Dataset Information

Evaluation of published assessment tools for comorbidity in liver transplantation: a systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Liver transplantation is considered the best therapy option for end-stage liver disease. Different factors including recipient comorbidity at time of transplantation are supposed to have substantial impact on outcomes. Although several studies have focused on comorbidity assessment indices for liver transplant recipients, there is no systematic review available on the methodological details and prognostic accuracy of these instruments. The aim of this study is to systematically review recipient comorbidity assessment indices in the context of liver transplantation.

Methods and analysis

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and PsyINFO databases will be searched. Studies describing, using or evaluating specific assessment tools to predict the effect of comorbidity on clinical outcomes after liver transplantation will be included. The selection will be conducted independently by two reviewers. The study characteristics and methodological information on published comorbidity assessment tools will be extracted into a predefined structural table. This approach will be deployed to systematically extract information on the validity, reliability and practical feasibility of investigated comorbidity assessment tools for comparative evaluation. Narrative information synthesis will be conducted, and additional meta-analytical comparison will be performed, if appropriate.

Ethics and dissemination

All data are collected from published literature. Thus, formal ethics review for the research is not required. The findings of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. The results of this systematic review will be highly relevant for further research on prognostic models, clinical decision making and optimisation of donor organ allocation.

Prospero registration number

CRD42017074609.

SUBMITTER: Qu Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6042588 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of published assessment tools for comorbidity in liver transplantation: a systematic review protocol.

Qu Zhi Z Gwiasda Jill J Schrem Harald H Kaltenborn Alexander A Harries Lena L Beneke Jan J Amelung Volker V Krauth Christian C

BMJ open 20180630 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>Liver transplantation is considered the best therapy option for end-stage liver disease. Different factors including recipient comorbidity at time of transplantation are supposed to have substantial impact on outcomes. Although several studies have focused on comorbidity assessment indices for liver transplant recipients, there is no systematic review available on the methodological details and prognostic accuracy of these instruments. The aim of this study is to systematica ...[more]

PMID: 29961024

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although a wide range of needs assessment tools for cancer patients have been developed, no standardized and commonly accepted instruments were recommended to use in clinical care. This systematic review was conducted to assess the quality of psychometric properties of needs assessment tools among cancer patients in order to help oncology healthcare professionals select the most appropriate needs assessment tools in routine clinical practice. METHODS:Searches were conducted in the electronic databases of PUBMED from 1966, CINAHL from 1960, EMBASE from 1980 and PsychINFO from 1967 as well as additional sources. The quality of psychometric properties of the recruited needs assessment tools was evaluated using the agreed quality criteria for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. RESULTS:Thirty-seven studies which evaluated the psychometric properties of 20 needs assessment tools were identified. Internal consistency was tested in 32 studies with 9 studies indicating negative rating and 4 studies intermediate rating. Less than half of the studies (13 studies) assessed test-retest reliability, and only 4 studies reported positive rating. Content validity was the most tested psychometric property appraised in 33 studies and indicated positive rating in all the evaluated studies. Structural validity was adequately evaluated in 28 studies with 23 studies reporting intermediate rating. More than half of the studies (29 studies) tested hypothesis testing and 13 studies were rated positive. Cross-cultural validity results were obtained in 13 studies with 7 studies showing negative rating. No data was available on measurement error and criterion validity. Only one study appraised responsiveness and showed intermediate rating. The Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form (SCNS-SF) is the most widely used instrument for needs assessment in cancer patients. It had strong evidence for internal consistency, content validity, structural validity and hypothesis testing, and moderate evidence for reliability and cross-cultural validity. Cancer Survivors' Unmet Needs Measure (CaSUN) reported strong or moderate evidence for internal consistency, reliability, content and structural validity, and hypothesis testing. Furthermore, Supportive Cancer Care Needs Assessment Tool for Indigenous People (SCNAT-IP) had strong evidence for content validity, and moderate evidence for internal consistency, structural validity and hypothesis testing. CONCLUSIONS:Despite several needs assessment tools exist to assess care needs in cancer patients, further improvement of already existing and promising instruments is recommended.

