Ethical issues in using Twitter for population-level depression monitoring: a qualitative study

Risk of bias summary. (JPEG 60 kb

Evidence mapping based on systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions for soft tissue sarcomas

Soft tissue sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of rare tumours of mesenchymal origin. Evidence mapping is one of the most didactic and friendly approaches to organise and summarise the range of research activity in broad topic fields. The objective of this evidence mapping is to identify, describe and organise the current available evidence about therapeutic interventions on soft tissues sarcomas. We followed the methodology of global evidence mapping. We performed a search of the PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos to identify systematic reviews (SRs) with or without meta-analyses published between 1990 and March 2016. Two independent literature reviewers assessed eligibility and extracted data. Methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR. We organised the results according to identified PICO questions and used tables and a bubble plot to display the results. The map is based on 24 SRs that met eligibility criteria and included 66 individual studies. Three-quarters were either observational or uncontrolled clinical trials. The quality of the included SRs was in general moderate or high. We identified 64 PICO questions from them. The corresponding results mostly favoured the intervention arm. This evidence mapping was built on the basis of SRs, which mostly included non-experimental studies and were qualified by the AMSTAR tool as of moderate quality. The evidence mapping created from PICO questions is a useful approach to describe complex and huge clinical topics through graphical media and orientate further research to fulfil the existing gaps. However, it is important to delimitate the steps of the evidence mapping in a pre-established protocol

Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: Structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus

Objective: The aim of this study is to review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies, and to develop a consistent and comprehensive approach to defining (non-) dissemination of research findings. Setting: We performed a scoping review of definitions of the term 'publication bias' in highly cited publications. Participants: Ideas and experiences of a core group of authors were collected in a draft document, which was complemented by the findings from our literature search. Interventions: The draft document including findings from the literature search was circulated to an international group of experts and revised until no additional ideas emerged and consensus was reached. Primary outcomes: We propose a new approach to the comprehensive conceptualisation of (non-) dissemination of research. Secondary outcomes: Our 'What, Who and Why?' approach includes issues that need to be considered when disseminating research findings (What?), the different players who should assume responsibility during the various stages of conducting a clinical trial and disseminating clinical trial documents (Who?), and motivations that might lead the various players to disseminate findings selectively, thereby introducing bias in the dissemination process (Why?). Conclusions: Our comprehensive framework of (non-) dissemination of research findings, based on the results of a scoping literature search and expert consensus will facilitate the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the multifaceted issue of selective publication, historically referred to as 'publication bias'

Neuroreflexotherapy for nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review

STUDY DESIGN Systematic review. OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness of neuroreflexotherapy (NRT) for low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Few of the alternatives for the management of LBP have a firm base of evidence for their effectiveness. Recently, a new intervention known as NRT has been developed in Spain and has been reported to have favorable results. METHODS Searches were undertaken according to Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, and randomized controlled trials that evaluated NRT as treatment for patients with nonspecific LBP were included. A qualitative synthesis and an assessment of methodological quality were undertaken. RESULTS Three randomized controlled trials were included, with 125 and 148 subjects in control and intervention groups, respectively. NRT was compared with sham in two trials and standard care in one. Individuals receiving active NRT showed significantly better outcomes for pain, mobility, disability, medication use, consumption of resources, and costs. No major side effects were reported by those receiving active NRT. CONCLUSIONS NRT appears to be a safe and effective intervention for nonspecific LBP. This conclusion is limited to three trials conducted by a small number of experienced clinicians. Further trials in other settings are needed to determine whether these favorable results can be generalized

La neuro-réflexothérapie pour la lombalgie non spécifique

La neuro-réflexothérapie, dispensée dans des cliniques spécialisées en Espagne, semble réduire la douleur et l'invalidité chez les patients souffrant de lombalgie chronique non spécifique. Les cliniciens utilisent un large éventail de traitements dans le cadre de la prise en charge de la lombalgie. Il n'y a souvent que peu d'indications scientifiques qu'ils marchent ou qu'ils puissent être utiles pour une population plus large. Dans cette revue, la neuro-réflexothérapie a obtenu de meilleurs résultats que le placebo et que les soins standard. Toutefois, jusqu'à ce que la recherche parvienne à reproduire ces résultats dans des contextes différents, il n'existe aucune preuve solide que cela fonctionne aussi bien en dehors des cliniques spécialisées en Espagne