Dataset Information

Screening strategies for hypertension: a systematic review protocol.

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

ACCESS DATA

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]

PMID: 30647046

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

Dataset Information

Screening strategies for hypertension: a systematic review protocol.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Prospero registration number

Publications

Screening strategies for hypertension: a systematic review protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets