Systematic reviews: guidance relevant for studies of older people.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Shenkin SD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5860219 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Older people have the highest rates of suicide, yet the evidence base on effective suicide preventions in late-life is limited. This systematic review of reviews aims to synthesize data from existing reviews on the prevention and/or reduction of suicide behavior in late-life and evidence for effectiveness of interventions. A systematic database search was conducted in eight electronic databases from inception to 4/2020 for reviews targeting interventions among adults ≥ 60 to prevent and/or reduce suicide, suicide attempt, self-harm and suicidal ideation. Four high quality reviews were included and interventions categorized as pharmacological (antidepressant use: 239 RCTs, seven observational studies) and behavioral (physical activity: three observational studies, and multifaceted primary-care-based collaborative care for depression screening and management: four RCTs). The 2009 antidepressant use review found significant risk reduction for suicide attempt/self-harm (OR = 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.58) and suicide ideation (OR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.78) versus placebo. The 2015 review found an increased risk of attempts with antidepressants versus no treatment (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.27) and no statistically significant change in suicides versus no treatment (RR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.68-1.66) or ideation versus placebo (OR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.14-1.94). Protective effects were found for physical activity on ideation in 2 out of 3 studies when comparing active versus inactive older people. Collaborative care demonstrated significantly less attempts/ideation (OR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.94) in intervention group versus usual care. The results of this review of reviews find the evidence inconclusive towards use of antidepressants for the prevention of suicidal behavior in older people, thus monitoring is required prior to start, dosage change or cessation of antidepressants. Evidence to date supports physical activity and collaborative management for reduction of suicide ideation, but additional trials are required for a meta-analysis. To build on these findings, continued high-quality research is warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in late life.
| S-EPMC8789110 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:To our knowledge, no publication providing overarching guidance on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology exists. METHODS AND FINDINGS:Conducting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies of Etiology (COSMOS-E) provides guidance on all steps in systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, from shaping the research question, defining exposure and outcomes, to assessing the risk of bias and statistical analysis. The writing group included researchers experienced in meta-analyses and observational studies of etiology. Standard peer-review was performed. While the structure of systematic reviews of observational studies on etiology may be similar to that for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, there are specific tasks within each component that differ. Examples include assessment for confounding, selection bias, and information bias. In systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, combining studies in meta-analysis may lead to more precise estimates, but such greater precision does not automatically remedy potential bias. Thorough exploration of sources of heterogeneity is key when assessing the validity of estimates and causality. CONCLUSION:As many reviews of observational studies on etiology are being performed, this document may provide researchers with guidance on how to conduct and analyse such reviews.
| S-EPMC6383865 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered an important tool for decision-making. There has been no recent comprehensive identification or description of child-relevant SRs. A description of existing child-relevant SRs would help to identify the extent of available child-relevant evidence available in SRs and gaps in the evidence base where SRs are required. The objective of this study was to describe child-relevant SRs from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, Issue 2, 2009).SRs were assessed for relevance using pre-defined criteria. Data were extracted and entered into an electronic form. Univariate analyses were performed to describe the SRs overall and by topic area.The search yielded 1666 SRs; 793 met the inclusion criteria. 38% of SRs were last assessed as up-to-date prior to 2007. Corresponding authors were most often from the UK (41%). Most SRs (59%) examined pharmacological interventions. 53% had at least one external source of funding. SRs included a median of 7 studies (IQR 3, 15) and 679 participants (IQR 179, 2833). Of all studies, 48% included only children, and 27% only adults. 94% of studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. Primary outcomes were specified in 72% of SRs. Allocation concealment and the Jadad scale were used in 97% and 25% of SRs, respectively. Adults and children were analyzed separately in 12% of SRs and as a subgroup analysis in 14%. Publication bias was assessed in only 14% of SRs. A meta-analysis was conducted in 68% of SRs with a median of 5 trials (IQR 3, 9) each. Variations in these characteristics were observed across topic areas.We described the methodological characteristics and rigour of child-relevant reviews in the CDSR. Many SRs are not up-to-date according to Cochrane criteria. Our study describes variation in conduct and reporting across SRs and reveals clinicians' ability to access child-specific data.
