1
|
Ciapponi A, Berrueta M, Argento FJ, Ballivian J, Bardach A, Brizuela ME, Castellana N, Comandé D, Gottlieb S, Kampmann B, Mazzoni A, Parker EPK, Sambade JM, Stegelmann K, Xiong X, Stergachis A, Buekens P. Safety and Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines During Pregnancy: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Drug Saf 2024; 47:991-1010. [PMID: 39009928 PMCID: PMC11399161 DOI: 10.1007/s40264-024-01458-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/04/2024] [Indexed: 07/17/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pregnant persons are susceptible to significant complications following COVID-19, even death. However, worldwide COVID-19 vaccination coverage during pregnancy remains suboptimal. OBJECTIVE This study assessed the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines administered to pregnant persons and shared this evidence via an interactive online website. METHODS We followed Cochrane methods to conduct this living systematic review. We included studies assessing the effects of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant persons. We conducted searches every other week for studies until October 2023, without restrictions on language or publication status, in ten databases, guidelines, preprint servers, and COVID-19 websites. The reference lists of eligible studies were hand searched to identify additional relevant studies. Pairs of review authors independently selected eligible studies using the web-based software COVIDENCE. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by pairs of authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of adjusted relative effects for relevant confounders of comparative studies and proportional meta-analyses to summarize frequencies from one-sample studies using R statistical software. We present the GRADE certainty of evidence from comparative studies. Findings are available on an interactive living systematic review webpage, including an updated evidence map and real-time meta-analyses customizable by subgroups and filters. RESULTS We included 177 studies involving 638,791 participants from 41 countries. Among the 11 types of COVID-19 vaccines identified, the most frequently used platforms were mRNA (154 studies), viral vector (51), and inactivated virus vaccines (17). Low to very low-certainty evidence suggests that vaccination may result in minimal to no important differences compared to no vaccination in all assessed maternal and infant safety outcomes from 26 fewer to 17 more events per 1000 pregnant persons, and 13 fewer to 9 more events per 1000 neonates, respectively. We found statistically significant reductions in emergency cesarean deliveries (9%) with mRNA vaccines, and in stillbirth (75-83%) with mRNA/viral vector vaccines. Low to very low-certainty evidence suggests that vaccination during pregnancy with mRNA vaccines may reduce severe cases or hospitalizations in pregnant persons with COVID-19 (72%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 42-86), symptomatic COVID-19 (78%; 95% CI 21-94), and virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (82%; 95% CI 39-95). Reductions were lower with other vaccine types and during Omicron variant dominance than Alpha and Delta dominance. Infants also presented with fewer severe cases or hospitalizations due to COVID-19 and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (64%; 95% CI 37-80 and 66%; 95% CI 37-81, respectively). CONCLUSIONS We found a large body of evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. While the certainty of evidence is not high, it stands as the most reliable option available, given the current absence of pregnant individuals in clinical trials. Results are shared in near real time in an accessible and interactive format for scientists, decision makers, clinicians, and the general public. This living systematic review highlights the relevance of continuous vaccine safety and effectiveness monitoring, particularly in at-risk populations for COVID-19 impact such as pregnant persons, during the introduction of new vaccines. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERO: CRD42021281290.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Agustín Ciapponi
- Argentine Cochrane Center, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), Ravignani 2024, C1414CPV, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
- Centro de Investigaciones Epidemiológicas y Salud Pública (CIESP-IECS), CONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
| | - Mabel Berrueta
- Department of Mother and Child Health, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Fernando J Argento
- Argentine Cochrane Center, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), Ravignani 2024, C1414CPV, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Jamile Ballivian
- Argentine Cochrane Center, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), Ravignani 2024, C1414CPV, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Ariel Bardach
- Argentine Cochrane Center, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), Ravignani 2024, C1414CPV, Buenos Aires, Argentina
- Centro de Investigaciones Epidemiológicas y Salud Pública (CIESP-IECS), CONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Martin E Brizuela
- Argentine Cochrane Center, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), Ravignani 2024, C1414CPV, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Noelia Castellana
- Department of Mother and Child Health, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Daniel Comandé
- Argentine Cochrane Center, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), Ravignani 2024, C1414CPV, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Sami Gottlieb
- Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Beate Kampmann
- London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
- Charite Centre for Global Health, Charité, Universitätsmedizin, Vaccine Centre, Berlin, Germany
| | - Agustina Mazzoni
- Department of Mother and Child Health, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | | | - Juan M Sambade
- Argentine Cochrane Center, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), Ravignani 2024, C1414CPV, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Katharina Stegelmann
- Argentine Cochrane Center, Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS), Ravignani 2024, C1414CPV, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Xu Xiong
- School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA
| | - Andy Stergachis
- Schools of Pharmacy and Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Pierre Buekens
- School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Arcas VC, Fratila AM, Moga DFC, Roman-Filip I, Arcas AMC, Roman-Filip C, Sava M. A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis on the Potential Use of miR-150 as a Novel Biomarker in the Detection and Progression of Multiple Sclerosis. J Pers Med 2024; 14:815. [PMID: 39202006 PMCID: PMC11355600 DOI: 10.3390/jpm14080815] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2024] [Revised: 07/28/2024] [Accepted: 07/30/2024] [Indexed: 09/03/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND MicroRNA-150 (miR-150) plays a critical role in immune regulation and has been implicated in autoimmune diseases like Multiple Sclerosis (MS). This review aims to evaluate miR-150's potential as a biomarker for MS, necessitating this review to consolidate current evidence and highlight miR-150's utility in improving diagnostic accuracy and monitoring disease progression. METHODS A comprehensive literature search was conducted in databases like PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, SciSpace, MDPI and Web of Science, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Studies focusing on miR-150 implications in MS were included. Data extraction was conducted, while quality assessment was done using the NOS and AMSTAR 2 tools. With the extracted data a statistical analyses conducted. RESULTS 10 eligible articles were included in review. Findings show that miR-150 levels were consistently deregulated in MS patients compared to healthy controls, correlating with disease severity and clinical parameters such as (EDSS) scores and disease activity. Additionally, miR-150 is implicated in the inflammatory pathogenesis of MS, affecting immune cell regulation and inflammatory pathways. CONCLUSIONS MiR-150 is a promising biomarker for MS, showing significant potential for improving diagnostic accuracy and monitoring disease progression. Its consistent deregulation in MS patients and correlation with clinical parameters underscore its clinical utility. Further research should validate miR-150's salivary presence and its possible usage as a novel biomarker and therapeutic potential in the development of MS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vasile Calin Arcas
- Doctoral School, Faculty of Medicine, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, 550169 Sibiu, Romania;
| | - Anca Maria Fratila
- Faculty of Medicine, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, 550169 Sibiu, Romania; (C.R.-F.); (M.S.)
- Military Clinical Emergency Hospital of Sibiu, 550024 Sibiu, Romania
| | - Doru Florian Cornel Moga
- Faculty of Medicine, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, 550169 Sibiu, Romania; (C.R.-F.); (M.S.)
- Military Clinical Emergency Hospital of Sibiu, 550024 Sibiu, Romania
| | - Iulian Roman-Filip
- Department of Neurology, “George Emil Palade” University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology, 540136 Targu Mures, Romania;
| | - Ana-Maria Cristina Arcas
- Faculty of Medicine, Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Cluj-Napoca, 400012 Cluj-Napoca, Romania;
| | - Corina Roman-Filip
- Faculty of Medicine, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, 550169 Sibiu, Romania; (C.R.-F.); (M.S.)
- Emergency County Clinical Hospital Sibiu, 550245 Sibiu, Romania
| | - Mihai Sava
- Faculty of Medicine, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, 550169 Sibiu, Romania; (C.R.-F.); (M.S.)
- Emergency County Clinical Hospital Sibiu, 550245 Sibiu, Romania
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Musa R, Elamin D, Barrie R, Kimmie-Dhansay F. Effectiveness of Mobile App Interventions to Improve Periodontal Health: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JMIR Res Protoc 2024; 13:e50479. [PMID: 39083769 PMCID: PMC11325127 DOI: 10.2196/50479] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/04/2023] [Revised: 02/22/2024] [Accepted: 03/11/2024] [Indexed: 08/02/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Periodontal health plays a key role as a shared reference point for evaluating periodontal diseases and identifying significant treatment outcomes. Providing adequate instruction and enhancing the motivation of patients to maintain proper oral hygiene are crucial factors for successful periodontal treatment, with self-performed regular oral hygiene identified as a critical factor in improving the outcomes of treatment for periodontal diseases. Recently, mobile health (mHealth) solutions, especially mobile apps, have emerged as valuable tools for self-management in chronic diseases such as periodontal disease, providing essential health education and monitoring capabilities. However, the use of mHealth apps for periodontal health is complex owing to various interacting components such as patient behavior, socioeconomic status, and adherence to oral hygiene practices. Existing literature has indicated positive effects of mHealth on oral health behaviors, knowledge, attitude, practice, plaque index score, and gingivitis reduction. However, there has been no systematic review of mobile apps specifically targeting patients with periodontal disease. Understanding the design and impact of mHealth apps is crucial for creating high-quality apps. OBJECTIVE The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of existing mobile apps in promoting periodontal health. METHODS A comprehensive search strategy will be performed in multiple electronic databases (PubMed, EBSCOhost, CINAHL Plus, Dentistry & Oral Sciences, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) with the following keywords in the title/abstract: "mobile application," "mobile health," "mHealth," "telemedicine," "periodontal health," "periodontitis," and "text message." Only randomized controlled trials will be included that assessed the following outcomes to measure periodontal health improvement: gingival index, bleeding index, periodontal pocket depth, and clinical attachment loss. Covidence will be used for data collection, and a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart will be used to describe the selection process of the included, identified, and excluded studies. The Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis approach will be used for meta-analysis of the extracted data from the included studies. RESULTS This review will not require ethical approval since no primary data will be included. As of July 2024, a total of 83 articles retrieved from various databases have been imported to Covidence with 13 articles deemed eligible for inclusion in the review. The review is currently ongoing and is expected to be complete by the end of 2024 with the results published in early 2025. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review and meta-analysis will contribute to developing mobile apps with enhanced criteria to improve periodontal clinical outcomes. The review emphasizes the importance of mHealth and preventing periodontal disease, which can set the stage for informed global health care strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42022340827; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=340827. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/50479.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Reem Musa
- Department of Community Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Dalia Elamin
- Department of Community Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Robert Barrie
- Department of Community Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Faheema Kimmie-Dhansay
- Department of Community Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ribeiro FJ, Poínhos R. Nootropic supplements for esports. INT J VITAM NUTR RES 2024; 94:275-295. [PMID: 37563907 DOI: 10.1024/0300-9831/a000790] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/12/2023]
Abstract
Background: esports, or organized video game competitions, have been expanding quickly. The use of dietary supplements by esports players appears vulgarized but lacks supporting evidence. Objectives: To outline studies that tested the effects of dietary supplements on video gaming, summarize their findings, highlight knowledge gaps, and recommend future research. Eligibility criteria: Clinical trials published in English between 1990 and 2023 that assessed the effects of dietary supplements on the cognitive performance of video gamers. Sources of evidence: The Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. Charting methods: PRISMA's (2020) flow diagram was used to create the data chart. Results: Sixteen studies were outlined. Thirteen were randomized, thirteen applied acute interventions, ten applied a crossover design and only three weren't placebo-controlled. Of the 10 studies that included caffeine (40-200 mg), four reported significant positive effects on cognition (attention, processing speed, working memory), two on first-person shooter video gaming performance (reaction time, hit accuracy, time to hit 60 targets), and one on Tetris game score. All 3 studies that included arginine silicate (1500 mg) reported significant improvements in one or more aspects of cognition (reaction time, attention, visual representation, and spatial planning). Two studies that tested sucrose (21 and 26.8 g) didn't report significant improvements, while one study that tested 26.1 g of glucose registered significant positive effects on processing speed and sustained attention. Conclusions: The published literature has focused on the effects of caffeine, which may exert both positive and negative effects on esports players. Additional, high-quality research is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fernando J Ribeiro
- Faculty of Nutrition and Food Sciences, University of Porto (FCNAUP), Porto, Portugal
- Faculty of Sciences, University of Porto (FCUP), Porto, Portugal
| | - Rui Poínhos
- Faculty of Nutrition and Food Sciences, University of Porto (FCNAUP), Porto, Portugal
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Arcas VC, Tig IA, Moga DFC, Vlad AL, Roman-Filip C, Fratila AM. A Systematic Literature Review on Inflammatory Markers in the Saliva of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: A Cause or a Consequence of Periodontal Diseases. MEDICINA (KAUNAS, LITHUANIA) 2024; 60:859. [PMID: 38929476 PMCID: PMC11205661 DOI: 10.3390/medicina60060859] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2024] [Revised: 05/14/2024] [Accepted: 05/21/2024] [Indexed: 06/28/2024]
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic neurodegenerative disease often linked with systemic conditions such as periodontal diseases (PDs). This systematic review aims to explore the association between inflammatory markers in saliva and PDs in MS patients, assessing the use of saliva as a non-invasive tool to monitor disease progression. Materials and Methods: 82 publications were examined after a thorough search of scholarly databases to determine whether inflammatory markers were present in MS patients and whether they were associated with periodontal disease (PD). Quality and bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, resulting in eight articles that were thoroughly analyzed. Results: The results point to a strong correlation between MS and periodontal disorders, which may point to the same pathophysiological mechanism. It does, however, underscore the necessity of additional study to determine a definitive causal association. Conclusions: The findings indicate a strong association between MS and PDs, likely mediated by systemic inflammatory responses detectable in saliva. The review highlights the importance of oral health in managing MS and supports the utility of saliva as a practical, non-invasive medium for monitoring systemic inflammation. Further research is necessary to confirm the causal relationships and to consider integrating salivary diagnostics into routine clinical management for MS patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vasile Calin Arcas
- Doctoral School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, 550169 Sibiu, Romania;
| | - Ioan Andrei Tig
- Department of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of Oradea, 410028 Oradea, Romania
| | - Doru Florian Cornel Moga
- Department of Dental Medicine and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, 550169 Sibiu, Romania; (C.R.-F.); (A.M.F.)
