Effectiveness of motivational interviewing on medication adherence for the prevention of recurrent stroke or transient ischemic attack: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This systematic review examines the effectiveness of motivational interviewing (MI) on medication adherence for preventing recurrent stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA). METHODS: MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 12 June 2023. Randomized controlled trials comparing MI with usual care or interventions without MI in participants with any stroke type were identified and summarized descriptively. Primary outcome was medication adherence. Secondary outcomes were quality of life (QoL) and different clinical outcomes. We assessed risk of bias with RoB 2 (revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool) and intervention complexity with the iCAT_SR (intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews). RESULTS: We screened 691 records for eligibility and included four studies published in five articles. The studies included a total of 2751 participants, and three were multicentric. Three studies had a high risk of bias, and interventions varied in complexity. Two studies found significantly improved medication adherence, one at 9 (96.9% vs. 88.2%, risk ratio = 1.098, 95% confidence interval = 1.03-1.17) and one at 12 months (97.0% vs. 95.0%, p = 0.026), but not at other time points, whereas two other studies reported no significant changes. No significant differences were found in QoL or clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on MI appears inconclusive for improving medication adherence for recurrent stroke and TIA prevention, with no benefits on QoL and clinical outcomes. There is a need for robustly designed studies and process evaluations of MI as a complex intervention for people with stroke. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42023433284).

Cochrane review abstracts are getting longer, but this has no large impact on the reporting quality.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reporting of abstracts of Cochrane Reviews according to PRISMA-A and to investigate a possible association with the abstract´s length. METHODS: This is a retrospective, observational study based on all Cochrane Reviews indexed in Medline (via PubMed) until November 18, 2022. In the second part, a random sample of 440 abstracts was drawn, in which PRISMA-A adherence was assessed by two independent reviewers. Analyses were stratified by the year of publication and the number of words. RESULTS: Overall, the median number of words of the 15,188 included abstracts was 469 (IQR 389-686 words), steadily increasing from 353 words in 2000 to 838 words in 2022, with less than one percent of the abstracts in 2022 having ≤ 300 words (in 2000: 30.7%). Analyses on PRISMA-A adherence in the random sample showed a mean score of 6.1 out of 12 fully reported items. Stratified by year, PRISMA-A adherence increased, with higher word counts in 2000-2010 and 2011-2015, while there was no difference in PRISMA-A adherence by abstract length in 2016-2022. CONCLUSION: Over the years, abstracts of Cochrane Reviews have become longer, running up to 1000 words. This conflicts with the Cochrane Handbook, which recommends a maximum length of 400 until it was aligned with MECIR in 2019, which has recommended a length of <700 words since 2012 but allows up to 1000 words. It is debatable whether such long abstracts meet the key goals of abstracts of being informative, accurate, appealing, and concise.

Prevalence of indwelling urinary catheters in nursing home residents: Systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review examines the prevalence of indwelling urinary catheters in nursing home residents. METHODS: MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE were searched from inception to 9 August 2022. Cross-sectional studies and longitudinal studies with cross-sectional analyses reporting catheter prevalence in nursing home residents were identified and summarized descriptively. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute's tool. RESULTS: Sixty-seven studies (92.5 % cross-sectional) were included. The reported number of included residents ranged from 73 to 110,656. The median catheter prevalence was 7.3 % (interquartile range 4.3-10.1 %; n = 65 studies). It was higher in Germany (10.2 % [9.7-12.8 %]; n = 15) than in the United States of America (9.3 % [6.3-11.9 %]; n = 9), United Kingdom (6.9 % [4.8-8.5 %]; n = 7), and Sweden (7.3 % [6.4-7.9 %]; n = 6). Furthermore, it was higher among men (17.0 % [16.0-26.0 %]) than among women (5.3 % [4.0-9.5 %]) (n = 9). Only one study investigated differences by age. The prevalence was higher for transurethral (5.7 % [5.6-7.2 %]; n = 12) than for suprapubic (1.2 % [0.6-2.5 %]; n = 13) catheters. Most catheterized residents were long-term catheterized (n = 6) and had their catheter changed within 3 months (n = 2). Symptomatic urinary tract infections were more common among catheterized than among non-catheterized residents (n = 4). DISCUSSION: Catheter prevalence in nursing home residents varies between studies and countries. Prevalence differences by sex, age, and catheter type as well as duration of catheterization, catheter change intervals, and catheter-associated urinary tract infections are rarely reported because most studies do not primarily focus on catheters. Future studies should focus on the circumstances of urinary catheter use and care in nursing home residents. REGISTRATION AND FUNDING: PROSPERO (29 August 2022; CRD42022354358); no funding.

Hospitalization of German and Dutch Nursing Home Residents Depend on Different Long-Term Care Structures: A Systematic Review on Periods of Increased Vulnerability.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate proportions of hospitalized nursing home residents during periods of increased vulnerability, ie, the first 6 months after institutionalization and the last 6 months before death, and comparing the figures between Germany and the Netherlands. DESIGN: Systematic review, registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022312506). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Newly admitted or deceased residents. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception through May 3, 2022. We included all observational studies that reported the proportions of all-cause hospitalizations among German or Dutch nursing home residents during these defined vulnerable periods. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute's tool. We assessed study and resident characteristics and outcome information and descriptively reported them separately for both countries. RESULTS: We screened 1856 records for eligibility and included 9 studies published in 14 articles (Germany: 8; Netherlands: 6). One study for each country investigated the first 6 months after institutionalization. A total of 10.2% of the Dutch and 42.0% of the German nursing home residents were hospitalized during this time. Overall, 7 studies reported on in-hospital deaths, with proportions ranging from 28.9% to 29.5% for Germany and from 1.0% to 16.3% for the Netherlands. Proportions for hospitalization in the last 30 days of life ranged from 8.0% to 15.7% (Netherlands: n = 2) and from 48.6% to 58.0% (Germany: n = 3). Only German studies assessed the differences by age and sex. Although hospitalizations were less common at older ages, they were more frequent in male residents. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: During the observed periods, the proportion of nursing homes residents being hospitalized differed greatly between Germany and the Netherlands. The higher figures for Germany can probably be explained by differences in the long-term care systems. There is a lack of research, especially for the first months after institutionalization, and future studies should examine the care processes of nursing home residents following acute events in more detail.

Reporting according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) depends on abstract length.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate reporting of abstracts of systematic reviews according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) 2013 checklist. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A random sample of 534 systematic reviews on effectiveness indexed in PubMed between 2000 and 2019 was assessed. Adherence of abstracts to PRISMA-A was analysed using descriptive statistics. Results were stratified by number of words, structure, and year of publication. RESULT: The mean score of fully reported PRISMA-A items was 5.4 of 12, with adherence varying widely between items (0% to 98.8%). Cochrane reviews received higher mean total scores than non-Cochrane reviews (6.3 vs. 5.2). Adherence to PRISMA-A increased linearly with increasing word count. In non-Cochrane reviews, authors of structured abstracts more often adhered to PRISMA-A than those of unstructured abstracts. No improvements in reporting of abstracts were found after the implementation of PRISMA-A in 2013. CONCLUSION: Adherence to PRISMA-A shows great potential for improvement. Therefore, authors, editors, and reviewers should be made aware of PRISMA-A by referring to it in the journal submission guidelines. As adherence to PRISMA-A increases with the number of words, journals should consider to increase the word limit to 250-300 words.

Restrictions and their reporting in systematic reviews of effectiveness: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Restrictions in systematic reviews (SRs) can lead to bias and may affect conclusions. Therefore, it is important to report whether and which restrictions were used. This study aims to examine the use of restrictions regarding language, publication period, and study type, as well as the transparency of reporting in SRs of effectiveness. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted with a random sample of 535 SRs of effectiveness indexed in PubMed between 2000 and 2019. The use of restrictions and their reporting were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the total 535 SRs included, four out of every ten (41.3%) lacked information on at least one of the three restrictions considered (language, publication period, or study type). Overall, 14.6% of SRs did not provide information on restrictions regarding publication period, 19.1% regarding study type, and 18.3% regarding language. Of all included SRs, language was restricted in 46.4%, and in more than half of the SRs with restricted language (130/248), it was unclear whether the restriction was applied during either the search or the screening process, or both. The restrictions were justified for publication period in 22.2% of the respective SRs (33/149), study type in 6.5% (28/433), and language in 3.2% (8/248). Differences in reporting were found between countries as well as between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there is a lack of transparency in reporting on restrictions in SRs. Authors as well as editors and reviewers should be encouraged to improve the reporting and justification of restrictions to increase the transparency of SRs.

Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are useful tools in synthesising the available evidence, but high numbers of overlapping SRs are also discussed in the context of research waste. Although it is often claimed that the number of SRs being published is increasing steadily, there are no precise data on that. We aimed to assess trends in the epidemiology and reporting of published SRs over the last 20 years. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted to identify potentially eligible SRs indexed in PubMed from 2000 to 2019. From all 572,871 records retrieved, we drew a simple random sample of 4,000. The PRISMA-P definition of SRs was applied to full texts and only SRs published in English were included. Characteristics were extracted by one reviewer, with a 20% sample verified by a second person. RESULTS: A total of 1,132 SRs published in 710 different journals were included. The estimated number of SRs indexed in 2000 was 1,432 (95% CI: 547-2,317), 5,013 (95% CI: 3,375-6,650) in 2010 and 29,073 (95% CI: 25,445-32,702) in 2019. Transparent reporting of key items increased over the years. About 7 out of 10 named their article a SR (2000-2004: 41.9% and 2015-2019: 74.4%). In 2000-2004, 32.3% of SRs were based in the UK (0% in China), in 2015-2019 24.0% were from China and 10.8% from the UK. Nearly all articles from China (94.9%) conducted a meta-analysis (overall: 58.9%). Cochrane reviews (n = 84; 7.4%) less often imposed language restrictions, but often did not report the number of records and full texts screened and did not name their article a SR (22.6% vs. 73.4%). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a more than 20-fold increase in the number of SRs indexed over the last 20 years. In 2019, this is equivalent to 80 SRs per day. Over time, SRs got more diverse in respect to journals, type of review, and country of corresponding authors. The high proportion of meta-analyses from China needs further investigation. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/pxjrv/).

Changes in Digital Media Use and Physical Activity in German Young Adults under the Covid-19 Pandemic - A Cross-Sectional Study.

Many studies observed a reduction of physical activity (PA) and an increase in digital media use in young adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, few studies have been conducted in Europe or looked at changes in the association between both behaviors. Hence, this study aims at investigating the changes in digital media use/social media use and PA as well as in its association among young adults in Germany. Cross-sectional data of 884 German young adults (mean age 22.36 (±1.99), 76% female) collected via an online questionnaire between August 1 and September 30, 2020 were analyzed. Participants reported on digital media use (smartphone, television, computer, gaming console), social media use (Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok) and PA (days/week of ≥30 min. PA) separately for the period of strict infection control measures in Germany (March - end of May 2020) and for normal times (before March 2020). Descriptive statistics of digital media use, social media use and PA were compared between both periods. Linear regression adjusted for sociodemographic and work-related characteristics were conducted for both periods with total media use, the various media devices and social media use, respectively, as independent and PA as dependent variables. Whereas PA did not differ between both periods, mean total digital media use increased by 1 hour during the period of strict infection control measures. Digital media use and social media use were negatively associated with PA in both time periods. Differences in these associations by sex could be found for some digital media devices. However, 60% of respondents did not comply with the WHO recommendations for PA. Under consideration of possible recall bias, young adults' digital media use, but not PA, seemed to have changed under the strict infection control measures. However, interventions are needed to increase PA and to prevent its reduction in the course of the pandemic.