ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered one of the most reliable types of studies in evidence-based medicine. SRs rely on a comprehensive and systematic data gathering, including the search of academic literature databases. This study aimed to investigate which combination of databases would result in the highest overall recall rate of references when conducting SRs of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, we aimed to investigate the current use of databases and other sources for data collection. METHODS: Twenty-six SRs (published between 2010 and 2020) of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus, located through PubMed, met the inclusion criteria. References of the SRs were systematically hand searched in the six academic literature databases CINAHL, MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus and the academic search engine Google Scholar. Recall rates were calculated using the total number of included references retrieved by the database or database combination divided by the total number of included references, given in percentage. RESULTS: The SRs searched five databases on average (range two to nine). MEDLINE/PubMed was the most commonly searched database (100% of SRs). In addition to academic databases, 18 of the 26 (69%) SRs hand searched the reference lists of included articles. This technique resulted in a median (IQR) of 2.5 (one to six) more references being included per SR than by database searches alone. 27 (5.4%) references were found only in one of six databases (when Google Scholar was excluded), with CINAHL retrieving the highest number of unique references (n = 15). The combinations of MEDLINE/PubMed and CINAHL (96.4%) and MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase (98.8%) yielded the highest overall recall rates, with Google Scholar excluded. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the combinations of MEDLINE/PubMed and CINAHL and MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase yielded the highest overall recall rates of references included in SRs of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus. However, other combinations of databases yielded corresponding recall rates and are expected to perform comparably. Google Scholar can be a useful supplement to traditional scientific databases to ensure an optimal and comprehensive retrieval of relevant references.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Information Storage and Retrieval , Diabetes Mellitus/therapy , Humans , MEDLINE , Qualitative Research , Systematic Reviews as TopicABSTRACT
Chylothorax, an uncommon cause of pleural effusion, results from the accumulation of lymph in the pleural space due to damage or obstruction of the thoracic duct. Chylothorax can be due to several aetiologies, many of which are rare, and it is often a diagnostic challenge to identify the cause. This case report refers to a patient with rapid recurrent episodes of bilateral pleural chylothorax due to damage of the thoracic duct after external electrical cardioversion treatment. The diagnosis took place by the method of exclusion, when all known causes of chylothorax, both non-traumatic and traumatic, were ruled out. A review of the literature on chylothorax was performed using PubMed to assess the different aetiologies, investigations, and treatments usually performed. Chylothorax is usually secondary to malignancy, trauma, congenital diseases, and infections. However, even non-invasive thoracic procedures, such as the one described in our case report, can be the cause.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic skin condition where nonadherence often results in lack of disease control. OBJECTIVE: We wanted to determine whether the combination of an electronic memory button and a supportive application (app) would affect the Quality of Life and subjective and objective severity measures among AD patients over one month following the patient's normal schedules of treatment. METHODS: A randomized, investigator-blinded, prospective observational feasibility study for one month where patients diagnosed with AD were randomized based on POEM severity score and divided into 3 groups. The 3 groups were (1) the control group with two consultations, (2) in addition to group 1, patients also received electronic memory buttons to click every time they used their topical products, and (3) in addition to group 2, patients also received an app to track their treatment schedules. At both consultations, patients were evaluated using SCORAD, EASI, POEM, and DLQI. RESULTS: 96 patients were enrolled and randomized, of which 83 patients completed the study. EASI and SCORAD scores were lower in all groups at 2nd consultation (p < 0.05); however, these were highly significant for group 3 (p < 0.05); however, these were highly significant for group 3 (p < 0.05); however, these were highly significant for group 3 (p < 0.05); however, these were highly significant for group 3 (. CONCLUSION: A reduction in severity following objective assessments of the AD was observed for all groups and was highly significant for patients offered a memory button and the corresponding app. Furthermore, patients reported a significant subjective beneficial effect if they used the memory button and app. This indicates that digital solutions may have a benefit in clinical practice and may reduce nonadherence and increase the wellbeing of the patients.
