The use of Amantadine in Cognitive and Behavioral Recovery After Severe Cranioencephalic Trauma: A Systematic Review

Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the main cause of death among individuals between 1 and 44 years of age, and severe TBI is associated with a mortality rate between 30% and 70%. In this context, randomized clinical trials have studied medications to reduce morbidity in severe TBI, one of which is Amantadine. This drug acts on the increase of extracellular dopamine and as an NMDA antagonist. Objectives: Developing a systematic review of systematic reviews to evaluate the efficacy of Amantadine in reducing morbidity in patients with severe TBI. Methodology: The search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Portal Regional BVS databases. Results: Eleven systematic reviews were included. The literature review of 7 articles demonstrated the efficacy of treatment with Amantadine in the following clinical aspects after TBI: aggression, irritability, agitation, mood, and attention deficit. On the other hand, one article did not consider the use of Amantadine significantly beneficial, due to increased agitation in critically ill patients, suggesting that there is worsening of the condition in individuals with cognitive, executive, memory, and attention symptoms. Therefore, three studies reported that there was not enough evidence for the use of this drug in patients with severe TBI. Conclusions: The results are heterogeneous. However, this study found good efficacy of Amantadine for cases of agitation/aggression in severe TBI and in cases of diffuse axonal lesion that compromises the glutamate pathways.

Download Full-text

Liraglutide for the Treatment of Obesity: Analyzing Published Reviews

Current Pharmaceutical Design ◽

10.2174/1381612825666190701155737 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 25 (15) ◽

pp. 1783-1790 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Rosario Pastor ◽

Josep A. Tur

Keyword(s):

Weight Loss ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Statistical Tests ◽

Overweight And Obesity ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Medical Subject Headings ◽

Mesh Terms ◽

Treatment Of Obesity

Background: Several drugs have been currently approved for the treatment of obesity. The pharmacokinetic of liraglutide, as well as the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, have been widely described. Objective: To analyze the published systematic reviews on the use of liraglutide for the treatment of obesity. Methods: Systematic reviews were found out through MEDLINE searches, through EBSCO host and the Cochrane Library based on the following terms: "liraglutide" as major term and using the following Medical Subject Headings (MesH) terms: "obesity", "overweight", "weight loss". A total of 3 systematic reviews were finally included to be analyzed. Results: From the three systematic reviews selected, only two included the randomized clinical trials, while the third study reviewed both randomized and non-randomized clinical trials. Only one review performed statistical tests of heterogeneity and a meta-analysis, combining the results of individual studies. Another review showed the results of individual studies with odds ratio and confidence interval, but a second one just showed the means and confidence intervals. In all studies, weight loss was registered in persons treated with liraglutide in a dose dependent form, reaching a plateau at 3.0 mg dose, which was reached just in men. Most usual adverse events were gastrointestinal. Conclusion: More powerful and prospective studies are needed to assess all aspects related to liraglutide in the overweight and obesity treatment.

Download Full-text

Appraisal of systematic reviews on interventions for postpartum depression: systematic review

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth ◽

10.1186/s12884-020-03496-5 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Ryan Chow ◽

Eileen Huang ◽

Allen Li ◽

Sophie Li ◽

Sarah Y. Fu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Postpartum Depression ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

A Priori ◽

Behavioural Therapy ◽

Therapeutic Interventions ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Measurement Tool

Abstract Background Postpartum depression (PPD) is a highly prevalent mental health problem that affects parental health with implications for child health in infancy, childhood, adolescence and beyond. The primary aim of this study was to critically appraise available systematic reviews describing interventions for PPD. The secondary aim was to evaluate the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews and their conclusions. Methods An electronic database search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2020 was conducted to identify systematic reviews that examined an intervention for PPD. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews was utilized to independently score each included systematic review which was then critically appraised to better define the most effective therapeutic options for PPD. Results Of the 842 studies identified, 83 met the a priori criteria for inclusion. Based on the systematic reviews with the highest methodological quality, we found that use of antidepressants and telemedicine were the most effective treatments for PPD. Symptoms of PPD were also improved by traditional herbal medicine and aromatherapy. Current evidence for physical exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy in treating PPD remains equivocal. A significant, but weak relationship between AMSTAR score and journal impact factor was observed (p = 0.03, r = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.43) whilst no relationship was found between the number of total citations (p = 0.27, r = 0.12; 95% CI, − 0.09 to 0.34), or source of funding (p = 0.19). Conclusion Overall the systematic reviews on interventions for PPD are of low-moderate quality and are not improving over time. Antidepressants and telemedicine were the most effective therapeutic interventions for PPD treatment.

Download Full-text

Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044472 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (4) ◽

pp. e044472

Author(s):

Saar Hommes ◽

Ruben Vromans ◽

Felix Clouth ◽

Xander Verbeek ◽

Ignace de Hingh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Decision Making ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Decision Aids ◽

Specific Treatment ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Plain Language ◽

Patient Decision

ObjectivesTo assess the communicative quality of colorectal cancer patient decision aids (DAs) about treatment options, the current systematic review was conducted.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesDAs (published between 2006 and 2019) were identified through academic literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) and online sources.Eligibility criteriaDAs were only included if they supported the decision-making process of patients with colon, rectal or colorectal cancer in stages I–III.Data extraction and synthesisAfter the search strategy was adapted from similar systematic reviews and checked by a colorectal cancer surgeon, two independent reviewers screened and selected the articles. After initial screening, disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. The review was conducted in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DAs were assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and Communicative Aspects (CA) checklist.ResultsIn total, 18 DAs were selected. Both the IPDAS and CA checklist revealed that there was a lot of variation in the (communicative) quality of DAs. The findings highlight that (1) personalisation of treatment information in DAs is lacking, (2) outcome probability information is mostly communicated verbally and (3) information in DAs is generally biased towards a specific treatment. Additionally, (4) DAs about colorectal cancer are lengthy and (5) many DAs are not written in plain language.ConclusionsBoth instruments (IPDAS and CA) revealed great variation in the (communicative) quality of colorectal cancer DAs. Developers of patient DAs should focus on personalisation techniques and could use both the IPDAS and CA checklist in the developmental process to ensure personalised health communication and facilitate shared decision making in clinical practice.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of early assessment and intervention by interdisciplinary teams including health and social care professionals in the emergency department: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023464 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (7) ◽

pp. e023464 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Marica Cassarino ◽

Katie Robinson ◽

Rosie Quinn ◽

Breda Naddy ◽

Andrew O’Regan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Emergency Department ◽

Patient Care ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Social Care ◽

Interdisciplinary Teams ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Early Assessment ◽

Health And Social Care ◽

The Impact

IntroductionFinding cost-effective strategies to improve patient care in the emergency department (ED) is an increasing imperative given growing numbers of ED attendees. Encouraging evidence indicates that interdisciplinary teams including health and social care professionals (HSCPs) enhance patient care across a variety of healthcare settings. However, to date no systematic reviews of the effectiveness of early assessment and/or interventions carried by such teams in the ED exist. This systematic review aims to explore the impact of early assessment and/or intervention carried out by interdisciplinary teams including HSCPs in the ED on the quality, safety and cost-effectiveness of care, and to define the content of the assessment and/or intervention offered by HSCPs.Methods and analysisUsing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standardised guidelines, we will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, controlled before–after studies, interrupted time series and repeated measures studies that report the impact of early assessment and/or intervention provided to adults aged 18+ by interdisciplinary teams including HSCPs in the ED. Searches will be carried in Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE from inception to March 2018. We will also hand-search the reference lists of relevant studies. Following a two-step screening process, two independent reviewers will extract data on the type of population, intervention, comparison, outcomes and study design. The quality of the studies will be appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The findings will be synthesised in a narrative summary, and a meta-analysis will be conducted where appropriate.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be sought since it is not required for systematic reviews. The results of this review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-review journal and presented at relevant conferences.Trial registration numberCRD42018091794.

Download Full-text

Barriers and facilitators to implementing clinical imaging guidelines by healthcare professionals using theoretical domains framework: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol

BJR|Open ◽

10.1259/bjro.20210004 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

pp. 20210004

Author(s):

Harriet Nalubega Kisembo ◽

Ritah Nassanga ◽

Faith Ameda Ameda ◽

Moses Ocan ◽

Alison A Kinengyere ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Mixed Methods ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Financial Incentives ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Information Source ◽

Theoretical Domains Framework ◽

Barriers And Facilitators ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Clinical Imaging

Objectives: To identify, categorize, and develop an aggregated synthesis of evidence using the theoretical domains framework (TDF) on barriers and facilitators that influence implementation of clinical imaging guidelines (CIGs) by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in diagnostic imaging Methods: The protocol will be guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2014. Methodology for JBI Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews and will adhere to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA-P). Information source will include databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library), internet search (https://www.google.com/scholar), experts’ opinion, professional societies/organizations websites and government bodies strategies/recommendations, and reference lists of included studies. Articles of any study design published in English from 1990 to date, having investigated factors operating as barriers and/or facilitators to the implementation CIGs by HCPs will be eligible. Selecting, appraising, and extracting data from the included studies will be independently performed by at least two reviewers using validated tools and Rayyan – Systematic Review web application. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus and a third reviewer as a tie breaker. The aggregated studies will be synthesized using thematic analysis guided by TDF. Results: Identified barriers will be defined a priori and mapped into 7 TDF domains including knowledge, awareness, effectiveness, time, litigationand financial incentives Conclusion: The results will provide an insight into a theory-based approach to predict behavior-related determinants for implementing CIGs and develop strategies/interventions to target the elicited behaviors. Recommendations will be made if the level of evidence is sufficient Advances in knowledge: Resource-constrained settings that are in the process of adopting CIGs may opt for this strategy to predict in advance likely impediments to achieving the goal of CIG implementation and develop tailored interventions during the planning phase. Systematic review Registration: PROSPERO ID = CRD42020136372 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

