Systematic Reviews最新文献

While undisputedly important, and part of any systematic review (SR) by definition, evaluation of the risk of bias within the included studies is one of the most time-consuming parts of performing an SR. In this paper, we describe a case study comprising an extensive analysis of risk of bias (RoB) and reporting quality (RQ) assessment from a previously published review (CRD42021236047). It included both animal and human studies, and the included studies compared baseline diseased subjects with controls, assessed the effects of investigational treatments, or both. We compared RoB and RQ between the different types of included primary studies. We also assessed the "informative value" of each of the separate elements for meta-researchers, based on the notion that variation in reporting may be more interesting for the meta-researcher than consistently high/low or reported/non-reported scores. In general, reporting of experimental details was low. This resulted in frequent unclear risk-of-bias scores. We observed this both for animal and for human studies and both for disease-control comparisons and investigations of experimental treatments. Plots and explorative chi-square tests showed that reporting was slightly better for human studies of investigational treatments than for the other study types. With the evidence reported as is, risk-of-bias assessments for systematic reviews have low informative value other than repeatedly showing that reporting of experimental details needs to improve in all kinds of in vivo research. Particularly for reviews that do not directly inform treatment decisions, it could be efficient to perform a thorough but partial assessment of the quality of the included studies, either of a random subset of the included publications or of a subset of relatively informative elements, comprising, e.g. ethics evaluation, conflicts of interest statements, study limitations, baseline characteristics, and the unit of analysis. This publication suggests several potential procedures.

Background: Algorithmic decision-making (ADM) utilises algorithms to collect and process data and develop models to make or support decisions. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to the development of support systems that can be superior to medical professionals without AI support in certain tasks. However, whether patients can benefit from this remains unclear. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the current evidence on patient-relevant benefits and harms, such as improved survival rates and reduced treatment-related complications, when healthcare professionals use ADM systems (developed using or working with AI) compared to healthcare professionals without AI-related ADM (standard care)-regardless of the clinical issues.

Methods: Following the PRISMA statement, MEDLINE and PubMed (via PubMed), Embase (via Elsevier) and IEEE Xplore will be searched using English free text terms in title/abstract, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and Embase Subject Headings (Emtree fields). Additional studies will be identified by contacting authors of included studies and through reference lists of included studies. Grey literature searches will be conducted in Google Scholar. Risk of bias will be assessed by using Cochrane's RoB 2 for randomised trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomised trials. Transparent reporting of the included studies will be assessed using the CONSORT-AI extension statement. Two researchers will screen, assess and extract from the studies independently, with a third in case of conflicts that cannot be resolved by discussion.

Discussion: It is expected that there will be a substantial shortage of suitable studies that compare healthcare professionals with and without ADM systems concerning patient-relevant endpoints. This can be attributed to the prioritisation of technical quality criteria and, in some cases, clinical parameters over patient-relevant endpoints in the development of study designs. Furthermore, it is anticipated that a significant portion of the identified studies will exhibit relatively poor methodological quality and provide only limited generalisable results.

Systematic review registration: This study is registered within PROSPERO (CRD42023412156).

Background: Pregnant women, fetuses, and neonates are particularly vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs). These VPDs are associated with high morbidity and mortality among expectant mothers and their fetuses and neonates. Vaccination during pregnancy can protect the expectant mother from VPDs to which she may be especially vulnerable while pregnant. In addition, the passive transfer of maternal neutralizing immunoglobulin G (IgG) and secretory immunoglobulin A (IgA) also protects the fetus against congenital infections and may further protect the neonate from infection during the first few months of life. Despite this, coverage of recommended maternal vaccines remains suboptimal globally, especially in resource-constrained settings. Determinants of vaccine acceptance and uptake are frequently understudied in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and among specific groups such as pregnant and postpartum women. This proposed systematic review will assess the acceptance and uptake of vaccines against tetanus, influenza, pertussis, and COVID-19 among pregnant and postpartum women in LMICs.

Methods: A Boolean search strategy employing common and medical subject heading (MeSH) terms for tetanus, influenza, pertussis, and COVID-19 vaccines, as well as vaccine acceptance, hesitancy, together with uptake, pregnancy, and postpartum, will be used to search electronic databases for relevant literature published between 2009 and 2024. Only studies conducted in LMICs that investigated determinants of acceptance, hesitancy, and uptake of tetanus, influenza, pertussis, and COVID-19 vaccines among pregnant and postpartum women will be eligible for inclusion in the review. The quality and the risk of bias of all eligible full-text articles will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI) critical appraisal tools.

Discussion: This protocol proposes a systematic review and meta-analysis that aims to assess the uptake of maternal vaccines and to systematically appraise and quantify determinants of the acceptance and uptake of recommended vaccines during pregnancy and postpartum in LMICs. A better understanding of these factors and how they influence maternal vaccine decision-making will enable public health practitioners as well as global and national policymakers to design more effective interventions as we look towards expanding the scope and reach of maternal immunization programs.

Background: Lifestyle interventions are key to the control of diabetes and the prevention of complications, especially when used with pharmacological interventions. This protocol aims to review the effectiveness of lifestyle interventions in relation to nutrition and physical activity within the West African region. This systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to understand which interventions for lifestyle modification are implemented for the control of diabetes in West Africa at the individual and community level, what evidence is available on their effectiveness in improving glycaemic control and why these interventions were effective.

Methods: We will review randomised control trials and quasi-experimental designs on interventions relating to physical activity and nutrition in West Africa. Language will be restricted to English and French as these are the most widely spoken languages in the region. No other filters will be applied. Searching will involve four electronic databases - PubMed, Scopus, Africa Journals Online and Cairn.info using natural-language phrases plus reference/citation checking. Two reviewers will independently screen results according to titles and abstracts against the inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify eligible studies. Upon full-text review, all selected studies will be assessed using Cochrane's Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias of a study and the ROBINS-I tool before data extraction. Evidence will be synthesised narratively and statistically where appropriate. We will conduct a meta-analysis when the interventions and contexts are similar enough for pooling and compare the treatment effects of the interventions in rural to urban settings and short term to long term wherever possible.

Discussion: We anticipate finding a number of studies missed by previous reviews and providing evidence of the effectiveness of different nutrition and physical activity interventions within the context of West Africa. This knowledge will support practitioners and policymakers in the design of interventions that are fit for context and purpose within the West African region.

Systematic review registration: This systematic review has been registered in the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews - PROSPERO, with registration number CRD42023435116. All amendments to this protocol during the process of the review will be explained accordingly.