How to write a systematic review of reasons.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Strech D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3262986 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Writing is a particularly complex and demanding task that needs to be mastered to assure students’ success at school. In the last decades, the scientific community has been unanimous about the involvement of cognitive and motivational processes in the learning of writing. However, little is still known about some motivation-related processes, such as the reasons why students write. Therefore, this study analyzed the role of motivation in writing in developing writers, by examining the motives to write of 321 sixth graders. We used the Writing Motivation Questionnaire, which is a new instrument tapping the following motivations for writing: curiosity, involvement, grades, competition, social recognition, emotional regulation, and relief from boredom. Findings confirmed the multidimensional nature of motivations to write and supported the validity and reliability of the instrument. Also, results revealed that the strongest motives to write were grades and curiosity, and that curiosity and social recognition were significant predictors of writing quality, above and beyond attitudes and self-efficacy. Together these findings confirm the key role of motivation in writing and provide validity evidence of the Writing Motivation Questionnaire. This seems a useful tool to better understand the motivational processes involved in learning to write. However, despite the increasing research investment in this area, it is still important to carry out further studies that may contribute to the enrichment of the field of writing motivation.
| S-EPMC6771002 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveMost tooth extractions are performed for dental reasons, but there are also nondental and nonmedical reasons for extractions; these include psychological, financial, religious, and cultural reasons as well as simply granting a patient's request. This systematic review was performed to examine the proportion and range of indications associated with tooth removal in context of dental, nondental, and medical reasons.MethodsA search conducted using PubMed, Embase, and APA PsycINFO identified 6038 studies. Three studies (4396 extractions in total) could be included for the risk of bias assessment and qualitative data synthesis.ResultsThe reported indications for tooth extraction on dental and medical grounds included caries with the proportion of all extractions ranging from 36.0% to 55.3%, periodontitis from 24.8% to 38.1%, trauma from 0.8% to 4.4%, periapical disease from 7.3% to 19.1%, orthodontics from 2.5% to 7.2%, and other reasons from 4.5% to 9.2%. The proportion for patient requests ranged from 3.6% to 5.9%, but specific information regarding the actual reasons for extraction could not be determined.ConclusionThe results suggest that caries and periodontitis are the most common indications for tooth extraction and that studies to reliably estimate the incidence of nondental and nonmedical motivation for extraction are lacking. Given that the final decision on performing or refusing extractions, whether it be based on dental, nondental, or nonmedical reasons, largely rests with the dentist and oral surgeon, detailed guidelines are warranted.
| S-EPMC9275356 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe number of market approvals of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) has been increasing steadily in the last 3 decades. While OMPs can offer a unique chance for patients suffering from rare diseases, they are usually very expensive. The growing number of approved OMPs increases their budget impact despite their low prevalence, making it pressing to find solutions to ethical challenges on how to fairly allocate scarce healthcare resources under this context. One potential solution could be to grant OMPs special status when considering them for reimbursement, meaning that they are subject to different, and less stringent criteria than other drugs. This study aims to provide a systematic analysis of moral reasons for and against such a special status for the reimbursement of OMPs in publicly funded healthcare systems from a multidisciplinary perspective.ResultsWith a systematic review of reasons, we identified 39 reasons represented in 243 articles (scientific and grey literature) for and against special status for the reimbursement of OMPs, then categorized them into nine topics. Taking a multidisciplinary perspective, we found that most articles came from health policy (n = 103) and health economics (n = 49). More articles took the position for a special status of OMPs (n = 97) than those against it (n = 31) and there was a larger number of reasons identified in favour (29 reasons) than against (10 reasons) this special status.ConclusionResults suggest that OMP reimbursement issues should be assessed and analysed from a multidisciplinary perspective. Despite the higher occurrence of reasons and articles in favour of a special status, there is no clear-cut solution for this ethical challenge. The binary perspective of whether or not OMPs should be granted special status oversimplifies the issue: both OMPs and rare diseases are too heterogeneous in their characteristics for such a binary perspective. Thus, the scientific debate should focus less on the question of disease prevalence but rather on how the important variability of different OMPs concerning e.g. target population, cost-effectiveness, level of evidence or mechanism of action could be meaningfully addressed and implemented in Health Technology Assessments.
| S-EPMC8247078 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRelocation is a very important event in people's lives in general, but really significant in old age. However, some predictors of relocation still need to be improved. The objective of this review was to synthesize qualitative evidence to understand the reasons of the participants to decide on the place of care of the older people.MethodsSystematic review of qualitative studies was conducted in six databases: Scopus, SciELO, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL, from its beginning until 29 November 2017. Qualitative or mixed studies, written in English or Spanish and addressing the decision-making process (already experienced by participants) on the place of care of older persons (65 years or older), were included in the review. PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42018084826).ResultsA total of 46 articles were finally included in the analysis. Our main result is the distinction of multiple reasons for each population group involved in the decision-making process, ranking these reasons into three factors: Retention, pull and push.ConclusionThis differentiation allows for a more detailed and in-depth analysis of the motivations of the different groups involved in this process.
| S-EPMC7712302 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWorkplace presenteeism is common and leads to the spread of infectious diseases. Previous reviews have focused on presenteeism in relation to general physical or mental ill health. In this systematic review we identified the prevalence of, and reasons and risk factors for, presenteeism in relation to an infectious illness.MethodWe searched Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO and PsycARTICLES with terms relating to infectious illnesses and presenteeism at the work place or school; reference lists of relevant articles were also hand-searched.ResultOur search yielded 3580 papers after deduplication. After title, abstract and full text screening, 23 papers reporting on 24 studies were included. Twenty-three studies were cross-sectional studies and one was prospective. The quality of included studies was relatively poor due to problems such as sampling and non-response bias. Presenteeism prevalence ranged from 35 to 97%. Self-reported reasons for presenteeism fell into three main themes: 1. Organisational factors (organisational policy, presenteeism culture, disciplinary action), 2. Job characteristics (lack of cover, professionalism, job demand), and 3. Personal reasons (burden on colleagues, colleague perceptions, threshold of sickness absence and financial concerns). Statistical risk factors fell into four themes: 1. Sociodemographic, 2. Health, 3. Influenza-related behaviour, and 4. Employment characteristics. Most of the risk factors had insufficient evidence to allow us to draw any firm conclusions, and evidence regarding gender and age was inconsistent. The risk factor with the most consistent findings concerned occupation type, suggesting that those who worked in the healthcare sector, and specifically physicians, were at a higher risk of infectious illness presenteeism.ConclusionInfectious illness presenteeism is common. To address the public health consequences, organisations should focus on promoting a positive working culture and developing sickness absence policies that reduce presenteeism. Further research is needed in non-health sector organisations and schools to identify risk factors related to different organisations, which can then be used to tailor interventions at the organisational and individual level.
| S-EPMC6588911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of great apes (GA) in invasive biomedical research is one of the most debated topics in animal ethics. GA are, thus far, the only animal group that has frequently been banned from invasive research; yet some believe that these bans could inaugurate a broader trend towards greater restrictions on the use of primates and other animals in research. Despite ongoing academic and policy debate on this issue, there is no comprehensive overview of the reasons advanced for or against restricting invasive research with GA. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of the reasons reported in the academic literature on this topic.MethodsSeven databases were searched for articles published in English. Two authors screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts of all articles. Two journals specialized in animal ethics, and the reference lists of included articles were subsequently also reviewed.ResultsWe included 60 articles, most of which were published between 2006 and 2016. Twenty-five articles argued for a total ban of GA research, 21 articles defended partial restrictions, and 14 articles argued against restrictions. Overall, we identified 110 reason types, 74 for, and 36 against, restricting GA research. Reasons were grouped into nine domains: moral standing, science, welfare, public and expert attitudes, retirement and conservation, respect and rights, financial costs, law and legal status, and longer-term consequences.ConclusionOur review generated five main findings. First, there is a trend in the academic debate in favor of restricting GA research that parallels worldwide policy changes in the same direction. Second, in several domains (e.g., moral standing, and respect and rights), the reasons were rather one-sided in favor of restrictions. Third, some prominent domains (e.g., science and welfare) featured considerable engagement between opposing positions. Fourth, there is low diversity and independence among authors, including frequent potential conflicts of interests in articles defending a strong position (i.e., favoring a total ban or arguing against restrictions). Fifth, scholarly discussion was not the norm, as reflected in a high proportion of non-peer-reviewed articles and authors affiliated to non-academic institutions.
| S-EPMC7888082 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is the subject of numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The validity of RCTs may be threatened by attrition bias due to the discontinuation of the study. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the reasons of patient's withdrawal from these RCTs.MethodsA systematic literature search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. The aim was to obtain all relevant blinded RCTs published before January 2017 in which the effectiveness of synthetic drugs, vitamins/minerals were compared to that of placebo or active control in T2DM. The quality of RCTs was assessed using the Jadad score. The frequency of withdrawal reasons was presented based on treatments with placebo/active control, national/international level of the studies, and publication year. Meta-analysis was not performed due to the heterogeneity.ResultsOverall, 1368 articles comprising of 640,780 subjects were included. In the majority of the RCTs (75.0%), the intervention and the placebo arms were compared. Most of the included studies (96%) were classified in the high-quality category (Jadad score≥3). The highest proportion of reported withdrawal cases was found in international studies, national RCTs conducted in Japan, and RCTs published in 2011. The withdrawal reasons were reported for 91,669 (63.75%) of the total 143,794 participants who had withdrawn from these studies. The main reported reasons were "adverse effects" (24.04%), "withdraw consent" (16.10%), and "missing data" (11.08%). Variations in the reported withdrawal reasons were based on the country or published year. RCTs with triple blinded design as well as those in which anti-hyperlipidemia and anti-obesity medications were applied, showed significantly higher probability of reported the withdrawal.ConclusionHigh proportion of reported discontinuation in blinded RCTs on patients with T2DM was related to drug adverse effects. Overall, the total number and reason of drop out were unsatisfactory.
| S-EPMC8149490 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10501782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study questionWhat are the reasons for or against the future clinical application of germline genome modification (GGM)?Summary answerA total of 169 reasons were identified, including 90 reasons for and 79 reasons against future clinical application of GGM.What is known alreadyGGM is still unsafe and insufficiently effective for clinical purposes. However, the progress made using Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)- CRISPR-associated system (Cas) has led scientists to expect to overcome the technical hurdles in the foreseeable future. This has invited a debate on the socio-ethical and legal implications and acceptability of clinical applications of GGM. However, an overview of the reasons presented in this debate is missing.Study design, size, durationMEDLINE was systematically searched for articles published between January 2011 and June 2016. Articles covering reasons for or against clinical application of intentional modification of the nuclear DNA of the germline were included.Participants/materials, setting, methodsTwo researchers independently extracted the reported reasons from the articles and grouped them into categories through content analysis.Main results and the role of chanceThe systematic search yielded 1179 articles and 180 articles were included. Most papers were written by professionals in ethics, (science) journalism and biomedical sciences. Overall, 169 reasons were identified, including 90 reasons for, and 79 reasons against future clinical application of GGM. None of the included articles mentioned more than 60/169 reasons. The reasons could be categorized into: (i) quality of life of affected individuals; (ii) safety; (iii) effectiveness; (iv) existence of a clinical need or alternative; (v) costs; (vi) homo sapiens as a species (i.e. relating to effects on our species); (vii) social justice; (viii) potential for misuse; (ix) special interests exercising influence; (x) parental rights and duties; (xi) comparability to acceptable processes; (xii) rights of the unborn child; and (xiii) human life and dignity. Considerations relating to the implementation processes and regulation were reported.Limitations, reasons for cautionWe cannot ensure completeness as reasons may have been omitted in the reviewed literature and our search was limited to MEDLINE and a 5-year time period.Wider implications of the findingsBesides needing (pre)clinical studies on safety and effectiveness, authors call for a sound pre-implementation process. This overview of reasons may assist a thorough evaluation of the responsible introduction of GGM.Study funding/competing interest(s)University of Amsterdam, Alliance Grant of the Amsterdam Reproduction and Development Research Institute (I.D.), and Clinical Center, Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program (S.H.). There are no competing interests.
| S-EPMC6454467 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivePublished works have discussed the pharmacokinetic interactions of drugs with pregnancy, but none comprehensively identify all the approved United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Administration (EMA) drugs that have a pregnancy-related intervention. The objective of this systematic review is to comprehensively identify medications that have clinically meaningful interventions due to pharmacokinetic reasons.MethodsAn in-depth search of clinical data using the PDR3D: Reed Tech Navigator™ for Drug Labels was conducted from 1 June to 12 August 2022. The PDR3D was analyzed using the search terms "pregnant" and "pregnancy" within the proper label section. Regarding the US labels, the terms were searched under the "dosage and administration" section, whereas with the EU labels, the terms were searched within the "posology and method of administration" section. If a finding was discovered within the search, the rest of the label was analyzed for further information. Clinical relevance was based on whether an intervention was needed.ResultsUsing the search strategy, 139 US and 20 EU medications were found to have clinically meaningful interventions in pregnancy. The most common explanations for clinical relevance included hepatic metabolism, protein binding, renal elimination, and P-gp influence. Of the US labels: 40 were found to undergo hepatic metabolism, 11 were found to be influenced by renal elimination, 12 were found to be influenced by protein binding, 7 were found to be influenced by P-gp, and the remaining drugs required further research. Of the EU labels: 11 were found to undergo hepatic metabolism, 3 were found to be influenced by renal elimination, 3 were found to be influenced by protein binding, 1 was found to be influenced by P-gp, and the remaining drugs required further research.ConclusionThis comprehensive review of clinically relevant interventions in pregnancy will potentially aid in the treatment of pregnant females when they are undergoing therapy, provide intervention and dosing guidance for physicians, and save time for prescribers and pharmacists. Advances in non-clinical predictions for pregnancy dosing may guide the need for a future clinical evaluation.
| S-EPMC10716708 | biostudies-literature