- Military Clinical Emergency Hospital of Sibiu, 550024 Sibiu, Romania
| | - Alexandra Lavinia Vlad
- Doctoral School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, University of Oradea, 410087 Oradea, Romania;
| | - Corina Roman-Filip
- Department of Dental Medicine and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, 550169 Sibiu, Romania; (C.R.-F.); (A.M.F.)
- Neurology Department, Emergency County Clinical Hospital Sibiu, 550245 Sibiu, Romania
| | - Anca Maria Fratila
- Department of Dental Medicine and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, 550169 Sibiu, Romania; (C.R.-F.); (A.M.F.)
- Military Clinical Emergency Hospital of Sibiu, 550024 Sibiu, Romania
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Bowness B, Henderson C, Akhter Khan SC, Akiba M, Lawrence V. Participatory research with carers: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Health Expect 2024; 27:e13940. [PMID: 39102730 PMCID: PMC10734554 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13940] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2023] [Revised: 11/14/2023] [Accepted: 12/05/2023] [Indexed: 08/07/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION As patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has become increasingly common, research-based recommendations on its principles and impacts have been established. The specifics of conducting PPI are likely to differ when involving different groups. Family/informal carers for those with health conditions or disabilities have a lot to contribute to research, but instances of their involvement have yet to be reviewed. OBJECTIVE To systematically review and synthesize studies where family/informal carers have been involved in the research process, to develop an understanding of the benefits, barriers and facilitating factors. METHODS A search of five electronic databases was conducted using a combination of terms relating to carers, involvement and research. A grey literature search, expert consultation and hand-searching were also used. Following screening, data extraction and quality assessment, a narrative synthesis incorporating thematic analysis was conducted. FINDINGS A total of 55 studies met the inclusion criteria, with diverse design and participatory approaches. Four themes were identified, relating to the outcomes, challenges, and practicalities of involving carers: (re) building relationships with carers; carers as equals not afterthoughts; carers have unique experiences; carers create change. Full involvement throughout the research was not always possible, due to barriers from the research world and responsibilities of the caring role. The literature demonstrated ways for carers to contribute in ways that suited them, maximizing their impact, while attending to relationships and power imbalances. CONCLUSION By summarizing the reported instances of carer involvement in research, this review brings together different examples of how successful research partnerships can be built with carers, despite various challenges. Carers are a heterogeneous group, and participatory approaches should be tailored to specific situations. Wider understanding of the challenges of conducting empowering research with carers, and the resources required to address these, are needed. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The initial findings and themes were presented to a group of carers who had been involved in research and whose reflections informed the final synthesis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bryher Bowness
- King's College London, Institute of PsychiatryPsychology and NeuroscienceLondonUK
| | - Claire Henderson
- King's College London, Institute of PsychiatryPsychology and NeuroscienceLondonUK
| | | | - Mia Akiba
- King's College London, Institute of PsychiatryPsychology and NeuroscienceLondonUK
| | - Vanessa Lawrence
- King's College London, Institute of PsychiatryPsychology and NeuroscienceLondonUK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Butler AR, Hartmann-Boyce J, Livingstone-Banks J, Turner T, Lindson N. Optimizing process and methods for a living systematic review: 30 search updates and three review updates later. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 166:111231. [PMID: 38043829 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.111231] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2023] [Revised: 11/27/2023] [Accepted: 11/28/2023] [Indexed: 12/05/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To describe the living systematic review (LSR) process and to share experience of planning, searches, screening, extraction, publishing and dissemination to inform and assist authors planning their own LSR. Many LSR do not publish more than one update, we hope this paper helps to increase this. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING A Cochrane LSR with an international author team that has been 'living' for two years, with monthly search updates and three full updates published in this time. LSRs are regularly updated systematic reviews that allow new evidence to be incorporated as it becomes available. LSR are ideally suited to policy-relevant topics where there is uncertainty and new evidence will likely impact the interpretation and/or certainty of outcomes. RESULTS The key features of the process that require consideration are: specifying the frequency of searches and triggers for full updates in the protocol; stakeholder input; publishing and disseminating monthly search findings. A strong team, incorporating methodological and topic expertise, with core members that meet regularly is essential. Regular search updates make it important to have a clear cyclical schedule of activity. To achieve timely updates this process should be streamlined, for example, using automated monthly searches, and systematic reviewing software for screening. LSR provide a unique opportunity to incorporate stakeholder feedback. CONCLUSIONS We recommend that LSRs should be: justified; carefully planned including the timing of search updates, triggers for publication and termination; published in a timely manner; have a clear dissemination plan; and a strong core team of authors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Health Promotion and Policy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA
| | | | - Tari Turner
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Iannizzi C, Akl EA, Anslinger E, Weibel S, Kahale LA, Aminat AM, Piechotta V, Skoetz N. Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing, and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review. Syst Rev 2023; 12:238. [PMID: 38098023 PMCID: PMC10722674 DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02396-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2022] [Accepted: 11/22/2023] [Indexed: 12/17/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. Most currently available guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing, and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but are not suitable for LSRs per se and miss additional LSR-specific considerations. In this scoping review, we aim to systematically collate methodological guidance literature on how to conduct, report, publish, and appraise the quality of LSRs and identify current gaps in guidance. METHODS A standard scoping review methodology was used. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and The Cochrane Library on August 28, 2021. As for searching gray literature, we looked for existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses. The screening was conducted by two authors independently in Rayyan, and data extraction was done in duplicate using a pilot-tested data extraction form in Excel. Data was extracted according to four pre-defined categories for (i) conducting, (ii) reporting, (iii) publishing, and (iv) appraising LSRs. We mapped the findings by visualizing overview tables created in Microsoft Word. RESULTS Of the 21 included papers, methodological guidance was found in 17 papers for conducting, in six papers for reporting, in 15 papers for publishing, and in two papers for appraising LSRs. Some of the identified key items for (i) conducting LSRs were identifying the rationale, screening tools, or re-revaluating inclusion criteria. Identified items of (ii) the original PRISMA checklist included reporting the registration and protocol, title, or synthesis methods. For (iii) publishing, there was guidance available on publication type and frequency or update trigger, and for (iv) appraising, guidance on the appropriate use of bias assessment or reporting funding of included studies was found. Our search revealed major evidence gaps, particularly for guidance on certain PRISMA items such as reporting results, discussion, support and funding, and availability of data and material of a LSR. CONCLUSION Important evidence gaps were identified for guidance on how to report in LSRs and appraise their quality. Our findings were applied to inform and prepare a PRISMA 2020 extension for LSR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Iannizzi
- Institute of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
| | - Elie A Akl
- Department of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Eva Anslinger
- Evidence-Based Medicine, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany
| | - Stephanie Weibel
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Lara A Kahale
- Editorial and Methods Department, Cochrane Central Executive, Cochrane, St Albans House, 57-59 Haymarket, London, SW1Y 4QX, UK
| | - Abina Mosunmola Aminat
- Rafic Hariri School of Nursing, American University of Beirut, Riad El Solh, P.O. Box 11-0236, Beirut, 1107 2020, Lebanon
| | - Vanessa Piechotta
- Evidence-Based Medicine, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Institute of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Murad MH, Wang Z, Chu H, Lin L, El Mikati IK, Khabsa J, Akl EA, Nieuwlaat R, Schuenemann HJ, Riaz IB. Proposed triggers for retiring a living systematic review. BMJ Evid Based Med 2023; 28:348-352. [PMID: 36889900 PMCID: PMC10579491 DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/23/2023] [Indexed: 03/10/2023]
Abstract
Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are systematic reviews that are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs are critical for decision-making in topics where the evidence continues to evolve. It is not feasible to continue to update LSRs indefinitely; however, guidance on when to retire LSRs from the living mode is not clear. We propose triggers for making such a decision. The first trigger is to retire LSRs when the evidence becomes conclusive for the outcomes that are required for decision-making. Conclusiveness of evidence is best determined based on the GRADE certainty of evidence construct, which is more comprehensive than solely relying on statistical considerations. The second trigger to retire LSRs is when the question becomes less pertinent for decision-making as determined by relevant stakeholders, including people affected by the problem, healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers. LSRs can also be retired from a living mode when new studies are not anticipated to be published on the topic and when resources become unavailable to continue updating. We describe examples of retired LSRs and apply the proposed approach using one LSR about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in high-risk renal cell carcinoma that we retired from a living mode and published its last update.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohammad Hassan Murad
- Public Health, Infectious Diseases and Occupational Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
- Kern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Zhen Wang
- Kern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Haitao Chu
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Lifeng Lin
- Department of Statistics, University of Arizona Medical Center-South Campus, Tucson, Arizona, USA
| | | | - Joanne Khabsa
- Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Elie A Akl
- Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
- Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Robby Nieuwlaat
- Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Holger J Schuenemann
- Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- McMaster University, GRADE Center, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milano, Italy
| | - Irbaz Bin Riaz
- Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
- Mass General Brigham Inc, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Heron L, Buitrago-Garcia D, Ipekci AM, Baumann R, Imeri H, Salanti G, Counotte MJ, Low N. How to update a living systematic review and keep it alive during a pandemic: a practical guide. Syst Rev 2023; 12:156. [PMID: 37660117 PMCID: PMC10474670 DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02325-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2022] [Accepted: 08/17/2023] [Indexed: 09/04/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the role of living systematic reviews. The speed of evidence generated during the covid-19 pandemic accentuated the challenges of managing high volumes of research literature. METHODS In this article, we summarise the characteristics of ongoing living systematic reviews on covid-19, and we follow a life cycle approach to describe key steps in a living systematic review. RESULTS We identified 97 living systematic reviews on covid-19, published up to 7th November 2022, which focused mostly on the effects of pharmacological interventions (n = 46, 47%) or the prevalence of associated conditions or risk factors (n = 30, 31%). The scopes of several reviews overlapped considerably. Most living systematic reviews included both observational and randomised study designs (n = 45, 46%). Only one-third of the reviews has been updated at least once (n = 34, 35%). We address practical aspects of living systematic reviews including how to judge whether to start a living systematic review, methods for study identification and selection, data extraction and evaluation, and give recommendations at each step, drawing from our own experience. We also discuss when it is time to stop and how to publish updates. CONCLUSIONS Methods to improve the efficiency of searching, study selection, and data extraction using machine learning technologies are being developed, their performance and applicability, particularly for reviews based on observational study designs should improve, and ways of publishing living systematic reviews and their updates will continue to evolve. Finally, knowing when to end a living systematic review is as important as knowing when to start.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leonie Heron
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Diana Buitrago-Garcia
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Graduate School of Health Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Aziz Mert Ipekci
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Rico Baumann
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Hira Imeri
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Jacobs Center for Productive Youth Development, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Georgia Salanti
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Michel Jacques Counotte
- Wageningen Bioveterinary Research, Wageningen University & Research, Lelystad, The Netherlands
| | - Nicola Low
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Schmidt L, Sinyor M, Webb RT, Marshall C, Knipe D, Eyles EC, John A, Gunnell D, Higgins JPT. A narrative review of recent tools and innovations toward automating living systematic reviews and evidence syntheses. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVIDENZ, FORTBILDUNG UND QUALITAT IM GESUNDHEITSWESEN 2023; 181:65-75. [PMID: 37596160 DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2023.06.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2022] [Revised: 06/19/2023] [Accepted: 06/25/2023] [Indexed: 08/20/2023]
Abstract
Living reviews are an increasingly popular research paradigm. The purpose of a 'living' approach is to allow rapid collation, appraisal and synthesis of evolving evidence on an important research topic, enabling timely influence on patient care and public health policy. However, living reviews are time- and resource-intensive. The accumulation of new evidence and the possibility of developments within the review's research topic can introduce unique challenges into the living review workflow. To investigate the potential of software tools to support living systematic or rapid reviews, we present a narrative review informed by an examination of tools contained on the Systematic Review Toolbox website. We identified 11 tools with relevant functionalities and discuss the important features of these tools with respect to different steps of the living review workflow. Four tools (NestedKnowledge, SWIFT-ActiveScreener, DistillerSR, EPPI-Reviewer) covered multiple, successive steps of the review process, and the remaining tools addressed specific components of the workflow, including scoping and protocol formulation, reference retrieval, automated data extraction, write-up and dissemination of data. We identify several ways in which living reviews can be made more efficient and practical. Most of these focus on general workflow management, or automation through artificial intelligence and machine-learning, in the screening process. More sophisticated uses of automation mostly target living rapid reviews to increase the speed of production or evidence maps to broaden the scope of the map. We use a case study to highlight some of the barriers and challenges to incorporating tools into the living review workflow and processes. These include increased workload, the need for organisation, ensuring timely dissemination and challenges related to the development of bespoke automation tools to facilitate the review process. We describe how current end-user tools address these challenges, and which knowledge gaps remain that could be addressed by future tool development. Dedicated web presences for automatic dissemination of in-progress evidence updates, rather than solely relying on peer-reviewed journal publications, help to make the effort of a living evidence synthesis worthwhile. Despite offering basic living review functionalities, existing end-user tools could be further developed to be interoperable with other tools to support multiple workflow steps seamlessly, to address broader automatic evidence retrieval from a larger variety of sources, and to improve dissemination of evidence between review updates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lena Schmidt
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Innovation Observatory, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK; Sciome LLC, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
| | - Mark Sinyor
- Department of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Roger T Webb
