Prevalence of elder abuse in the community and care settings: An umbrella review.

OBJECTIVE: Elder abuse, an important human rights issue and public health problem, contributes to increased disability and mortality. In the last decades, several reviews have synthesized primary studies to determine its prevalence. This umbrella review aimed to estimate the worldwide overall prevalence rate of elder abuse in the community and care setting. METHODS: Following prospective registration at PROSPERO (CRD42021281866) we conducted a search of eight electronic databases to identify systematic reviews from inception until 17 January 2023. The corrected covered area was calculated to estimate the potential overlap of primary studies between reviews. The quality of the selected reviews was assessed using a modified AMSTAR-2 instrument. We extracted data on the prevalence of any type of elder (people aged 60 years old or older) abuse in the community and care setting. RESULTS: There were 16 systematic reviews retrieved between 2007 and 2022, out of which ten captured prevalence globally, three in Iran, one in Turkey, one in China and one in Brazil. The 16 reviews included 136 primary studies in total between 1988 and 2020. The overlapping of studies between reviews was found to be moderate (5.5%). The quality of reviews was low (2, 12.5%) or critically low (14, 87.5%). The estimated range of global prevalence of overall elder abuse was wide (1.1-78%), while the estimations of specific abuse prevalence ranged from 0-81.8% for neglect, 1.1-78.9% for psychological abuse, 0.7-78.3% for financial abuse, 0.1-67.7% for physical abuse, and 0-59.2% for sexual abuse. CONCLUSIONS: Although the low quality of the evidence and the heterogeneity of the phenomenon makes it hard to give precise prevalence data, it is without a question that elder abuse is a prevalent problem with a wide dispersion. The focus of attention should shift towards interventions and policymaking to prevent this form of abuse.

Quality assessment of online patient information on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool.

INTRODUCTION: Websites and online resources are increasingly becoming patients' main source of healthcare information. It is paramount that high quality information is available online to enhance patient education and improve clinical outcomes. Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy is the gold standard investigation for UGI symptoms and yet little is known regarding the quality of patient orientated websites. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of online patient information on UGI endoscopy using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool. METHODS: Ten search terms were employed to conduct a systematic review. for each term, the top 100 websites identified via a Google search were assessed using the modified EQIP tool. High scoring websites underwent further analysis. Websites intended for professional use by clinicians as well as those containing video or marketing content were excluded. FINDINGS: A total of 378 websites were eligible for analysis. The median modified EQIP score for UGI endoscopy was 18/36 (interquartile range: 14-21). The median EQIP scores for the content, identification and structure domains were 8/18, 1/6 and 9/12 respectively. Higher modified EQIP scores were obtained for websites produced by government departments and National Health Service hospitals (p=0.007). Complication rates were documented in only a fifth (20.4%) of websites. High scoring websites were significantly more likely to provide balanced information on risks and benefits (94.6% vs 34.4%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is an immediate need to improve the quality of online patient information regarding UGI endoscopy. The currently available resources provide minimal information on the risks associated with the procedure, potentially hindering patients' ability to make informed healthcare decisions.

Quality indicators for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer integrated assistance: A critical appraisal / Indicadores de calidad para el diagnóstico y tratamiento del cáncer de mama en el proceso asistencial integrado de cáncer de mama

Introduction Quality indicators (QIs) are essential for adequate control of the health care management process, recognizing areas of improvement and providing solutions. We aimed to evaluate the Integrated Breast Cancer (BC) Care Process QIs. Methods We studied 487 consecutive BC cases diagnosed from November 1st, 2013, to November 30th, 2019, in a Spanish healthcare area, and we estimated the associated QIs. Results Four indicators did not meet the standards and were analysed based on related sociodemographic and clinical variables. The surgical delay after a multidisciplinary team discussion (mean 64%, IQR 59.6–68.5) was lower in elder people (p=0.027), and early histological grades (p=0.019) and stages (p=0.008). The adjuvant treatment delay (mean 55.7%, IQR 51.1–60.3) was lower in advance stages (p=0.002) and when there was no reoperation (p=0.001). The surgical delay after inclusion (mean 83.2%, IQR 79.3–87.2) was lower in early histological grades (p=0.048). The immediate reconstruction (mean 42.3%, IQR 34.0–50.5) reached 72.3% in young women compared to 11.8% in older than 70 years (p=0.001) and it was higher in early stages (45.3% vs 36.2%; p=0.049). Conclusion The study of QIs evaluated their compliance and analysed the variables influencing them to propose improvement measures. Not all the indicators were equally valuable. Some depended on the available resources, and others on the mix of patients or complementary treatments. It would be essential to identify the specific target populations to estimate the indicators or provide standards stratified by the related variables (AU)