| S-EPMC2881081 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundSystematic literature searching is recognised as a critical component of the systematic review process. It involves a systematic search for studies and aims for a transparent report of study identification, leaving readers clear about what was done to identify studies, and how the findings of the review are situated in the relevant evidence. Information specialists and review teams appear to work from a shared and tacit model of the literature search process. How this tacit model has developed and evolved is unclear, and it has not been explicitly examined before. The purpose of this review is to determine if a shared model of the literature searching process can be detected across systematic review guidance documents and, if so, how this process is reported in the guidance and supported by published studies.MethodA literature review. Two types of literature were reviewed: guidance and published studies. Nine guidance documents were identified, including: The Cochrane and Campbell Handbooks. Published studies were identified through 'pearl growing', citation chasing, a search of PubMed using the systematic review methods filter, and the authors' topic knowledge. The relevant sections within each guidance document were then read and re-read, with the aim of determining key methodological stages. Methodological stages were identified and defined. This data was reviewed to identify agreements and areas of unique guidance between guidance documents. Consensus across multiple guidance documents was used to inform selection of 'key stages' in the process of literature searching.ResultsEight key stages were determined relating specifically to literature searching in systematic reviews. They were: who should literature search, aims and purpose of literature searching, preparation, the search strategy, searching databases, supplementary searching, managing references and reporting the search process.ConclusionsEight key stages to the process of literature searching in systematic reviews were identified. These key stages are consistently reported in the nine guidance documents, suggesting consensus on the key stages of literature searching, and therefore the process of literature searching as a whole, in systematic reviews. Further research to determine the suitability of using the same process of literature searching for all types of systematic review is indicated.
| S-EPMC6092796 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMultimorbidity and polypharmacy are common in older people. Assessment tools or lists of criteria aimed at supporting prescription decisions for older people exist, but have often been based on expert opinion with insufficient consideration of the evidence available. The present paper describes the methods we are using to systematically review the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of the most commonly prescribed drugs for older people in the management of their chronic medical conditions and to develop recommendations to reduce inappropriate prescriptions for incorporation into the Comprehensive Medication Review (CMR) tool developed by the PRIMA-eDS European project.MethodsWe selected the 20 most relevant drugs/drug classes in terms of prescription volumes and risk of hospitalisation for older people and the most relevant indications for the most common chronic conditions among older people and a total of 35 distinct drug-indication pairs were chosen. Based on clinical considerations we collapsed some indications together, reducing the 35 pairs to a final total of 22 separate systematic reviews (SR). A common methodology will be used for each individual SR, based on the methodological manuals of the Cochrane collaboration and the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews. Our search strategy will have a staged approach where we initially search for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, but if relevant reviews are not found, then search for individual studies (controlled intervention and observational studies). Our pilot work and initial scoping of the literature suggested that very few, relevant individual trials or existing systematic reviews have researched or reported exclusively on older people. Therefore, sufficient data might not be available to perform meta-analysis but we will provide a narrative synthesis describing characteristics and findings of included studies. The collected evidence will be used to construct recommendations on when not to use or to discontinue a drug, or when to reduce its dose. Recommendations will be developed in team meetings using the GRADE methodology to reflect the strength of the recommendation and the quality of the evidence. Recommendations will be built into the CMR tool.DiscussionThis protocol has been prepared for a series of systematic reviews which will provide research-based evidence to develop recommendations to reduce inappropriate polypharmacy in older people as part of the CMR tool of the PRIMA-eDS project.
| S-EPMC5647557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe promotion and maintenance of higher physical activity (PA) levels in the older population is an imperative for cognitive and healthy ageing but it is unclear what approaches are best suited to achieve this for the increasing number of older people living in the community. Effective policies should be informed by robust, multi-disciplinary and multi-dimensional evidence, which not only seeks what works, but in 'what context? In addition to evidence on the efficacy and effectiveness of PA for maintaining cognitive health, social contexts such as 'how do we actually get older people to partake in PA?' and 'how do we sustain that activity long-term?' also need highlighting. This review is part of a comprehensive evidence synthesis of preventive interventions in older age, with a focus on healthy behaviours to identify evidence gaps and inform policy relating to ageing well and cognitive health. An overview of systematic reviews of PA was conducted to explore three topics: (1) PA efficacy or effectiveness for primary prevention of cognitive decline in 55+; (2) Interventions efficacious or effective for increasing PA uptake and maintenance in 55+; (3) barriers and facilitators to PA in 55+.MethodsMultiple databases were searched for studies in English from OECD countries between 2000 and 2016. Quality of included reviews in questions (1) and (2) were assessed using AMSTAR. Review protocols were registered on PROSPERO (CRD42014015554, 42014015584, CRD42014015557) and reviews follow PRISMA guideline.FindingsOverall, 40 systematic reviews were included. Question 1 (n = 14). 8,360 participants. Evidence suggests that PA confer mild positive effects on cognition in older adults with and without previous cognitive impairment. However, there is insufficient evidence of a dose-response relationship. Evidence on the effects of PA on delay of dementia onset is inconclusive. Question 2 (n = 17). 79,650 participants. Evidence supports the effectiveness of a variety of interventions, including group delivered, centre-based and cognitive approaches on short-term uptake of PA behaviour. Question 3 (n = 9). 22,413 participants. Barriers include health status, previous PA habits and experiences, and cultural sensitivity, while facilitators include enjoyable activities and convenient scheduling.ConclusionPA can offer small benefits to brain health, but evidence on how much activity is required to produce this effect is lacking. Evidence on the effectiveness of PA for preventing dementia and cognitive decline is lacking. Behavioural (walking, exercise) and cognitive (counselling and motivational interviews) interventions are effective for short-term uptake of physical activity in older people. In order to maintain long-term participation in PA, individualised interventions modelled using behavioural theories may be required. Public health messages should be aimed at promoting acceptable levels of PA above normal daily activities in older people. Policy and strategies aimed at increasing PA in older people should be encouraged while considering barriers and facilitators to behaviour change.
