Dataset Information

Rehabilitation of cognitive deficits poststroke: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Stroke is among the leading causes of death and disability worldwide. Poststroke cognitive impairment is a common sequela of stroke. The burden of cognitive impairment poststroke has significant impacts on the individual poststroke, their family and wider society. Despite the prevalence and associated burden of poststroke cognitive impairment, the optimal approach to rehabilitate cognitive deficits poststroke has yet to be established. A range of conservative interventions for cognitive impairment poststroke exist including self-efficacy training, physical activity interventions, neuropsychological interventions, electronic interventions, music therapy and occupational therapies. This systematic review aims to explore the totality of evidence with regard to non-pharmacological rehabilitation interventions wherein the primary or secondary aim is to improve cognitive function in individuals poststroke. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A systematic review of randomised controlled trials which investigate the effectiveness of interventions wherein the primary or secondary aim is to improve cognitive function in individuals poststroke will be conducted (August 2019). The following electronic databases will be searched: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and PsycInfo. Reference lists of all identified studies will be reviewed to identify additional studies for inclusion. Titles and abstracts will be screened independently by two review authors for inclusion and exclusion. Any disagreement regarding inclusion will be resolved by discussion or by referral to a third assessor if necessary. Methodological quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomised Controlled Trials. Meta-analyses will be performed if studies are sufficiently homogeneous. The review will be reported in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:As this systematic review will collect secondary data only, ethical approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through presentations and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019125289.

SUBMITTER: O Donoghue M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6858114 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rehabilitation of cognitive deficits poststroke: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions.

O Donoghue Mairead M Boland Pauline P Galvin Rose R Coote Susan S Hayes Sara S

BMJ open 20191107 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>Stroke is among the leading causes of death and disability worldwide. Poststroke cognitive impairment is a common sequela of stroke. The burden of cognitive impairment poststroke has significant impacts on the individual poststroke, their family and wider society. Despite the prevalence and associated burden of poststroke cognitive impairment, the optimal approach to rehabilitate cognitive deficits poststroke has yet to be established. A range of conservative interventions f ...[more]

PMID: 31699730

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide, and 53.4% of stroke survivors suffer from post-stroke cognitive impairment. Post-stroke cognitive impairment can increase hospitalization rate and cost of care and decrease the quality of life of stroke patients. To date, multiple cognitive rehabilitation interventions have been tested in stroke populations with post-stroke cognitive impairment. However, the most efficacious intervention has not been established. This systematic review aims to compare the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation interventions for patients with post-stroke cognitive impairment.MethodsWe will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PubMed, and clinical trial registries to identify eligible randomized clinical trials with no restrictions in the date of publication and language. Studies conducted with patients aged 18 or over, with the presence of cognitive impairment after being diagnosed with stroke will be included. Studies will be restricted to randomized controlled trials comparing a cognitive rehabilitation intervention with another intervention. The primary outcome is any clinical changes in the general or specific cognitive domain (e.g., executive function, attention, memory, or perception). The secondary outcomes that will be collected include adverse effects (e.g., stroke, disability, or mortality) and quality of life. Two independent reviewers will assess articles to identify trials eligible for inclusion. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment of the included studies will also be done independently. Any discrepancies will be solved by discussion, or a third reviewer will be consulted if necessary. A meta-analysis will be carried out if appropriate.DiscussionThis systematic review for patients with post-stroke cognitive impairment will assess the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation interventions. And our results will help clinical decision-making and support the development of clinical practice guidelines.Trial registrationSystematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020173988.

Project description:IntroductionTherapeutic recommendations for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) have recently shifted towards non-invasive pharmacological options. Recent evidence has shown promising efficacy for specific treatments. However, data regarding the comparative efficacy of these treatments in patients with HS are still limited. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to summarise the benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions for treating people living with HS.Methods and analysisWe will search electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane Library beginning from their inception dates with no language restrictions. A grey literature search will be performed to supplement the electronic databases. Both randomised trials and non-randomised studies using validated measurement tools that investigated the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions among people living with HS will be included. The predefined primary outcomes will include treatment responses that reflect the patient's perspective and all-cause discontinuation. Screening, selection, extraction, assessment of the risk of bias and analysis of the strength of the evidence will be performed independently by a pair of reviewers. A two-step approach of traditional pairwise and NMA will be performed. Based on a random-effects model, standardised weighted mean differences and ORs with corresponding 95% CIs will be pooled as effect estimates for the continuous and categorical endpoints, respectively. Statistical and methodological heterogeneities will be assessed. Preplanned subgroup analyses and univariate meta-regression will be conducted to quantify the potential sources of heterogeneity. Evidence-based synthesis will be based on the magnitudes of effect size, evidence certainty and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve values.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required because this study is based on existing published data. These findings will be disseminated through scientific meetings and publications in peer-reviewed journals.Prospero registration numberCRD42022302795.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Remission rates for mood disorders, including depressive and bipolar disorders, remain relatively low despite available treatments, and many patients fail to respond adequately to these interventions. Evidence suggests that personality disorder may play a role in poor outcomes. Although personality disorders are common in patients with mood disorders, it remains unknown whether personality disorder affects treatment outcomes in mood disorders. We aim to review currently available evidence regarding the role of personality disorder on pharmacological interventions in randomised controlled trials for adults with mood disorders. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) via cochranelibrary.com, PubMed via PubMed, EMBASE via embase.com, PsycINFO via Ebsco and CINAHL Complete via Ebsco databases will be conducted to identify randomised controlled trials that have investigated pharmacological interventions in participants aged 18 years or older for mood disorders (ie, depressive disorders and bipolar spectrum disorders) and have also included assessment of personality disorder. One reviewer will screen studies against the predetermined eligibility criteria, and a second reviewer will confirm eligible studies. Data will be extracted by two independent reviewers. Methodological quality and risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A systematic review, and if sufficient evidence is identified, a meta-analysis will be completed. Meta-analysis will be conducted using the standardised mean difference approach and reported with 95% CIs. A random effects model will be employed and statistical heterogeneity will be evaluated using the I2 statistic. Prespecified subgroup analyses will be completed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:As this systematic review will use published data, ethics permission will not be required. The outcomes of this systematic review will be published in a relevant scientific journal and presented at a research conference. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018089279.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To systematically review and compare the efficacy of all available home-based non-pharmacological treatments of depression. DESIGN:Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES:Medline, Scopus and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were searched since inceptions to 7 August 2016. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of home-based non-pharmacological interventions with usual care of patients with depression were included in the review. MAIN OUTCOMES:Depression symptom scores and disease remission rates at the end of treatment. RESULTS:Seventeen studies were included in the review. Home-based non-pharmacological interventions were categorised as (1) home-based psychological intervention, (2) home-based exercise intervention, (3) combined home-based psychological intervention with exercise intervention and (4) complementary medicine. Complementary medicine approaches were excluded from the meta-analysis due to heterogeneity. The standardised mean differences of post-treatment depression symptom scores between usual care groups and home-based psychological intervention, home-based exercise intervention and combined home-based psychological intervention with exercise intervention were âˆ'0.57 (95% CI âˆ'0.84 to âˆ'0.31), âˆ'1.03 (95% CI âˆ'2.89 to 0.82) and âˆ'0.78 (95% CI âˆ'1.09 to âˆ'0.47), respectively. These results suggest that only home-based psychological intervention and combined home-based psychological intervention with exercise intervention could significantly decrease depression scores. Compared with usual care groups, the disease remission rate was also significantly higher for home-based psychological intervention (pooled risk ratio=1.53; 95%â€‰CI 1.19 to 1.98) and combined home-based psychological intervention with exercise intervention (pooled risk ratio=3.47; 95%â€‰CI 2.11 to 5.70). Of all the studied interventions, combined home-based psychological intervention with exercise intervention had the highest probability of resulting in disease remission. CONCLUSION:Our study confirms the efficacy of home-based psychological intervention and combined home-based psychological intervention with exercise intervention in the treatment of depression. Combined home-based psychological intervention and exercise intervention was the best treatment and should be considered for inclusion in clinical guidelines for managing depression.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the completeness of descriptions of non-pharmacological interventions in randomised trials, identify which elements are most frequently missing, and assess whether authors can provide missing details.DesignAnalysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials of non-pharmacological interventions.Data sources and study selectionAll reports of randomised trials of non-pharmacological interventions published in 2009 in six leading general medical journals; 133 trial reports, with 137 interventions, met the inclusion criteria.Data collectionUsing an eight item checklist, two raters assessed the primary full trial report, plus any reference materials, appendices, or websites. Questions about missing details were emailed to corresponding authors, and relevant items were then reassessed.ResultsOf 137 interventions, only 53 (39%) were adequately described; this was increased to 81 (59%) by using 63 responses from 88 contacted authors. The most frequently missing item was the "intervention materials" (47% complete), but it also improved the most after author response (92% complete). Whereas some authors (27/70) provided materials or further information, other authors (21/70) could not; their reasons included copyright or intellectual property concerns, not having the materials or intervention details, or being unaware of their importance. Although 46 (34%) trial interventions had further information or materials readily available on a website, many were not mentioned in the report, were not freely accessible, or the URL was no longer functioning.ConclusionsMissing essential information about interventions is a frequent, yet remediable, contributor to the worldwide waste in research funding. If trial reports do not have a sufficient description of interventions, other researchers cannot build on the findings, and clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement useful interventions. Improvement will require action by funders, researchers, and publishers, aided by long term repositories of materials linked to publications.

