The association between psoriasis and alcohol consumption has been inconsistent across various studies. However, to the best of our knowledge, no dose-response meta-analysis has been performed to date. This study aims to investigate the association between alcohol consumption and psoriasis. The search was performed on July 27, 2021, using Embase and MEDLINE. The restricted cubic spline analysis was used to perform a dose-response analysis. We identified 3,904 studies, of which 48 studies with 1,702,847 individuals across 24 countries were included. Alcohol consumption was positively associated with psoriasis (odds ratio [OR], 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-1.70). In addition, a significantly increased OR for psoriasis was observed in males (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.13-3.01) but not in females (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.97-1.54). Based on eight studies, including three cohort and five case-control studies, the analysis revealed that with each additional gram of daily alcohol intake, the OR for psoriasis increased by 4%. We found a positive association between alcohol consumption and psoriasis. The association is more prominent in the group drinking more than 45 g of alcohol per day (3.2 alcoholic drink equivalent).
Verschiedene Studien zur Assoziation zwischen Psoriasis und Alkoholkonsum ergeben kein einheitliches Bild. Nach unserer Kenntnis wurde allerdings bisher noch keine Metaanalyse zur Dosis‐Wirkungs‐Beziehung durchgeführt. Diese Studie untersucht die Assoziation zwischen Alkoholkonsum und Psoriasis. Die Datenbanksuche wurde am 27. Juli 2021 in den Datenbanken Embase und MEDLINE durchgeführt. Zur Analyse der Dosis‐Wirkungs‐Beziehung wurde die Restricted‐cubic‐Spline‐Analyse eingesetzt. Insgesamt konnten wir 3904 Studien identifizieren, von denen letztlich 48 mit einer Gesamtpopulation von 1 702 847 Personen in die Metaanalyse einbezogen wurden. Alkoholkonsum war positiv assoziiert mit Psoriasis (Odds Ratio [OR] 1,47; 95%‐Konfidenzintervall [KI] 1,27–1,70). Außerdem fand sich eine positive OR für Psoriasis bei Männern (OR 1,84; 95% KI 1,13–3,01), nicht aber bei Frauen (OR 1,22; 95% KI 0,97–1,54). Auf der Basis von acht Studien (drei Kohortenstudien und fünf Fall‐Kontroll‐Studien) ergab die Analyse, dass sich für jedes zusätzliche Gramm an täglichem Alkoholkonsum die OR für Psoriasis um 4% erhöht. Wir konnten eine positive Assoziation zwischen Alkoholkonsum und Psoriasis feststellen. Diese Assoziation ist deutlicher in der Gruppe von Personen, die täglich mehr als 45 Gramm Alkohol zu sich nehmen (dies entspricht täglich 3,2 Gläsern eines alkoholischen Getränks).

Die atopische Dermatitis ist die häufigste chronisch-entzündliche Hauterkrankung im Kindesalter. Einige Studien kamen zu dem Ergebnis, das Risiko für diese Erkrankung sei im städtischen Raum höher als im ländlichen. Wir haben die verfügbaren Studien systematisch untersucht und eine Meta-Analyse durchgeführt, um Unterschiede im Risiko für atopische Dermatitis zwischen städtischem und ländlichem Raum zu erkennen. Die Suche in den Datenbanken Embase und MEDLINE wurde am 19. April 2021 durchgeführt. Einschlusskriterium war das Stichwort “Beobachtungsstudie”. Wir haben außerdem Subgruppenanalysen bezüglich Patientenalter, Publikationsjahr und Land durchgeführt. Insgesamt wurden bei der Datenbanksuche 2115 Studien aufgefunden, von denen letztlich 43 Studien mit insgesamt 1 728 855 Patienten in die Meta-Analyse eingeschlossen wurden. Ein Wohnsitz im städtischen Raum war mit einem erhöhten Risiko für atopische Dermatitis assoziiert; die Odds Ratio war 1,56 (95 %-Konfidenzintervall 1,43-1,71). Dieses signifikant erhöhte Risiko war nur bei Kindern zu beobachten (Odds Ratio 1,55, 95 %-Konfidenzintervall 1,39-1,73), nicht jedoch bei Erwachsenen. Hier betrug die Odds Ratio 1,29 (95 %-Konfidenzintervall 0,99-1,67). Das Risiko für atopische Dermatitis ist in den letzten Jahrzehnten angestiegen, wobei das Risiko in Entwicklungsländern mit einer Odds Ratio von 1,95 höher liegt als in Industrieländern (Odds Ratio 1,35). Unsere Studie bestätigt die Assoziation zwischen atopischer Dermatitis und dem Wohnsitz im städtischen gegenüber dem ländlichen Raum.

Systematic reviews (SRs) have become a central tool for evidence-based health care over the last 30 years. The number of SRs being published has increased steadily. However, concerns have been raised regarding the duplication of work, methodological flaws and the currency of many systematic reviews, also in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Living systematic reviews (LSRs) offer a new approach to updating systematic reviews, particularly in high-priority research fields that face the challenge of dynamically evolving and sometimes uncertain evidence. Continual updates serve to ensure that LSRs remain current and methodologically rigorous. As a new element of the evidence ecosystem, LSRs can inform living guidelines and recommendations, user-adapted formats, decisions at the patient and system level as well as gaps in primary research.

BACKGROUND: Interventions to promote physical activity in nursing homes are among the priorities of German long-term care insurance funds. We summarized the evidence on the effectiveness of such interventions.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in five electronic databases in November 2019, which was complemented by searching reference lists and trials registries. Eligible studies included individually (RCTs) or cluster randomized trials or non-randomized comparative studies that investigated the effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity in nursing home residents and their impact on the ability to perform activities of daily living. Results were synthesized using random effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Meta-analysis of 19 included studies with high risk of bias showed a small yet statistically significant effect on activities of daily living (SMD = 0.40, 95 % CI 0.08-0.72); heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 77 %, p < 0.0001). Sensitivity analysis excluding two non-randomized comparative studies did not alter the results (SMD = 0.40, 95 % CI 0.03-0.76). The effect attenuated but was still statistically significant in a meta-analysis which excluded five studies that were largely responsible for the heterogeneity (SMD = 0.27, 95 % CI 0.12-0.43, I2=34 %, p = 0.10). Subgroup analyses did not demonstrate any statistically significant results in favour of physical activity.
CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence for a beneficial effect on activities of daily living in favour of interventions that aim to promote physical activity. Due to the high overall risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity of the included studies the results should be interpreted with caution, though.
CONCLUSIONS: Methodologically sound studies are needed to strengthen the evidence base on the topic.

Research in the field of health promotion generates evidence-based knowledge and has the potential to increase the acceptance, impact and long-term effectiveness of interventions. Typically, a distinction is made between qualitative and quantitative approaches. Yet, with complex and multidimensional re-search questions in the field of health promotion a combination of the two approaches has proven useful. Using mixed-methods designs promises, among other things, to compensate for weaknesses of the individual methods, to improve the scope of the results, and to provide a comprehensive insight into the topic. In this systematic review of two German journals we examine the role of the mixed-methods approach in the field of health promotion and how it can be translated into specific research projects. The review\'s results show that mixed-methods designs are implemented in various contexts. In most studies, the quantitative research strand plays the central role. The use of the mixed-methods designs in health promotion can be further discussed, especially taking into account technical innovations in the field of data collection or with regard to the interpretative potential of qualitative research. The presentation of the review is based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) by the Equator Network.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain represents a major healthcare challenge in Germany and worldwide. The research field is highly dynamic. The aim of this evidence map was to create a compact overview of current systematic reviews on interventions for non-specific low back pain.
METHODS: Medline (PubMed), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Epistemonikos were systematically searched from March 2015 to March 2019 for systematic reviews addressing any interventions for acute, subacute or chronic non-specific low back pain and reporting at least one patient-relevant outcome. Key information on the characteristics and conclusions of the included reviews were extracted and aspects of the methodological quality of the included reviews were assessed independently by two reviewers. The data were tabulated.
RESULTS: The search identified 1,436 records. 53 systematic reviews were included in the evidence map. The quality of the reviews and of the studies included therein varied. The reviews addressed a variety of different interventions, with considerable heterogeneity of their characteristics and methodological aspects. Many reviews found evidence for positive effects of the studied interventions, some found evidence for no effect, but the quantity and quality of the evidence were often judged as insufficient for formulating robust conclusions. Relatively few data were available on adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: This evidence map provides a compact resource for the use of current systematic reviews on interventions for non-specific low back pain. The methodological deficits of many reviews require a careful approach towards their findings and conclusions and suggest a need for methodologically rigorous reviews.