Download Full-text

Generic Patient-Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review Study Protocol

10.1101/2021.05.28.21257980 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Yuki Seidler ◽

Erika Mosor ◽

Margaret R Andrews ◽

Carolina Watson ◽

Nick Bott ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Outcome Measures ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Outcome Measurement ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Patient Reported Outcome ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Screening Process ◽

Patient Reported

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an essential part of health outcome measurement and vital to patient-centricity and valued-based care. Several international consortia have developed core outcome sets and many of them include PROs. PROs are measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROs and PROMs can be generic or specific to certain diseases or conditions. While the characteristics of generic PROs and PROMs are well recognised as widely relevant and applicable across different domains, diseases and conditions, there is a lack of knowledge on the types of PROs measured by generic PROMs. We also do not know in which disease areas generic PROs and PROMs are commonly used. To date, there has been no systematic review solely focusing on generic PROMs, what they measure and their areas of application. Objectives: This systematic review will identify core PROs measured by generic PROMs used in adult populations and the areas in which they are applied. Methods: We will conduct a systematic review of reviews. The screening process and the reporting will comply with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) 2020 Statement. We will use four databases, Medline [PubMed], CINHAL [Ebsco], Cochrane [Cochrane Library], and PsycINFO [Ovid], and reports from international consortia. Inclusion criteria are systematic reviews, meta-analysis or patient-reported outcome sets developed by international consortia reporting on generic PROMs in adult populations. Articles primarily focusing on patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), children or adolescents, or those not written in English will be excluded. Risk of bias will be assessed by checking if the included articles comply with established guidelines for systematic reviews such as the PRISMA statement. We will extract generic PROMs and PROs measured by these PROMs, and the areas applied from the selected articles and reports. Extracted data and information will be quantitatively and qualitatively synthesised without statistical interference. The quality of the synthesised evidences will be assessed by clarifying the strengths, limitations and possible biases in our review.

Download Full-text

Photobiomodulation for the Treatment of Primary Headache: Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

Life ◽

10.3390/life12010098 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

pp. 98

Author(s):

Andréa Oliver Gomes ◽

Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco ◽

Aldo Brugnera Junior ◽

Anna Carolina Ratto Tempestini Horliana ◽

Tamiris da Silva ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Adjuvant Treatment ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Primary Headache ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Sham Treatment ◽

Methodological Assessment ◽

Grade Approach

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of photobiomodulation as an adjuvant treatment for primary headache. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials was performed. For such, electronic searches were performed in the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, LILACS, PEDro, PsycInfo, Clinicaltrials.gov., and WHO/ICTRP databases, with no restrictions imposed regarding language or year of publication. We included studies that assessed any photobiomodulation therapy as an adjuvant treatment for primary headache compared to sham treatment, no treatment, or another intervention. The methodological assessment was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The certainty of the evidence was classified using the GRADE approach. Four randomized clinical trials were included. Most of the included studies had an overall high risk of bias. Compared to sham treatment, photobiomodulation had a clinically important effect on pain in individuals with primary headache. Despite the benefits reported for other outcomes, the estimates were imprecise, and the certainty of the evidence was graded as low. These findings are considered insufficient to support the use of photobiomodulation in the treatment of primary headache. Randomized clinical trials, with higher methodological quality, are needed to enhance the reliability of the estimated effects.

Download Full-text

Methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews: a protocol for a living methodological survey

F1000Research ◽

10.12688/f1000research.18005.2 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 ◽

pp. 221 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Assem M. Khamis ◽

Lara A. Kahale ◽

Hector Pardo-Hernandez ◽

Holger J. Schünemann ◽

Elie A. Akl

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Systematic Review Methodology ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Prospective Longitudinal ◽