Introducción Los indicadores de calidad (IC) son esenciales para el adecuado control del proceso asistencial en el sistema sanitario, permitiendo el reconocimiento de áreas de mejora y proporcionando soluciones. Nuestro propósito ha sido evaluar los IC en el proceso asistencial integrado cáncer de mama (CM). Métodos Se estudiaron 487 casos consecutivos de CM diagnosticados desde noviembre de 2013 hasta 2019 en un área sanitaria de España y se estimaron los IC asociados. Resultados Cuatro indicadores no cumplieron los estándares de calidad y fueron analizados en función de las variables sociodemográficas posiblemente relacionadas. El retraso quirúrgico tras el comité multidisciplinar (media 64%, rango intercuartílico [IQR] 59,6-68,5) fue menor en pacientes más mayores (p=0,027), y en grados histológicos (p=0,019) y estadios (p=0,008) más tempranos. El retraso en el tratamiento adyuvante (media 55,7%, IQR 51,1-60,3) fue menor en estadios más avanzados (p=0,002) y cuando no hubo necesidad de rescisión (p=0,001). El retraso quirúrgico tras la inclusión en lista de espera (media 83,2%, IQR 79,3-87,2) fue menor en grados histológicos más tempranos (p=0,048). La reconstrucción inmediata (media 42,3%, IQR 34,0-50,5) se realizó en un 72,3% de las mujeres jóvenes comparado con tan solo un 11,8% de las mayores de 70 años (p=0,001) y fue mayor en estadios tempranos (45,3% vs. 36,2%; p=0,049). Conclusión El estudio de los IC evaluó su cumplimiento y analizó las variables que los influencian para proponer medidas que los mejoren. No todos los indicadores pudieron evaluarse de igual forma. Algunos dependieron de los recursos disponibles, otros del tipo de paciente y otros de los tratamientos complementarios. Sería necesario identificar las poblaciones diana para estimar los IC más adecuados o proporcionar estándares estratificados por las variables relacionadas (AU)

Quality indicators for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer integrated assistance: A critical appraisal.

INTRODUCTION: Quality indicators (QIs) are essential for adequate control of the health care management process, recognizing areas of improvement and providing solutions. We aimed to evaluate the Integrated Breast Cancer (BC) Care Process QIs. METHODS: We studied 487 consecutive BC cases diagnosed from November 1st, 2013, to November 30th, 2019, in a Spanish healthcare area, and we estimated the associated QIs. RESULTS: Four indicators did not meet the standards and were analysed based on related sociodemographic and clinical variables. The surgical delay after a multidisciplinary team discussion (mean 64%, IQR 59.6-68.5) was lower in elder people (p=0.027), and early histological grades (p=0.019) and stages (p=0.008). The adjuvant treatment delay (mean 55.7%, IQR 51.1-60.3) was lower in advance stages (p=0.002) and when there was no reoperation (p=0.001). The surgical delay after inclusion (mean 83.2%, IQR 79.3-87.2) was lower in early histological grades (p=0.048). The immediate reconstruction (mean 42.3%, IQR 34.0-50.5) reached 72.3% in young women compared to 11.8% in older than 70 years (p=0.001) and it was higher in early stages (45.3% vs 36.2%; p=0.049). CONCLUSION: The study of QIs evaluated their compliance and analysed the variables influencing them to propose improvement measures. Not all the indicators were equally valuable. Some depended on the available resources, and others on the mix of patients or complementary treatments. It would be essential to identify the specific target populations to estimate the indicators or provide standards stratified by the related variables.

