JBI evidence synthesis最新文献

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.

Objective: The objective of this scoping review will be to systematically organize and analyze the existing rehabilitation programs and exercises for inpatients, particularly older adults, with proximal hip fragility fractures, focusing on the characteristics and methods of exercise programs. This knowledge will provide a better understanding of the existing evidence base and inform about future research.

Introduction: Hip fractures are a leading cause of disability and long-term care needs among older adults, with rising incidence due to aging. Early and effective rehabilitation is essential, yet existing research often focuses on single interventions or specific aspects of rehabilitation. For inpatients who are 65 years or older, a comprehensive analysis of rehabilitation programs and exercise interventions is needed, in line with the FITT-VP framework and incorporating multidisciplinary involvement.

Eligibility criteria: This scoping will include studies involving inpatients aged 65 years or older who have undergone surgical treatment for a single proximal hip fragility fracture and received inpatient rehabilitation in the same hospital. Studies must describe rehabilitation programs or exercise interventions.

Methods: This review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The databases to be searched will include PubMed, CINAHL Ultimate (EBSCOhost), Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Library, Scopus, JBI EBP Database (Ovid), PEDro, and Epistemonikos, and fragility fracture-related websites. The search will be conducted from January 2015 to February 2025, with no language or country restrictions. Two independent reviewers will screen and extract data, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Data will be charted and presented using the FITT-VP framework, with results in tabular and narrative format to highlight characteristics and trends.

Review registration: OSF https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CYSNG.

Objective: This scoping review will identify and map the available literature on virtual care for chronic wound management in residential aged care settings.

Introduction: Chronic wounds are an underacknowledged public health issue with substantial health and economic costs. These wounds, which do not heal in a timely manner, are common in residential aged care settings. While evidence-based wound care is essential for better outcomes, access is challenging in residential aged care settings. Emerging virtual care interventions have improved access to evidence-based wound care; however, little is known about the current use of such interventions in residential aged care settings.

Eligibility criteria: This review will include adults with chronic wounds living in residential aged care across diverse geographic locations. The review will consider virtual care for chronic wounds, with a particular focus on intervention type and frequency, as well as barriers and enablers of use.

Methods: The proposed review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase (Ovid), AgeLine, IEEE Xplore, and ACM digital library will be searched for relevant literature, with no limitations on language or date of publication. The World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register will be searched for gray literature. Title, abstract, and full-text screening will be conducted by 2 reviewers independently. Data will be extracted using a reviewer-developed tool, and a narrative summary will accompany the tabulated results.

Review registration: OSF https://osf.io/j97bt.

Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness of artificial intelligence-enhanced cognitive behavioral therapy (AI-enhanced CBT) compared to traditional CBT or alternative non-pharmacological therapies in treating depression and anxiety among adults.

Introduction: Mental health disorders, particularly anxiety and depression, affect millions of individuals worldwide. The World Health Organization estimated that in 2021, approximately 359 million people experienced anxiety and 332 million experienced depression, with global prevalence rates of 4.4% and 4.0%, respectively. CBT has long been an effective treatment for these conditions, with structured interventions for symptom reduction. However, AI-enhanced CBT introduces a new dimension by personalizing treatment through adaptive algorithms and automated feedback. While traditional therapies such as psychotherapy, medication, or mindfulness have shown varying degrees of success, the integration of AI with CBT holds potential for scalable, accessible, and individualized care.

Eligibility criteria: This review will include studies that evaluate AI-enhanced CBT for treating adults with depression and/or anxiety. Comparators may include traditional CBT or alternative non-pharmacological interventions. Eligible studies must report clinical outcomes such as symptom reduction, patient engagement, or treatment feasibility.

Methods: The review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Comprehensive searches will be conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and Epistemonikos. We will also search relevant gray literature sources, including ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (EBSCOhost), OAIster, and Google Scholar. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, appraise quality using the JBI checklist for randomized controlled trials, and extract data using a standardized form. The review will follow PRISMA reporting guidelines, and, if data permit, meta-analysis will be undertaken.

Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42024580549.

Objective: The aim of the scoping review is to elucidate challenges in mass drug administration programs with ivermectin to control or eliminate onchocerciasis in endemic countries.

Introduction: The filarial nematode Onchocerca volvulus causes onchocerciasis, a neglected tropical disease that can lead to blindness. Although ivermectin, a potent antifilarial drug, was introduced in 1991 and has been used successfully in mass drug administration programs, complex challenges have prevented the elimination of onchocerciasis, a goal set by the World Health Organization in 2009. A comprehensive understanding of these challenges could help program managers and policymakers better target their efforts to control and eliminate onchocerciasis.

Eligibility criteria: This review will consider literature that includes individuals affected by onchocerciasis who are living in endemic countries. Literature describing the challenges of implementing mass drug administration programs with ivermectin to control or eliminate onchocerciasis will be considered.

Methods: The review will be conducted according to the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Emcare (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, and SciELO will be searched. Primary and gray literature in any language from January 1991 onward will be included. Additional studies will be identified by screening the reference lists of included articles. Study selection and data extraction will be done independently by 2 reviewers. Data will be analyzed descriptively and presented in tables, graphs, and narrative format.

Review registration: OSF https://osf.io/e2q49.