scholarly journals Interventions to improve the well-being of family caregivers of patients on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review

PeerJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. e11713
Author(s):  
Ana Carolina Hovadick ◽  
Viviane Rodrigues Jardim ◽  
Constança Paúl ◽  
Adriana Pagano ◽  
Ilka Reis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Family Caregivers ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
The Family ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Background The family caregivers of patients on hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) typically experience higher burden than the general population because of the nature of tasks these caregivers need to carry out as a part of homecare. This fact influences both the caregivers’ quality of life and the quality of their care toward the patient. Thus, this study aimed to review the effectiveness and limitations of interventions in improving the well-being of family caregivers of patients on HD and PD. Methodology A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 5.1.0). The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, MEDLINE, VHL Regional Portal, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched queried for randomized controlled trials that developed interventions aimed at improving the well-being of family caregivers of patients undergoing HD and/or PD from 2009 to 2020. The study protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration no. CRD42020151161). Results Six studies met the inclusion criteria, all of which addressed caregivers of patients undergoing HD. All interventions reported in the included studies were carried out in group sessions, which addressed topics such as patient assistance and care, treatment complications, coping strategies, caregiver self-care practices, problem solving, and self-efficacy. The studies found significant improvement in the caregiver’s well-being. Conclusions Group session interventions are effective in improving the well-being of family caregivers of patients undergoing HD. In regard to PD, there is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for caregivers of patients with this treatment.

scholarly journals Telemedicine Use Among Caregivers of Cancer Patients: Systematic Review (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara Marzorati ◽  
Chiara Renzi ◽  
Samuel William Russell-Edu ◽  
Gabriella Pravettoni
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
User Satisfaction ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Web Based

BACKGROUND The number of published studies and systematic reviews examining different telehealth interventions targeting patients and their effects on patients’ well-being and quality of life have grown in recent decades. However, the use of telemedicine tools aimed at the family members and caregivers of adult cancer patients is less defined. OBJECTIVE We aimed to conduct a systematic review to provide a more complete picture regarding telemedicine tools for informal caregivers (usually family members or close friends) implemented in all phases of cancer care. More specifically, the review aimed to better describe the study samples’ characteristics, to analyze measured outcomes and the specific questionnaires used to assess them, and to describe in depth the implemented interventions and their formats. Finally, we examined the role of telehealth, and usability and feasibility trends in supporting patients’ caregivers. METHODS We systematically searched the literature in the following databases: Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and PsycINFO. Inclusion criteria were being written in English, published in peer-reviewed journals, describing a telehealth-implemented intervention, and focusing on caregivers of adult cancer patients at any stage of the disease. We selected studies published up to November 2017. We critically appraised included articles using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and graded the quality of evidence by outcome using the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine framework. RESULTS We included 24 studies in the final selection. In 21 of the 24 studies, the patient-caregiver dyad was analyzed, and the study population dealt with different types of cancer at different stages. Included studies considered the caregiver’s condition from both an individual and a relational point of view. Along with psychosocial variables, some studies monitored engagement and user satisfaction regarding Web-based platforms or telehealth interventions. All studies reported significant improvements in some of the investigated areas, but they often showed small effect sizes. Two types of telehealth intervention formats were used: Web-based platforms and telephone calls. Some of the included studies referred to the same project, but on study samples with different cancer diagnoses or with new versions of previously developed interventions. CONCLUSIONS Reported outcomes seem to suggest that we are in an exploratory phase. More detailed and targeted research hypotheses are still needed. Clarifying caregivers’ needs related to telehealth tools and better defining outcome measures may yield more significant results.

