Screening strategies for hypertension: a systematic review protocol.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
It is unclear whether early detection of hypertension, through screening, leads to healthier behaviours and better control of blood pressure levels. There is a need to learn from studies that have assessed the impact of different screening approaches on patient important outcomes. This systematic review protocol outlines the methods that will be used to assess the comparative effectiveness of different screening strategies (mass, targeted or opportunistic) for hypertension to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with hypertension.Methods and analysis
We will primarily search Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). Relevant randomised controlled trials, controlled before and after, interrupted time series and prospective analytic cohort studies regardless of publication date, language and geographic location, will be included. We are interested in clinical, adverse event and health system outcomes. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles against inclusion criteria; perform data extraction and assess risk of bias in included studies. We will assess the certainty of the overall evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach and report findings accordingly.Ethics and dissemination
No ethics approval will be sought, as only secondary studies will be used. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.Prospero registration number
CRD42018093046.
SUBMITTER: Schmidt BM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6340413 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Screening strategies for hypertension: a systematic review protocol.
Schmidt Bey-Marrié BM Durão Solange S Toews Ingrid I Bavuma Charlotte M CM Meerpohl Joerg J JJ Kredo Tamara T
BMJ open 20190115 1
<h4>Introduction</h4>It is unclear whether early detection of hypertension, through screening, leads to healthier behaviours and better control of blood pressure levels. There is a need to learn from studies that have assessed the impact of different screening approaches on patient important outcomes. This systematic review protocol outlines the methods that will be used to assess the comparative effectiveness of different screening strategies (mass, targeted or opportunistic) for hypertension t ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThere is limited evidence on whether screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus affects health outcomes. A recent systematic review of randomised clinical trials found only one trial that met their inclusion criteria; therefore, current guidelines for screening interventions for type 2 diabetes mellitus are based on expert opinions and best practice rather than synthesised evidence. This systematic review seeks to collate evidence from non-randomised studies to investigate the effect of screening for adults with type 2 diabetes on outcomes including diabetes-related morbidity, mortality (all-cause and diabetes-related) and harms.MethodsThis systematic review will follow Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) guidelines for the synthesis of non-randomised studies. We will search PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier and Health Source Nursing Academic (from inception onwards). We will include non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time-series studies, repeated measures studies and concurrently controlled prospective cohort studies. The primary outcome will be diabetes-related morbidity (microvascular complications of diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy or neuropathy or macrovascular complications of non-fatal myocardial infarction, peripheral arterial disease or non-fatal stroke). The secondary outcomes will be mortality (all-cause and diabetes-related) and harms of screening strategies to patients (including psychological harms or adverse events following treatments) or to health care system (including resource allocation for false-positives or overdiagnosis). Two reviewers will independently screen all citations and full-text articles. Data will be abstracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. The risk of bias of individual studies will be appraised using the ROBINS-I tool. GRADE will be used to determine the quality of the scientific evidence. If feasible, we will conduct random effects meta-analysis where appropriate. If necessary, analyses will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity (e.g. age, sex, socio-economic status, rural versus urban or low-middle income versus high-income country). We will disseminate the findings via publications and through relevant networks.DiscussionThe protocol outlines the methods for systematically reviewing and synthesising evidence of screening strategies for type 2 diabetes mellitus and their effect on health outcomes associated with the disease. The potential impact of this systematic review is improved evidence-informed decision-making for policies and practice for screening of type-2 diabetes.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020147439.
| S-EPMC7359237 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRare cancers comprise almost a quarter of all cancers in Europe, and patients generally have poorer outcomes than those suffering from more common cancers. This is attributed in part to a general lack of knowledge and awareness of rare cancers. This review aims to examine the communication strategies being used throughout the world to inform on rare cancers and to highlight any opportunities for improvement.MethodsA systematic review of literature published in English prior to November 2018 will be conducted, screening articles from the electronic databases MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Grey literature databases (GreyLit, OpenGrey) will also be searched in order to screen for any unpublished works. As well as primary literature, reference lists will be examined via forward and reverse citation screening. The review will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Titles and abstracts will first be examined for eligibility, with remaining studies undergoing a full-text screening before being included in the final review. Individual studies will be screened for bias, and a meta-analysis performed provided there is enough data. If insufficient homogenous literature exists, a narrative summary of the literature will be produced.DiscussionDespite the broad topic and width of study type that will be considered, this review hopes to provide a reflective summary of the communication strategies available for people living with and working with rare cancer. It aims to reveal any gaps in the resources available, to contribute to the long-term improvement of diagnosis and management of rare cancers.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018099784.
| S-EPMC6477728 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCommunity-based self-screening may provide opportunities to increase detection of hypertension, and identify raised blood pressure (BP) in populations who do not access healthcare. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of non-physician screening and self-screening of BP in community settings.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Trials Register, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Science Citation Index & Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to November 2013 to identify studies reporting community-based self-screening or non-physician screening for hypertension in adults. Results were stratified by study site, screener, and the cut-off used to define high screening BP.ResultsWe included 73 studies, which described screening in 9 settings, with pharmacies (22%) and public areas/retail (15%) most commonly described. We found high levels of heterogeneity in all analyses, despite stratification. The highest proportions of eligible participants screened were achieved by mobile units (range 21%-88%) and pharmacies (range 40%-90%). Self-screeners had similar median rates of high BP detection (25%-35%) to participants in studies using other screeners. Few (16%) studies reported referral to primary care after screening. However, where participants were referred, a median of 44% (range 17%-100%) received a new hypertension diagnosis or antihypertensive medication.ConclusionsCommunity-based non-physician or self-screening for raised BP can detect raised BP, which may lead to the identification of new cases of hypertension. However, current evidence is insufficient to recommend specific approaches or settings. Studies with good follow-up of patients to definitive diagnosis are needed.
| S-EPMC4506785 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith the accumulation of evidence regarding potential harms of cancer screening in recent years, researchers, policy-makers, and the public are becoming more critical of population-based cancer screening. Consequently, a high-quality cancer screening program should consider individuals’ values and preferences when determining recommendations. In cervical cancer screening, offering women autonomy is considered a “person-centered” approach to health care services; however, it may impact the effectiveness of the program should women choose to not participate. As part of a larger project to investigate women’s cervical screening preferences and correlates of these preferences, this systematic review will capture quantitative and qualitative investigations of women’s cervical screening preferences and the methods used to elicit them.Design and methodsThis mixed methods synthesis will use a thematic analysis approach to synthesize qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods evidence. This protocol describes the methods that will be used in this investigation. A search strategy has been developed with a health librarian and peer reviewed using PRESS. Based on this strategy, five databases and the gray literature will be searched for studies that meet the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included individual studies will be examined using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Three reviewers will extract data from the primary studies on the tools or instruments used to elicit women’s preferences regarding cervical cancer screening, theoretical frameworks used, outcomes measured, the outstanding themes from quantitative and qualitative evidence, and the identified preferences for cervical cancer screening. We will describe the relationships between study results and the study population, “intervention” (e.g., tool or instrument), and context. We will follow the PRISMA reporting guideline. We will compare findings across studies and between study methods (e.g., qualitative versus quantitative study designs). The strength of the synthesized findings will be assessed using the validated GRADE and CERQual tool.DiscussionThis review will inform the development of a tool to elicit women’s cervical screening preferences. Understanding the methods used to elicit women’s preferences and what is known about women’s cervical screening preferences will be useful for guideline developers who wish to incorporate a woman-centered approach specifically for cervical screening guidelines.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016035737Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0310-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
| S-EPMC4982264 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of breast cancer screening is still under debate. Our objective was to systematically review studies assessing personalized breast cancer screening strategies based on women's individual risk and to conduct a risk of bias assessment.MethodsWe followed the standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA declaration and searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Clinical Trials databases for studies published in English. The quality of the studies was assessed using the ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Questionnaire and The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Two independent reviewers screened full texts and evaluated the risk of bias.ResultsOut of the 1533 initially retrieved citations, we included 13 studies. Three studies were randomized controlled trials, while nine were mathematical modeling studies, and one was an observational pilot study. The trials are in the recruitment phase and have not yet reported their results. All three trials used breast density and age to define risk groups, and two of them included family history, previous biopsies, and genetic information. Among the mathematical modeling studies, the main risk factors used to define risk groups were breast density, age, family history, and previous biopsies. Six studies used genetic information to define risk groups. The most common outcome measures were the gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALY), absolute costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), while the main outcome in the observational study was the detection rate. In all models, personalized screening strategies were shown to be effective. The randomized trials were of good quality. The modeling studies showed moderate risk of bias but there was wide variability across studies. The observational study showed a low risk of bias but its utility was moderate due to its pilot design and its relatively small scale.ConclusionsThere is some evidence of the effectiveness of screening personalization in terms of QUALYs and ICER from the modeling studies and the observational study. However, evidence is lacking on feasibility and acceptance by the target population.Review registrationPROSPERO: CRD42018110483.
| S-EPMC6913984 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAmblyopia is an important public health concern associated with functional vision loss and detrimental impact on the physical and mental well-being of children. The gold standard for diagnosis of amblyogenic conditions currently involves screening by orthoptists and/or ophthalmologists. The bloom of technology enables the use of home-based screening tools to detect these conditions at an early stage by the layperson in community, which could reduce the burden of screening in the community, especially during restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we propose a systematic review aiming to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of home-based screening tools compared with the existing gold standard.Methods and analysisWe aim to search for studies involving home-based screening tools for amblyopia among children aged under 18 years. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Level 4 evidence and above will be included, without language or time restrictions. The following platforms will be searched from inception to 31 August 2021: PubMed, Medline, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection and Clinicaltrials.gov. Two independent reviewers will identify studies for inclusion based on a screening questionnaire. The search and screening will start on 14 August 2021 until 1 October 2021. We aim to complete our data analysis by 30 November 2021. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool for diagnostic accuracy studies only. Our primary outcome measure is the diagnostic accuracy of home-based screening tools, while secondary outcome measures include validity, feasibility, reproducibility and cost-effectiveness, where available.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not necessary as no primary data will be collected. The findings will be disseminated through presentations at scientific meetings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Prospero registration numberCRD42021233511.
| S-EPMC8404433 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveGamification broadly refers to the use of game design elements in non-game contexts with the goal of promoting users' engagement. Gamification strategies appear as an advantageous tool to increase the motivation and involvement of users. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify studies using gamification strategies in distinct intervention contexts and to describe their impact in each type of intervention. Thus, the focus is on the construct (gamification) rather than on a particular area or population.ResultsTo achieve this goal, Scopus, IEEE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, ERIC, and PsycINFO databases will be used to gather data for the systematic review. Both the research and report of results will be based on Cochrane's recommendations and PRISMA guidelines. Data, including the assessment on the quality of the articles, will be conducted by two members of the team independently. Findings will be reported narratively. The ethical approval is not required as the research does not involve data collection. Findings will be submitted to a peer-review journal and the results will be presented on international congresses. Future reviews could consider investigating particular areas of intervention in which gamification strategies are being employed. Trial registration Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42017070508.
| S-EPMC6387509 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Delirium is a frequent form of acute brain dysfunction in mechanically ventilated patients. Screening tools have been developed to identify delirium, but it is unclear which tool is the most accurate. Therefore, we provide a protocol of systematic evaluation to assess the accuracy of delirium screening tools in mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS:PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library will be searched. Studies involving mechanically ventilated patients which compared diagnostic tools with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria as a reference standard will be included. We will use MetaDiSC and STATA 15.1 to analyze carefully when a network meta-analysis is allowed. RESULTS:This study will provide a high-quality synthesis to assess the accuracy of different screening methods in mechanically ventilated patients. CONCLUSION:The conclusion of our systematic review will provide evidence to judge which screening method is the best for mechanically ventilated patients.
| S-EPMC7458233 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Despite the increasing number of drugs available and various guidelines on the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension, an expressive number of patients continue with these diseases uncontrolled. Nutrition therapy (NT) plays a fundamental role in the prevention and management of these comorbidities, as well as in the prevention of complications related to them. The objective of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of NT strategies in the management of patients with T2DM and/or hypertension in primary care. The selected strategies did not substitute pharmaceutical treatment but instead focused on preventing a sedentary lifestyle and stimulating healthy nutrition. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will perform a systematic review according to Cochrane methodology of randomised controlled trials, wherein patients with T2DM and/or hypertension were allocated into one of the two groups: NT strategy, which may be of dietary quality or energy restriction, and conventional treatment. The primary outcomes will be glycaemic and blood pressure (BP) control, measured by final glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (%) and BP (mm Hg), respectively. Four general and adaptive search strategies have been created for the Embase, Medline, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) electronic databases. Two reviewers will independently select eligible studies, assess the risk of bias and extract data from the included studies. Similar outcomes measured in at least two trials will be plotted in the meta-analysis using Review Manager V.5.3. The quality of evidence of the effect estimate of the intervention will be generated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:As no primary data collection will be undertaken, formal ethical assessment is not required. We plan to present the results of this systematic review in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, conferences and the popular press. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:Our systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 20 December 2018 (Registration number CRD42018118117).
| S-EPMC6731858 | biostudies-other
Project description:Prognosis research is on the rise, its importance recognised because chronic health conditions and diseases are increasingly common and costly. Prognosis systematic reviews are needed to collate and synthesise these research findings, especially to help inform effective clinical decision-making and healthcare policy. A detailed, comprehensive search strategy is central to any systematic review. However, within prognosis research, this is challenging due to poor reporting and inconsistent use of available indexing terms in electronic databases. Whilst many published search filters exist for finding clinical trials, this is not the case for prognosis studies. This systematic review aims to identify and compare existing methodological filters developed and evaluated to identify prognosis studies of any of the three main types: overall prognosis, prognostic factors, and prognostic [risk prediction] models.Primary studies reporting the development and/or evaluation of methodological search filters to retrieve any type of prognosis study will be included in this systematic review. Multiple electronic bibliographic databases will be searched, grey literature will be sought from relevant organisations and websites, experts will be contacted, and citation tracking of key papers and reference list checking of all included papers will be undertaken. Titles will be screened by one person, and abstracts and full articles will be reviewed for inclusion independently by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality assessment will also be undertaken independently by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by discussion or by a third reviewer if necessary. Filters' characteristics and performance metrics reported in the included studies will be extracted and tabulated. To enable comparisons, filters will be grouped according to database, platform, type of prognosis study, and type of filter for which it was intended.This systematic review will identify all existing validated prognosis search filters and synthesise evidence about their applicability and performance. These findings will identify if current filters provide a proficient means of searching electronic bibliographic databases or if further prognosis filters are needed and can feasibly be developed for systematic searches of prognosis studies.
| S-EPMC5399431 | biostudies-other