- Division of Psychology and Mental Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR GM PSTRC), Manchester, UK
| | | | - Duleeka Knipe
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Emily C Eyles
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; The National Institute of Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West), University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Ann John
- Population Data Science, Swansea University, Swansea, UK; Public Health Wales NHS Trust, Wales, UK
| | - David Gunnell
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; The National Institute of Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Julian P T Higgins
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; The National Institute of Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West), University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK; The National Institute of Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Siafis S, McCutcheon R, Chiocchia V, Ostinelli EG, Wright S, Stansfield C, Juma DO, Mantas I, Howes OD, Rutigliano G, Ramage F, Tinsdeall F, Friedrich C, Milligan L, Moreno C, Elliott JH, Thomas J, Macleod MR, Sena ES, Seedat S, Salanti G, Potts J, Cipriani A, Leucht S. Trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonists for psychosis: protocol for a living systematic review and meta-analysis of human and non-human studies. Wellcome Open Res 2023; 8:365. [PMID: 38634067 PMCID: PMC11021884 DOI: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.19866.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/15/2023] [Indexed: 04/19/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is an urgent need to develop more effective and safer antipsychotics beyond dopamine 2 receptor antagonists. An emerging and promising approach is TAAR1 agonism. Therefore, we will conduct a living systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize and triangulate the evidence from preclinical animal experiments and clinical studies on the efficacy, safety, and underlying mechanism of action of TAAR1 agonism for psychosis. METHODS Independent searches will be conducted in multiple electronic databases to identify clinical and animal experimental studies comparing TAAR1 agonists with licensed antipsychotics or other control conditions in individuals with psychosis or animal models for psychosis, respectively. The primary outcomes will be overall psychotic symptoms and their behavioural proxies in animals. Secondary outcomes will include side effects and neurobiological measures. Two independent reviewers will conduct study selection, data extraction using predefined forms, and risk of bias assessment using suitable tools based on the study design. Ontologies will be developed to facilitate study identification and data extraction. Data from clinical and animal studies will be synthesized separately using random-effects meta-analysis if appropriate, or synthesis without meta-analysis. Study characteristics will be investigated as potential sources of heterogeneity. Confidence in the evidence for each outcome and source of evidence will be evaluated, considering the summary of the association, potential concerns regarding internal and external validity, and reporting biases. When multiple sources of evidence are available for an outcome, an overall conclusion will be drawn in a triangulation meeting involving a multidisciplinary team of experts. We plan trimonthly updates of the review, and any modifications in the protocol will be documented. The review will be co-produced by multiple stakeholders aiming to produce impactful and relevant results and bridge the gap between preclinical and clinical research on psychosis. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION PROSPERO-ID: CRD42023451628.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Spyridon Siafis
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Robert McCutcheon
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
- Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England, UK
- Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England, UK
| | - Virginia Chiocchia
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Canton of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Edoardo G. Ostinelli
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
- Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England, UK
- Oxford Precision Psychiatry Lab, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
| | - Simonne Wright
- Department of Psychiatry, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa
| | - Claire Stansfield
- EPPI Centre, Social Research Institute, University College London, London, England, UK
| | | | - Ioannis Mantas
- Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Oliver D. Howes
- Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England, UK
| | - Grazia Rutigliano
- Institute of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, England, UK
| | - Fiona Ramage
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | - Francesca Tinsdeall
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | - Claire Friedrich
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
- Oxford Precision Psychiatry Lab, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
| | | | - Carmen Moreno
- Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, IiSGM, CIBERSAM, ISCIII, School of Medicine, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Community of Madrid, Spain
| | - Julian H. Elliott
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
- Future Evidence Foundation, Melbourne, Australia
| | - James Thomas
- EPPI Centre, Social Research Institute, University College London, London, England, UK
| | - Malcolm R. Macleod
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | - Emily S. Sena
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
| | - Soraya Seedat
- Department of Psychiatry, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa
| | - Georgia Salanti
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Canton of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Jennifer Potts
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
- Oxford Precision Psychiatry Lab, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
| | - Andrea Cipriani
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
- Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England, UK
- Oxford Precision Psychiatry Lab, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
| | - Stefan Leucht
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - the GALENOS team
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, School of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
- Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, England, UK
- Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England, UK
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Canton of Bern, Switzerland
- Oxford Precision Psychiatry Lab, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, UK
- Department of Psychiatry, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa
- EPPI Centre, Social Research Institute, University College London, London, England, UK
- My Mind Our Humanity, Mombasa, Kenya
- Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Institute of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, England, UK
- Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
- MQ Mental Health Research, London, UK
- Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, IiSGM, CIBERSAM, ISCIII, School of Medicine, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Community of Madrid, Spain
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
- Future Evidence Foundation, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Metzendorf MI, Weibel S, Reis S, McDonald S. Pragmatic and open science-based solution to a current problem in the reporting of living systematic reviews. BMJ Evid Based Med 2023; 28:267-272. [PMID: 36351782 PMCID: PMC10423469 DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are an increasingly common approach to keeping reviews up to date, in which new relevant studies are incorporated as they become available, so as to inform healthcare policy and practice in a timely manner. While journal publishers have been exploring the publication of LSRs using different updating and publishing approaches, readers cannot currently assess if the evidence underpinning a published LSR is up to date, as neither the search details, the selection process, nor the list of identified studies is made available between the publication of updates. We describe a new method to transparently report the living evidence surveillance process that occurs between published LSR versions. We use the example of the living Cochrane Review on nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir (Paxlovid) for preventing and treating COVID-19 to illustrate how this can work in practice. We created a publicly accessible spreadsheet on the Open Science Framework platform, linking to the living Cochrane Review, that details the search and study selection process, enabling readers to track the progress of eligible ongoing or completed studies. Further automation of the evidence surveillance process should be explored.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maria-Inti Metzendorf
- Institute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine University, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - Stephanie Weibel
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Stefanie Reis
- Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Steve McDonald
