the CAPS is comparable to both the IES-R and the IES, the CAPS assess PTSD symptoms in general and not in relation to a specific experienced event, which makes the scale less suitable when measuring stress due to a specific resuscitation attempt. Conclusions The IES and the IES-R seem to be solid measures for psychological distress among people experiencing an acute psychological traumatic event. However, only one study has assessed psychological distress among citizen responders in OHCA for which the IES-R scale was used, and therefore, further research on this topic is warranted.

scholarly journals Effect of dose administration aids on adherence to self-administered medications: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e030536
Author(s):  
Kanika Chaudhri ◽  
Madeleine Kearney ◽  
Richard O Day ◽  
Anthony Rodgers ◽  
Emily Atkins
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Study Participant ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Dose Administration ◽  
Common Solution ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionForgetting to take a medication is the most common reason for non-adherence to self-administered medication. Dose administration aids (DAAs) are a simple and common solution to improve unintentional non-adherence for oral tablets. DAAs can be in the form of compartmentalised pill boxes, automated medication dispensing devices, blister packs and sachets packets. This protocol aims to outline the methods that will be used in a systematic review of the current literature to assess the impact of DAAs on adherence to medications and health outcomes.Methods and analysisRandomised controlled trials will be identified through electronic searches in databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library, from the beginning of each database until January 2020. Two reviewers will independently screen studies and extract data using the standardised forms. Data extracted will include general study information, characteristics of the study, participant characteristics, intervention characteristics and outcomes. Primary outcome is to assess the effects of DAAs on medication adherence. Secondary outcome is to evaluate the changes in health outcomes. The risk of bias will be ascertained by two reviewers in parallel using The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. A meta-analysis will be performed if data are homogenous.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval will not be required for this study. The results of the review described within this protocol will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and relevant conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018096087

scholarly journals Considering the methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants for depression: a reanalysis of a network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e024886 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Munkholm ◽  
Asger Sand Paludan-Müller ◽  
Kim Boesen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Study ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Depression Symptom ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Clinical Study Reports

ObjectivesTo investigate whether the conclusion of a recent systematic review and network meta-analysis (Ciprianiet al) that antidepressants are more efficacious than placebo for adult depression was supported by the evidence.DesignReanalysis of a systematic review, with meta-analyses.Data sources522 trials (116 477 participants) as reported in the systematic review by Ciprianiet aland clinical study reports for 19 of these trials.AnalysisWe used the Cochrane Handbook’s risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate the risk of bias and the certainty of evidence, respectively. The impact of several study characteristics and publication status was estimated using pairwise subgroup meta-analyses.ResultsSeveral methodological limitations in the evidence base of antidepressants were either unrecognised or underestimated in the systematic review by Ciprianiet al. The effect size for antidepressants versus placebo on investigator-rated depression symptom scales was higher in trials with a ‘placebo run-in’ study design compared with trials without a placebo run-in design (p=0.05). The effect size of antidepressants was higher in published trials compared with unpublished trials (p<0.0001). The outcome data reported by Ciprianiet aldiffered from the clinical study reports in 12 (63%) of 19 trials. The certainty of the evidence for the placebo-controlled comparisons should be very low according to GRADE due to a high risk of bias, indirectness of the evidence and publication bias. The mean difference between antidepressants and placebo on the 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale (range 0–52 points) was 1.97 points (95% CI 1.74 to 2.21).ConclusionsThe evidence does not support definitive conclusions regarding the benefits of antidepressants for depression in adults. It is unclear whether antidepressants are more efficacious than placebo.

scholarly journals Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m2980 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reed AC Siemieniuk ◽  
Jessica J Bartoszko ◽  
Long Ge ◽  
Dena Zeraatkar ◽  
Ariel Izcovich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Interferon Beta ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Drug Discontinuation ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objective To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2020 and six additional Chinese databases up to 12 November 2020. Study selection Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. Methods After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. Results 85 trials enrolling 41 669 patients met inclusion criteria as of 21 October 2020; 50 (58.8%) trials and 25 081 (60.2%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 43 (50.6%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, corticosteroids probably reduce death (risk difference 17 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 34 fewer to 1 more, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (29 fewer per 1000 patients, 54 fewer to 1 more, moderate certainty), and days free from mechanical ventilation (2.6 fewer, 0.2 fewer to 5.0 fewer, moderate certainty). The impact of remdesivir on mortality, mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, and duration of symptoms is uncertain, but it probably does not substantially increase adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (0 more per 1000, 9 fewer to 40 more, moderate certainty). Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, interferon-beta, and tocilizumab may not reduce risk of death or have an effect on any other patient-important outcome. The certainty in effects for all other interventions was low or very low. Conclusion Corticosteroids probably reduce mortality and mechanical ventilation in patients with covid-19 compared with standard care, whereas azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, interferon-beta, and tocilizumab may not reduce either. Whether or not remdesivir confers any patient-important benefit remains uncertain. Systematic review registration This review was not registered. The protocol is included as a supplement. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is the second update of the original article published on 30 July 2020 ( BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

scholarly journals A cross-sectional survey of psychological distress in a Mexican sample during the second phase of the COVID-19 pandemic

