Richtlijnen vormen een belangrijke bron voor zorgprofessionals om evidence-based te kunnen handelen. Richtlijnen zijn veelal gebaseerd op systematic reviews, waarbij alle beschikbare wetenschappelijke literatuur over een bepaald onderwerp systematisch beoordeeld wordt op de kwaliteit van de onderzoeken. Dit artikel gaat over wat er aan bod komt bij een systematic review.
DOCUMENT
Although systematic reviews are considered as central components in evidence-based practice, they currently face an important challenge to keep up with the exponential publication rate of clinical trials. After initial publication, only a minority of the systematic reviews are updated, and it often takes multiple years before these results become accessible. Consequently, many systematic reviews are not up to date, thereby increasing the time-gap between research findings and clinical practice. A potential solution is offered by a living systematic reviews approach. These types of studies are characterized by a workflow of continuous updates which decreases the time it takes to disseminate new findings. Although living systematic reviews are specifically designed to continuously synthesize new evidence in rapidly emerging topics, they have also considerable potential in slower developing domains, such as rehabilitation science. In this commentary, we outline the rationale and required steps to transition a regular systematic review into a living systematic review. We also propose a workflow that is designed for rehabilitation science.
LINK
Background: Emergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement. Methods: The top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement. Results: The included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately. Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence (mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions (mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001). Conclusion: There is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting.
DOCUMENT
Abstract: Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma have a high prevalence and disease burden. Blended self-management interventions, which combine eHealth with face-to-face interventions, can help reduce the disease burden. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to examine the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions on health-related effectiveness and process outcomes for people with COPD or asthma. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, COCHRANE Library, Emcare, and Embase were searched in December 2018 and updated in November 2020. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 2 tool and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: A total of 15 COPD and 7 asthma randomized controlled trials were included in this study. The meta-analysis of COPD studies found that the blended intervention showed a small improvement in exercise capacity (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.48; 95% CI 0.10-0.85) and a significant improvement in the quality of life (QoL; SMD 0.81; 95% CI 0.11-1.51). Blended intervention also reduced the admission rate (relative ratio [RR] 0.61; 95% CI 0.38-0.97). In the COPD systematic review, regarding the exacerbation frequency, both studies found that the intervention reduced exacerbation frequency (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.26-0.56). A large effect was found on BMI (d=0.81; 95% CI 0.25-1.34); however, the effect was inconclusive because only 1 study was included. Regarding medication adherence, 2 of 3 studies found a moderate effect (d=0.73; 95% CI 0.50-0.96), and 1 study reported a mixed effect. Regarding self-management ability, 1 study reported a large effect (d=1.15; 95% CI 0.66-1.62), and no effect was reported in that study. No effect was found on other process outcomes. The meta-analysis of asthma studies found that blended intervention had a small improvement in lung function (SMD 0.40; 95% CI 0.18-0.62) and QoL (SMD 0.36; 95% CI 0.21-0.50) and a moderate improvement in asthma control (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.40-0.93). A large effect was found on BMI (d=1.42; 95% CI 0.28-2.42) and exercise capacity (d=1.50; 95% CI 0.35-2.50); however, 1 study was included per outcome. There was no effect on other outcomes. Furthermore, the majority of the 22 studies showed some concerns about the ROB, and the quality of evidence varied. Conclusions: In patients with COPD, the blended self-management interventions had mixed effects on health-related outcomes, with the strongest evidence found for exercise capacity, QoL, and admission rate. Furthermore, the review suggested that the interventions resulted in small effects on lung function and QoL and a moderate effect on asthma control in patients with asthma. There is some evidence for the effectiveness of blended self-management interventions for patients with COPD and asthma; however, more research is needed. Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019119894; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=119894
DOCUMENT
Active learning has become an increasingly popular method for screening large amounts of data in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The active learning process continually improves its predictions on the remaining unlabeled records, with the goal of identifying all relevant records as early as possible. However, determining the optimal point at which to stop the active learning process is a challenge. The cost of additional labeling of records by the reviewer must be balanced against the cost of erroneous exclusions. This paper introduces the SAFE procedure, a practical and conservative set of stopping heuristics that offers a clear guideline for determining when to end the active learning process in screening software like ASReview. The eclectic mix of stopping heuristics helps to minimize the risk of missing relevant papers in the screening process. The proposed stopping heuristic balances the costs of continued screening with the risk of missing relevant records, providing a practical solution for reviewers to make informed decisions on when to stop screening. Although active learning can significantly enhance the quality and efficiency of screening, this method may be more applicable to certain types of datasets and problems. Ultimately, the decision to stop the active learning process depends on careful consideration of the trade-off between the costs of additional record labeling against the potential errors of the current model for the specific dataset and context.
LINK
OBJECTIVE: The Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) tool was designed to classify randomized clinical trials (RCT) as being more pragmatic or explanatory. We modified the PRECIS tool (called PRECIS-Review tool [PR-tool]) to grade individual trials and systematic reviews of trials. This should help policy makers, clinicians, researchers, and guideline developers to judge the applicability of individual trials and systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: To illustrate the usefulness and applicability of the PR-tool, we applied it to two systematic reviews. Each included RCT was scored on the 10 PRECIS domains on a scale of 1-5. After this scoring, a 10-domain average for each individual trial and for the systematic review a single domain average and an overall average was calculated. RESULTS: One review was more pragmatic with an average score of 3.7 (range, 2.9-4.6) on our PR-tool, whereas the other review was more explanatory with an average score of 1.9 (range, 1.1-3.3). The results also suggest that the included studies within each systematic review were rather uniform in their approach, although some domains seemed more prone to heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: The PR-tool provides a useful estimate that gives insight by estimating quantitatively how pragmatic each RCT in the review is, which methodological domains are pragmatic or explanatory, and how pragmatic the review is.