scholarly journals Similarities, reliability and gaps in assessing the quality of conduct of systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS: systematic survey of nutrition reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mateusz J. Swierz ◽  
Dawid Storman ◽  
Joanna Zajac ◽  
Magdalena Koperny ◽  
Paulina Weglarz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Nutritional Intervention ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Systematic Survey ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Abstract Background AMSTAR-2 (‘A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2’) and ROBIS (‘Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews’) are independent instruments used to assess the quality of conduct of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs). The degree of overlap in methodological constructs together with the reliability and any methodological gaps have not been systematically assessed and summarized in the field of nutrition. Methods We performed a systematic survey of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for SR/MAs published between January 2010 and November 2018 that examined the effects of any nutritional intervention/exposure for cancer prevention. We followed a systematic review approach including two independent reviewers at each step of the process. For AMSTAR-2 (16 items) and ROBIS (21 items), we assessed the similarities, the inter-rater reliability (IRR) and any methodological limitations of the instruments. Our protocol for the survey was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019121116). Results We found 4 similar domain constructs based on 11 comparisons from a total of 12 AMSTAR-2 and 14 ROBIS items. Ten comparisons were considered fully overlapping. Based on Gwet’s agreement coefficients, six comparisons provided almost perfect (> 0.8), three substantial (> 0.6), and one a moderate level of agreement (> 0.4). While there is considerable overlap in constructs, AMSTAR-2 uniquely addresses explaining the selection of study designs for inclusion, reporting on excluded studies with justification, sources of funding of primary studies, and reviewers’ conflict of interest. By contrast, ROBIS uniquely addresses appropriateness and restrictions within eligibility criteria, reducing risk of error in risk of bias (RoB) assessments, completeness of data extracted for analyses, the inclusion of all necessary studies for analyses, and adherence to predefined analysis plan. Conclusions Among the questions on AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS, 70.3% (26/37 items) address the same or similar methodological constructs. While the IRR of these constructs was moderate to perfect, there are unique methodological constructs that each instrument independently addresses. Notably, both instruments do not address the reporting of absolute estimates of effect or the overall certainty of the evidence, items that are crucial for users’ wishing to interpret the importance of SR/MA results.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of cognitive–behavioural therapy: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e025761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth Fordham ◽  
Thavapriya Sugavanam ◽  
Sally Hopewell ◽  
Karla Hemming ◽  
Jeremy Howick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionCognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychological therapy that has been used to improve patient well-being across multiple mental and physical health problems. Its effectiveness has been examined in thousands of randomised control trials that have been synthesised into hundreds of systematic reviews. The aim of this overview is to map, synthesise and assess the reliability of evidence generated from these systematic reviews of the effectiveness of CBT across all health conditions, patient groups and settings.Methods and analysisWe will run our search strategy, to identify systematic reviews of CBT, within the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Child Development and Adolescent Studies, and OpenGrey between January 1992 and 25 April 2018. Independent reviewers will sift, perform data extraction in duplicate and assess the quality of the reviews using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (V.2) tool. The outcomes of interest include: health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety, psychosis and physical/physiological outcomes prioritised in the individual reviews. The evidence will be mapped and synthesised where appropriate by health problem, patient subgroups, intervention type, context and outcome.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as this is an overview of published systematic reviews. We plan to publish results in peer-reviewed journals and present at international and national academic, clinical and patient conferences.Trial registration numberCRD42017078690.

scholarly journals Lumbar Roll Usage While Sitting Reduces the Forward Head Posture in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (10) ◽  
pp. 5171
Author(s):  
Yusuke Handa ◽  
Kenya Okada ◽  
Hiroshi Takasaki
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grade System ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Forward Head Posture ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Head Posture ◽  
Head Extension ◽  
The Cochrane Library

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated whether the use of a lumbar roll reduced forward head posture (FHP) while sitting among individuals with or without musculoskeletal disorders. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from their inception to August 2020. The quality of evidence for variables used in the meta-analysis was determined using the GRADE system. Five studies satisfied the criteria for data analysis. All studies included individuals without any spinal symptoms. Data from five studies on neck angle showed a statistically significant (p = 0.02) overall effect (standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.77), indicating a lesser neck flexion angle while sitting with a lumbar roll than without it. Data from two studies on head angle showed a statistically significant (p = 0.04) overall effect (SMD = 0.47), indicating a lesser head extension angle while sitting with a lumbar roll than without it. In each meta-analysis, the quality of evidence was very low in the GRADE system. The use of a lumbar roll while sitting reduced FHP among individuals without spinal symptoms.

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

BMJ Open ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Traditional Chinese Herb Combined with Surgery versus Surgery for Varicocele Infertility: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rong-liang Dun ◽  
Min Yao ◽  
Long Yang ◽  
Xue-jun Cui ◽  
Jian-min Mao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Chinese Herb ◽  
Chinese Herbs ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Dichotomous Data ◽  
Surgery Group ◽  
Traditional Chinese Herb ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Objective. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review to assess the effectiveness and safety of traditional Chinese herb combined with surgery for male varicocele infertility compared to surgery.Methods. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) data of traditional Chinese herbs combined with surgery for male varicocele fertility versus surgery were collected by searching the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Chinese databases. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Handbook. Study outcomes were presented as risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data.Results. Seventeen of 72 potentially relevant trials met the inclusion criteria. The methodological qualities of the RCTs were low. Compared with the surgery group, the traditional Chinese herb combined with surgery group had superiority in pregnancy rate at 3-month (RR=1.76, andP=0.008), 6-month (RR=1.58, andP=0.0005), and 2-year (RR=1.58, andP=0.0005) follow-ups. No RCT was found to describe the side effects.Conclusion. On considering the low methodological quality of RCTs, there was no enough evidence on traditional Chinese herb with surgery for male varicocele infertility, and more high-quality RCTs of large sample sizes are required.

scholarly journals Meditation: Evidence Map of Systematic Reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caio Fábio Schlechta Portella ◽  
Ricardo Ghelman ◽  
Veronica Abdala ◽  
Mariana Cabral Schveitzer ◽  
Rui Ferreira Afonso
Keyword(s):  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Complementary Therapy ◽  
Evidence Map ◽  
Confidence Levels ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Key Word ◽  
Meta Analyses

