53 research outputs found
Undertaking a scoping review: a practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.
Aim: The aim of this study is to discuss the available methodological resources and best-practice guidelines for the development and completion of scoping reviews relevant to nursing and midwifery policy, practice, and research. Design: Discussion Paper. Data Sources: Scoping reviews that exemplify best practice are explored with reference to the recently updated JBI scoping review guide (2020) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review extension (PRISMA-ScR). Implications for nursing and midwifery: Scoping reviews are an increasingly common form of evidence synthesis. They are used to address broad research questions and to map evidence from a variety of sources. Scoping reviews are a useful form of evidence synthesis for those in nursing and midwifery and present opportunities for researchers to review a broad array of evidence and resources. However, scoping reviews still need to be conducted with rigour and transparency. Conclusion: This study provides guidance and advice for researchers and clinicians who are preparing to undertake an evidence synthesis and are considering a scoping review methodology in the field of nursing and midwifery. Impact: With the increasing popularity of scoping reviews, criticism of the rigour, transparency, and appropriateness of the methodology have been raised across multiple academic and clinical disciplines, including nursing and midwifery. This discussion paper provides a unique contribution by discussing each component of a scoping review, including: developing research questions and objectives; protocol development; developing eligibility criteria and the planned search approach; searching and selecting the evidence; extracting and analysing evidence; presenting results; and summarizing the evidence specifically for the fields of nursing and midwifery. Considerations for when to select this methodology and how to prepare a review for publication are also discussed. This approach is applied to the disciplines of nursing and midwifery to assist nursing and/or midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics
Automation tools to support undertaking scoping reviews.
This paper describes several automation tools and software that can be considered during evidence synthesis projects and provides guidance for their integration in the conduct of scoping reviews. The guidance presented in this work is adapted from the results of a scoping review and consultations with the JBI Scoping Review Methodology group. This paper describes several reliable, validated automation tools and software that can be used to enhance the conduct of scoping reviews. Developments in the automation of systematic reviews, and more recently scoping reviews, are continuously evolving. We detail several helpful tools in order of the key steps recommended by the JBI's methodological guidance for undertaking scoping reviews including team establishment, protocol development, searching, de-duplication, screening titles and abstracts, data extraction, data charting, and report writing. While we include several reliable tools and software that can be used for the automation of scoping reviews, there are some limitations to the tools mentioned. For example, some are available in English only and their lack of integration with other tools results in limited interoperability. This paper highlighted several useful automation tools and software programs to use in undertaking each step of a scoping review. This guidance has the potential to inform collaborative efforts aiming at the development of evidence informed, integrated automation tools and software packages for enhancing the conduct of high-quality scoping reviews
Noroviruses subvert the core stress granule component G3BP1 to promote viral VPg-dependent translation.
Knowledge of the host factors required for norovirus replication has been hindered by the challenges associated with culturing human noroviruses. We have combined proteomic analysis of the viral translation and replication complexes with a CRISPR screen, to identify host factors required for norovirus infection. The core stress granule component G3BP1 was identified as a host factor essential for efficient human and murine norovirus infection, demonstrating a conserved function across the Norovirus genus. Furthermore, we show that G3BP1 functions in the novel paradigm of viral VPg-dependent translation initiation, contributing to the assembly of translation complexes on the VPg-linked viral positive sense RNA genome by facilitating ribosome recruitment. Our data uncovers a novel function for G3BP1 in the life cycle of positive sense RNA viruses and identifies the first host factor with pan-norovirus pro-viral activity
The role of scoping reviews in guideline development.
Systematic reviews have long been seen as critical in the development of trustworthy guidelines. However, as newer synthesis methodologies such as scoping reviews become more common, there is a need to discuss the potential role of these methodologies within guideline development. This article aims to summarize and provide examples of the role of scoping reviews in guideline development. Drawing on the expertise of the JBI scoping review group and guideline developers, this discussion article summarizes five key roles of scoping reviews in guideline development. Guideline developers can consider using scoping reviews when they need to: 1) know what existing guidelines could be adopted, adapted or adoloped; 2) understand the breadth of evidence that exists on a particular issue and help with the development and prioritization of questions, or identify previous systematic reviews; 3) identify contextual factors and information relevant for a clinical practice recommendation; 4) identify potential strategies for implementation and monitoring and; 5) conduct evidence surveillance and living mapping approaches. Scoping reviews conducted and reported according to best-practice guidelines and standards can be used in conjunction with systematic reviews to support the work of guideline developers usefully
MFA12 (MFA 2012)
Catalogue of a culminating student exhibition held at the Mildred Lane Kemper Art Museum May 4-Aug. 6, 2012. Contents include Introduction / Buzz Spector -- Think, make, show and tell / Patricia Olynyk -- Ifeoma Ugonnwa Anyaeji -- J.E. Baker / Elissa Yukiko Weichbrodt -- Natalie Baldeon / Emily Hanson -- As in a turning gear : E. Thurston Belmer / Rickey Laurentiis -- Lauren Cardenas / Nicholas Tamarkin -- Megan Sue Collins / Catherine Chiodo -- Adrian Cox -- Maya Durham / Dolly Laninga -- Erin Falker / Melissa Olson -- St. Louis dreamscape : Jieun Kim / Caitlin Tyler -- Howard Krohn -- Scape : Robert Long / Robert Whitehead -- Marie Bannerot McInerney / Elissa Yukiko Weichbrodt -- Ghost : Nikki McMahan / Rickey Laurentiis -- Michael T. Meier -- Katie Millitzer -- Reid G. Norris / Ross Rader -- Kathleen Perniciaro / Melissa Olson -- Emily Squires / Nicholas Tamarkin -- Jamie Presson Wells -- Whitney Lorene Wood / Reid G. Norris -- Andrew Woodard -- Kelly K. Wright -- Contributors -- About the Sam Fox School.https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/books/1003/thumbnail.jp
