JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports最新文献

Objective: The objective of this review is to determine whether perioperative enteral feeding improves outcomes in patients with burns.

Introduction: Literature has identified many positive benefits of nutrition support for patients with burn injuries, including preservation of lean body mass, improved wound healing, reduced gastrointestinal permeability and enhanced immunity. Fasting for surgery can undermine the nutritional care of these patients by causing nutrient deficits. It may also negatively affect patient well-being and insulin resistance. Perioperative fasting is intended to protect patients from regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration. This research aims to investigate whether perioperative feeding impacts outcomes in patients with burn injuries.

Inclusion criteria: This systematic review will consider studies whose participants have a burn injury. The intervention is perioperative enteral feeding (either intragastric or post-pyloric). Patients who received perioperative feeding will be compared with patients who had enteral nutrition withheld during the perioperative period. A number of outcome measures will be investigated, including mortality, length of stay, wound infection, wound healing rate and aspiration pneumonia.

Methods: The key databases searched will be PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus. Only studies published in English will be considered. There will be no date limits. Full texts of selected studies will be retrieved and assessed against inclusion criteria. Studies that do not meet the inclusion criteria will be excluded, with reasons provided. Data synthesis will be pooled in a statistical meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis will be conducted where possible. Where statistical pooling is not possible, the findings will be presented in narrative form.

Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42018119034.

Objective: The objective of this review was to determine if there was an association between maternal exposure to pollutant particulate matter 2.5 during the first trimester of pregnancy and congenital heart defects within the first year of life.

Introduction: The environment is recognized as an important determinant of health for both the individual and population. Air pollution specifically is a major environmental risk factor impacting health with links to asthma, heart disease, obesity, and fetal developmental complications. Of the commonly monitored air pollutants, particulate matter 2.5 has associations with health, especially among vulnerable populations such as children and pregnant women. A congenital heart defect is a fetal complication that impacts 34.3 million infants globally, with more than 80% of the diagnoses having an unknown etiology. Although environmental risk factors such as air pollution are thought to be a risk factor in the diagnosis of a congenital heart defect, epidemiologic research evidence is limited.

Inclusion criteria: This review considered studies that evaluated maternal exposure to the air pollutant particulate matter 2.5 during the first trimester (weeks 1-12) of fetal development. The primary outcome was a diagnosis of a congenital heart defect in an infant within the first year of life.

Methods: A three-step search strategy was utilized in this review and included 11 databases and two websites. Studies published from January 2002 to September 2018 were eligible for inclusion. Only papers published in English were included. Eligible studies underwent critical appraisal by two independent reviewers using standardized critical appraisal instruments from JBI. Quantitative data were extracted from the included studies independently by two reviewers. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted for the individual outcome measures, specifically atrial septal defect, ventricular septal defect, and tetralogy of fallot, respectively. The defects were identified and pooled, where possible, in statistical meta-analysis. Where statistical pooling was not possible, findings were reported narratively.

Results: Five studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria, including three cohort and two case-control designs. Each individual study identified at least one statistically significant increase or inverse association between particulate matter 2.5 and a congenital heart defect. An increased risk was identified with more than seven isolated and two groupings of congenital heart defects. An inverse risk was identified with two isolated and one grouping of congenital heart defects. Meta-analysis results were: atrial septal defect, OR = 0.65 (95% CI, 0.37 to 1.15); ventricular septal defect, OR = 1.02 (95% CI, 075 to 1.37); and tetralogy of fallot, OR = 1.16 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.73), indica

Objective: The proposed scoping review will identify psychosocial outcomes immediately following human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing and their measurements, specifically among individuals with a new negative or positive test result.

Introduction: No systematic study has described psychosocial outcomes and their measurements in persons immediately following HIV testing. Also, to our knowledge, there is no consensus on a core set of psychosocial outcomes and measurements following HIV diagnosis, which are essential for quality improvement.

Inclusion criteria: All study designs will be considered. Participants with a new positive or negative HIV test result, regardless of sex or age, in any setting will be included. Any measured beneficial or harmful outcomes in the mental and social domains following a new diagnosis will be included. Psychosocial outcomes of participants undergoing treatment and care will be excluded.

Methods: The databases Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO will be searched, and published articles in English from 2007 to the present date will be included. The methods for scoping reviews outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute will be followed. Data will be extracted from included studies by two reviewers. Any disagreements between the two reviewers will be solved through discussion in a team of five members. To define the specific concepts or outcome (sub)-domains and their measurements, the models proposed by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology initiative and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative, respectively, will be used. To analyze the data, this study will rely on a multi-level social-ecological model.