DOCUMENT
Abstract: Teledentistry offers possibilities for improving efficiency and quality of care and supporting cost-effective healthcare systems. This umbrella review aims to synthesize existing systematic reviews on teledentistry and provide a summary of evidence of its clinical- and cost-effectiveness. A comprehensive search strategy involving various teledentistry-related terms, across seven databases, was conducted. Articles published until 24 April 2023 were considered. Two researchers independently reviewed titles, abstracts and full-text articles. The quality of the included reviews was critically appraised with the AMSTAR-2 checklist. Out of 749 studies identified, 10 were included in this umbrella review. Two reviews focusing on oral-health outcomes revealed that, despite positive findings, there is not yet enough evidence for the long-term clinical effectiveness of teledentistry. Ten reviews reported on economic evaluations or costs, indicating that teledentistry is cost-saving. However, these conclusions were based on assumptions due to insufficient evidence on cost-effectiveness. The main limitation of our umbrella review was the critically low quality of the included reviews according to AMSTAR-2 criteria, with many of these reviews basing their conclusions on low-quality studies. This highlights the need for high-quality experimental studies (e.g., RCTs, factorial designs, stepped-wedge designs, SMARTs and MRTs) to assess teledentistry’s clinical- and cost-effectiveness.
DOCUMENT
Active learning has become an increasingly popular method for screening large amounts of data in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The active learning process continually improves its predictions on the remaining unlabeled records, with the goal of identifying all relevant records as early as possible. However, determining the optimal point at which to stop the active learning process is a challenge. The cost of additional labeling of records by the reviewer must be balanced against the cost of erroneous exclusions. This paper introduces the SAFE procedure, a practical and conservative set of stopping heuristics that offers a clear guideline for determining when to end the active learning process in screening software like ASReview. The eclectic mix of stopping heuristics helps to minimize the risk of missing relevant papers in the screening process. The proposed stopping heuristic balances the costs of continued screening with the risk of missing relevant records, providing a practical solution for reviewers to make informed decisions on when to stop screening. Although active learning can significantly enhance the quality and efficiency of screening, this method may be more applicable to certain types of datasets and problems. Ultimately, the decision to stop the active learning process depends on careful consideration of the trade-off between the costs of additional record labeling against the potential errors of the current model for the specific dataset and context.
MULTIFILE
AIM: To obtain an overview of existing evidence on quality criteria, instruments, and requirements for nursing documentation.DESIGN: Systematic review of systematic reviews.DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched the databases PubMed and CINAHL for the period 2007-April 2017. We also performed additional searches.REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently selected the reviews using a stepwise procedure, assessed the methodological quality of the selected reviews, and extracted the data using a predefined extraction format. We performed descriptive synthesis.RESULTS: Eleven systematic reviews were included. Several quality criteria were described referring to the importance of following the nursing process and using standardized nursing terminologies. In addition, some evidence-based instruments were described for assessing the quality of nursing documentation, such as the D-Catch. Furthermore, several requirements for formats and systems of electronic nursing documentation were found that refer to the importance of user-friendliness and development in consultation with nursing staff.CONCLUSION: Aligning documentation with the nursing process, using standard terminologies, and using user-friendly formats and systems appear to be important for high-quality nursing documentation. The lack of evidence-based quality indicators presents a challenge in the pursuit of high-quality nursing documentation.IMPACT: There is uncertainty in nursing practice about which criteria have to be met to achieve high-quality documentation. Aligning documentation with the nursing process, using standard terminologies, and using user-friendly formats and systems appear to be important. These findings can help nursing staff and care organizations enhance the quality of nursing documentation.
DOCUMENT
Background: The increasing numbers of surgeries involving high risk, multi-morbid patients, coupled with inconsistencies in the practice of perioperative surgical wound care, increases patients’ risk of surgical site infection and other wound complications. Objectives: To synthesise and evaluate the recommendations for nursing practice and research from published systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library on nurse-led pre-operative prophylaxis and post-operative surgical wound care interventions used or initiated by nurses. Design: Meta-review, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data sources: The Cochrane Library database. Review methods: All Cochrane Systematic Reviews were eligible. Two reviewers independently selected the reviews and extracted data. One reviewer appraised the methodological quality of the included reviews using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist. A second reviewer independently verified these appraisals. The review protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Results: Twenty-two Cochrane reviews met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 reviews focused on pre-operative interventions to prevent infection, while 12 focused on post-operative interventions (one review assessed both pre-and post-operative interventions). Across all reviews, 14 (63.6%) made at least one recommendation to undertake a specific practice, while two reviews (9.1%) made at least one specific recommendation not to undertake a practice. In relation to recommendations for further research, insufficient sample size was the most predominant methodological issue (12/22) identified across reviews. Conclusions: The limited number of recommendations for pre- and post-operative interventions reflects the paucity of high-quality evidence, suggesting a need for rigorous trials to address these evidence gaps in fundamentals of nursing care.
MULTIFILE