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Ciapponi A, Berrueta M, Ballivian J, Bardach A, Mazzoni A, Anderson S, Argento FJ, Bok K, Comandé D, Goucher E, Kampmann B, Parker EPK, Rodriguez-Cairoli F, Santa Maria V, Stergachis A, Voss G, Xiong X, Zaraa S, Munoz FM, Karron RA, Gottlieb SL, Buekens PM. Safety, immunogenicity, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2023; 102:e32954. [PMID: 36862871 PMCID: PMC9981247 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000032954] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2023] [Accepted: 01/24/2023] [Indexed: 03/04/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Numerous vaccines have been evaluated and approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since pregnant persons have been excluded from most clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines, sufficient data regarding the safety of these vaccines for the pregnant person and their fetus have rarely been available at the time of product licensure. However, as COVID-19 vaccines have been deployed, data on the safety, reactogenicity, immunogenicity, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons and neonates are becoming increasingly available. A living systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons and newborns could provide the information necessary to help guide vaccine policy decisions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS We aim to conduct a living systematic review and meta-analysis based on biweekly searches of medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries to systematically identify relevant studies of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons. Pairs of reviewers will independently select, extract data, and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials, quasi-experimental studies, cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies, and case reports. Primary outcomes will be the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant persons, including neonatal outcomes. Secondary outcomes will be immunogenicity and reactogenicity. We will conduct paired meta-analyses, including prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses. We will use the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Agustín Ciapponi
- Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Mabel Berrueta
- Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Jamile Ballivian
- Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Ariel Bardach
- Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Agustina Mazzoni
- Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | | | - Fernando J. Argento
- Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Karin Bok
- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Vaccine Research Center, Bethesda, MD
| | - Daniel Comandé
- Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Erin Goucher
- School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans
| | - Beate Kampmann
- The Vaccine Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK
- Vaccines & Immunity Theme, MRC Unit The Gambia at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Banjul, Gambia
| | - Edward P. K. Parker
- The Vaccine Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK
| | | | - Victoria Santa Maria
- Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Andy Stergachis
- School of Pharmacy and School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - Gerald Voss
- Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Oslo, Norway
| | - Xu Xiong
- School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans
| | - Sabra Zaraa
- School of Pharmacy and School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - Flor M. Munoz
- Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, TX
| | - Ruth A. Karron
- Center for Immunization Research, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
| | - Sami L. Gottlieb
- Medical Officer, Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Pierre M. Buekens
- School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, New Orleans
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Khabsa J, Chang S, McKenzie JE, Barker JM, Boutron I, Kahale LA, Page MJ, Skoetz N, Akl EA. Conceptualizing the reporting of living systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2023; 156:113-118. [PMID: 36736707 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.01.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2022] [Revised: 01/24/2023] [Accepted: 01/26/2023] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES As part of an effort to develop an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (LSRs), we discuss conceptual issues relevant to the reporting of LSRs and highlight a few challenges. METHODS Discussion of conceptual issues based on a scoping review of the literature and discussions among authors. RESULTS We first briefly describe aspects of the LSR production process relevant to reporting. The production cycles differ by whether the literature surveillance identifies new evidence and whether newly identified evidence is judged to be consequential. This impacts the timing, content, and format of LSR versions. Second, we discuss four types of information that are specific to the reporting of LSRs: justification for adopting the living mode, LSR specific methods, changes between LSR versions, and LSR updating status. We also discuss the challenge of conveying changes between versions to the reader. Third, we describe two commonly used reporting formats of LSRs: full and partial reports. Although partial reports are easier to produce and publish, they lead to the scattering of information across different versions. Full reports ensure the completeness of reporting. We discuss the implications for the extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for LSRs. CONCLUSION We argue that a dynamic publication platform would facilitate complete and timely reporting of LSRs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joanne Khabsa
- Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Stephanie Chang
- Annals of Internal Medicine, American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Joanne E McKenzie
- Methods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - Isabelle Boutron
- Université Paris Cité, INSERM, INRAE, CNAM, CRESS, F-75004 Paris, France
| | - Lara A Kahale
- Evidence Production and Methods Directorate, Cochrane, London, UK
| | - Matthew J Page
- Methods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Department of Internal Medicine, Evidence-Based Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Elie A Akl
- Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Bendersky J, Auladell-Rispau A, Urrútia G, Rojas-Reyes MX. Methods for developing and reporting living evidence synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 152:89-100. [PMID: 36220626 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2022] [Revised: 09/15/2022] [Accepted: 09/30/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Identify currently methodological aspects proposed for planning, conducting, and reporting living evidence (LE) synthesis. Develop a preliminary checklist of key LE synthesis elements. METHODS A survey of methodological articles describing or analyzing methods for the design, conduction, or reporting of LE synthesis. RESULTS Twelve methodological articles were identified and analyzed. Key elements were related to: i) definition of LE and characteristics of LE synthesis, ii) methods and tools for the living process, iii) new evidence integration (methods and considerations), iv) updates dissemination and publication, v) revisiting living parameters, and vi) protocol considerations for LE synthesis. CONCLUSION This survey displays basic methodological concepts that can drive the development of LE synthesis and identifies specific aspects with opportunities for development. The potential impact of the LE approach calls for a change in the current evidence synthesis updating processes to more open, collaborative, transparent, and efficient systems. LE approaches also challenge journal editors to shift toward more efficient processes for synthesis update dissemination, which minimizes the risks of reliability of published information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Josefina Bendersky
- Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau (IIB SANT PAU), Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain; Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain
| | | | - Gerard Urrútia
- Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau (IIB SANT PAU), Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain; Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain; Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain
| | | |
Collapse
|
17
|
Gilmore B, Gerlach N, Abreu Lopes C, Diallo AA, Bhattacharyya S, de Claro V, Ndejjo R, Nyamupachitu Mago E, Tchetchia A. Community engagement to support COVID-19 vaccine uptake: a living systematic review protocol. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e063057. [PMID: 36127122 PMCID: PMC9490295 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063057] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2022] [Accepted: 08/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Widespread vaccination against COVID-19 is one of the most effective ways to control, and ideally, end the global COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine hesitancy and vaccine rates vary widely across countries and populations and are influenced by complex sociocultural, political, economic and psychological factors. Community engagement is an integral strategy within immunisation campaigns and has been shown to improve vaccine acceptance. As evidence on community engagement to support COVID-19 vaccine uptake is emerging and constantly changing, research that lessens the knowledge-to-practice gap by providing regular and up-to-date evidence on current best-practice is essential. METHODS AND ANALYSIS A living systematic review will be conducted which includes an initial systematic review and bimonthly review updates. Searching and screening for the review and subsequent updates will be done in four streams: a systematic search of six databases, grey literature review, preprint review and citizen sourcing. The screening will be done by a minimum of two reviewers at title/abstract and full-text in Covidence, a systematic review management software. Data will be extracted across predefined fields in an excel spreadsheet that includes information about article characteristics, context and population, community engagement approaches, and outcomes. Synthesis will occur using the convergent integrated approach. We will explore the potential to quantitatively synthesise primary outcomes depending on heterogeneity of the studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The initial review and subsequent bimonthly searches and their results will be disseminated transparently via open-access methods. Quarterly briefs will be shared on the reviews' social media platforms and across other interested networks and repositories. A dedicated web link will be created on the Community Health-Community of Practice site for sharing findings and obtaining feedback. A mailing list will be developed and interested parties can subscribe for updates. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42022301996.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brynne Gilmore
- UCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems (UCD IRIS), School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Nina Gerlach
- UCD Centre for Interdisciplinary Research, Education and Innovation in Health Systems (UCD IRIS), School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Claudia Abreu Lopes
- International Institute for Global Health United Nations University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Alpha A Diallo
- READ-GROUP, Conakry, Guinea
- Health Research Ethics Committee, Conakry, Guinea
| | - Sanghita Bhattacharyya
- Public Health Foundation of India, Gurugram, Haryana, India
- Community Health-Community of Practice Collectivity, United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Headquarters, New York City, New York, USA
| | - Vergil de Claro
- RTI International, Pasig City, Philippines
- Evidence for Health, Pasig City, Philippines
| | - Rawlance Ndejjo
- Department of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
| | | | - Adalbert Tchetchia
- Community Health-Community of Practice Collectivity, United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) Headquarters, New York City, New York, USA
- Expanded Programme on Immunization, Yaounde, Cameroon
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Buitrago-Garcia D, Ipekci AM, Heron L, Imeri H, Araujo-Chaveron L, Arevalo-Rodriguez I, Ciapponi A, Cevik M, Hauser A, Alam MI, Meili K, Meyerowitz EA, Prajapati N, Qiu X, Richterman A, Robles-Rodriguez WG, Thapa S, Zhelyazkov I, Salanti G, Low N. Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2022; 19:e1003987. [PMID: 35617363 PMCID: PMC9135333 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003987] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2022] [Accepted: 04/13/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Debate about the level of asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic? METHODS AND FINDINGS The protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS Based on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and prediction intervals should be presented. Future studies should determine the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by SARS-CoV-2. REVIEW PROTOCOL Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diana Buitrago-Garcia
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Graduate School of Health Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Aziz Mert Ipekci
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Leonie Heron
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Hira Imeri
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Lucia Araujo-Chaveron
- EHESP French School of Public Health, Paris and Rennes, France
- Institut Pasteur, Paris, France
| | - Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez
- Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, Madrid, Spain
| | - Agustín Ciapponi
- Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS-CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Muge Cevik
- Division of Infection and Global Health Research, School of Medicine, University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scotland, United Kingdom
| | - Anthony Hauser
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | | | - Kaspar Meili
- Department of Epidemiology and Global Health, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Eric A. Meyerowitz
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York, New York, United States of America
| | | | - Xueting Qiu
- Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Aaron Richterman
- Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
| | | | - Shabnam Thapa
- Manchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | | | - Georgia Salanti
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Nicola Low
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Iannizzi C, Akl EA, Kahale LA, Dorando E, Mosunmola Aminat A, Barker JM, McKenzie JE, Haddaway NR, Piechotta V, Skoetz N. Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review protocol. F1000Res 2022; 10:802. [PMID: 35186269 PMCID: PMC8822136 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.55108.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/03/2021] [Indexed: 01/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on an ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. A few guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but the methodology described is either not up-to date or not suitable for LSRs and misses additional LSR-specific considerations. The objective of this scoping review is to systematically collate methodological literature and guidance on how to conduct, report, publish and appraise the quality of LSRs. The scoping review will allow the mapping of the existing evidence on the topic to support LSRs authors seeking guidance and identify related gaps. Methods: To achieve our objectives, we will conduct a scoping review to survey and evaluate existing evidence, using the standard scoping review methodology. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane using the OVID interface. The search strategy was developed by a researcher experienced in developing literature search strategies with the help of an information specialist. As for searching grey literature, we will seek existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses using the
Lens.org website. Two review authors will extract and catalogue the study data on LSR methodological aspects into a standardized and pilot-tested data extraction form. The main categories will reflect proposed methods for (i) conducting LSRs, (ii) reporting of LSRs, (iii) publishing and (iv) appraising the quality of LSRs. Data synthesis and conclusion: By collecting these data from methodological surveys and papers, as well as existing guidance documents and handbooks on LSRs, we might identify specific issues and components lacking within current LSR methodology. Thus, the systematically obtained findings of the scoping review could be used as basis for the revision of existing methods tools on LSR, for instance a PRISMA statement extension for LSRs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire Iannizzi
- Evidence-based Oncology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, 50937, Germany
| | - Elie A Akl
- Department of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.,Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Lara A Kahale
- Editorial and Methods Department, Cochrane Central Executive, Cochrane, London, SW1Y 4QX, UK
| | - Elena Dorando
- Evidence-based Oncology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, 50937, Germany
| | | | | | - Joanne E McKenzie
- School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Neal R Haddaway
- Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.,Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany.,Africa Centre for Evidence, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
| | - Vanessa Piechotta
- Evidence-based Oncology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, 50937, Germany
| | - Nicole Skoetz
- Evidence-based Oncology, Department I of Internal Medicine, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Duesseldorf, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, 50937, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Ray D, Sniehotta F, McColl E, Ells L. Barriers and facilitators to implementing practices for prevention of childhood obesity in primary care: A mixed methods systematic review. Obes Rev 2022; 23:e13417. [PMID: 35064723 PMCID: PMC9285925 DOI: 10.1111/obr.13417] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2021] [Revised: 11/23/2021] [Accepted: 12/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Primary care providers (PCPs) have an important role in prevention of excess weight gain in pre-school children. Guidelines exist to support PCPs' practices. This systematic review of PCPs' practice behaviors and their perceptions of barriers to and facilitators of implementation of guidelines was the first step toward the development of an intervention aimed at supporting PCPs. Five databases were searched to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies which examined PCPs' practice patterns and factors influencing implementation of recommended practices. The convergent integrated approach of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for mixed methods reviews was used for data synthesis. Following analyses, the resultant factors were mapped onto the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation model of Behaviour (COM-B). Fifty studies met the eligibility criteria. PCPs inconsistently implement recommended practices. Barriers and facilitators were identified at the provider (e.g., lack of knowledge), parent (e.g., lack motivation), and organization level (e.g., inadequate training). Factors were mapped to all three components of the COM-B model: psychological capability (e.g., lack of skills), reflective motivation (e.g., beliefs about guidelines), automatic motivation (e.g., discomfort), physical opportunity (e.g., time constraints), and social opportunity (e.g., stigma). These findings reflect the complexity of implementation of childhood obesity prevention practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Devashish Ray
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Falko Sniehotta
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Elaine McColl
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Louisa Ells
- School of Clinical and Applied Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Auladell-Rispau A, Bendersky J, Santafe A, Buchanan C, Rigau Comas D, Verdugo F, Ávila C, Alonso P, Urrutia G, Rada G, Rojas-Reyes MX. Methodological approaches for developing and reporting living evidence synthesis: a study protocol. OPEN RESEARCH EUROPE 2022; 1:113. [PMID: 37645196 PMCID: PMC10446035 DOI: 10.12688/openreseurope.14044.2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 03/09/2022] [Indexed: 08/31/2023]
Abstract
Background: Living evidence (LE) refers to the methodological processes that permit new research findings to be continually incorporated into evidence synthesis. This approach is of great value in the resolution of relevant and rapidly changing clinical questions. To date, the methods to carry out this type of synthesis are not completely defined, and great variability is observed in the approaches used by different groups of authors. Objective: To identify, evaluate and summarise the current methods used for living evidence synthesis Methods: We will conduct a methodological study based on a systematic literature search to identify any type of evidence synthesis such as systematic reviews, network metanalyses and overviews that used "living evidence synthesis" as part of their methods. The search will be conducted in Medline (via PubMed) and Epistemonikos databases. Additionally, we will search websites of the organisations publishing any living evidence synthesis retrieved in the two databases, in order to identify unpublished subsequent reports. Two reviewers will independently assess each article against the selection criteria, extract data on methods and procedures, and assess the methodological quality of each publication. Data will be analysed descriptively.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ariadna Auladell-Rispau
- Institut de Recerca de l’ Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Carrer de Sant Quintí, 77, 08041 Barcelona, Spain
| | - Josefina Bendersky
- Master Program in Clinical Research Applied to Health Science, School of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Carrer de Sant Antoni Maria Claret, 167, 08025 Barcelona, Spain
| | - Angie Santafe
- Master Program in Clinical Research Applied to Health Science, School of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Carrer de Sant Antoni Maria Claret, 167, 08025 Barcelona, Spain
| | - Cecilia Buchanan
- Doctoral Program on Health Research Methodology, School of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Carrer de Sant Antoni Maria Claret, 167, 08025 Barcelona, Spain
| | - David Rigau Comas
- Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, C/ Sant Antoni Maria Claret, 167, Pavelló 18, Planta 0, 08025 Barcelona, Spain
| | - Francisca Verdugo
- Epistemonikos Foundation, Chile Faculty of Medicine, Av. Holanda 895, Providencia, Santiago, Chile
| | - Camila Ávila
- Epistemonikos Foundation, Chile Faculty of Medicine, Av. Holanda 895, Providencia, Santiago, Chile
| | - Pablo Alonso
- Institut de Recerca de l’ Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Carrer de Sant Quintí, 77, 08041 Barcelona, Spain
- Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, C/ Sant Antoni Maria Claret, 167, Pavelló 18, Planta 0, 08025 Barcelona, Spain
- CIBER de Epidemiología Clínica y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Av. Monforte de Lemos, 3-5, Pabellón 11, Planta 0 28029, Madrid, Spain
| | - Gerard Urrutia
- Institut de Recerca de l’ Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Carrer de Sant Quintí, 77, 08041 Barcelona, Spain
- Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, C/ Sant Antoni Maria Claret, 167, Pavelló 18, Planta 0, 08025 Barcelona, Spain
- CIBER de Epidemiología Clínica y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Av. Monforte de Lemos, 3-5, Pabellón 11, Planta 0 28029, Madrid, Spain
| | - Gabriel Rada
- Epistemonikos Foundation, Chile Faculty of Medicine, Av. Holanda 895, Providencia, Santiago, Chile
- Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Av Libertador Bernardo O’ Higgins 340, Santiago, Región Metropolitana, Chile
| | - María Ximena Rojas-Reyes
- Institut de Recerca de l’ Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Carrer de Sant Quintí, 77, 08041 Barcelona, Spain
- Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, C/ Sant Antoni Maria Claret, 167, Pavelló 18, Planta 0, 08025 Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Schmidt L, Finnerty Mutlu AN, Elmore R, Olorisade BK, Thomas J, Higgins JPT. Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: Update of a living systematic review. F1000Res 2021; 10:401. [PMID: 34408850 PMCID: PMC8361807 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.51117.2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/27/2023] [Indexed: 10/12/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: The reliable and usable (semi)automation of data extraction can support the field of systematic review by reducing the workload required to gather information about the conduct and results of the included studies. This living systematic review examines published approaches for data extraction from reports of clinical studies. Methods: We systematically and continually search PubMed, ACL Anthology, arXiv, OpenAlex via EPPI-Reviewer, and the dblp computer science bibliography. Full text screening and data extraction are conducted within an open-source living systematic review application created for the purpose of this review. This living review update includes publications up to December 2022 and OpenAlex content up to March 2023. Results: 76 publications are included in this review. Of these, 64 (84%) of the publications addressed extraction of data from abstracts, while 19 (25%) used full texts. A total of 71 (93%) publications developed classifiers for randomised controlled trials. Over 30 entities were extracted, with PICOs (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) being the most frequently extracted. Data are available from 25 (33%), and code from 30 (39%) publications. Six (8%) implemented publicly available tools Conclusions: This living systematic review presents an overview of (semi)automated data-extraction literature of interest to different types of literature review. We identified a broad evidence base of publications describing data extraction for interventional reviews and a small number of publications extracting epidemiological or diagnostic accuracy data. Between review updates, trends for sharing data and code increased strongly: in the base-review, data and code were available for 13 and 19% respectively, these numbers increased to 78 and 87% within the 23 new publications. Compared with the base-review, we observed another research trend, away from straightforward data extraction and towards additionally extracting relations between entities or automatic text summarisation. With this living review we aim to review the literature continually.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lena Schmidt
- NIHR Innovation Observatory, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 5TG, UK
- Sciome LLC, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27713, USA
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
| | | | - Rebecca Elmore
- Sciome LLC, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27713, USA
| | - Babatunde K. Olorisade
- Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK
- Evaluate Ltd, London, SE1 2RE, UK
- Cardiff School of Technologies, Cardiff Metropolitan University, Cardiff, CF5 2YB, UK
| | - James Thomas
- UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, WC1H 0AL, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|