Project description:IntroductionDepression is a common debilitating disease that affects individuals in all age groups. The impact of the diagnosis extends beyond the individual, with negative effects on mental health, physical health and social well-being. Self-efficacy has been referenced as an important aspect to the prognosis of mood disorders by conferring co-responsibility to the affected individual to face his/her health problems. Several assessment tools are found in the literature for measuring self-efficacy, but it is not yet clear which of these measures are more applicable to individuals with mood disorders, particularly depression. Thus, the aim of present study is to propose a systematic review to examine the psychometric properties and applicability of assessment tools designed to measure self-efficacy in individuals with symptoms and/or a diagnosis of depression.Methods and analysisThis protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols statement and the review will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. The evaluation of the psychometric properties of the health outcome measures will be conducted according to COSMIN guidelines. Two independent reviewers will perform the electronic searches in the PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo, SCOPUS and CINAHL databases, followed by the use of the 'snowball' strategy. The inclusion criteria will be (1) instrument validation studies, (2) developed with individuals of any age (3) with symptoms or a diagnosis of depression. Two independent reviewers will analyse the titles and abstracts of the articles retrieved during the search for pre-selection, followed by full-text analyses to determine inclusion in the review based on the eligibility criteria. Cases of a divergence of opinion will be resolved by a third reviewer. Descriptive analysis of the articles will be performed (data on participants, characteristics, psychometric properties and clinical usefulness of the assessment tools).Ethics and disseminationThe proposed systematic review will provide information on assessment tools employed to measure self-efficacy with regard to coping with depression, offering data on the psychometric properties, strong and weak points, and clinical applicability. As a secondary analysis of the literature, the approval of an ethics committee is not required.Prospero registration numberCRD42017078707.

Project description:BackgroundLiver transplant recipients suffer many complications, but few intraoperative interventions supported by high-quality evidence have been found effective to reduce their incidence or severity. Fluid balance has been proposed as an important aspect of perioperative care in high-risk recipients. We will conduct a systematic review aimed at evaluating the effects of restrictive perioperative fluid management strategies compared to liberal ones on clinically significant postoperative outcomes.MethodsWe will search through major databases (CINAHL Complete, EMB Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and the gray literature (CADTH, Clinical Trials, National Guideline Clearing House, NICE, MedNar, Google Scholar and Open Grey)), from inception up to a date close to the review submission for publication, for eligible studies. Randomized controlled trials and comparative non-randomized studies (prospective or retrospective) comparing two fluid management strategies (or two outcomes with available data on fluid volume received for observational studies) on adult liver recipients will be included. Eligible studies will have to report at least one postoperative complication or mortality. Our primary outcome will be acute renal failure and our secondary exploratory outcomes will be all other postoperative complications and mortality. Study selection and data abstraction using an electronic standardized form will be performed by three authors. Risk of bias will be evaluated and data will be pooled if limited clinical diversity is observed.DiscussionHuman organs available for transplantation are scarce resources. Strategies to improve recipients' survival are needed. We hypothesize that restrictive fluid management strategies will be associated with better postoperative outcomes than liberal fluid management strategies. This systematic review will improve our understanding of the available evidence and help us better inform future clinical trials.Systematic review registrationThis systematic review protocol is registered in PROSPERO ( CRD42017054970 ).

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The abuse of alcohol and other drugs is a worldwide problem, the treatment of which poses a challenge to healthcare workers. OBJECTIVE:This study presents a proposal for a systematic review to analyse the psychometric properties of assessment tools developed to measure the self-efficacy of drug users with regard to resisting the urge to take drugs in high-risk situations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The guiding question was based on PICOS (Population Intervention Comparator Outcome Setting), and the report of the methods of review protocol was written in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Searches will be performed in the PsycINFO, Cochrane, Pubmed, Web of Science, SCOPUS and CINAHL databases, followed by the use of the 'snowball' strategy. The inclusion criteria for the articles will be (1) assessment tool validation studies; (2) assessment tools developed to measure self-efficacy; (3) quantitative measures; (4) measures designed for use on adults; (5) data from self-reports of the participants; (6) studies involving a description of psychometric properties of the measures; and (7) studies that explain how the level of self-efficacy is scored. The search, selection and analysis will be performed by two independent reviewers. In cases of a divergence of opinion, a third reviewer will be consulted. The COSMIN checklist will be used for the appraisal of the methodological quality of the assessment tools and the certainty of the evidence in the articles (risk of bias) will be analysed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This protocol does not require ethical approval. However, this protocol is part of the thesis entitled Drug-Taking Confidence Questionnaire for use in Brazil, presented for obtaining a doctorate in neuropsychiatry and behavioural sciences from the Federal University of Pernambuco, and has received approval from the human research ethics committee of the Federal University of Pernambuco (reference number: 1.179.162).The results will be disseminated to clinicians and researchers through peer-reviewed publications and conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017068555.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of published assessment tools for comorbidity in liver transplantation: a systematic review protocol.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Prospero registration number

Publications

Evaluation of published assessment tools for comorbidity in liver transplantation: a systematic review protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets