Guidance on how to efficiently find, choose, and use available systematic reviews was developed.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to provide clinicians and authors of clinical guidelines or patient information with practical guidance on searching and choosing systematic reviews(s) (SR[s]) and, where adequate, on making use of SR(s). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: At the German conference of the EBM-Network a workshop on the topic was held to identify the most important areas where guidance for practice appears necessary. After the workshop, we established working groups. These included SR users with different backgrounds (e. g. information specialists, epidemiologists) and working areas. Each working group developed and consented a draft guidance based on their expert knowledge and experiences. The results were presented to the entire group and finalized in an iterative process. RESULTS: We developed a practical guidance that answers questions that usually arise when choosing and using SR(s). 1: How to efficiently find high-quality SRs? 2: How to choose the most appropriate SR? 3: What to do if no SR of sufficient quality could be identified? In addition, we developed an algorithm that links these steps and accounts for their interaction. The resulting guidance is primarily directed at clinicians and developers of clinical practice guidelines or patient information resources. CONCLUSION: We suggest practical guidance for making the best use of SRs when answering a specific research question. The guidance may contribute to the efficient use of existing SRs. Potential benefits when using existing SRs should be always weighted against potential limitations.

Medication administration in aged care facilities: A mixed-methods systematic review.

AIM(S): To synthesize aged care provider, resident and residents' family members' perspectives and experiences of medication administration in aged care facilities; to determine the incidence of medication administration errors, and the impact of medication administration on quality of care and resident-centredness in aged care facilities. DESIGN: A mixed-methods systematic review. PROSPERO ID: CRD42023426990. DATA SOURCES: The AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science core collection databases were searched in June 2023. REVIEW METHODS: Included studies were independently screened, selected and appraised by two researchers. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist was followed, with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for critical appraisal. Convergent synthesis of data, thematic synthesis and meta-analysis were performed. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-eight studies were included (33 qualitative, 85 quantitative and 10 mixed-methods). Five themes were formulated, including 1) Staffing concerns, 2) The uncertain role of residents, 3) Medication-related decision-making, 4) Use of electronic medication administration records and 5) Medication administration errors. Educational interventions for aged care workers significantly reduced medication administration errors, examined across five studies (OR = 0.37, 95%CI 0.28-0.50, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Medication administration in aged care facilities is challenging and complex on clinical and interpersonal levels. Clinical processes, medication errors and safety remain focal points for practice. However, more active consideration of residents' autonomy and input by aged care workers and providers is needed to address medication administration's interpersonal and psychosocial aspects. New directions for future research should examine the decision-making behind dose form modification, aged care workers' definitions of medication omission and practical methods to support residents' and their family members' engagement during medication administration. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: It is important that medication administration in aged care facilities be more clearly acknowledged as both a clinical and interpersonal task. More attention is warranted regarding aged care workers clinical decision-making, particularly concerning dose form modification, covert administration and medication omissions. Resident-centred care approaches that support resident and family engagement around medication administration may improve adherence, satisfaction and quality of care. IMPACT: What Problem Did the Study Address? Medication administration in aged care facilities is a complex clinical and interpersonal activity. Still, to date, no attempts have been made to synthesize qualitative and quantitative evidence around this practice. There is a need to establish what evidence exists around the perspectives and experiences of aged care workers, residents and resident's family members to understand the challenges, interpersonal opportunities and risks during medication administration. What Were the Main Findings? There is a lack of empirical evidence around resident-centred care approaches to medication administration, and how residents and their families could be enabled to have more input. Dose form modification occurred overtly and covertly as part of medication administration, not just as a method for older adults with swallowing difficulties, but to enforce adherence with prescribed medications. Medication administration errors typically included medication omission as a category of error, despite some omissions stemming from a clear rationale for medication omission and resident input. WHERE AND ON WHOM WILL THE RESEARCH HAVE AN IMPACT?: The findings of this systematic review contribute to aged care policy and practice regarding medication administration and engagement with older adults. This review presents findings that provide a starting point for aged care workers in regards to professional development and reflection on practice, particularly around clinical decision-making on dose form modification, medication administration errors and the tension on enabling resident input into medication administration. For researchers, this review highlights the need to develop resident-centred care approaches and interventions, and to assess whether these can positively impact medication administration, resident engagement, adherence with prescribed medications and quality of care. REPORTING METHOD: This systematic review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (Page et al., 2021). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution to this systematic review.