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aldebarán Toledo-Fernández ◽  
Diana Betancourt-Ocampo ◽  
Héctor Romo-Parra ◽  
Ernesto Reyes-Zamorano ◽  
Alejandro González-González
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Baseline Measure ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Impact Of Event Scale ◽  
Event Scale ◽  
Related Stress ◽  
The Impact

The objectives of this study were to describe severity of psychological distress (event-related stress, anxiety, and depression) during the second stage of COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico, and to explore associations between the indicators of psychological distress, sociodemographic characteristics and specific concerns about COVID-19. This report serves as a baseline measure of a longitudinal project to evaluate progression of psychological distress across stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico. An online survey was conducted in the State of Mexico from April 8th -18th, 2020, in a sample of men and women who are beneficiaries of a welfare institution in the region. Variables were measured with the Impact of Event Scale-6, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, General Anxiety Disoder-7, and a questionnaire of concerns about COVID-19. A total of 5974 participants were analyzed. Moderate levels of psychological distress (with 23.6% of participants meeting significant event-related stress, but mild levels of depression and anxiety) were found, as well as high values in all concerns about COVID-19, especially regarding financial disruption, worsening of local security and concern of a family member becoming infected. These concerns associated mild-to-moderately with the indicators of psychological distress. Higher values of event-related distress were found in women, individuals with higher educational attainment and those with any current high-risk medical diagnosis, though the effect sizes were mild. Though psychological distress and concerns about COVID-19 have reached significant levels during the pandemic in Mexico, overall, they have not yet reached dysfunctional levels.

scholarly journals The Impact of Histopathological Features on the Prognosis of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eder da Silva Dolens ◽  
Mauricio Rocha Dourado ◽  
Alhadi Almangush ◽  
Tuula A. Salo ◽  
Clarissa Araujo Gurgel Rocha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Squamous Cell ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Histopathological Features ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Impact

ObjectiveOver many decades, studies on histopathological features have not only presented high-level evidence of contribution for treatment directions and prognosis of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) but also provided inconsistencies, making clinical application difficult. The 8th TNM staging system of OSCC has acknowledged the importance of some histopathological features, by incorporating depth of invasion (DOI) to T category and extranodal extension (ENE) to N category. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to determine the most clinically relevant histopathological features for risk assessment and treatment planning of OSCC and to elucidate gaps in the literature.MethodsA systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines, and the eligibility criteria were based on population, exposure, comparison, outcome, and study type (PECOS). PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for articles exploring the impact of histopathological features on OSCC outcomes with Cox multivariate analysis. Pooled data were subjected to an inverse variance method with random effects or fixed effect model, and the risk of bias was evaluated using quality in prognosis studies (QUIPS). Quality of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria.ResultsThe study included 172 articles published from 1999 to 2021. Meta-analyses confirmed the prognostic potential of DOI, ENE, perineural invasion, lymphovascular invasion, and involvement of the surgical margins and brought promising results for the association of bone invasion, tumor thickness, and pattern of invasion with increased risk for poor survival. Although with a small number of studies, the results also revealed a clinical significance of tumor budding and tumor-stroma ratio on predicted survival of patients with OSCC. Most of the studies were considered with low or moderate risk of bias, and the certainty in evidence varied from very low to high.ConclusionOur results confirm the potential prognostic usefulness of many histopathological features and highlight the promising results of others; however, further studies are advised to apply consistent designs, filling in the literature gaps to the pertinence of histopathological markers for OSCC prognosis.Systematic Review RegistrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), identifier CRD42020219630.

scholarly journals Prevalence of multimorbid degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. Young ◽  
Jan Hartvigsen ◽  
Rikke K. Jensen ◽  
Ewa M. Roos ◽  
Carlo Ammendolia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hip Osteoarthritis ◽  
Healthcare Setting ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Sample Population ◽  
Case Definitions ◽  
Prevalence Estimates ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) and knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) are prevalent conditions in the aging population and published literature suggests they share many symptoms and often are present at the same time in patients. However, no prevalence estimates of multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA are currently available. The primary objective of this systematic review is therefore to estimate the prevalence of multimorbid LSS with knee and/or hip OA using radiological, clinical, and combined case definitions. Methods: This systematic review protocol has been designed according to the guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration and are reported according the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. A comprehensive search will be performed in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL. Forward citation tracking will be performed in Web of Science. No restriction for publication data and language will be applied in the literature search, but only articles in English will be included. The search strategy will include the following domains: LSS, knee OA, and hip OA. Retrieved citations will be screened by two authors independently. Disagreements will be discussed until consensus, and a third reviewer will be consulted if consensus cannot be reached. Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be done by two authors independently, using a standardized data extraction form and a modified Risk of Bias Tool for Prevalence studies. Meta-analysis estimating prevalence with 95% CI will be performed using a random effects model. Meta-regression analyses will be performed to investigate the impact of the following covariates: LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and other patient characteristics on prevalence estimates for multimorbid LSS and knee and/or hip OA.Discussion: The results of this review will provide the first estimates of the prevalence of multimorbid LSS and hip and knee OA based on various case definitions. The impact of covariates such as LSS clinical presentations, sample population, healthcare setting, risk of bias, and patient characteristics on prevalence estimates will also be presented. Systematic review registration: Submitted to PROSPERO, awaiting registration

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document