Study Basis: This evidence map presents a summary of studies that addressed the effects of meditation on various clinical and health conditions. Meditation is a contemplative practice that has been used for the promotion of health, and the treatment of different conditions.Method: The study is based on the search of four electronic databases for the period 1994-November 2019 and includes systematic reviews, meta-analyses, meta-syntheses, and integrative reviews. 3iE evidence gap map was the methodology of choice, and AMSTAR 2 was used for the analyses. Tableau was used to graphically display the confidence level, number of reviews, health outcomes, and intervention effects.Results: This map encompasses 191 studies, with Mindfulness being the key word that retrieved the highest number of results. Several meditation techniques were evaluated in different contexts, and the confidence levels of 22 studies were high, 84 were moderate, and 82 were low. Two 2 meta-syntheses and 1 integrative review were also included. Most of the studies reported positive effects and a beneficial potential of the practice of meditation. Health outcomes were divided into five groups out of which mental health and vitality, and well-being and quality of life stood out with the largest number of studies.Conclusions: Meditation has been applied in different areas. This Evidence Map intends to be an easy visual tool to access valuable evidence-based information on this complementary therapy for patients, health professionals, and managers.

scholarly journals Does Conservative Kidney Management Offer a Quantity or Quality of Life Benefit Compared to Dialysis? A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Buur Louise Engelbrecht ◽  
Madsen Jens Kristian ◽  
Eidemak Inge ◽  
Krarup Elizabeth ◽  
Lauridsen Thomas Guldager ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Symptom Burden ◽  
Place Of Death ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Elderly Individuals ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Abstract Background Patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD5) collaborate with their clinicians when choosing their future treatment modality. Most elderly patients with CKD5 may only have two treatment options: dialysis or conservative kidney management (CKM). The objective of this systematic review was to investigate whether CKM offers a quantity or quality of life benefit compared to dialysis for some patients with CKD5.MethodsThe databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were systematically searched for studies comparing patients with CKD5 treated with CKM or dialysis. The primary outcomes were mortality and quality of life (QoL). Hospitalization, symptom burden, and place of death were secondary outcomes. For studies reporting hazard ratios, pooled values were calculated, and forest plots conducted.ResultsTwenty-four primary studies, all observational, were identified. All studies except one reported an increased mortality in patients treated with CKM (pooled hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.41-0.69). For patients aged ≥ 80 years and for elderly individuals with comorbidities, results were ambiguous. In most studies, CKM seemed advantageous for QoL and secondary outcomes. Findings were limited by the heterogeneity of studies and biased outcomes favouring dialysis.ConclusionsIn general, patients with CKD5 live for a shorter time on CKM than on dialysis. In patients aged ≥ 80 years old, and in elderly individuals with comorbidities, the survival benefits of dialysis seem to be lost. Regarding QoL, symptom burden, hospitalization, and place of death, CKM may have advantages. Higher quality studies are needed to guide patients and clinicians in the decision-making process.

Outcomes of digital biomarker-based interventions: protocol for a systematic review of systematic reviews (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hossein Motahari-Nezhad ◽  
Márta Péntek ◽  
László Gulácsi ◽  
Zsombor Zrubka
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Clinical Benefits ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Digital Biomarkers

BACKGROUND Digital biomarkers are defined as objective, quantifiable physiological and behavioral data that are collected and measured by means of digital devices such as portables, wearables, implantables or digestibles. For their widespread adoption in publicly financed healthcare systems, it is important to understand how their benefits translate into improved patient outcomes, which is essential for demonstrating their value. OBJECTIVE To assess the quality and strength of evidence of the impact of digital biomarkers on clinical outcomes compared to interventions without digital biomarkers, reported in systematic reviews. METHODS A comprehensive search for 2019-2020 will be conducted in the PubMed and the Cochrane Library using keywords related to digital biomarkers and a filter for systematic reviews. Original full-text English publications of systematic reviews comparing clinical outcomes of interventions with and without digital biomarkers via meta-analysis will be included. The AMSTAR-2 tool will be used to assess the methodological quality of reviews. To assess the quality of evidence, we will evaluate systematic reviews using the GRADE tool. To detect the possible presence of reporting bias, we will record whether the protocol of the systematic reviews was published before the start of the study. A qualitative summary of results by digital biomarker technology and outcome will be provided. RESULTS This protocol was submitted before data collection. The next steps in this review will be initiated after the protocol is accepted for publication. CONCLUSIONS Our study will provide a comprehensive summary of the highest level of evidence available on digital biomarker interventions. Our results will help identify clinical areas where the use of digital biomarkers leads to favorable clinical outcomes. In addition, our findings will highlight areas of evidence gaps where the clinical benefits of digital biomarkers have not yet been demonstrated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document