Correction to: Human microbiota research in Africa: a systematic review reveals gaps and priorities for future research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Allali I
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8772064 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Correction to: Human microbiota research in Africa: a systematic review reveals gaps and priorities for future research.
Allali Imane I Abotsi Regina E RE Tow Lemese Ah LA Thabane Lehana L Zar Heather J HJ Mulder Nicola M NM Nicol Mark P MP
Microbiome 20220119 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe role of the human microbiome in health and disease is an emerging and important area of research; however, there is a concern that African populations are under-represented in human microbiome studies. We, therefore, conducted a systematic survey of African human microbiome studies to provide an overview and identify research gaps. Our secondary objectives were: (i) to determine the number of peer-reviewed publications; (ii) to identify the extent to which the researches focused on diseases identified by the World Health Organization [WHO] State of Health in the African Region Report as being the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in 2018; (iii) to describe the extent and pattern of collaborations between researchers in Africa and the rest of the world; and (iv) to identify leadership and funders of the studies.MethodologyWe systematically searched Medline via PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier, Africa-Wide Information through EBSCOhost, and Web of Science from inception through to 1st April 2020. We included studies that characterized samples from African populations using next-generation sequencing approaches. Two reviewers independently conducted the literature search, title and abstract, and full-text screening, as well as data extraction.ResultsWe included 168 studies out of 5515 records retrieved. Most studies were published in PLoS One (13%; 22/168), and samples were collected from 33 of the 54 African countries. The country where most studies were conducted was South Africa (27/168), followed by Kenya (23/168) and Uganda (18/168). 26.8% (45/168) focused on diseases of significant public health concern in Africa. Collaboration between scientists from the United States of America and Africa was most common (96/168). The first and/or last authors of 79.8% of studies were not affiliated with institutions in Africa. Major funders were the United States of America National Institutes of Health (45.2%; 76/168), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (17.8%; 30/168), and the European Union (11.9%; 20/168).ConclusionsThere are significant gaps in microbiome research in Africa, especially those focusing on diseases of public health importance. There is a need for local leadership, capacity building, intra-continental collaboration, and national government investment in microbiome research within Africa. Video Abstract.
| S-EPMC8672519 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite a better understanding of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and management of patients with anaphylaxis, there remain knowledge gaps. Enumerating and prioritizing these gaps would allow limited scientific resources to be directed more effectively.ObjectiveWe sought to systematically describe and appraise anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities based on their potential impact and feasibility.MethodsWe convened a 25-member multidisciplinary panel of anaphylaxis experts. Panelists formulated knowledge gaps/research priority statements in an anonymous electronic survey. Four anaphylaxis themed writing groups were formed to refine statements: (1) Population Science, (2) Basic and Translational Sciences, (3) Emergency Department Care/Acute Management, and (4) Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention. Revised statements were incorporated into an anonymous electronic survey, and panelists were asked to rate the impact and feasibility of addressing statements on a continuous 0 to 100 scale.ResultsThe panel generated 98 statements across the 4 anaphylaxis themes: Population Science (29), Basic and Translational Sciences (27), Emergency Department Care/Acute Management (24), and Long-Term Management Strategies and Prevention (18). Median scores for impact and feasibility ranged from 50.0 to 95.0 and from 40.0 to 90.0, respectively. Key statements based on median rating for impact/feasibility included the need to refine anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria, identify reliable diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic anaphylaxis bioassays, develop clinical prediction models to standardize postanaphylaxis observation periods and hospitalization criteria, and determine immunotherapy best practices.ConclusionsWe identified and systematically appraised anaphylaxis knowledge gaps and future research priorities. This study reinforces the need to harmonize scientific pursuits to optimize the outcomes of patients with and at risk of anaphylaxis.
| S-EPMC8837706 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeDry eye, a common yet underrecognized and evolving field, has few recommended treatment algorithms, mostly based on expert consensus rather than robust research evidence. There are high costs associated with managing dry eye and conducting research to identify effective and safe long-term treatments. To support evidence-based management of dry eye, our purpose was to identify and prioritize important clinical research questions for future clinical research.MethodsWe translated recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology's 2013 Preferred Practice Patterns for dry eye into answerable clinical research questions about treatment effectiveness. Clinicians around the world who manage patients with dry eye rated each question's importance from 0 (not important) to 10 (very important) using a 2-round online Delphi survey. We considered questions as "important" if ≥75% of respondents assigned a rating of 6 or more in round 2. We mapped the identified important clinical research questions to reliable systematic reviews published up to March 2016.ResultsSeventy-five clinicians from at least 21 countries completed both Delphi rounds. Among the 58 questions, 24 met our definition of "important": 9/24 and 7/24 addressed topical and systemic treatments, respectively. All 4 questions with the highest 25th percentiles addressed topical treatments. Although 6/24 "important" questions were associated with 4 existing reliable systematic reviews, none of these reviews came to a definitive conclusion about treatment effectiveness.ConclusionsWe identified gaps pertaining to treatment options for dry eye. Future clinical research on the management of dry eye should strongly consider these prioritized questions.
| S-EPMC5678755 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although extreme weather events have played a constant role in human history, heatwaves (HWs) have become more frequent and intense in the past decades, causing concern especially in light of the increasing evidence on climate change. Despite the increasing number of reviews suggesting a relationship between heat and health, these reviews focus primarily on mortality, neglecting other important aspects. This systematic review of reviews gathered the available evidence from research syntheses conducted on HWs and health. Following the PRISMA guidelines, 2232 records were retrieved, and 283 reviews were ultimately included. Information was extracted from the papers and categorized by topics. Quantitative data were extracted from meta-analyses and, when not available, evidence was collected from systematic reviews. Overall, 187 reviews were non-systematic, while 96 were systematic, of which 27 performed a meta-analysis. The majority evaluated mortality, morbidity, or vulnerability, while the other topics were scarcely addressed. The following main knowledge gaps were identified: lack of a universally accepted definition of HW; scarce evidence on the HW-mental health relationship; no meta-analyses assessing the risk perception of HWs; scarcity of studies evaluating the efficacy of adaptation strategies and interventions. Future efforts should meet these priorities to provide high-quality evidence to stakeholders.
| S-EPMC9140727 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesDespite the high prevalence of child marriage in Africa, little is known about the current state of the evidence on interventions to prevent and respond to child marriage in the region. The objectives of this systematic scoping review are to describe the breadth of existing evidence on child marriage prevention and response interventions, analyze where these interventions have been implemented, and identify research gaps and priorities for moving forward.MethodsThe inclusion criteria incorporated publications that: (1) focused on Africa, (2) described interventions to address child marriage, (3) were published 2000-2021 and (4) were published as peer-reviewed articles or reports in English. We searched seven databases (PubMed, PsychINFO, Embase, Cinahl Plus, Popline, Web of Science and Cochrane Library), hand-searched the websites of 15 organisations and used Google Scholar to identify research published in 2021. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts followed by full-text reviews and data extraction for included studies.ResultsOur analysis of the 132 intervention studies identified highlights important disparities by intervention type, sub-region, and intervention activities, focus populations and impact. The greatest number of intervention studies focused on Eastern Africa. Health and empowerment approaches were most represented, followed by education and laws and policies. Norms or livelihoods approaches were least represented.ConclusionOur review finds few high-quality impact evaluations, most of which assess cash transfer programmes. There is a need to strengthen evaluative evidence on other intervention approaches including empowerment and norms change interventions, in particular. Given the linguistic and cultural diversity of the continent, more country-specific studies and research published in languages other than English are needed, particularly in high-prevalence Middle African countries.
| S-EPMC10163461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn 2040, the older population's growth rate in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) will be faster than those experienced by developed nations since 1950. In preparation for this growth, the National Institute on Aging commissioned the National Academies' Committee on Population to organize a workshop on advancing aging research in Africa. This meeting provided a platform for discussing some areas requiring improvement in aging research in SSA regions. We believed that conducting a systematic review of peer-reviewed articles to set priorities for aging research in SSA is warranted. Therefore, this article is the first in a Four-Part series that summaries the types and trends of peer-reviewed studies in SSA.MethodsThis systematic mapping review followed the Search-Appraisal-Synthesis-Analysis Framework. We systematically searched multiple databases from inception till February 2021 and included peer-reviewed articles conducted with/for older adults residing in SSA. Conventional content analysis was employed to categorize studies into subject-related areas.ResultsWe included 512 studies (quantitative = 426, qualitative = 71 and mixed-method = 15). Studies were conducted in 32 countries. Quantitative studies included were observational studies: cross-sectional (n = 250, 59%), longitudinal (n = 126, 30%), and case-control (n = 12, 3%); and experimental studies: pre-post design (n = 4, 1%), randomized control trial (RCT, n = 12, 3%); and not reported (n = 21, 5%). Fifteen qualitative studies did not state their study design; where stated, study design ranged from descriptive (n = 14, 20%), ethnography (n = 12, 17%), grounded theory (n = 7, 10%), narrative (n = 5, 7%), phenomenology (n = 10, 14%), interpretative exploratory (n = 4, 6%), case studies (n = 4, 6%). Of the 15 mixed-method studies, seven did not state their mixed-method design. Where stated, design includes concurrent (n = 1), convergent (n = 1), cross-sectional (n = 3), informative (n = 1), sequential exploratory (n = 1) and retrospective (n = 2). Studies were classified into 30 (for quantitative studies) and seven (for qualitative and mixed-method) subject-related areas. HIV/AIDs-related and non-communicable diseases-related studies were the most predominant subject-related areas. No studies explored the transdisciplinary co-production of interventions.ConclusionsThere are glaring gaps in ageing research in SSA, especially mixed-methods and RCTs. A large number of studies focused on HIV/AIDs and non-communicable disease-related studies. National and international funding agencies should set up priority funding competitions for transdisciplinary collaborations in ageing research.
| S-EPMC8284542 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWell-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact.ObjectiveThe purpose of this review is to characterize methods conducted or supported by research funding organizations to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities.MethodWe searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science up to September 2019. Eligible studies reported on methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities that had been conducted or supported by research funding organizations. Using a published protocol, we extracted data on the method, criteria, involvement of stakeholders, evaluations, and whether the method had been replicated (i.e., used in other studies).ResultsAmong 10,832 citations, 167 studies were eligible for full data extraction. More than half of the studies employed methods to identify both needs and priorities, whereas about a quarter of studies focused singularly on identifying gaps (7%), needs (6%), or priorities (14%) only. The most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops or meetings (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the James Lind Alliance approach, a multi-stakeholder research needs and priority setting process (28%). The most widely applied criteria were importance to stakeholders (72%), potential value (29%), and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder involvement was most prominent among clinicians (69%), researchers (66%), and patients and the public (59%). Stakeholders were identified through stakeholder organizations (51%) and purposive (26%) and convenience sampling (11%). Only 4% of studies evaluated the effectiveness of the methods and 37% employed methods that were reproducible and used in other studies.DiscussionTo ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.
| S-EPMC8738821 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lay abstractVery little is known about the status of autism research in Central Asia. Through the library databases, we identified and reviewed 11 scientific studies conducted with autistic people and their families in five Central Asian countries-Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Of the 11 studies, 10 were conducted in Kazakhstan and 1 in Uzbekistan. Within these limited number of research studies, different topics such as diagnosis, risk factors of autism, biology, and various service and intervention areas were addressed. We identified several knowledge gaps and research priorities to address the needs of autistic people, their families, and professionals in Central Asia.
| S-EPMC10851649 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPatient involvement is a critical component of dementia research priority-setting exercises to ensure that research benefits are relevant and acceptable to those who need the most. This systematic review synthesises research priorities and preferences identified by people living with dementia and their caregivers.MethodsGuided by Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework, we conducted a systematic search in five electronic databases: CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus. The reference lists of the included studies were also manually searched. We combined quantitative and qualitative data for synthesis and descriptive thematic analysis.ResultsEleven studies were included in this review. Findings are grouped into four main categories: Increase in knowledge, education, and awareness; Determining the cause; Sustainability of care; and Cure of dementia and related conditions.ConclusionThere is a need to respond to the stigma associated with dementia, which limits access to care and the quality of life for both people living with dementia and their caregivers. We need to work on changing public, private and workplace attitudes about dementia and encourage supporting and participating in dementia research. Future research should involve people living with dementia and their primary caregivers from culturally and linguistically diverse communities in priority-setting exercises.
| S-EPMC11317016 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesResearch priority setting aims to collate stakeholder opinion to determine the most pressing research questions. Priority setting exercises influence decisions around research funding, development and policy. We compared published dementia research priority setting exercises from international healthcare systems.MethodsFour multidisciplinary, international, electronic databases were searched for relevant studies (2010 until 2021). Priorities were extracted, coded and assigned to categories using thematic analysis. The Nine Common Themes of Good Practice (9CTGP) and the Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE) checklists were used to assess methodological and reporting quality respectively.ResultsFrom 265 titles, 10 priority setting exercises (1179 participants, 147 priorities) were included. Studies spanned four continents and the majority included people living with dementia and their care-givers in the priority setting process (68%). Only one paper met all the best practice indicators. Issues around inclusiveness, implementation and evaluation of the priorities were apparent in nine papers. We categorised priorities under eight themes: caregivers (25%, n = 37), support (24%, n = 35), awareness and education (16%, n = 24), drugs and interventions (14%, n = 21), diagnosis (8%, n = 12), pathology (6%, n = 9), research design (5%, n = 7), and prevention (1%, n = 2). Priorities varied by geographical region, with awareness and education of higher priority in low-middle income countries, compared to caregivers and support in high income countries.ConclusionsKey priorities were identified with some commonality around themes considered of greatest importance. There is scope to improve the process and reporting of priority setting. Priorities differed according to contextual factors and so, priorities specific to one healthcare setting may not be applicable to others.
| S-EPMC9828247 | biostudies-literature