overview of systematic reviews

系统评价概述
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:膝骨关节炎(KOA)已成为公共卫生问题。一些系统评价(SR)和荟萃分析(MA)表明,中国传统运动(TCE)可能是减轻膝关节骨关节炎(KOA)患者疼痛和僵硬并改善身体功能的有效治疗方法。
    目的:评价TCE治疗KOA的文献质量和证据,为TCE治疗KOA的临床应用提供依据。
    方法:从成立到2023年1月3日搜索了八个数据库,以检索相关文献,包括中国国家知识基础设施(CNKI),万方,中国科学期刊数据库(VIP),中国生物学医学文献数据库(CBM),PubMed,Embase,WebofScience和Cochrane图书馆,不受发布日期或语言的限制。AMSTAR-2和PRISMA2020评估了包括SRs/MA的方法和报告质量。建议评估的分级,发展,采用评估系统(GRADE)对证据质量进行评估。
    结果:共纳入18个SR/MA。根据AMSTAR-2,方法学质量“非常低”。根据PRISMA2020,总体报告质量不足。中英文文学的质量不同,英语文学在方法论和报告质量上都比较好。在获得的93份证据中,46(49.46%)质量非常低,34人(36.56%)质量低,13人(13.98%)质量中等,没有一个是高质量的。TCE得到了76条证据(81.72%)的支持。
    结论:TCE对于治疗KOA似乎是有益和安全的。然而,由于纳入的SR/MA的方法学和证据质量相对较低,临床医生应谨慎解释这些发现.
    BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) has become a public health issue. Several systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) indicate that traditional Chinese exercise (TCE) may be an effective treatment for reducing pain and stiffness and improving physical function in people with knee osteoarthritis (KOA).
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the literature quality and evidence for the systematic reviews of TCE for KOA and provide evidence to support the clinical application of TCE for KOA.
    METHODS: Eight databases were searched from their inception to January 3, 2023, to retrieve relevant literature, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), China Biology Medical literature database (CBM), PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library, without restrictions on publication date or language. AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA 2020 assessed the methodological and reporting quality of included SRs/MAs. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was utilized to evaluate the quality of evidence.
    RESULTS: A total of 18 SRs/MAs were included. The methodological quality was \"very low\" based on AMSTAR-2. The overall reporting quality was deficient based on PRISMA 2020. The quality of Chinese and English literature differed, with English literature being superior in methodological and reporting quality. Among 93 pieces of evidence obtained, 46 (49.46%) were of very low quality, 34 (36.56%) were of low quality, 13 (13.98%) were of moderate quality, and none were of high quality. TCE was supported by 76 pieces of evidence (81.72%).
    CONCLUSIONS: TCE appears beneficial and safe for managing KOA. However, due to the relatively low methodological and evidentiary quality of included SRs/MAs, clinicians should interpret these findings cautiously.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:在怀孕和分娩期间,除了积极的感觉,女性经历诸如对分娩的恐惧(FoC)并担心其后果,这可能会在怀孕期间对母亲和她的孩子产生负面影响,delivery,和产后。进行这项研究是为了确定产前非药物干预措施对减少FoC的有效性。
    方法:本研究方案注册于PROSPERO(ID:CRD42023468547)。PubMed,WebofScience,科克伦,Scopus,SID(科学信息数据库)和GoogleScholar搜索引擎数据库进行了系统搜索,直到2023年7月27日,没有时间限制,仅限于波斯语和英语研究,以执行此概述。使用等级评估证据的确定性,使用AMSTAR2的方法学质量和使用PRISMA评分的报告质量。对从原始试验中提取的数据进行Meta分析,以评估不同干预措施对降低FoC的效果。使用亚组分析和荟萃回归模型来检查高度异质性,敏感性分析用于消除高偏倚风险研究对研究结果的影响.
    结果:总体而言,概述中包括15项系统综述(SRs),其中9项研究进行了荟萃分析.考虑到方法学质量,这些SR处于低到极低的状态,并且有关于报告质量的相对完整的报告.Meta分析结果表明,心理干预(SMD-2.02,95%CI-2.69至-1.36,16项试验,1057名与会者,I2=95%)和产前教育(SMD-0.88,95%CI-1.16至-0.61,4项试验,432名参与者,I2=72.8%)相对于产前常规护理而言,FoC显着降低,证据的确定性较低。相对于产前常规护理,分心技术导致FoC显着降低,证据具有很高的确定性(SMD-0.75,95%CI-1.18至-0.33,4项试验,329名与会者,I2=69%),但是,相对于证据的确定性非常低的产前常规护理,加强护理不会导致FoC显着下降(SMD-1.14,95%CI-2.85至0.58,3项试验,232名参与者,I2=97%)。
    结论:分心技术可有效降低FoC。关于心理干预和产前教育对减少FoC的影响,研究结果表明,干预措施可能导致FoC的减少。非常不确定的证据表明,加强护理不能有效降低FoC。
    BACKGROUND: During pregnancy and childbirth, alongside positive feelings, women undergo feelings such as fear of childbirth (FoC) and worry about its consequences, which could leave negative effects on the mother and her child during pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum. The study was carried out to determine the effectiveness of prenatal non-pharmacological interventions on reducing the FoC.
    METHODS: The protocol of the study was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023468547). PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, SID (Scientific Information Database) and Google Scholar search engine databases were systematically searched until July 27, 2023 with no limitation of time and limited to Persian and English studies in order to perform this overview. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE, methodological quality using AMSTAR 2 and reporting quality using PRISMA score. Meta-analysis was performed on the data extracted from the original trials to evaluate the effect of different interventions on reducing the FoC. Sub-group analysis and meta-regression models were used to examine high heterogeneity, and sensitivity analysis was used to eliminate the effect of high risk of bias studies on the study findings.
    RESULTS: Overall, 15 systematic reviews (SRs) were included in the overview, among which meta-analysis was performed in 9 studies. Considering methodological quality, these SRs were in low to critically low status and had relatively complete reports regarding reporting quality. Meta-analysis findings indicated that psychological interventions (SMD -2.02, 95% CI -2.69 to -1.36, 16 trials, 1057 participants, I2 = 95%) and prenatal educations (SMD -0.88, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.61, 4 trials, 432 participants, I2 = 72.8%) cause a significant reduction in FoC relative to prenatal usual cares with low certainty of evidence. Distraction techniques lead to a significant reduction in FoC relative to prenatal usual care with high certainty of evidence (SMD -0.75, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.33, 4 trials, 329 participants, I2 = 69%), but enhanced cares do not result in a significant decrease FoC relative to prenatal usual care with very low certainty of evidence (SMD -1.14, 95% CI -2.85 to 0.58, 3 trials, 232 participants, I2 = 97%).
    CONCLUSIONS: Distraction techniques are effective in reducing FoC. Regarding the effect of psychological interventions and prenatal educations on the reduction of FoC, the findings indicated that the interventions may result in the reduction of FoC. Very uncertain evidence showed that enhanced cares are not effective in reducing the FoC.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    患有中风或短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)的人可能会遇到心理和/或认知困难。中风后心理和神经心理干预的研究越来越多,然而,发表的系统综述在范围和方法上有所不同,包括不同类型和严重程度的中风,有时,关于评估的干预措施的有效性得出了不同的结论。在这个伞式审查中,我们旨在系统总结现有的评估心理干预对卒中/TIA后情绪和认知的系统评价。
    我们将根据JBI证据综合手册进行这项总括审查。从一开始将搜索以下数据库:Cochrane系统评论数据库,效果评论数据库(DARE),MEDLINE,Embase,CINAHL,PsycINFO,和认识论。将包括在搜索日期之前发布或不发布荟萃分析的系统评价。包括针对任何中风类型或严重程度的情绪和/或认知结果的心理干预在内的评论将被筛选是否合格。叙事综合,包括内容分析,将被使用。审查的每个阶段都将由两名独立审查者处理,第三名审查者将被考虑解决分歧。将使用AMSTAR2评估纳入的审查的方法质量。
    现有的系统评价为卒中后/TIA心理干预的有效性提供了各种证据。这篇综述旨在总结针对情绪和认知的不同类型的心理和神经心理学干预措施的知识和证据。研究结果将突出重要的知识差距,并有助于优先考虑未来的研究问题。
    该协议于2022年11月15日在国际系统审查前瞻性注册(PROSPERO)中进行了前瞻性注册;PROSPEROCRD42022375947。
    UNASSIGNED: People who have had a stroke or a Transient Ischaemic Attack (TIA) can experience psychological and/or cognitive difficulties. The body of research for psychological and neuropsychological interventions after stroke is growing, however, published systematic reviews vary in scope and methodology, with different types and severity of strokes included, and at times, diverse conclusions drawn about the effectiveness of the interventions evaluated. In this umbrella review, we aim to systematically summarise the existing systematic reviews evaluating psychological interventions for mood and cognition post-stroke/TIA.
    UNASSIGNED: We will conduct this umbrella review according to the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The following databases will be searched from inception: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Epistemonikos. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis published until the search date will be included. Reviews including psychological interventions addressing mood and/or cognition outcomes for any stroke type or severity will be screened for eligibility. A narrative synthesis, including content analysis, will be used. Each stage of the review will be processed by two independent reviewers and a third reviewer will be considered to resolve disagreements. The methodological quality of the included reviews will be assessed using AMSTAR 2.
    UNASSIGNED: Existing systematic reviews provide varied evidence on the effectiveness of psychological interventions post-stroke/TIA. This umbrella review aims to summarise knowledge and evidence on different types of psychological and neuropsychological interventions targeting mood and cognition. Findings will highlight important knowledge gaps and help prioritise future research questions.
    UNASSIGNED: This protocol was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on November 15, 2022; PROSPERO CRD42022375947.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Systematic Review
    临床证据的可靠性取决于高质量的荟萃分析/系统综述(MA/SRs)。然而,尚未评估卒中后认知障碍(PSCI)中重复经颅磁刺激(rTMS)的MA/SR质量,国内和国际。本文试图利用雷达绘图直观地呈现rTMS上的MA/SR质量,以改善PSCI中的认知功能,旨在为临床研究提供直观的基础。
    系统地检索了八个中文或英文数据库,以收集全面的文献,检索时间从开始到2024年3月26日。文献排名使用六个维度计算:出版年份,设计类型,AMSTAR-2得分,PRISMA得分,出版偏见,和同质性。最后,起草了雷达图,以提供多元文献评估。等级工具评估了MAS/SRs中包含的结果指标的证据强度。
    所包含的17篇文章的平均得分分别为12.29、17、9.88、9.71、12.88和12.76。雷达图显示,2023年发表的一篇文章排名最高,雷达图面积很大,而2021年发表的一篇文章的排名最低,雷达图面积很小。等级工具评估显示,51份证据质量非常低,67个质量低,12个中等质量,只有一个是高质量的。
    文献的平均等级得分在8.50至17之间,较高的等级表示在文献参考中的意义更大。文献质量的变化归因于研究规划不足,不规则的文献检索和筛选,对研究的纳入标准描述不足,纳入研究对偏倚风险的考虑不足。大多数MAs/SRs表明rTMS在增强PSCI患者的整体认知功能和日常生活活动方面比对照组更有效。然而,文献的总体质量普遍较低,需要从未来的高质量证据中进行验证.系统审查注册:https://www。crd.约克。AC.英国/普华永道/,标识符CRD42023491280。
    UNASSIGNED: The reliability of clinical evidence depends on high-quality meta-analyses/ systematic reviews (MAs/SRs). However, there has been no assessment of the quality of MAs/SRs for repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI), both nationally and internationally. This article seeks to use radar plotting to visually present the quality of MAs/SRs on rTMS for improving cognitive function in PSCI, aiming to offer an intuitive foundation for clinical research.
    UNASSIGNED: Eight Chinese or English databases were systematically searched to collect comprehensive literature, and the retrieval time ranged from inception to 26 March 2024. Literature ranking was calculated using six dimensions: publication year, design type, AMSTAR-2 score, PRISMA score, publication bias, and homogeneity. Finally, radar plots were drafted to present a multivariate literature evaluation. The GRADE tool assessed the strength of evidence for the outcome indicators included in the MAs/SRs.
    UNASSIGNED: The 17 articles included had average scores of 12.29, 17, 9.88, 9.71, 12.88, and 12.76 for each dimension. The radar plot showed that an article published in 2023 had the highest rank and a large radar plot area, while an article published in 2021 had the lowest rank and a small radar plot area. The GRADE tool evaluation revealed that 51 pieces of evidence were of very low quality, 67 were of low quality, 12 were of moderate quality, and only one was of high quality.
    UNASSIGNED: The average rank score of literature ranged from 8.50 to 17, with higher rankings indicating greater significance in literature reference. Variations in literature quality were attributed to inadequate study planning, irregular literature search and screening, insufficient description of inclusion criteria for studies, and inadequate consideration of bias risk in the included studies. Most MAs/SRs indicated that rTMS was more effective than the control group in enhancing the global cognitive function and activities of daily living in PSCI patients. However, the overall quality of the literature was generally low and needs validation from future high-quality evidence.Systematic review registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023491280.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    睡眠障碍经常导致记忆力差,注意力缺陷,以及神经退行性变化的预后较差,如老年痴呆症。目的探讨睡眠障碍对认知的影响。我们筛选了四个数据库,从建立到2022年3月的所有荟萃分析和系统评价。我们已经进行了质量评估,并对符合条件的系统评价进行了审查。对22篇符合条件的文章进行了证据分级和质量评估。睡眠不足主要影响简单的注意力,复杂的注意力,以及认知和警觉性方面的工作记忆。中等至高质量的证据证明最佳睡眠时间为7-8小时。超出此范围的睡眠时间会增加执行功能受损的风险,非语言记忆,和工作记忆。与睡眠相关的呼吸障碍更有可能导致轻度认知障碍,并影响多个认知领域。在老年人中,失眠主要影响工作记忆,情景记忆,抑制控制,认知灵活性,解决问题,作战能力,感知功能,机敏,和复杂的注意力,保持灵敏度。睡眠障碍显著损害认知功能,早期发现和干预可能是减少不良预后的关键步骤。一个简单的神经心理记忆测试可以用来筛查睡眠障碍患者的认知障碍。
    在线版本包含补充材料,可在10.1007/s41105-022-00439-9获得。
    Sleep disorders frequently result in poor memory, attention deficits, as well as a worse prognosis for neurodegenerative changes, such as Alzheimer\'s disease. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of sleep disorders on cognition. We screened four databases for all meta-analyses and systematic reviews from the establishment through March 2022. We have carried out quality evaluation and review the eligible systematic reviews. Evidence grading and quality assessment were performed on 22 eligible articles. Sleep deprivation primarily affects simple attention, complex attention, and working memory in cognition and alertness. The moderate-to-high-quality evidence proves optimal sleep time as 7-8 h. Sleep time outside this range increases the risk of impaired executive function, non-verbal memory, and working memory. Sleep-related breathing disorders is more likely to cause mild cognitive impairment and affects several cognitive domains. In older adults, insomnia primarily affects working memory, episodic memory, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, problem-solving, operational ability, perceptual function, alertness, and complex attention, and maintaining sensitivity. Sleep disturbances significantly impair cognitive function, and early detection and intervention may be critical steps in reducing poor prognosis. A simple neuropsychological memory test could be used to screen people with sleep disorders for cognitive impairment.
    UNASSIGNED: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41105-022-00439-9.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    虽然遗传力估计表明了遗传成分的作用,环境危险因素已被描述为与注意缺陷/多动障碍(ADHD)的病因相关.一些研究调查了毒理学污染的作用,即,空气污染,重金属,持久性有机污染物,和邻苯二甲酸酯。尚未提供ADHD与环境因素关联的明确证据。为了回答这个问题,我们评估了所有现有的系统综述和荟萃分析,这些综述和荟萃分析集中于污染物暴露与ADHD诊断或症状之间的关联.筛选了1800多项研究,其中14项符合条件。我们发现了一些污染物有重要作用的证据,特别是重金属和邻苯二甲酸盐,在发展ADHD症状的风险增加。然而,在现阶段,现有文献中的数据也不允许对不同环境污染物的作用进行加权。我们还对评论/荟萃分析进行了严格的检查,并为该领域的未来研究提供了指示。PROSPERO注册:CRD42022341496。
    Although heritability estimates suggest a role for genetic components, environmental risk factors have been described as relevant in the etiology of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Several studies have investigated the role of toxicological pollution, i.e., air pollution, heavy metals, POPs, and phthalates. Clear evidence for association of ADHD and environmental factors has not been provided yet. To answer this, we have assessed all available systematic reviews and meta-analyses that focused on the association between pollutant exposure and either ADHD diagnosis or symptoms. More than 1800 studies were screened of which 14 found eligible. We found evidence of a significant role for some pollutants, in particular heavy metals and phthalates, in the increased risk of developing ADHD symptoms. However, at the current stage, data from existing literature also do not allow to weight the role of the different environmental pollutants. We also offer a critical examination of the reviews/meta-analyses and provide indications for future studies in this field. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022341496.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    许多癌症患者与常规药物一起使用补充药物,但肿瘤学的临床医生往往缺乏足够的知识来为患者提供补充治疗的证据基础.这项研究旨在提供最近发表的系统评价的概述,以评估补充疗法对癌症患者报告的健康结果的影响。系统审查,包括至少两项随机对照试验的荟萃分析,是从PubMed上确认的,Embase,科克伦图书馆,CINAHL和PsycINFO数据库。使用AMSTAR2评估方法学质量。包括了一百次系统审查。结果表明,几种补充疗法可以改善癌症患者报告的健康结果,比如针灸来缓解疼痛,音乐干预,以减少焦虑和瑜伽,以改善癌症相关的疲劳。与使用补充疗法相关的副作用通常是轻微的。对于某些干预-结果组合,结果仍不确定。许多纳入的系统评价在解释结果时没有充分评估偏见的原因和影响。这种系统评价的概述可以支持临床医生就该主题为患者提供咨询,并为补充医学领域的未来研究和临床实践指南提供指导。
    Many patients with cancer make use of complementary medicine alongside conventional medicine, but clinicians in oncology often lack the knowledge to adequately advise patients on the evidence base for complementary therapies. This study aims to provide an overview of recently published systematic reviews that assess the effects of complementary therapies on patient-reported health outcomes in patients with cancer. Systematic reviews, including a meta-analysis of at least two randomized controlled trials, were identified from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases. The methodological quality was assessed with AMSTAR 2. One hundred systematic reviews were included. The results suggest that several complementary therapies can improve health outcomes reported by patients with cancer, such as acupuncture to relieve pain, music interventions to reduce anxiety and yoga to improve cancer-related fatigue. The side effects related to complementary therapy use are generally mild. The results remain inconclusive for some intervention-outcome combinations. Many of the included systematic reviews insufficiently assessed the causes and impact of bias in their interpretation of the results. This overview of systematic reviews can support clinicians in counselling their patients on this topic and provide directions for future research and clinical practice guidelines in the field of complementary medicine.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Systematic Review
    背景:抗生素改变微生物平衡通常导致抗生素相关性腹泻(AAD)。益生菌可以通过提供肠道屏障和恢复肠道菌群来预防和治疗AAD。本研究将概述益生菌预防和治疗儿童AAD的系统评价(SRs)。它还将评估报告,方法论,和纳入SRs的证据质量,为其临床实践提供证据。方法:搜索PubMed后,Embase,科克伦图书馆,CNKI,CBM,VIP,和万方数据数据库,最后纳入益生菌SRs对儿童AAD的预防和治疗,于2022年10月1日前发布。报告,方法论,包括SR的证据质量由PRISMA2020声明评估,AMSTAR2工具,和等级制度。结果:共纳入20个SR,PRISMA2020的结果显示,20个SR中有4个报告相对完整,以及其他一些报告缺陷,得分从17分到26.5分;AMSTAR2的结果表明,3个SR属于中等质量水平,10个SR属于低质量水平,7个SR属于极低质量水平;分级系统的结果显示,所包括的SR共报告了47个结果,三是高水平的证据质量,16个是中等水平的证据质量,24人证据质量低,4例证据质量极低水平;Meta分析结果显示,高剂量(每天5-40亿CFU)益生菌对预防AAD有显著作用,但现在就断定其他益生菌药物对儿童AAD的有效性和安全性还为时过早,除了鼠李糖乳杆菌和布拉氏酵母菌。结论:现有证据表明益生菌有效预防和治疗儿童AAD,益生菌对小儿AAD的影响可能是一种潜在的剂量-反应效应。然而,由于方法上的不足,应谨慎对待结论,reporting,以及纳入SRs的证据质量。因此,方法论,reporting,相关SR的证据质量仍需进一步提高。系统审查注册:https://www。crd.约克。AC.英国/普华永道/,标识符CRD42022362328。
    Background: Antibiotics alter the microbial balance commonly resulting in antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). Probiotics may prevent and treat AAD by providing the gut barrier and restoring the gut microflora. This study will overview the Systematic Reviews (SRs) of probiotics in preventing and treating AAD in children. It will also assess the reporting, methodological, and evidence quality of the included SRs to provide evidence for their clinical practice. Methods: After searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, VIP, and WanFang Data databases, and finally included SRs of probiotics in the prevention and treatment of AAD in children, which were published before 1 October 2022. The reporting, methodological, and evidence quality of the included SRs were assessed by PRISMA 2020 statement, AMSTAR 2 tool, and GRADE system. Results: A total of 20 SRs were included, and the results of PRISMA 2020 showed that 4 out of 20 SRs with relatively complete reporting, and the others within some reporting deficiencies, with scores ranging from 17 points to 26.5 points; the results of AMSTAR 2 showed that 3 SRs belonged to moderate quality level, 10 SRs belonged to low-quality level and 7 SRs being extremely low-quality level; the results of the GRADE system showed that a total of 47 outcomes were reported for the included SRs, three were high-level evidence quality, 16 were medium-level evidence quality, 24 were low-level evidence quality, and four were extremely low-level evidence quality; the results of the Meta-analysis showed that high doses (5-40 billion CFUs per day) of probiotics had a significant effect in the prevention of AAD, but it is too early to conclude the effectiveness and safety of other probiotic drugs for AAD in children, except for Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus and Saccharomyces boulardii. Conclusion: Current evidence shows that probiotics effectively prevent and treat AAD in children, and the effect of probiotics on pediatric AAD may be a potential dose-response effect. However, the conclusion should be treated with caution due to deficiencies in the methodological, reporting, and evidence quality of the included SRs. Therefore, the methodological, reporting, and evidence quality of relevant SRs still need further improvement. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022362328.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Systematic Review
    本研究旨在评估和总结以家庭为中心的干预措施对围产期抑郁症的疗效的批判性系统评价(SRs)的质量。
    在9个数据库中系统地搜索了以家庭为中心的干预措施对围产期抑郁症的疗效。检索期从数据库开始到2022年12月31日。此外,两名审核员对报告质量进行了独立评估,偏差风险,方法论,和使用ROBIS(一种评估SRs偏差风险的工具)的证据,系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)的首选报告项目,AMSTAR2(SR的评估工具),以及建议的分级,评估,开发和评估(等级)。
    共有8篇论文符合入选标准。特别是,AMSTAR2将五个SR评为极低质量,将三个SR评为低质量。ROBIS将八个SR中的四个评为“低风险”。\“关于PRISMA,八个SR中的四个被评为50%以上。基于GRADE工具,六名SRs中有两名将母亲抑郁症状评为“中度”;五名SRs中有一名将父亲抑郁症状评为“中度”;六名SRs中有一名估计家庭功能为“中度”,其他证据被评为“非常低”或“低”。\"在八个SR中,六个(75%)报告说母亲的抑郁症状明显减轻,和两个SR(25%)没有报告。
    以家庭为中心的干预措施可能会改善产妇的抑郁症状和家庭功能,但不是父性抑郁症状。然而,方法的质量,证据,reporting,以家庭为中心的围产期抑郁症干预措施纳入的SRs中的风险偏倚并不令人满意。上述缺点可能会对SR产生负面影响,然后导致结果不一致。因此,具有低偏见风险的SR,高质量的证据,标准报告,严格的方法是必要的,以提供以家庭为中心的干预措施对围产期抑郁症的有效性的证据。
    UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to evaluate and conclude the quality of critically systematic reviews (SRs) of the efficacy of family-centered interventions on perinatal depression.
    UNASSIGNED: SRs of the efficacy of family-centered interventions on perinatal depression were systematically searched in nine databases. The retrieval period was from the inception of the database to December 31, 2022. In addition, two reviewers conducted an independent evaluation of the quality of reporting, bias risk, methodologies, and evidence using ROBIS (an instrument for evaluating the bias risk of SRs), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), AMSTAR 2 (an assessment tool for SRs), and grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations (GRADE).
    UNASSIGNED: A total of eight papers satisfied the inclusion criteria. In particular, AMSTAR 2 rated five SRs as extremely low quality and three SRs as low quality. ROBIS graded four out of eight SRs as \"low risk.\" Regarding PRISMA, four of the eight SRs were rated over 50%. Based on the GRADE tool, two out of six SRs rated maternal depressive symptoms as \"moderate;\" one out of five SRs rated paternal depressive symptoms as \"moderate;\" one out of six SRs estimated family functioning as \"moderate,\" and the other evidence was rated as \"very low\" or \"low.\" Of the eight SRs, six (75%) reported that maternal depressive symptoms were significantly reduced, and two SRs (25%) were not reported.
    UNASSIGNED: Family-centered interventions may improve maternal depressive symptoms and family function, but not paternal depressive symptoms. However, the quality of methodologies, evidence, reporting, and bias of risk in the included SRs of family-centered interventions for perinatal depression was not satisfactory. The above-mentioned demerits may negatively affect SRs and then cause inconsistent outcomes. Therefore, SRs with a low risk of bias, high-quality evidence, standard reporting, and strict methodology are necessary to provide evidence of the efficacy of family-centered interventions for perinatal depression.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:处方阿片类药物的取消(减少或停止)对于患者和医疗保健专业人员来说都是具有挑战性的。
    目的:综合和评估来自系统评价的证据,以检查患者为目标的阿片类药物处方干预措施对所有类型疼痛的有效性和结果。
    方法:在5个数据库中进行系统搜索,并根据预定的纳入/排除标准筛选结果。主要结果是;i)阿片类药物剂量减少,报告为口服吗啡等效日剂量(OMEDD)和II)阿片类药物开处方成功的变化,报告为阿片类药物使用下降的样本比例。次要结果包括疼痛严重程度,物理功能,生活质量和不良事件。证据的确定性是使用建议评估等级来评估的,开发和评估(等级)方法。
    结果:12条评论符合纳入条件。干预措施本质上是异质的,包括药理学(n=4),物理(n=3),程序(n=3),心理或行为(n=3)和混合(n=5)干预措施。多学科护理计划似乎是阿片类药物开处方最有效的干预措施,然而,证据的确定性很低,在不同干预措施中,阿片类药物减少的差异显著。
    结论:证据太不确定,无法得出关于可能从阿片类药物处方中获得最大益处的特定人群的确切结论,保证进一步调查。
    BACKGROUND: Deprescribing (reduction or cessation) of prescribed opioids can be challenging for both patients and healthcare professionals.
    OBJECTIVE: To synthesize and evaluate evidence from systematic reviews examining the effectiveness and outcomes of patient-targeted opioid deprescribing interventions for all types of pain.
    METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in five databases with results screened against predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Primary outcomes were (i) reduction in opioid dose, reported as change in oral Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (oMEDD) and (ii) success of opioid deprescribing, reported as the proportion of the sample for which opioid use declined. Secondary outcomes included pain severity, physical function, quality of life and adverse events. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.
    RESULTS: Twelve reviews were eligible for inclusion. Interventions were heterogeneous in nature and included pharmacological (n = 4), physical (n = 3), procedural (n = 3), psychological or behavioural (n = 3) and mixed (n = 5) interventions. Multidisciplinary care programmes appeared to be the most effective intervention for opioid deprescribing; however, the certainty of evidence was low, with significant variability in opioid reduction across interventions.
    CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is too uncertain to draw firm conclusions about specific populations who may derive the greatest benefit from opioid deprescribing, warranting further investigation.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号