systematic reviews
Recently Published Documents





2022 ◽  
Vol 129 ◽  
pp. 159-167
Evalynne Jacaban ◽  
Trina Rytwinski ◽  
Jessica J. Taylor ◽  
Nathan Young ◽  
Vivian M. Nguyen ◽  

Heart & Lung ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 52 ◽  
pp. 22-25
Janene Batten ◽  
Alexandria Brackett

2022 ◽  
Vol 160 ◽  
pp. 107010
Jos H. Verbeek ◽  
Paul Whaley ◽  
Rebecca L. Morgan ◽  
Kyla W. Taylor ◽  
Andrew A. Rooney ◽  

2022 ◽  
Vol 240 ◽  
pp. 162-163
Stefan Leucht ◽  
Chunbo Li ◽  
John M. Davis ◽  
Irene Bighelli ◽  
Yikang Zhu ◽  

2022 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Muhammad Chutiyami ◽  
Allen M. Y. Cheong ◽  
Dauda Salihu ◽  
Umar Muhammad Bello ◽  
Dorothy Ndwiga ◽  

ObjectiveThis meta-review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of overall mental health of healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodWe conducted a comprehensive literature search on Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE. A predefined eligibility criterion was used to screen the articles. The methodology quality of eligible studies was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for systematic reviews. The data were narratively synthesised in line with the meta-review aim.ResultForty systematic reviews (represented as K = 40), which reported data from 1,828 primary studies (N) and 3,245,768 participants, met the inclusion criteria. The findings from a pooled prevalence indicate that anxiety (16–41%, K = 30, N = 701), depression (14–37%, K = 28, N = 584), and stress/post-traumatic stress disorder (18.6–56.5%, K = 24, N = 327) were the most prevailing COVID-19 pandemic-related mental health conditions affecting healthcare workers. Other reported concerns included insomnia, burnout, fear, obsessive-compulsive disorder, somatization symptoms, phobia, substance abuse, and suicidal thoughts. Considering regions/countries, the highest anxiety was reported in the United-Kingdom [22.3, 95% Confidence Interval (CI):7–38, N = 4] compared to other countries, while the highest depression was in the Middle-East, (41, 95% CI:16–60, N = 5) and stress in the Eastern Mediterranean region (61.6, 95% CI:56.4–66.8, N = 2) compared to other regions. The most significant risk factors include female gender, younger age, being a nurse, and frontline professional. The most-reported coping strategies include individual/group psychological support, family/relative support, training/orientation, and the adequacy of personal protective equipment.ConclusionIt was concluded that healthcare professionals (nurses, doctors, allied health) have experienced various mental health issues during COVID-19 pandemic. The meta-review, therefore, recommends targeted interventions and health policies that address specific mental health issues to support health professionals worldwide during the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic and similar future health crises.Systematic Review Registration, identifier: CRD42021262001.

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Yuelun Zhang ◽  
Siyu Liang ◽  
Yunying Feng ◽  
Qing Wang ◽  
Feng Sun ◽  

Abstract Background Systematic review is an indispensable tool for optimal evidence collection and evaluation in evidence-based medicine. However, the explosive increase of the original literatures makes it difficult to accomplish critical appraisal and regular update. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have been applied to automate the literature screening procedure in medical systematic reviews. In these studies, different algorithms were used and results with great variance were reported. It is therefore imperative to systematically review and analyse the developed automatic methods for literature screening and their effectiveness reported in current studies. Methods An electronic search will be conducted using PubMed, Embase, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore Digital Library databases, as well as literatures found through supplementary search in Google scholar, on automatic methods for literature screening in systematic reviews. Two reviewers will independently conduct the primary screening of the articles and data extraction, in which nonconformities will be solved by discussion with a methodologist. Data will be extracted from eligible studies, including the basic characteristics of study, the information of training set and validation set, and the function and performance of AI algorithms, and summarised in a table. The risk of bias and applicability of the eligible studies will be assessed by the two reviewers independently based on Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Quantitative analyses, if appropriate, will also be performed. Discussion Automating systematic review process is of great help in reducing workload in evidence-based practice. Results from this systematic review will provide essential summary of the current development of AI algorithms for automatic literature screening in medical evidence synthesis and help to inspire further studies in this field. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020170815 (28 April 2020).

