JBI evidence synthesis最新文献

Objective: This umbrella review will aim to assess the effectiveness of support interventions for improving well-being outcomes in parents of preterm infants.

Introduction: Preterm birth presents significant emotional, psychological, and social challenges for parents, often adversely affecting their well-being. Numerous systematic reviews have examined support interventions aimed at improving parental outcomes. An umbrella review is warranted to synthesize and critically appraise this diverse evidence. Such a review could guide health care professionals in implementing effective, evidence-based strategies to support parents throughout the parenthood journey of preterm infants.

Eligibility criteria: This umbrella review will include systematic reviews that examine the effectiveness of support interventions designed to enhance the well-being of parents of preterm infants. All types of support interventions will be considered, regardless of the parents' gender or age, the infants' gestational age, or the contextual setting.

Methods: This review will follow the JBI methodology for umbrella reviews. A comprehensive search will be conducted across PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase (Embase.com), Scopus, Open Access Theses and Dissertations (OATD), and the Mahidol Library Catalog (OPAC) to identify relevant reviews. There will be no date or language limitations. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full texts using predefined eligibility criteria. The methodological quality of the included reviews will be assessed using the JBI checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses. Data will be extracted using a piloted, adapted JBI tool. Findings will be presented in tables with narrative summaries, visual aids, and a citation matrix to assess study overlap.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD420251071668.

Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to analyze the incidence and prevalence of atopic disease in second- and subsequent-generation immigrants from Asia in Australia.

Introduction: Atopic diseases are IgE-mediated hypersensitivity diseases that have increased significantly globally. Western countries have conspicuously more incidences of atopic disease than Eastern countries. An increase in second-generation immigrants in Australia has revealed an emerging disparity between the atopic profile of first-generation immigrants, second-generation immigrants, and non-immigrants. Second-generation immigrants from Asia seem to be markedly more susceptible to atopic disease than non-immigrants and their first-generation parents.

Eligibility criteria: Studies including atopic disease, specifically food allergies, asthma, atopic dermatitis (eczema), and allergic rhinitis (hay fever), will be included; other presentations of atopic disease will be excluded. The population of interest will be second-generation Asian immigrants and any subsequent generations. Each paper's definition of Asian will be accepted as presented. The context of interest is Australia.

Methods: This systematic review will follow JBI methodology and the PERSyst manual for systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence. PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Embase will be searched for English-language studies from 1990 to the present. Gray literature and trial registries will also be searched. Prevalence and incidence data will be screened against the eligibility criteria and critically appraised by 2 independent reviewers. Data such as age, gender, and country of origin will be extracted via a customized tool. The data will undergo meta-analysis and be presented in narrative format with figures and tables where statistical pooling is not possible.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42024612805.

Meta-analysis is a widely employed method for the synthesis of effect sizes across diverse studies; however, traditional meta-analytic models do not address potential bias due to systematic error. In response, bias-adjusted models of meta-analysis have emerged. One of these is the quality effects (QE) model that was introduced as an approach specifically designed to adjust pooled estimates using information from methodological quality assessments. In this paper, we guide researchers step-by-step through the bias-adjustment process using the QE model in Stata (metan package; StataCorp LLC, Texas USA), which provides functions for performing a QE meta-analysis.

Objective: This review aims to identify the facilitators and barriers to recruiting pregnant people with anxiety/depression into group-based intervention studies designed to support their mental health.

Introduction: Recruiting pregnant women, particularly those with anxiety/depression, for research studies is crucial for developing effective mental health interventions; however, this remains a significant challenge. There is a lack of focused evidence on the specific facilitators and barriers to recruiting women for perinatal mental health studies.

Eligibility criteria: This review will include studies on pregnant people with anxiety/depression focusing on the facilitators and barriers to recruiting participants for group-based programs designed to support their mental health.

Methods: The review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for mixed methods systematic reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We will systematically search PubMed, Embase, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, PsycINFO (Ovid), and ScienceDirect. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest) and Google Scholar will be searched for gray literature. The references of the relevant articles will be manually searched to identify additional studies. Identified studies will be independently assessed for inclusion by 2 reviewers. Independent double extraction of study characteristics and critical appraisal items will be conducted using standardized critical appraisal tools. Quantitative and qualitative data will be summarized in narrative and tabular format, and synthesized using a convergent integrated approach, in which quantitative data will be transformed to support the synthesis of narrative findings. Consistency will be verified by 2 reviewers, with any discrepancies resolved through discussion.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42025635015.

Objective: This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and patient- and surgeon-related outcomes of the Sentimag platform (Magseed and Magtrace) as alternatives to traditional localization techniques in the surgical management of early breast cancer.

Introduction: Magseed and Magtrace are magnetic localization technologies increasingly used to replace traditional wire-guided and radioisotope techniques for tumor and sentinel lymph node localization in breast-conserving surgery. While the technology offers several theoretical advantages, current evidence is primarily observational, and high-certainty comparative data are limited.

Eligibility criteria: This review will include studies involving adult patients with impalpable breast cancer undergoing breast-conserving surgery using Magseed/Magtrace for surgical localization. Eligible study designs include randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and cohort and description studies. Comparators will include hook wire and/or radioisotope +/- blue dye localization.

Methods: A comprehensive search will be conducted across PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and gray literature sources. Study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis will be conducted by 2 independent reviewers in line with JBI methodology. Outcomes of interest include localization success, re-excision rate, resection volume, complication rates, patient and surgeon-reported outcomes, sentinel lymph node detection rate, and sentinel lymph node yield. Meta-analysis will be performed, where appropriate, using random-effects modeling. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be applied to assess certainty of evidence, and a Summary of Findings will be provided.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD420251069569.

Objective: This review aims to synthesize qualitative evidence on the experiences of midwifery students with providing care aligned with the midwifery philosophy of care during clinical practice in hospital settings.

Introduction: Midwifery education, guided by the global standards of the International Confederation of Midwives, integrates theoretical knowledge with clinical practice to prepare students for delivering midwifery philosophy of care. However, implementing the principles of this philosophy of care, such as promoting physiological childbirth, woman-centered care, and shared decision-making, can be challenging within hospital settings.

Eligibility criteria: Published qualitative studies conducted since 2005 reporting qualitative data on midwifery students' (aged 18 years or older) experiences of providing midwifery care in hospital settings during their clinical practice will be included. Students' experiences may encompass facilitators or barriers for practicing the principles of the midwifery philosophy of care. Studies conducted in Europe, New Zealand, and Australia will be considered, as these are settings where midwifery associations advocate for the midwifery philosophy of care in hospital environments.

Methods: A systematic search will be conducted in CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PubMed, Embase.com, ERIC (Ovid), and Web of Science Core Collection for studies published in any language from 2005 to the present. Unpublished and gray literature will be sought through Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. The JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence will be followed for study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, synthesis through meta-aggregation, and assessment of confidence in the findings (ConQual approach). All steps will be performed independently by 2 reviewers.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42024625908.

Objective: The objective of this review is to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of various dosage parameters (session duration, frequency, and total intervention period), including their potential dose-response impact (if meta-analysis is feasible), on postural control and balance using Wii Fit Plus balance exergaming in stroke patients.

Introduction: Wii Fit Plus is an innovative exergaming tool that consists of interactive standing balance exercises to improve balance and postural control in stroke patients. However, the optimal treatment effects and dosage response for achieving these outcomes remain unclear.

Eligibility criteria: This review will consider randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and other types of experimental studies evaluating preliminary efficacy or effectiveness of Wii Fit Plus balance exergames for adults and older adults post-stroke. The comparators will include standard-care physiotherapy and alternative exergaming interventions. The outcome of interest will be postural control and balance, quality of life, functional independence, gait performance, and functional mobility.

Methods: A systematic search will be conducted across PubMed, Embase, Scopus, PEDro, Web of Science, and CINAHL (EBSCOhost) for studies published from 2010 onwards. The review will follow JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal will be independently performed by 2 reviewers. Dose-response meta-analysis (DRMA) using a random-effects model will be used to estimate pooled effect size, with subgroup analyses exploring dosing variations. If meta-analysis is not feasible, a narrative synthesis will be conducted. The overall strength of the evidence will be determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42025641558.

Objective: We present a framework to guide researchers in contacting and retrieving trial data from trialists. This framework serves 2 purposes i) to provide a consistent and transparent approach for contacting authors, and ii) to describe how to record clearly all contact attempts and to identify trialists who have not responded to reasonable attempts at communication. This framework will help researchers identify trials that may require investigation for data integrity issues.

Background: Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) is considered the gold standard for evaluating clinical interventions. The popularity of IPD-MA has increased due to the potential for advanced statistical analyses and the ability to test data veracity prior to analysis. Contacting trialists and requesting data is the most time-intensive step in an IPD-MA project. Often, many datasets are not retrieved, as authors are uncontactable or do not share data. This absence of IPD can bias meta-analysis and interpretation of results. Currently, there is no framework in place to guide researchers in contacting trialists and to define a reasonable point to cease communication attempts.

Proposed framework: The framework consists of 4 approaches: first, contacting the listed authors on the trial publication; second, contacting the trialists' associated institutions (hospitals and universities); third, contacting colleagues from similar regions within a particular country; And fourth, contacting the journal in search of trialists' contact details. If trialists do not respond to sustained communication attempts, their study should be classified as "non-responding." Depending on the trial context, non-responding trialists or those who respond with concerning reasons why data are unavailable may be subject to further review regarding trial quality and data integrity concerns.

Case study: This framework was applied in an IPD-MA comparing misoprostol with oxytocin for the prevention of postpartum hemorrhage, which included 79 randomized controlled trials. With the use of this framework, trialists from 10 trials responded to the IPD invitation and contributed data (6 of which were used in final analysis); 38 trialists responded but did not contribute data; and 31 trialists did not respond and trials were subsequently classified as non-responding.

Conclusions: The proposed framework provides a uniform structure for contacting authors and requesting data for IPD-MA, which may increase the likelihood that trialists will respond to IPD-MA invitations. This framework will also help to identify trialists who do not respond to reasonable attempts at communication.

Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to explore how simulation-based education can be used to support new graduate nurses' learning during their transition to practice in critical care settings.

Introduction: Transition to practice is a period of challenge and change as new graduates address their knowledge-practice gaps. New graduate nurses are increasingly being hired into critical care settings. Critical care environments add an additional level of complexity to this transition, calling for strategies targeted to address the unique learning needs of new graduate nurses.

Eligibility criteria: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies that include new graduate nurses within their first 12 months of practice will be eligible for inclusion, as will studies that contain any form of in-person or technology-based simulation to support new graduate nurses' learning in any critical care setting (eg, emergency departments or any type of intensive care unit for any patient population). Studies will be eligible for inclusion if they evaluate participant learning and/or reactions to the simulation.

Methods: The systematic review will use the JBI convergent integrated methodology for mixed methods systematic reviews. The full search strategy will include CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, ERIC (Ovid), ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Premium and Dissertations and Theses Global, Web of Science and a search of gray literature. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full texts according to predetermined eligibility criteria, and conflicts will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. The quality of studies will be assessed using JBI appraisal tools. Quantitative data will be qualitized and assembled alongside qualitative findings and repeatedly analyzed to produce overall integrated findings.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42024623090.

Objective: The objective of this review is to determine the effectiveness of play therapy versus non-play interventions in improving the quality of life, physical and psychosocial functioning, and activity participation of children and adolescents with cancer in palliative care settings.

Introduction: Integrating play interventions early in pediatric palliative care for children and adolescents with cancer, especially in low- to middle-income countries where survival rates are low, is essential for addressing the holistic needs of children or adolescents and their families; however, it remains underutilized.

Eligibility criteria: This review will include studies examining children and adolescents with cancer (≤18 years) receiving palliative care. Interventions of interest encompass play therapy, therapeutic play, or play-based activities. Studies will include a comparator group, which will consist of standard palliative care approaches that do not involve play therapy. The primary outcome is patient quality of life; the secondary outcomes encompass physical and psychosocial functions, and activity participation. Eligible study designs will include experimental and quasi-experimental designs, and analytical observational studies. Mixed methods studies that include quantitative data will also be considered.

Methods: This review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. A comprehensive search will be conducted across MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, PEDro, ProQuest, World Health Organization, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies will be critically appraised for methodological quality using JBI appraisal instruments. Where possible, statistical meta-analysis will be conducted using a random-effects model. The certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, and a Summary of Findings will be created.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD420250655458.