Rapid reviews and the methodological rigor of evidence synthesis: a JBI position statement
The demand for rapid reviews has exploded in recent years. A rapid review is an approach to evidence synthesis that provides timely information to decision-makers (eg, health care planners, providers, policymakers, patients) by simplifying the evidence synthesis process. A rapid review is particularly appealing for urgent decisions. JBI is a world-renowned international collaboration for evidence synthesis and implementation methodologies. The principles for JBI evidence synthesis include comprehensiveness, rigor, transparency, and a focus on applicability to clinical practice. As such, JBI has not yet endorsed a specific approach for rapid reviews. In this paper, we compare rapid reviews versus other types of evidence synthesis, provide a range of rapid evidence products, outline how to appraise the quality of rapid reviews, and present the JBI position on rapid reviews. JBI Collaborating Centers conduct rapid reviews for decision-makers in specific circumstances, such as limited time or funding constraints. A standardized approach is not used for these cases;instead, the evidence synthesis methods are tailored to the needs of the decision-maker. The urgent need to deliver timely evidence to decision-makers poses challenges to JBI's mission to produce high-quality, trustworthy evidence. However, JBI recognizes the value of rapid reviews as part of the evidence synthesis ecosystem. As such, it is recommended that rapid reviews be conducted with the same methodological rigor and transparency expected of JBI reviews. Most importantly, transparency is essential, and the rapid review should clearly report where any simplification in the steps of the evidence synthesis process has been taken
Multiple novel prostate cancer susceptibility signals identified by fine-mapping of known risk loci among Europeans
Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous common prostate cancer (PrCa) susceptibility loci. We have
fine-mapped 64 GWAS regions known at the conclusion of the iCOGS study using large-scale genotyping and imputation in
25 723 PrCa cases and 26 274 controls of European ancestry. We detected evidence for multiple independent signals at 16
regions, 12 of which contained additional newly identified significant associations. A single signal comprising a spectrum of
correlated variation was observed at 39 regions; 35 of which are now described by a novel more significantly associated lead SNP,
while the originally reported variant remained as the lead SNP only in 4 regions. We also confirmed two association signals in
Europeans that had been previously reported only in East-Asian GWAS. Based on statistical evidence and linkage disequilibrium
(LD) structure, we have curated and narrowed down the list of the most likely candidate causal variants for each region.
Functional annotation using data from ENCODE filtered for PrCa cell lines and eQTL analysis demonstrated significant
enrichment for overlap with bio-features within this set. By incorporating the novel risk variants identified here alongside the
refined data for existing association signals, we estimate that these loci now explain ∼38.9% of the familial relative risk of PrCa,
an 8.9% improvement over the previously reported GWAS tag SNPs. This suggests that a significant fraction of the heritability of
PrCa may have been hidden during the discovery phase of GWAS, in particular due to the presence of multiple independent
signals within the same regio
Adding 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy to postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of short-course versus no androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised controlled trial
Background
Previous evidence indicates that adjuvant, short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves metastasis-free survival when given with primary radiotherapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the value of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy is unclear.
Methods
RADICALS-HD was an international randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of ADT used in combination with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (no ADT) or radiotherapy with 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT), using monthly subcutaneous gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue injections, daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as distant metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. Standard survival analysis methods were used, accounting for randomisation stratification factors. The trial had 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 80% to 86% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047.
Findings
Between Nov 22, 2007, and June 29, 2015, 1480 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 61–69]) were randomly assigned to receive no ADT (n=737) or short-course ADT (n=743) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 121 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 7·1–10·1), metastasis-free survival events were reported for 268 participants (142 in the no ADT group and 126 in the short-course ADT group; HR 0·886 [95% CI 0·688–1·140], p=0·35). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 79·2% (95% CI 75·4–82·5) in the no ADT group and 80·4% (76·6–83·6) in the short-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 121 (17%) of 737 participants in the no ADT group and 100 (14%) of 743 in the short-course ADT group (p=0·15), with no treatment-related deaths.
Interpretation
Metastatic disease is uncommon following postoperative bed radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adding 6 months of ADT to this radiotherapy did not improve metastasis-free survival compared with no ADT. These findings do not support the use of short-course ADT with postoperative radiotherapy in this patient population
Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial
Background
Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain.
Methods
RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and
ClinicalTrials.gov
,
NCT00541047
.
Findings
Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60–69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0–10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612–0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6–75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2–81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths.
Interpretation
Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy.
Funding
Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society
- …