Clinical decision support systems in addiction and concurrent disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This review aims to synthesise the literature on the efficacy, evolution, and challenges of implementing Clincian Decision Support Systems (CDSS) in the realm of mental health, addiction, and concurrent disorders. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Searches conducted in databases such as MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science through 25 May 2023, yielded 27,344 records. After necessary exclusions, 69 records were allocated for detailed synthesis. In the examination of patient outcomes with a focus on metrics such as therapeutic efficacy, patient satisfaction, and treatment acceptance, meta-analytic techniques were employed to synthesise data from randomised controlled trials. RESULTS: A total of 69 studies were included, revealing a shift from knowledge-based models pre-2017 to a rise in data-driven models post-2017. The majority of models were found to be in Stage 2 or 4 of maturity. The meta-analysis showed an effect size of -0.11 for addiction-related outcomes and a stronger effect size of -0.50 for patient satisfaction and acceptance of CDSS. DISCUSSION: The results indicate a shift from knowledge-based to data-driven CDSS approaches, aligned with advances in machine learning and big data. Although the immediate impact on addiction outcomes is modest, higher patient satisfaction suggests promise for wider CDSS use. Identified challenges include alert fatigue and opaque AI models. CONCLUSION: CDSS shows promise in mental health and addiction treatment but requires a nuanced approach for effective and ethical implementation. The results emphasise the need for continued research to ensure optimised and equitable use in healthcare settings.

Stapled hemorrhoidopexy for hemorrhoids: A overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

Stapled hemorrhoidopexy has been used for years to treat hemorrhoids. Despite numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the topic, inconsistent conclusions have left people uncertain about its effectiveness and raised doubts about the quality of these reviews.In order to provide reliable evidence for clinical practice, it is crucial to conduct an overview to assess the quality of MAs/SRs regarding the efficacy and complications of SH.A comprehensive search was performed across seven databases to identify MAs/SRs on the efficacy and complications of SH from inception to October 2023. The selected MAs/SRs were then assessed using three well-established tools: AMSTAR-2, PRISMA 2020and GRADE. These assessments provide a robust evaluation of the quality and reliability of the included MAs/SRs.We removed overlapping randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and conducted a new meta-analysis of the outcomes. The overview included 23 meta-analyses.In AMSTAR-2, three reviews were deemed moderate quality, nine reviews were classified as low quality, and eleven reviews were evaluated as critically low quality.In PRISMA 2020,certain deficiencies were exhibited, such as abstracts (0/23:0 %),final retrieval date (0/23:0 %), sensitivity analysis (6/23:26.09 %),publication bias assessment (11/23:47.83 %), the quality of evidence (2/23:8.70 %) and so on.In GRADE,twenty-six items were rated as moderate quality (27.96 %),forty-one items were rated as low quality (44.09 %) and twenty-six items were rated as critically low quality (27.96 %).SH has been found to be an effective intervention for reducing postoperative pain, shortening procedure time, and promoting wound healing. The re-analysis indicated that SH can reduce postoperative pain in hemorrhoid patients (odds ratio = 0.28, 95 % confidence interval [0.15,0.55], p = 0.0002; I2 = 74 %, p < 0.00001). But SH is associated with a higher risk of postoperative bleeding and recurrence of prolapse.Given that the reviews included in this overview were rated as low quality, caution should be exercised when interpreting the findings.

CAR-T Cells Therapy in Glioblastoma: A Systematic Review on Molecular Targets and Treatment Strategies.

The most common primary brain tumor is glioblastoma (GBM), yet the current therapeutic options for this disease are not promising. Although immunotherapeutic techniques have shown poor success in GBM thus far despite efforts, new developments provide optimism. One of these developments is chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell treatment, which includes removing and genetically modifying autologous T cells to produce a receptor that targets a GBM antigen before reintroducing the cells into the patient's body. A number of preclinical studies have produced encouraging results, which have led to the start of clinical trials assessing these CAR-T cell treatments for GBM and other brain tumors. Although results in tumors such as diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas and lymphomas have been promising, preliminary findings in GBM have not produced any clinical benefits. The paucity of particular antigens in GBM, their inconsistent expression patterns, and the possible immunoediting-induced loss of these antigens after antigen-targeted therapy are some possible causes for this discrepancy. The goal of this systematic literature review is to assess potential approaches for creating CAR-T cells that are more effective for this indication, as well as the clinical experiences that are already being had with CAR-T cell therapy in GBM. Up until 9 May 2024, a thorough search was carried out across the three main medical databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Relevant Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords associated with "glioblastoma", "CAR-T", "T cell therapy", "overall survival", and "progression free survival" were employed in the search approach. Preclinical and clinical research on the application of CAR-T cells as a therapeutic approach for GBM are included in the review. A total of 838 papers were identified. Of these, 379 articles were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 8 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. The included studies were conducted between 2015 and 2023, with a total of 151 patients enrolled. The studies varied in CAR-T cell types. EGFRvIII CAR-T cells were the most frequently investigated, used in three studies (37.5%). Intravenous delivery was the most common method of delivery (62.5%). Median OS ranged from 5.5 to 11.1 months across the studies. PFS was reported in only two studies, with values of 7.5 months and 1.3 months. This systematic review highlights the evolving research on CAR-T cell therapy for GBM, emphasizing its potential despite challenges. Targeting antigens like EGFRvIII and IL13Rα2 shows promise in treating recurrent GBM. However, issues such as antigen escape, tumor heterogeneity, and immunosuppression require further optimization. Innovative delivery methods, combination therapies, and personalized approaches are crucial for enhancing CAR-T cell efficacy. Ongoing research is essential to refine these therapies and improve outcomes for GBM patients.

Pharmacological interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units: a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane for screening of records, data extraction and analysis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence. PARTICIPANTS: Randomised controlled trials involving patients admitted to ICUs for longer than 24 hours were included. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gut Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS) databases were searched from August 2017 to March 2022. The search in MEDLINE was updated in April 2023. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the prevention of clinically important upper GI bleeding. RESULTS: We included 123 studies with 46 996 participants. Cimetidine (relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77, moderate certainty), ranitidine (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.76, moderate certainty), antacids (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.68, moderate certainty), sucralfate (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.75, moderate certainty) and a combination of ranitidine and antacids (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.62, moderate certainty) are likely effective in preventing upper GI bleeding.The effect of any intervention on the prevention of nosocomial pneumonia, all-cause mortality in the ICU or the hospital, duration of the stay in the ICU, duration of intubation and (serious) adverse events remains unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Several interventions seem effective in preventing clinically important upper GI bleeding while there is limited evidence for other outcomes. Patient-relevant benefits and harms need to be assessed under consideration of the patients' underlying conditions.

Tobacco Cessation Interventions in Non-Respiratory Cancers: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Considering the high rates of persistent tobacco use, effective cessation interventions are needed for cancer patients and caregivers. Despite the need, there is a significant lack of research on tobacco cessation, especially for non-respiratory cancers (breast, prostate, colorectal, cervical, and bladder cancer). PURPOSE: The objective was to evaluate tobacco use and tobacco cessation interventions among patients and caregivers for non-respiratory cancers. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials assessing tobacco cessation interventions were identified. Five electronic databases were searched in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines through July 2023. Studies exclusive to lung, oral, thoracic, and head and neck cancers were excluded. Effect sizes were estimated; risk of bias was assessed. RESULTS: Of 3,304 studies, 17 were included. Interventions included behavioral (n = 6), pharmacotherapy (n = 2), and a combination (n = 9) treatment. Eight studies included a health behavior model; mean behavioral change techniques were 5.57. Pooled magnitude of the odds of cessation was positive and significant (odds ratio = 1.24, 95% confidence interval [Lower Limit 1.02, Upper Limit 1.51]) relative to usual care/placebo. Cumulative meta-analysis examined the accumulation of results over-time and demonstrated that studies have been significant since 2020. Two studies included caregivers' who were involved in the provision of social support. CONCLUSIONS: Current interventions have the potential to reduce tobacco use in non-respiratory cancers. Results may be beneficial for promoting tobacco cessation among non-respiratory cancers. There is a considerable lack of dyadic interventions for cancer survivors and caregivers; researchers are encouraged to explore dyadic approaches.

We aimed to understand effective ways for cancer patients and caregivers to quit using tobacco. We focused on non-respiratory cancers (cancers not related to breathing issues) like breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. We reviewed 17 randomized controlled trials designed to help people quit tobacco, which included behavioral therapies (e.g., education and counseling), pharmacotherapy (i.e., medicine), and combinations of both. We found that people in these studies quit using tobacco, especially when more than one approach was used. The studies also showed that these approaches have been more successful since 2020. The research highlighted a need for more studies that include both patients and their caregivers together in the quitting process. This approach, called dyadic intervention, could be more effective in supporting patients and their caregivers. Overall, while the current approaches are promising, more research is needed to develop better ways to help cancer patients and caregivers quit smoking for longer.

Machine learning enables automated screening for systematic reviews and meta-analysis in urology.

PURPOSE: To investigate and implement semiautomated screening for meta-analyses (MA) in urology under consideration of class imbalance. METHODS: Machine learning algorithms were trained on data from three MA with detailed information of the screening process. Different methods to account for class imbalance (Sampling (up- and downsampling, weighting and cost-sensitive learning), thresholding) were implemented in different machine learning (ML) algorithms (Random Forest, Logistic Regression with Elastic Net Regularization, Support Vector Machines). Models were optimized for sensitivity. Besides metrics such as specificity, receiver operating curves, total missed studies, and work saved over sampling were calculated. RESULTS: During training, models trained after downsampling achieved the best results consistently among all algorithms. Computing time ranged between 251 and 5834 s. However, when evaluated on the final test data set, the weighting approach performed best. In addition, thresholding helped to improve results as compared to the standard of 0.5. However, due to heterogeneity of results no clear recommendation can be made for a universal sample size. Misses of relevant studies were 0 for the optimized models except for one review. CONCLUSION: It will be necessary to design a holistic methodology that implements the presented methods in a practical manner, but also takes into account other algorithms and the most sophisticated methods for text preprocessing. In addition, the different methods of a cost-sensitive learning approach can be the subject of further investigations.

Evaluation of traditional Chinese exercise for knee osteoarthritis (KOA): an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) has become a public health issue. Several systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) indicate that traditional Chinese exercise (TCE) may be an effective treatment for reducing pain and stiffness and improving physical function in people with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the literature quality and evidence for the systematic reviews of TCE for KOA and provide evidence to support the clinical application of TCE for KOA. METHODS: Eight databases were searched from their inception to January 3, 2023, to retrieve relevant literature, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), China Biology Medical literature database (CBM), PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library, without restrictions on publication date or language. AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA 2020 assessed the methodological and reporting quality of included SRs/MAs. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was utilized to evaluate the quality of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 18 SRs/MAs were included. The methodological quality was "very low" based on AMSTAR-2. The overall reporting quality was deficient based on PRISMA 2020. The quality of Chinese and English literature differed, with English literature being superior in methodological and reporting quality. Among 93 pieces of evidence obtained, 46 (49.46%) were of very low quality, 34 (36.56%) were of low quality, 13 (13.98%) were of moderate quality, and none were of high quality. TCE was supported by 76 pieces of evidence (81.72%). CONCLUSION: TCE appears beneficial and safe for managing KOA. However, due to the relatively low methodological and evidentiary quality of included SRs/MAs, clinicians should interpret these findings cautiously.

Sex-specific comparative outcomes between oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Women with atrial fibrillation (AF) are under-represented in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). This systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs and observational studies examined sex-specific outcomes of DOACs in AF. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched from January 2008 to November 2022. Sex-specific comparative outcomes of stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding, intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) and gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) between oral anticoagulants were pooled using random effects models. P values for interaction were calculated to examine differences in results between sexes. RCTs and observational studies were meta-analysed separately. RESULTS: 5 RCTs and 33 observational studies were included, totalling 1 085 931 women and 1 387 123 men. Meta-analyses showed that for both sexes, DOAC versus warfarin was generally associated with lower risk of stroke/SE, major bleeding and ICH; in DOAC-DOAC comparisons, rivaroxaban versus dabigatran had higher GIB risk. The only sex-specific difference observed was that when compared with warfarin, women had higher GIB risk with rivaroxaban (women: pooled risk ratio (pRR)=1.34, 95% CI=1.18 to 1.51; men: pRR=0.97, 95% CI=0.85 to 1.10; p value for interaction (p for interaction)<0.001) and possibly dabigatran (women: pRR=1.25, 95% CI=0.92 to 1.70; men: pRR=0.83, 95% CI=0.72 to 0.97; p-for-interaction=0.02). The sex difference in GIB remained for rivaroxaban when a Bonferroni-corrected significance level was used (α=0.003). No sex-specific GIB data for apixaban and edoxaban was available for the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For both sexes, DOACs generally demonstrated favourable effectiveness and safety over warfarin. However, observational data suggested that women may have higher GIB risk with rivaroxaban and possibly dabigatran than warfarin. Further studies are warranted to verify our findings and elucidate sex-specific GIB risk with apixaban and edoxaban, of which the data is currently lacking. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022325027.

[Review of Reviews (Umbrella Reviews): Step-by-Step Guide]. / Revisão das Revisões (Revisões Umbrella): Guia Passo a Passo.

In recent years, as a result of the dramatic increase in the number of systematic reviews, a new type of systematic review, the 'systematic reviews of systematic reviews', also known as umbrella reviews, reviews of reviews, meta-reviews or synthesis of review, was developed. The aim of this article is to provide recommendations on how this type of systematic review should be conducted and reported to ensure its quality and usefulness. These reviews are designed to compile evidence from multiple systematic reviews of interventions into an accessible and usable document and are one of the highest levels of evidence synthesis.

Nos últimos anos, em consequência do aumento dramático do número de revisões sistemáticas, surgiu um novo tipo de revisões sistemáticas, as revi- sões sistemáticas das revisões sistemáticas, também conhecidas como umbrella reviews, reviews of reviews, meta-reviews, ou synthesis of review. O objetivo deste artigo é fornecer recomendações sobre como este tipo de revisão sistemática deve ser conduzido e relatado para garantir a sua qualidade e utilidade. Estas revisões são concebidas para compilar evidências de múltiplas revisões sistemáticas de intervenções num documento acessível e utilizável e constituem um dos níveis mais elevados de síntese de evidência.

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews.

PURPOSE: Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards. METHODS: One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies' findings. RESULTS: A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use. CONCLUSION: Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.

Efficacy of virtual reality exercise in knee osteoarthritis rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the effects of virtual reality (VR) exercise compared to traditional rehabilitation on pain, function, and muscle strength in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Additionally, the study explores the mechanisms by which VR exercise contributes to the rehabilitation of KOA patients. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and PEDro according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Our search spanned from the library construction to 24 May 2024, focusing on randomized controlled trials Primary outcomes included pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and muscle strength. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan (version 5.4) and Stata (version 14.0). The bias risk of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, while the quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: This meta-analysis and systematic review included nine studies involving 456 KOA patients. The results indicated that VR exercise significantly improved pain scores (SMD, -1.53; 95% CI: -2.50 to -0.55; p = 0.002), WOMAC total score (MD, -14.79; 95% CI: -28.26 to -1.33; p = 0.03), WOMAC pain score (MD, -0.93; 95% CI: -1.52 to -0.34; p = 0.002), knee extensor strength (SMD, 0.51; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.87; p = 0.006), and knee flexor strength (SMD, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.01; p = 0.0005), but not significantly for WOMAC stiffness (MD, -0.01; 95% CI: -1.21 to 1.19; p = 0.99) and physical function (MD, -0.35; 95% CI: -0.79 to -0.09; p = 0.12). Conclusion: VR exercise significantly alleviates pain, enhances muscle strength and WOMAC total score in KOA patients, but improvements in joint stiffness and physical function are not significant. However, the current number of studies is limited, necessitating further research to expand on the present findings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024540061, identifier CRD42024540061.

Technologies for Supporting Individuals and Caregivers Living With Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder: Scoping Review.

Background: Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) is a common developmental disability that requires lifelong and ongoing support but is often difficult to find due to the lack of trained professionals, funding, and support available. Technology could provide cost-effective, accessible, and effective support to those living with FASD and their caregivers. Objective: In this review, we aimed to explore the use of technology available for supporting people living with FASD and their caregivers. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to identify studies that included technology for people with FASD or their caregivers; focused on FASD; used an empirical study design; were published since 2005; and used technology for assessment, diagnosis, monitoring, or support for people with FASD. We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, APA PsycINFO, ACM Digital Library, JMIR Publications journals, the Cochrane Library, EBSCOhost, IEEE, study references, and gray literature to find studies. Searches were conducted in November 2022 and updated in January 2024. Two reviewers (CZC and HW) independently completed study selection and data extraction. Results: In total, 17 studies exploring technology available for people with FASD showed that technology could be effective at teaching skills, supporting caregivers, and helping people with FASD develop skills. Conclusions: Technology could provide support for people affected by FASD; however, currently there is limited technology available, and the potential benefits are largely unexplored.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Impact of Active learning model and prior knowledge on discovery time of elusive relevant papers: a simulation study.

Software that employs screening prioritization through active learning (AL) has accelerated the screening process significantly by ranking an unordered set of records by their predicted relevance. However, failing to find a relevant paper might alter the findings of a systematic review, highlighting the importance of identifying elusive papers. The time to discovery (TD) measures how many records are needed to be screened to find a relevant paper, making it a helpful tool for detecting such papers. The main aim of this project was to investigate how the choice of the model and prior knowledge influence the TD values of the hard-to-find relevant papers and their rank orders. A simulation study was conducted, mimicking the screening process on a dataset containing titles, abstracts, and labels used for an already published systematic review. The results demonstrated that AL model choice, and mostly the choice of the feature extractor but not the choice of prior knowledge, significantly influenced the TD values and the rank order of the elusive relevant papers. Future research should examine the characteristics of elusive relevant papers to discover why they might take a long time to be found.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.