2022 ◽  
Marlee Bower ◽  
Scarlett Smout ◽  
Amarina Donohoe-Bales ◽  
Lily Teesson ◽  
Eleisha Lauria ◽  

Introduction: Vast available international evidence has investigated the mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. This review aims to synthesise evidence, identifying populations and characteristics associated with poor mental health.Methods: A meta-review of pooled prevalence of anxiety and depression, with subgroup analyses for the general population, healthcare workers (HCW) and COVID-19 patients; and a meta-synthesis of systematic reviews to collate evidence on associated factors and further mental disorders. Databases searched included Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE dated to May 2021. Eligibility criteria included systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, published post-November 2019, reporting data in English on mental health outcomes during the pandemic.Results: Eighty-one systematic reviews were included, 51 of which incorporated meta-analysis. Meta-review overall anxiety prevalence was 29% (95%CI: 27–31%, I2: 99.83%), with subgroup prevalence as 35% (95%CI: 23–47%, I2: 97.4%) in COVID-19 patients, 29% in HCW (95%CI: 25– 32, I2: 99.8%) and 28% in the general population (95%CI: 25–31%, I2: 99.9%). Meta-review overall depression prevalence was 28% (95%CI: 26–30%, I2: 99.7), with subgroup prevalence as 30% (95%CI: 7–60%, I2: 99.8%) in COVID-19 patients, 28% (95%CI: 25–31%, I2: 99.7%) in HCW and 27% (95%CI: 25–30, I2: 99.8%) in the general population. Meta-synthesis found many experienced psychological distress and PTSD/PTSS during COVID-19, but pooled prevalence ranged substantially. Fear of, proximity to, or confirmed COVID-19 infection; undergoing quarantine; and COVID-19-related news exposure were associated with adverse mental health outcomes. Amongst other factors, people who are younger, female, LGBTIQ, pregnant, parents or experiencing low social support, financial issues or socio-economic disadvantage, tended to have poorer mental health during the pandemic period.Conclusions: Despite high volumes of reviews, the diversity of findings and dearth of longitudinal studies within reviews means clear links between COVID-19 and mental health are not available, although existing evidence indicates probable associations.

Anja Kroke ◽  
Annemarie Schmidt ◽  
Anna M. Amini ◽  
Nicole Kalotai ◽  
Andreas Lehmann ◽  

Abstract Purpose The present work aimed to delineate (i) a revised protocol according to recent methodological developments in evidence generation, to (ii) describe its interpretation, the assessment of the overall certainty of evidence and to (iii) outline an Evidence to Decision framework for deriving an evidence-based guideline on quantitative and qualitative aspects of dietary protein intake. Methods A methodological protocol to systematically investigate the association between dietary protein intake and several health outcomes and for deriving dietary protein intake recommendations for the primary prevention of various non-communicable diseases in the general adult population was developed. Results The developed methodological protocol relies on umbrella reviews including systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses. Systematic literature searches in three databases will be performed for each health-related outcome. The methodological quality of all selected systematic reviews will be evaluated using a modified version of AMSTAR 2, and the outcome-specific certainty of evidence for systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis will be assessed with NutriGrade. The general outline of the Evidence to Decision framework foresees that recommendations in the derived guideline will be given based on the overall certainty of evidence as well as on additional criteria such as sustainability. Conclusion The methodological protocol permits a systematic evaluation of published systematic reviews on dietary protein intake and its association with selected health-related outcomes. An Evidence to Decision framework will be the basis for the overall conclusions and the resulting recommendations for dietary protein intake.

2022 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Panu Pihkala

There is a growing evidence that emotions shape people's reactions to the climate crisis in profound but complex ways. Climate emotions are related to resilience, climate action, and psychological well-being and health. However, there is currently a lack of research about the array of various climate emotions. There is also a need for more integration with general research about emotions. This article conducts a preliminary exploration of the taxonomy of climate emotions, based on literature reviews and philosophical discussion. The term emotion is used here in a broad sense, as is common in climate emotion research. Because of the urgency of the climate crisis and the lack of previous research, this kind of exploration is aimed to be helpful for both practical climate work and for future research which would include more systematic reviews of the topic. Research items which discuss at least five different climate emotions, based on empirical observations, are used as major sources and a table about them is provided. Climate emotions are discussed on the basis of interdisciplinary research. The article considers many aspects of the phenomena of climate anxiety and climate grief.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document