Longitudinalidad en atención primaria y polifarmacia. Una revisión sistemática / Longitudinality in Primary Care and Polypharmacy. A Systematic Review

El objetivo de este trabajo es recopilar, evaluar e interpretar las evidencias disponibles sobre la relación existente entre el grado de longitudinalidad en atención primaria (AP) y la prevalencia de polifarmacia y sus problemas asociados. Siguiendo la declaración PRISMA realizamos una revisión sistemática de la literatura en las bases de datos PubMed y Scopus. El cribado por títulos y resúmenes, y la revisión de referencias realizados de forma independiente por 2 autores detectó 16 trabajos de potencial interés. Tras la revisión independiente de todos los originales, 4 fueron descartados por no satisfacer los criterios de inclusión. Los 12 trabajos seleccionados, 9 estudios de cohortes retrospectivos y 3 estudios transversales, estudiaban la relación de la longitudinalidad en AP, medida con diversos índices cuantitativos, con la prevalencia de polifarmacia y otros problemas terapéuticos asociados, como las prescripciones inadecuadas, las duplicidades o las interacciones medicamentosas. Todos mostraban una relación significativa, frecuentemente fuerte (RR>2 o<0,5), entre los indicadores de longitudinalidad y las diversas variables dependientes. Aunque nuestro conocimiento podría mejorar mediante estudios prospectivos que evaluaran directamente la longitudinalidad y su repercusión en los problemas por exceso de medicación, con las evidencias existentes, se puede afirmar que la protección y la promoción de la longitudinalidad en la AP es un elemento clave para el control de la polifarmacia y los problemas asociados (AU)

The aim of this work was to collect, evaluate and interpret the available evidence on the relationship between continuity in primary care (i.e., longitudinality), and the prevalence of polypharmacy and its associated problems. Following the PRISMA reporting statement, we carried out a systematic review of the literature searching PubMed and Scopus databases. The screening of titles and summaries and the review of references carried out independently by two authors detected 16 works of potential interest, of which 4 were discarded after the independent review of all the originals because they did not meet inclusion criteria. The 12 papers selected studied the relationship between Longitudinality, measured with various quantitative indices, and the rate of polypharmacy or various associated problems, such as duplicate drugs, inadequate prescriptions or drug interactions. They all showed a significant relationship, often strong (RR>2 or<0.5), between longitudinality indicators and the various dependent variables. Although our knowledge could be improved by prospective studies that more directly evaluate longitudinality and its impact on problems due to excess medication, with the existing evidence, we can affirm that the protection and promotion of continuity in primary care can be a key element for the control of polypharmacy and associated problems (AU)

[Longitudinality in Primary Care and Polypharmacy. A Systematic Review]. / Longitudinalidad en atención primaria y polifarmacia. Una revisión sistemática.

The aim of this work was to collect, evaluate and interpret the available evidence on the relationship between continuity in primary care (i.e., longitudinality), and the prevalence of polypharmacy and its associated problems. Following the PRISMA reporting statement, we carried out a systematic review of the literature searching PubMed and Scopus databases. The screening of titles and summaries and the review of references carried out independently by two authors detected 16 works of potential interest, of which 4 were discarded after the independent review of all the originals because they did not meet inclusion criteria. The 12 papers selected studied the relationship between Longitudinality, measured with various quantitative indices, and the rate of polypharmacy or various associated problems, such as duplicate drugs, inadequate prescriptions or drug interactions. They all showed a significant relationship, often strong (RR>2 or<0.5), between longitudinality indicators and the various dependent variables. Although our knowledge could be improved by prospective studies that more directly evaluate longitudinality and its impact on problems due to excess medication, with the existing evidence, we can affirm that the protection and promotion of continuity in primary care can be a key element for the control of polypharmacy and associated problems.

Obesity and female sexual dysfunctions: A systematic review of prevalence with meta-analysis.