Reviews of primary research studies are becoming increasingly important as the concept of evidence-based practice in healthcare is gaining more and more influence and the number of research projects is increasing enormously. One of the less well-known types of review is the \"scoping review.\" Scoping reviews are conducted when one first needs to take stock of the research literature. For example, scoping reviews are conducted in order to establish provisional working definitions or to define topics or subject areas conceptually. Preparing a scoping review also makes sense if the literature has not yet been comprehensively assessed or if it contains a complex or heterogeneous problem so that a more precise systematic review of the evidence is not appropriate. Scoping reviews can also serve to determine the scope and significance of a prospective classical systematic review. Finally, scoping reviews are also a good way to bundle and communicate research results, identify research gaps, and formulate recommendations for future research. This article explains the methodology of scoping reviews, their differences as compared to systematic reviews, and the reasons why they could be conducted. This guide to conducting scoping reviews is based on the methodology developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI).

Significant others are individuals representing family members or neighbors, friends, colleagues or members of the same household, who act as relatives or surrogates. Significant others play an important role when patients are transferred or discharged after hospitalization.
The objective of this review is to identify, appraise and synthesize the best available evidence exploring significant others\' experiences of the discharge or transfer of adult patients after hospitalization.
A qualitative comprehensive systematic review and meta aggregation.
Participants of this review are the \'significant other(s); persons who are important or influential to the patient\'s life.
How the significant others\' experience hospitalized patients\' transitions and the psychosocial and existential issues during transfer from hospital to home.
Studies that investigate the organizational culture during hospitalization.
Studies that focus on qualitative data including, but not limited to, designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research and feminist research.
The search aimed at finding published and unpublished studies in English, German, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian, and was unrestricted by time. Eleven electronic databases and eleven websites were searched.
Methodological validity of the qualitative papers was assessed independently by two reviewers using the standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument.
Data were extracted from papers included in the review using the standardized data extraction tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument.
Qualitative research findings were synthesized.
A total of 189 findings from twelve studies were aggregated into three categories. An aggregated finding was generated based on the primary studies: SOs existential strength is linked to preparations for the discharge including care planning meeting(s) and learning-by-doing care activities led by health care providers during hospitalizations.
The studies in this review provided useful and credible statements from caregivers\' voices that are not previously aggregated nor presented. The findings enlighten both positive and burdensome experiences in the everyday life of caring for a significant other after discharge.

Patient involvement (PI) in research is increasingly required as a means to improve relevance and meaningfulness of research results. PI has been widely promoted by the National Institute for Health Research in England in the last years. In Germany, widespread involvement of patients in research is still missing. The methods used to realize PI have been developed mainly in English research contexts, and detailed information on how to involve patients in systematic reviews is rare. Therefore, the aim of the study was that patients contribute and prioritize clinically relevant outcomes to a systematic review on meta-cognitive interventions, and to evaluate a patient workshop as well as patients\' perceptions of research involvement. Seven patients with experience in psychiatric care participated in our workshop. They focused on outcomes pre-defined in the review protocol (e.g., meta-cognitive or cognitive changes, symptomatology, quality of life), neglected other outcomes (like satisfaction with treatment, acceptability), and added relevant new ones (e.g., scope of action/autonomy, applicability). Altogether, they valued the explicit workshop participation positively. However, some suggested to involve patients at an earlier stage and to adapt the amount of information given. Further systematic reviews would benefit from the involvement of patients in the definition of other components of the review question (like patients or interventions), in the interpretation of key findings or in drafting a lay summary.