Over Time

Background: The living systematic review (LSR) is an emerging approach for improved evidence synthesis that uses continual updating to include relevant new evidence as soon as it is published. The objectives of this study are to: 1) assess the methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews using a living study approach; and 2) describe the life cycle of living systematic reviews, i.e., describe the changes over time to their methods and findings. Methods: For objective 1, we will begin by conducting a cross-sectional survey and then update its findings every 6 months by including newly published LSRs. For objective 2, we will conduct a prospective longitudinal follow-up of the cohort of included LSRs. To identify LSRs, we will continually search the following electronic databases: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. We will also contact groups conducting LSRs to identify eligible studies that we might have missed. We will follow the standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data abstraction. For each LSR update, we will abstract information on the following: 1) general characteristics, 2) systematic review methodology, 3) living approach methodology, 4) results, and 5) editorial and publication processes. We will update the findings of both the surveys and the longitudinal follow-up of included LSRs every 6 months. In addition, we will identify articles addressing LSR methods to be included in an ‘LSR methods repository’. Conclusion: The proposed living methodological survey will allow us to monitor how the methods of conduct, and reporting as well as the findings of LSRs change over time. Ultimately this should help with ensuring the quality and transparency of LSRs.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of Physiotherapy to Promote Motor Recovery in Individuals with Stroke: A Systematic Review Protocol

10.21203/rs.3.rs-1169559/v1 ◽

2022 ◽

Author(s):

Shehong Zhang ◽

Hongyu Xie ◽

Chuanjie Wang ◽

Fengfeng Wu ◽

Xin Wang

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Motor Function ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Evaluation System ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Primary Data ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Systematic Review Protocol ◽

Qualitative Synthesis ◽

Review Protocol

Abstract Introduction: Motor function is essential in our daily lives, one of the most common impairments caused by stroke is loss of functional movement. Over 70% of stroke survivors have motor or other neurological functional disabilities. However, rehabilitation of motor function suffered from a stroke can be rather difficult due to the complexity of organs and systems related to motor function, as well as the neural system that supported motor function. In particularly, previous evidence for the effectiveness of physiotherapy, a commonly prescribed intervention method for people with stroke, that recover motor function in people following a stroke is varied and limited in the chronic rehabilitation phase and therefore has never been reviewed systematically. With the progress of study in neurology and the development of novel tools for rehabilitation, results from more and more clinical trials are now available, thus here justifying conducting a systematic review. Methods and analysis: This systematic review protocol is developed in accordance with the methodology recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols, as well as the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Relevant studies will be identified by searching the databases. We will perform searches for relevant studies in databases, including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science, Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Cochrane Library databases. The reference lists of included articles and reviews will be searched manually. The date range parameters used in searching all databases will be restricted between January 2001 and January 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published will be included. The language used in the articles included was restricted to English. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions) approach will be used to systematically appraise the quality of methodology. We will assess the risk of bias of the RCTs included using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and provide a qualitative synthesis. After that, we will consider conducting a meta-analysis if the final data across outcomes shows sufficient homogeneity. Ethics and dissemination: No ethical approval is needed as the proposed study does not involve the collection of primary data, and the results of this review will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Trial registration number: CRD42021267069.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness and safety of inpatient versus extended venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis with heparin following major pelvic surgery for malignancy: protocol for a systematic review

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-019-1179-1 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Bridget Heijkoop ◽

Natalie Parker ◽

George Kiroff ◽

Daniel Spernat

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Venous Thromboembolism ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Pelvic Surgery ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Vte Prophylaxis ◽

Optimum Duration ◽

Number Of Patients ◽

Increased Risk

Abstract Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common postoperative complication associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The use of prophylactic heparin postoperatively reduces this risk, and the use of extended duration prophylaxis is becoming increasingly common. Malignancy and pelvic surgery both independently further increase the risk of postoperative VTE and patients undergoing major pelvic surgery for malignancy are at particularly high risk of VTE. However, the optimum duration of prophylaxis specifically in this population currently remains unclear. Methods We will conduct a systematic review of literature in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.1.0.,2011) to evaluate current evidence of the effectiveness and safety of inpatient versus extended VTE prophylaxis with heparin (all forms) following major pelvic surgery for malignancy. We will search PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Regarding safety, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) websites will be searched, including all levels of evidence. Results will be the postoperative timeframe in which a VTE event can be considered to have been provoked by the surgery, and the number of patients needed to treat with both inpatient and extended prophylaxis to prevent a VTE event in this timeframe, comparing these to determine if there is a significant benefit from extended prophylaxis. Discussion This systematic review will aim to identify the postoperative period in which patients undergoing major pelvic surgery for malignancy are at further increased risk of VTE as a result of their surgery and the optimum duration of heparin VTE prophylaxis with heparin to reduce this risk. Determining this will allow evidence-based recommendations to be made for the optimum duration of heparin VTE prophylaxis post major pelvic surgery for malignancy, leading to improved standards of care that are consistent between different providers and institutions. Systematic review registration In accordance with guidelines, our systematic review was submitted to PROSPERO for consideration of registration on 16/12/17 and was registered on 12/1/18 with the registration number CRD42018068961, and it was last updated on December 1, 2018.

Download Full-text