Obesity represents a major global health challenge. Female sexual dysfunctions have a negative impact on quality of life and overall health balance. A higher rate of female sexual dysfunctions in obese women has been suggested. This systematic review summarized the literature on female sexual dysfunction prevalence in obese women. The review was registered (Open Science Framework OSF.IO/7CG95) and a literature search without language restrictions was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science, from January 1990 to December 2021. Cross-sectional and intervention studies were included, the latter if they provided female sexual dysfunction rate data in obese women prior to the intervention. For inclusion, studies should have used the female sexual function index or its simplified version. Study quality was assessed to evaluate if female sexual function index was properly applied using six items. Rates of female sexual dysfunctions examining for differences between obese vs class III obese and high vs low quality subgroups were summarized. Random effects meta-analysis was performed, calculating 95% confidence intervals (CI) and examining heterogeneity with I2 statistic. Publication bias was evaluated with funnel plot. There were 15 relevant studies (1720 women participants in total with 153 obese and 1567 class III obese women). Of these, 8 (53.3%) studies complied with >4 quality items. Overall prevalence of female sexual dysfunctions was 62% (95% CI 55-68%; I2 85.5%). Among obese women the prevalence was 69% (95% CI 55-80%; I2 73.8%) vs 59% (95% CI 52-66%; I2 87.5%) among those class III obese (subgroup difference p=0.15). Among high quality studies the prevalence was 54% (95% CI 50-60%; I2 46.8%) vs 72% (95% CI 61-81%; I2 88.0%) among low quality studies (subgroup difference p=0.002). There was no funnel asymmetry. We interpreted that the rate of sexual dysfunctions is high in obese and class III obese women. Obesity should be regarded as a risk factor for female sexual dysfunctions.

Evidence-based medicine needs patient and public involvement to remain relevant: A proposal for a new curriculum / La medicina basada en la evidencia requiere la participación de la ciudadanía para mantener su relevancia: Propuesta para un nuevo plan de estudios

Introduction Public partnerships, a route to sharing expertise, networks and resources anchored in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, has been championed by multiple stakeholders. Objective To propose a new evidence-based medicine (EBM) curriculum for harnessing patient and public expertise to ensure that EBM teaching and learning can become more relevant and impactful. Methods A curriculum development group comprising of EBM teachers, patient and public involvement representatives, clinicians, clinical epidemiologists, public health experts and educationalists, with experience of delivering and evaluating face-to-face and online EBM courses across many countries and continents, prepared a new EBM course. Results A student-centred, problem-based and clinically integrated course for teaching and learning EBM was developed. In the spirit of shared decision-making, practitioners can learn to support patients, articulate their perspectives, recognise the need for their contribution and ensure community involvement when generating and applying evidence. With end users in mind, the application of research findings, delivery of care and EBM effectiveness in the workplace would carry increased priority. Conclusion Embracing patients as EBM collaborators can help deliver cognitive diversity and inspire different ways of thinking and working. Adopting the proposed approach in EBM education lays the foundations for a joint practitioner–patient partnership to ask, acquire, appraise and apply EBM in a more holistic context which will strengthen the EBM proposition (AU)

Introducción Las asociaciones de pacientes y ciudadanos constituyen una vía para compartir experiencias, redes y recursos siendo promovidas por los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible de la Organización de Naciones Unidas (ONU), y defendidas por todas las partes y sectores interesados. Objetivo Proponer un nuevo plan de estudios de medicina basada en la evidencia (MBE) para aprovechar la experiencia de los pacientes con el fin de garantizar de que la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de la MBE sean más relevantes e impactantes. Métodos Un grupo de expertos compuesto por profesores del área de MBE, representantes de pacientes, médicos, epidemiólogos clínicos, expertos en salud pública y pedagogos, con experiencia en la impartición y evaluación de cursos de MBE presenciales y online en el ámbito internacional, desarrolló e implementó un curso de MBE. Resultados Se desarrolló un curso centrado en el estudiante, basado en problemas y clínicamente integrado para la enseñanza y el aprendizaje de la MBE. En el espíritu de la toma de decisiones compartida, los profesionales pueden aprender a apoyar a los pacientes, a articular sus perspectivas, a reconocer la necesidad de su contribución y a garantizar la participación de la comunidad a la hora de generar y aplicar las pruebas. La aplicación de los resultados de la investigación, la prestación de cuidados y la eficacia de la MBE en el lugar de trabajo son las áreas de mayor prioridad para los asistentes. Conclusiones Adoptar a los pacientes como colaboradores de la MBE puede ayudar a proporcionar diversidad cognitiva e inspirar diferentes formas de pensar y trabajar. La adopción del enfoque propuesto en la formación en MBE sienta las bases para una colaboración conjunta entre profesionales y pacientes para preguntar, adquirir, valorar y aplicar la MBE en un contexto más holístico que reforzará la propuesta de MBE (AU)

Revisiones sistemáticas en cinco pasos: V. Cómo interpretar la evidencia / Systematic reviews in five steps: V. Interpreting the findings

El último paso en una revisión sistemática es interpretar la evidencia de forma que pueda ser útil para sustentar la toma de resultados. Es importante presentar los resultados de forma claramente diferenciada, asignar el nivel de fuerza de la evidencia que respalda cada uno de ellos teniendo en cuenta factores como el diseño de los estudios, su calidad metodológica y el sesgo de publicación. También es necesario considerar las variaciones en la fuerza de la asociación. El objetivo es detectar en qué tipo de pacientes la intervención analizada será más o menos efectiva, tendrá mayor o menor impacto una exposición determinada, o será de mayor utilidad una prueba diagnóstica. En esta fase, para facilitar la interpretación de los resultados, se puede añadir una estimación de la magnitud de la asociación, bien global o bien estratificada en función de las características de los participantes. Toda esta información ayudará a la hora de formular recomendaciones prácticas con utilidad clínica. (AU)

The last step in a systematic review is the interpretation of the findings. The important findings need to be explicitly identified. A level of strength of evidence should be assigned to support each key finding, based on factors such as study design, methodological quality and risk of publication bias. Variations in the magnitude of associations observed also need to be explored. The aim of this analysis is to determine in which clinical groups the intervention is more or less effective, the impact of exposure is greater or lesser, or a diagnostic test is more useful. At this stage, for better interpretation of the findings, the magnitude of the association can be estimated either globally or stratified according to the characteristics of the participants. All this is helpful in formulating recommendations for clinical practice and policy. (AU)

Evidence-based medicine needs patient and public involvement to remain relevant: A proposal for a new curriculum.

INTRODUCTION: Public partnerships, a route to sharing expertise, networks and resources anchored in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, has been championed by multiple stakeholders. OBJECTIVE: To propose a new evidence-based medicine (EBM) curriculum for harnessing patient and public expertise to ensure that EBM teaching and learning can become more relevant and impactful. METHODS: A curriculum development group comprising of EBM teachers, patient and public involvement representatives, clinicians, clinical epidemiologists, public health experts and educationalists, with experience of delivering and evaluating face-to-face and online EBM courses across many countries and continents, prepared a new EBM course. RESULTS: A student-centred, problem-based and clinically integrated course for teaching and learning EBM was developed. In the spirit of shared decision-making, practitioners can learn to support patients, articulate their perspectives, recognise the need for their contribution and ensure community involvement when generating and applying evidence. With end users in mind, the application of research findings, delivery of care and EBM effectiveness in the workplace would carry increased priority. CONCLUSIONS: Embracing patients as EBM collaborators can help deliver cognitive diversity and inspire different ways of thinking and working. Adopting the proposed approach in EBM education lays the foundations for a joint practitioner-patient partnership to ask, acquire, appraise and apply EBM in a more holistic context which will strengthen the EBM proposition.

[Systematic reviews in five steps: V. Interpreting the findings]. / Revisiones sistemáticas en cinco pasos: V. Cómo interpretar la evidencia.

The last step in a systematic review is the interpretation of the findings. The important findings need to be explicitly identified. A level of strength of evidence should be assigned to support each key finding, based on factors such as study design, methodological quality and risk of publication bias. Variations in the magnitude of associations observed also need to be explored. The aim of this analysis is to determine in which clinical groups the intervention is more or less effective, the impact of exposure is greater or lesser, or a diagnostic test is more useful. At this stage, for better interpretation of the findings, the magnitude of the association can be estimated either globally or stratified according to the characteristics of the participants. All this is helpful in formulating recommendations for clinical practice and policy.

Variation of outcome reporting in studies of interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review.

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) detrimentally effects women. It is important to be able to compare treatments and synthesise data to understand which interventions are most beneficial, however, when there is variation in outcome reporting, this is difficult. Objectives: To identify variation in reported outcomes in clinical studies of interventions for HMB. Materials and Methods: Searches were performed in medical databases and trial registries, using the terms 'heavy menstrual bleeding', menorrhagia*, hypermenorrhoea*, HMB, "heavy period "period", effective*, therapy*, treatment, intervention, manage* and associated MeSH terms. Two authors independently reviewed and selected citations according to pre-defined selection criteria, including both randomised and observational studies. The following data were extracted- study characteristics, methodology and quality, and all reported outcomes. Analysis considered the frequency of reporting. Results: There were 14 individual primary outcomes, however reporting was varied, resulting in 45 specific primary outcomes. There were 165 specific secondary outcomes. The most reported outcomes were menstrual blood loss and adverse events. Conclusions: A core outcome set (COS) would reduce the evident variation in reporting of outcomes in studies of HMB, allowing more complete combination and comparison of study results and preventing reporting bias. What is new?: This in-depth review of past research into heavy menstrual bleeding shows that there is the need for a core outcome set for heavy menstrual bleeding.

Revisiones sistemáticas en cincopasos: III. Cómo evaluar la calidad de los estudios / Systematic reviews in fivesteps: III. Assessing the quality of the literature

La evaluación de la calidad de los estudios desempeña un papel fundamental en cada paso del proceso de realización de una revisión sistemática. Para realizar una evaluación precisa se utilizan listas de comprobación que incluyen las cuestiones genéricas relevantes al diseño de los estudios incluidos en la revisión. Los elementos de la lista utilizada pueden modificarse en relación con los componentes específicos que definen la pregunta de la revisión. La evaluación de calidad se utiliza para describir los estudios seleccionados, explicar la heterogeneidad, decidir acerca de la idoneidad de un metaanálisis, evaluar la solidez de la evidencia recopilada (existencia de sesgos) y formular recomendaciones para futuras investigaciones (AU)

Study quality assessment plays a key role in every step of the process when conducting a systematic review. Checklists are used to perform an accurate quality assessment. They include generic questions relevant to the design of the studies included in the review. The checklist items can be modified in relation to the question-specific components related to participants, interventions and outcomes. Quality assessment is used to describe the selected studies, explain heterogeneity, decide on the feasibility of undertaking a meta-analysis, assess the strength of the collated evidence, and make recommendations for future research (AU)

Revisiones sistemáticas en cinco pasos: II. Cómo identificar los estudios relevantes / Systematic reviews in five steps: II. Identifying relevant literature

Este artículo, el segundo de la serie de revisiones sistemáticas, se centra en lo que debería ser el segundo paso: cómo identificar y seleccionar los estudios relevantes para la revisión planificada. La búsqueda bibliográfica, en la que se emplean términos relacionados con la pregunta formulada en el primer paso, habrá de ser exhaustiva y amplia. Es importante establecer criterios de selección para incluir los estudios relevantes y descartar aquellos que no responden a la pregunta formulada. Detalles como ampliar el espectro de bases de datos consultadas, evitar restringir las búsquedas a un solo idioma, gestionar correctamente las referencias y registrar las decisiones tomadas durante todo el proceso son factores ganadores para que la identificación de estudios sea satisfactoria (AU)

This article focuses on the second step of a systematic review, i.e. how to identify relevant studies for the planned review. The search, using terms related to the questions framed in the previous step, should be comprehensive. However, it is important to establish selection criteria to include relevant studies and to exclude those that might present a risk of bias at this stage. Details such as broadening the spectrum of electronic databases consulted, avoiding restricting searches to a single language, managing references correctly, and recording decisions made throughout the process are winning factors for successful study identification (AU)

Revisiones sistemáticas en cinco pasos: I. Cómo formular una pregunta para la que se pueda obtener una respuesta válida / Systematic reviews in five steps: I. Framing questions to obtain valid answers

Este es el primero de una serie de cinco artículos en los que se describen los pasos a seguir para realizar, con éxito, una revisión sistemática. En este primer artículo se aborda el primer paso: ¿cómo formular correctamente la pregunta previa a una revisión sistemática? En él se va a tratar cómo estructurar la pregunta de forma adecuada en función de los componentes principales: los participantes, las intervenciones o exposiciones comparadas, el desenlace y el diseño de los estudios; cómo detectar y considerar las posibles variaciones en cada uno de los componentes que puedan surgir antes o durante la revisión, y finalmente, cómo, dónde y por qué es conveniente registrar el protocolo de la revisión sistemática (AU)

This is the first in a series of five articles on the steps to follow to conduct a successful systematic review. This first article addresses how to formulate the right questions to initiate a systematic review. The key issues are: how to structure the questions appropriately according to the main components: the participants, the interventions or exposures compared, the outcomes measured and the study design; how to anticipate and consider possible variations in each of the components that may arise during the review; and finally, how to prospectively register the protocol of the systematic review (AU)

[Systematic reviews in fivesteps: III. Assessing the quality of the literature]. / Revisiones sistemáticas en cincopasos: III. Cómo evaluar la calidad de los estudios.

Study quality assessment plays a key role in every step of the process when conducting a systematic review. Checklists are used to perform an accurate quality assessment. They include generic questions relevant to the design of the studies included in the review. The checklist items can be modified in relation to the question-specific components related to participants, interventions and outcomes. Quality assessment is used to describe the selected studies, explain heterogeneity, decide on the feasibility of undertaking a meta-analysis, assess the strength of the collated evidence, and make recommendations for future research.

[Systematic reviews in five steps: I. Framing questions to obtain valid answers]. / Revisiones sistemáticas en cinco pasos: I. Cómo formular una pregunta para la que se pueda obtener una respuesta válida.

This is the first in a series of five articles on the steps to follow to conduct a successful systematic review. This first article addresses how to formulate the right questions to initiate a systematic review. The key issues are: how to structure the questions appropriately according to the main components: the participants, the interventions or exposures compared, the outcomes measured and the study design; how to anticipate and consider possible variations in each of the components that may arise during the review; and finally, how to prospectively register the protocol of the systematic review.

[Systematic reviews in five steps: II. Identifying relevant literature]. / Revisiones sistemáticas en cinco pasos: II. Cómo identificar los estudios relevantes.

This article focuses on the second step of a systematic review, i.e. how to identify relevant studies for the planned review. The search, using terms related to the questions framed in the previous step, should be comprehensive. However, it is important to establish selection criteria to include relevant studies and to exclude those that might present a risk of bias at this stage. Details such as broadening the spectrum of electronic databases consulted, avoiding restricting searches to a single language, managing references correctly, and recording decisions made throughout the process are winning factors for successful study identification.

Lifestyle interventions in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: A scoping systematic review of randomised evidence

Objective: Lifestyle interventions (LSI) are recommended as first-line treatment for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), yet the strength of evidence underpinning LSIs effectiveness remains unclear. We systematically reviewed the literature on LSIs in PCOS, evaluated evidence quality and summarised recommendations for clinical practice. Material and methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL for all randomised trials evaluating any LSI in PCOS until April 2021. We extracted data on the LSIs’ characteristics, dietary composition, duration, implementation, compliance assessment, and reported outcomes. We evaluated the evidence gap using a network-map of evaluated interventions. Results: We screened 550 citations and included 79 trials (n=4659 women). Most trials were from high-income countries (57/79, 72%) over a decade ago (48/79, 61%) and enrolled obese/overweight women (57/77, 74%). BMI was the commonest reported outcome (58/79, 73%), followed by weight (49/79, 62%), and testosterone (45/79, 57%). More than half of the trials had high-risk of randomisation (51/79, 65%) and allocation bias (49/79, 62%). Only 27 were registered prospectively (27/79, 34%). Two-thirds evaluated a dietary intervention (70/79, 88%), most commonly a hypocaloric diet (32/70, 46%); nineteen evaluated a combined dietary with pharmacological intervention (19/79, 24%), six combined diet with physical or behavioural intervention (6/79, 8%), and only one trial included all four elements. Conclusions: Evidence on LSI in PCOS is of poor quality with high variations in trial design, comparisons, and outcome reporting. Hypocaloric diet is the most commonly recommended LSI intervention for primary care. Future trials are needed to evaluate pragmatic and simple LSIs in robust multicenter studies (AU)

Objetivo: Las intervenciones en el estilo de vida (LSI) se recomiendan como tratamiento de primera línea para el síndrome de ovario poliquístico (SOP), sin embargo, la solidez de la evidencia que respalda la efectividad de la LSI sigue sin estar clara. Revisamos sistemáticamente la literatura sobre la LSI en el SOP, evaluamos la calidad de la evidencia, y resumimos las recomendaciones para la práctica clínica. Material y métodos: Buscamos en MEDLINE, Embase y CENTRAL, todos los ensayos aleatorios que evaluaran cualquier LSI en el SOP hasta abril de 2021. Extrajimos datos sobre las características, la composición dietética, la duración, la implementación, la evaluación del cumplimiento y los resultados informados de los LSI. Evaluamos la brecha de evidencia utilizando un mapa de red de intervenciones evaluadas. Resultados: Examinamos 550 citas e incluimos 79 ensayos (n=4.659 mujeres). La mayoría de los ensayos se realizaron en países de ingresos altos (57/79, 72%), hace más de una década (48/79, 61%) e incluyeron mujeres obesas/con sobrepeso (57/77, 74%). El IMC fue el resultado informado con más frecuencia (58/79, 73%), seguido del peso (49/79, 62%) y la testosterona (45/79, 57%). Más de la mitad de los ensayos tuvieron alto riesgo de asignación al azar (51/79, 65%) y sesgo de asignación (49/79, 62%). Solo 27 se registraron de forma prospectiva (27/79, 34%). Dos tercios evaluaron una intervención dietética (70/79, 88%), más comúnmente una dieta hipocalórica (32/70, 46%); 19 evaluaron una dieta combinada con intervención farmacológica (19/79, 24%), 6 una dieta combinada con intervención física o conductual (6/79, 8%) y solo un ensayo incluyó los 4 elementos. Conclusiones: La evidencia sobre la LSI en el SOP es de mala calidad con grandes variaciones en el diseño de los ensayos, las comparaciones y los informes de resultados (AU)

Vaccination coverage among migrants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Migrants, a population vulnerable to communicable diseases, face multiple barriers in access to immunization programs. Individual studies suggest that they suffer immunization inequity compared to non-migrants, but the gap in vaccination has not been quantified. This systematic review assessed quantitatively the level of vaccination coverage among migrants, in comparison with non-migrants, collating the published literature. Methods: Review protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42021228061). A literature search without language restrictions was conducted in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, from database inception to February 2021. This review included observational studies that provided the vaccination rates among migrant and non-migrant groups. Study quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data were synthesized pooling data from individual studies to generate summary odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using random effects model, assessing heterogeneity with I2 statistic and publication bias with funnel asymmetry analysis. Findings: There were 44 relevant studies (7,937,996 participants). Overall risk of bias was low in 13 (30%), moderate in 22 (50%) and high in 9 (20%) studies. Point estimates of individual ORs showed lower vaccination coverage among migrants in 36 of 39 meta-analyzable studies. Overall, the odds of vaccination coverage among migrants were lower compared to non-migrants (7,375,184 participants; summary OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.37–0.66; I2 99.9%). There was no funnel asymmetry. Interpretation: Migrants are half as often vaccinated compared to non-migrants. Public health prevention programs need to prioritize vaccination equity, not just to protect migrants but also to protect the host communities (AU)

Antecedentes: Los migrantes, una población vulnerable a enfermedades transmisibles, se enfrentan a múltiples barreras en el acceso a los programas de inmunización. Estudios individuales sugieren que este colectivo poblacional sufre desigualdad en la cobertura de inmunización, en comparación con población no migrante; sin embargo, hasta el momento no se ha cuantificado la brecha en la cobertura de vacunación. Esta revisión sistemática evaluó cuantitativamente el nivel de cobertura de vacunación entre los migrantes, en comparación con los no migrantes, recopilando la literatura publicada. Métodos: El protocolo de revisión fue registrado prospectivamente (PROSPERO CRD42021228061). Se realizó una búsqueda de literatura sin restricciones de idioma en PubMed, Scopus y Web of Science, desde el inicio de las bases de datos hasta febrero de 2021. Esta revisión incluyó estudios observacionales que proporcionaran coberturas de vacunación entre grupos de migrantes y no migrantes. La calidad de los estudios se evaluó mediante la escala Newcastle-Ottawa. Los datos se sintetizaron y se extrajeron los valores de odds ratio (OR) e intervalo de confianza (IC) del 95%, utilizando un modelo de efectos aleatorios para cada uno de los estudios incluidos. Finalmente, se evaluó la heterogeneidad de los mismos con la prueba estadística de I2 y, el sesgo de publicación con el análisis de asimetría de embudo. Resultados: Hubo 44 estudios relevantes (7.937.996 participantes). El riesgo de sesgo fue bajo en 13 (30%), moderado en 22 (50%) y alto en nueve (20%) estudios. Las estimaciones puntuales de las OR individuales mostraron una menor cobertura de vacunación entre los migrantes en 36 de 39 estudios metaanalizables. En general, las probabilidades de cobertura de vacunación entre los migrantes fueron menores, en comparación con los no migrantes (7.375.184 participantes; OR resumen 0,50; IC 95%: 0,37-0,66; I2 99,9%)s (AU)