Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram.

Cochrane systematic reviews are conducted and reported according to rigorous standards. A study flow diagram must be included in a new review, and there is clear guidance from the PRISMA statement on how to do this. However, for a review update, there is currently no guidance on how study flow diagrams should be presented. To address this, a working group was formed to find a solution and produce guidance on how to use these diagrams in review updates.A number of different options were devised for how these flow diagrams could be used in review updates, and also in cases where multiple searches for a review or review update have been conducted. These options were circulated to the Cochrane information specialist community for consultation and feedback. Following the consultation period, the working group refined the guidance and made the recommendation that for review updates an adapted PRISMA flow diagram should be used, which includes an additional box with the number of previously included studies feeding into the total. Where multiple searches have been conducted, the results should be added together and treated as one set of results.There is no existing guidance for using study flow diagrams in review updates. Our adapted diagram is a simple and pragmatic solution for showing the flow of studies in review updates

Exercise therapy in adults with serious mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Individuals with serious mental illness are at a higher risk of physical ill health. Mortality rates are at least twice those of the general population with higher levels of cardiovascular disease, metabolic disease, diabetes, and respiratory illness. Although genetics may have a role in the physical health problems of these patients, lifestyle and environmental factors such as levels of smoking, obesity, poor diet, and low levels of physical activity also play a prominent part.<p></p> Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing the effect of exercise interventions on individuals with serious mental illness.<p></p> Methods: Searches were made in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Biological Abstracts on Ovid, and The Cochrane Library (January 2009, repeated January 2013) through to February 2013.<p></p> Results: Eight RCTs were identified in the systematic search. Six compared exercise versus usual care. One study assessed the effect of a cycling programme versus muscle strengthening and toning exercises. The final study compared the effect of adding specific exercise advice and motivational skills to a simple walking programme. Exercise programmes were noted by their heterogeneity in terms of the type of exercise intervention, setting, and outcome measures. The review found that exercise improved levels of exercise activity (n=13, standard mean difference [SMD] 1.81, CI 0.44 to 3.18, p = 0.01). No beneficial effect was found on negative (n = 84, SMD = -0.54, CI -1.79 to 0.71, p = 0.40) or positive symptoms of schizophrenia (n = 84, SMD = -1.66, CI -3.78 to 0.45, p = 0.12). No change was found on body mass index compared with usual care (n= 151, SMD = -0.24, CI -0.56 to 0.08, p = 0.14), or body weight (n = 77, SMD = 0.13, CI -0.32 to 0.58, p = 0.57). No beneficial effect was found on anxiety and depressive symptoms (n = 94, SMD = -0.26, CI -0.91 to 0.39, p = 0.43), or quality of life in respect of physical and mental domains. One RCT measured the effect of exercise on exercise intensity, attendance, and persistence at a programme. No significant effect was found on these measures.<p></p> Conclusions: This systematic review showed that exercise therapies can lead to a modest increase in levels of exercise activity but overall there was no noticeable change for symptoms of mental health, body mass index, and body weight.<p></p&gt

The assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Over the last decade there have been a number of guidelines published, aimed at improving the quality of reporting in published studies and reviews. In systematic reviews this may be measured by their compliance with the PRISMA statement. This review aims to evaluate the quality of reporting in published meta-analyses of diagnostic tests, using the PRISMA statement and establish whether there has been a measurable improvement over time.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eight databases were searched for reviews published prior to 31^stDecember 2008. Studies were selected if they evaluated a diagnostic test, measured performance, searched two or more databases, stated the search terms and inclusion criteria, and used a statistical method to summarise a test's performance. Data were extracted on the review characteristics and items of the PRISMA statement. To measure the change in the quality of reporting over time, PRISMA items for two periods of equal duration were compared.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Compliance with the PRISMA statement was generally poor: none of the reviews completely adhered to all 27 checklist items. Of the 236 meta-analyses included following selection: only 2(1%) reported the study protocol; 59(25%) reported the searches used; 76(32%) reported the results of a risk of bias assessment; and 82(35%) reported the abstract as a structured summary. Only 11 studies were published before 2000. Thus, the impact of QUOROM on the quality of reporting was not evaluated. However, the periods 2001-2004 and 2005-2008 (covering 93% of studies) were compared using relative risks (RR). There was an increase in the proportion of reviews reporting on five PRISMA items: eligibility criteria (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00 - 1.27); risk of bias across studies (methods) (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.34 - 2.44); study selection results (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.05 - 2.09); results of individual studies (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09 - 1.72); risk of bias across studies (results) (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.20 - 2.25).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although there has been an improvement in the quality of meta-analyses in diagnostic research, there are still many deficiencies in the reporting which future reviewers need to address if readers are to trust the validity of the reported findings.</p

Risk factors for methamphetamine use in youth: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Methamphetamine (MA) is a potent stimulant that is readily available. Its effects are similar to cocaine, but the drug has a profile associated with increased acute and chronic toxicities. The objective of this systematic review was to identify and synthesize literature on risk factors that are associated with MA use among youth.</p> <p>More than 40 electronic databases, websites, and key journals/meeting abstracts were searched. We included studies that compared children and adolescents (≤ 18 years) who used MA to those who did not. One reviewer extracted the data and a second checked for completeness and accuracy. For discrete risk factors, odds ratios (OR) were calculated and when appropriate, a pooled OR with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) was calculated. For continuous risk factors, mean difference and 95% CI were calculated and when appropriate, a weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% CI was calculated. Results were presented separately by comparison group: low-risk (no previous drug abuse) and high-risk children (reported previous drug abuse or were recruited from a juvenile detention center).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twelve studies were included. Among low-risk youth, factors associated with MA use were: history of heroin/opiate use (OR = 29.3; 95% CI: 9.8–87.8), family history of drug use (OR = 4.7; 95% CI: 2.8–7.9), risky sexual behavior (OR = 2.79; 95% CI: 2.25, 3.46) and some psychiatric disorders. History of alcohol use and smoking were also significantly associated with MA use. Among high-risk youth, factors associated with MA use were: family history of crime (OR = 2.0; 95% CI: 1.2–3.3), family history of drug use (OR = 4.7; 95% CI: 2.8–7.9), family history of alcohol abuse (OR = 3.2; 95% CI: 1.8–5.6), and psychiatric treatment (OR = 6.8; 95% CI: 3.6–12.9). Female sex was also significantly associated with MA use.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Among low-risk youth, a history of engaging in a variety of risky behaviors was significantly associated with MA use. A history of a psychiatric disorder was a risk factor for MA for both low- and high-risk youth. Family environment was also associated with MA use. Many of the included studies were cross-sectional making it difficult to assess causation. Future research should utilize prospective study designs so that temporal relationships between risk factors and MA use can be established.</p

Comparison of the benefits of cochlear implantation versus contra-lateral routing of signal hearing aids in adult patients with single-sided deafness: study protocol for a prospective within-subject longitudinal trial

Background Individuals with a unilateral severe-to-profound hearing loss, or single-sided deafness, report difficulty with listening in many everyday situations despite having access to well-preserved acoustic hearing in one ear. The standard of care for single-sided deafness available on the UK National Health Service is a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid which transfers sounds from the impaired ear to the non-impaired ear. This hearing aid has been found to improve speech understanding in noise when the signal-to-noise ratio is more favourable at the impaired ear than the non-impaired ear. However, the indiscriminate routing of signals to a single ear can have detrimental effects when interfering sounds are located on the side of the impaired ear. Recent published evidence has suggested that cochlear implantation in individuals with a single-sided deafness can restore access to the binaural cues which underpin the ability to localise sounds and segregate speech from other interfering sounds. Methods/Design The current trial was designed to assess the efficacy of cochlear implantation compared to a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid in restoring binaural hearing in adults with acquired single-sided deafness. Patients are assessed at baseline and after receiving a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid. A cochlear implant is then provided to those patients who do not receive sufficient benefit from the hearing aid. This within-subject longitudinal design reflects the expected care pathway should cochlear implantation be provided for single-sided deafness on the UK National Health Service. The primary endpoints are measures of binaural hearing at baseline, after provision of a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid, and after cochlear implantation. Binaural hearing is assessed in terms of the accuracy with which sounds are localised and speech is perceived in background noise. The trial is also designed to measure the impact of the interventions on hearing- and health-related quality of life. Discussion This multi-centre trial was designed to provide evidence for the efficacy of cochlear implantation compared to the contra-lateral routing of signals. A purpose-built sound presentation system and established measurement techniques will provide reliable and precise measures of binaural hearing. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN33301739 (05/JUL/2013

The barriers and facilitators influencing the sustainability of hospital-based interventions: a systematic review

Acknowledgements University of Stirling for providing financial support for open access costs Funding This review was funded by the Chief Scientist Office, grant number GCA/17/26. JC, PC and EAD are employed by the Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, which is funded by the Chief Scientist Office in Scotland.Peer reviewedPublisher PD