| S-EPMC5173028 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveMixed studies reviews include empirical studies with diverse designs. Given that identifying relevant studies for such reviews is time consuming, a mixed filter was developed.MethodsThe filter was used for six journals from three disciplines. For each journal, database records were coded "empirical" (relevant) when they mentioned a research question or objective, data collection, analysis, and results. We measured precision (proportion of retrieved documents being relevant), sensitivity (proportion of relevant documents retrieved), and specificity (proportion of nonrelevant documents not retrieved).ResultsRecords were coded with and without the filter, and descriptive statistics were performed, suggesting the mixed filter has high sensitivity.
| S-EPMC4722642 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8005925 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Although guidelines for critical appraisal of diagnostic research and meta-analyses have already been published, these may be difficult to understand for clinical researchers or do not provide enough detailed information. METHODS:Development of guidelines based on a systematic review of the evidence in reports of systematic searches of the literature for diagnostic research, of methodological criteria to evaluate diagnostic research, of methods for statistical pooling of data on diagnostic accuracy, and of methods for exploring heterogeneity. RESULTS:Guidelines for conducting diagnostic systematic reviews are presented in a stepwise fashion and are followed by comments providing further information. Examples are given using the results of two systematic reviews on the accuracy of the urine dipstick in the diagnosis of urinary tract infections, and on the accuracy of the straight-leg-raising test in the diagnosis of intervertebral disc hernia.
| S-EPMC117243 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Consumers, clinicians, policymakers and researchers require high quality evidence to guide decision-making in child health. Though Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) are a well-established source of evidence, little is known about the characteristics of non-Cochrane child-relevant SRs. To complement published descriptions of Cochrane SRs, we aimed to characterize the epidemiologic, methodological, and reporting qualities of non-Cochrane child-relevant SRs published in 2014. METHODS:English-language child-relevant SRs of quantitative primary research published outside the Cochrane Library in 2014 were eligible for this descriptive analysis. A research librarian searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PubMed in August 2015. A single reviewer screened articles for inclusion; a second verified the excluded studies. Reviewers extracted: general characteristics of the review; included study characteristics; methodological approaches. We performed univariate analyses and presented the findings narratively. RESULTS:We identified 1598 child-relevant SRs containing a median (IQR) 19 (11, 33) studies. These originated primarily from high-income countries (n?=?1247, 78.0%) and spanned 47 of the 53 Cochrane Review Groups. Most synthesized therapeutic (n?=?753, 47.1%) or epidemiologic (n?=?701, 43.8%) evidence. Though 39.3% (n?=?628) of SRs included evidence related to children only, few were published in pediatric-specific journals (n?=?283, 17.7%). Reporting quality seemed poor based on the items we assessed; few reviews mentioned an a-priori protocol (n?=?246, 15.4%) or registration (n?=?111, 6.9%), and only 23.4% (n?=?374) specified a primary outcome. Many SRs relied solely on evidence from non-RCTs (n?=?796, 49.8%). Less than two-thirds (n?=?953, 59.6%) appraised the quality of included studies and assessments of the certainty of the body of evidence were rare (n?=?102, 6.4%). CONCLUSIONS:Child-relevant Cochrane SRs are a known source of high quality evidence in pediatrics. There exists, however, an abundance of evidence from non-Cochrane SRs that may be complementary. Our findings show that high-quality non-Cochrane SRs may not be practical nor easy for knowledge users to find. Improvements are needed to ensure that evidence syntheses published outside of the Cochrane Library adhere to the high standard of conduct and reporting characteristic of Cochrane SRs.
| S-EPMC6167827 | biostudies-other