Project description:BackgroundOsteoporosis is a common bone disease that has a significant social and economic effect. Many meta-analyses of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for osteoporosis have been reported, but the findings may be contradictory, and both the reporting and methodological quality remain unknown. As a result, an overview that includes a network meta-analysis was proposed to address these issues.MethodsThe Cochrane library, PubMed, Embase, CBM, and CNKI databases will be systematically searched for meta-analyses of osteoporosis interventions from inception to May 2021. In order to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of each included meta-analysis, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 2020 (PRISMA-2020), and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) will be used. For the assessment of the relative efficacy and safety of treatments reported in the randomized controlled trials included in the meta-analyses identified by the overview, a Bayesian network meta-analysis will be carried out. The odds ratio and standard mean difference with their 95% credible intervals will be used to present the binary and continuous outcomes, respectively, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method will be used to determine the certainty of the evidence through Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis. Data analysis will be performed using WinBUGS, R, and Stata, with a 2-sided P < .05 considered as statistically significant.ResultsThe findings of this overview, which includes a network meta-analysis, will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.ConclusionAn overview with network meta-analysis will provide evidence on the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for osteoporosis, while also identifying the flaws in previously published meta-analyses. All of these results may be used to improve clinical decision-making and future studies.Inplasy registration numberINPLASY202150022.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:There is rising awareness that we need multidisciplinary approaches integrating psychological treatments for schizophrenia, but a comprehensive evidence based on their relative efficacy is lacking. We will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA), integrating direct and indirect comparisons from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to rank psychological treatments for schizophrenia according to their efficacy, acceptability and tolerability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will include all RCTs comparing a psychological treatment aimed at positive symptoms of schizophrenia with another psychological intervention or with a no treatment condition (waiting-list and treatment as usual). We will include studies on adult patients with schizophrenia, excluding specific subpopulations (eg, first-episode patients or patients with psychiatric comorbidities). Primary outcome will be the change in positive symptoms on a published rating scale. Secondary outcomes will be acceptability (dropout), change in overall and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, response, relapse, adherence, depression, quality of life, functioning and adverse events. Published and unpublished studies will be sought through database searches, trial registries and websites. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by at least two independent reviewers. We will conduct random-effects NMA to synthesise all evidences for each outcome and obtain a comprehensive ranking of all treatments. NMA will be conducted in Stata and R within a frequentist framework. The risk of bias in studies will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the credibility of the evidence will be evaluated using an adaptation of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to NMA, recommended by the Cochrane guidance. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:No ethical issues are foreseen. Results from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017067795.

Dataset Information

Rehabilitation of cognitive deficits poststroke: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions.

Publications

Rehabilitation of cognitive deficits poststroke: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets