Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
PLOS Glob Public Health ; 3(4): e0001783, 2023.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37027365

RESUMO

Internet gaming disorder (IGD) has been rising in recent years. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a noticeable shift in the way people interact with technology, which could have further contributed to an increase in IGD. Post-pandemic, the concern for IGD is likely to continue as people have become increasingly reliant on online activities. Our study aimed to assess the prevalence of IGD among the general population globally during the pandemic. Relevant studies that assessed IGD during COVID-19 were identified using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, and PsycNET between 2020, Jan 1 and 2022, May 23. We used NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies to assess the risk of bias, and GRADEpro for the certainty of the evidence. Three separate meta-analyses were performed using Comprehensive meta-analysis software and Revman 5.4. In total, 362 studies were identified, of which 24 observational (15 cross-sectional and 9 longitudinal) studies among 83,903 population were included in the review, and 9 studies in the meta-analysis. The risk of bias assessment showed an overall fair impression among the studies. The meta-analysis for a single group of 3 studies showed the prevalence rate of 8.00% for IGD. Another meta-analysis of 4 studies for a single group showed a pooled mean of 16.57 which was lower than the cut-off value of the IGDS9-SF tool. The two-group meta-analysis of 2 studies showed no significant difference between the groups before and during COVID-19. Our study showed no clear evidence of increased IGD during COVID-19 due to limited number of comparable studies, substantial heterogeneity, and low certainty of evidence. Further well-designed studies are needed to provide stronger evidence to implement suitable interventions to address IGD worldwide. The protocol was registered and published in the International Prospective Register for Systematic Review (PROSPERO) with the registration number CRD42021282825.

2.
BMJ Open ; 13(12): e073209, 2023 12 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38086583

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To summarise evidence on the effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) gel and Leucocyte and Platelet Rich Fibrin (L-PRF) gel as agents promoting ulcer healing compared with the standard wound dressing techniques alone. DESIGN: Systematic review. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Individual patient randomised controlled trials on skin ulcers of all types excluding traumatic lesions.Intervention group: treatment with topical application of L-PRF gel or PRP gel to the wound surface. CONTROL GROUP: treatment with standard skin ulcer care using normal saline, normgel or hydrogel dressings. INFORMATION SOURCES: Medline (Ovid), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Web of Science and manual search of studies from previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The papers published from 1946 to 2022 with no restriction on geography and language were included. The last date of the search was performed on 29 August 2022. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Independent reviewers identified eligible studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias using V.2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials tool and assessed certainty of evidence by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to complete healing, proportion healed at a given time and rate of healing. RESULTS: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, five using PRP gel and two using L-PRF gel. One study showed a better proportion of complete healing, three reported reduced meantime to complete healing and five showed improved rate of healing per unit of time in the intervention group. The risk of bias was high across all studies with one exception and the GRADE showed very low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSION: The findings show potential for better outcomes in the intervention; however, the evidence remains inconclusive highlighting a large research gap in ulcer treatment and warrant better-designed clinical trials. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022352418.


Assuntos
Fibrina Rica em Plaquetas , Plasma Rico em Plaquetas , Úlcera Cutânea , Humanos , Fibrina/uso terapêutico , Úlcera , Úlcera Cutânea/terapia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA