-
Journal of Medical Internet Research Sep 2022Despite the great potential of eHealth, substantial costs are involved in its implementation, and it is essential to know whether these costs can be justified by its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Despite the great potential of eHealth, substantial costs are involved in its implementation, and it is essential to know whether these costs can be justified by its benefits. Such needs have led to an increased interest in measuring the benefits of eHealth, especially using the willingness to pay (WTP) metric as an accurate proxy for consumers' perceived benefits of eHealth. This offered us an opportunity to systematically review and synthesize evidence from the literature to better understand WTP for eHealth and its influencing factors.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to provide a systematic review of WTP for eHealth and its influencing factors.
METHODS
This study was performed and reported as per the Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and PsycINFO databases were searched from their inception to April 19, 2022. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to calculate WTP values for eHealth (at 2021 US dollar rates) and meta-regression analyses to examine the factors affecting WTP.
RESULTS
A total of 30 articles representing 35 studies were included in the review. We found that WTP for eHealth varied across studies; when expressed as a 1-time payment, it ranged from US $0.88 to US $191.84, and when expressed as a monthly payment, it ranged from US $5.25 to US $45.64. Meta-regression analyses showed that WTP for eHealth was negatively associated with the percentages of women (β=-.76; P<.001) and positively associated with the percentages of college-educated respondents (β=.63; P<.001) and a country's gross domestic product per capita (multiples of US $1000; β=.03; P<.001). Compared with eHealth provided through websites, people reported a lower WTP for eHealth provided through asynchronous communication (β=-1.43; P<.001) and a higher WTP for eHealth provided through medical devices (β=.66; P<.001), health apps (β=.25; P=.01), and synchronous communication (β=.58; P<.001). As for the methods used to measure WTP, single-bounded dichotomous choice (β=2.13; P<.001), double-bounded dichotomous choice (β=2.20; P<.001), and payment scale (β=1.11; P<.001) were shown to obtain higher WTP values than the open-ended format. Compared with ex ante evaluations, ex post evaluations were shown to obtain lower WTP values (β=-.37; P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS
WTP for eHealth varied significantly depending on the study population, modality used to provide eHealth, and methods used to measure it. WTP for eHealth was lower among certain population segments, suggesting that these segments may be at a disadvantage in terms of accessing and benefiting from eHealth. We also identified the modalities of eHealth that were highly valued by consumers and offered suggestions for the design of eHealth interventions. In addition, we found that different methods of measuring WTP led to significantly different WTP estimates, highlighting the need to undertake further methodological explorations of approaches to elicit WTP values.
Topics: Costs and Cost Analysis; Female; Humans; Publications; Regression Analysis; Telemedicine
PubMed: 36103227
DOI: 10.2196/25959 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Improper practices and unprofessional conduct in clinical research have been shown to waste a significant portion of healthcare funds and harm public health. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Improper practices and unprofessional conduct in clinical research have been shown to waste a significant portion of healthcare funds and harm public health.
OBJECTIVES
Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of educational or policy interventions in research integrity or responsible conduct of research on the behaviour and attitudes of researchers in health and other research areas.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS and CINAHL health research bibliographical databases, as well as the Academic Search Complete, AGRICOLA, GeoRef, PsycINFO, ERIC, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. We performed the last search on 15 April 2015 and the search was limited to articles published between 1990 and 2014, inclusive. We also searched conference proceedings and abstracts from research integrity conferences and specialized websites. We handsearched 14 journals that regularly publish research integrity research.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that measured the effects of one or more interventions, i.e. any direct or indirect procedure that may have an impact on research integrity and responsible conduct of research in its broadest sense, where participants were any stakeholders in research and publication processes, from students to policy makers. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, such as controlled before-and-after studies, with comparisons of outcomes in the intervention versus non-intervention group or before versus after the intervention. Studies without a control group were not included in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. To assess the risk of bias in non-randomized studies, we used a modified Cochrane tool, in which we used four out of six original domains (blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, other sources of bias) and two additional domains (comparability of groups and confounding factors). We categorized our primary outcome into the following levels: 1) organizational change attributable to intervention, 2) behavioural change, 3) acquisition of knowledge/skills and 4) modification of attitudes/perceptions. The secondary outcome was participants' reaction to the intervention.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-one studies involving 9571 participants, described in 33 articles, met the inclusion criteria. All were published in English. Fifteen studies were randomized controlled trials, nine were controlled before-and-after studies, four were non-equivalent controlled studies with a historical control, one was a non-equivalent controlled study with a post-test only and two were non-equivalent controlled studies with pre- and post-test findings for the intervention group and post-test for the control group. Twenty-one studies assessed the effects of interventions related to plagiarism and 10 studies assessed interventions in research integrity/ethics. Participants included undergraduates, postgraduates and academics from a range of research disciplines and countries, and the studies assessed different types of outcomes.We judged most of the included randomized controlled trials to have a high risk of bias in at least one of the assessed domains, and in the case of non-randomized trials there were no attempts to alleviate the potential biases inherent in the non-randomized designs.We identified a range of interventions aimed at reducing research misconduct. Most interventions involved some kind of training, but methods and content varied greatly and included face-to-face and online lectures, interactive online modules, discussion groups, homework and practical exercises. Most studies did not use standardized or validated outcome measures and it was impossible to synthesize findings from studies with such diverse interventions, outcomes and participants. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that various methods of training in research integrity had some effects on participants' attitudes to ethical issues but minimal (or short-lived) effects on their knowledge. Training about plagiarism and paraphrasing had varying effects on participants' attitudes towards plagiarism and their confidence in avoiding it, but training that included practical exercises appeared to be more effective. Training on plagiarism had inconsistent effects on participants' knowledge about and ability to recognize plagiarism. Active training, particularly if it involved practical exercises or use of text-matching software, generally decreased the occurrence of plagiarism although results were not consistent. The design of a journal's author contribution form affected the truthfulness of information supplied about individuals' contributions and the proportion of listed contributors who met authorship criteria. We identified no studies testing interventions for outcomes at the organizational level. The numbers of events and the magnitude of intervention effects were generally small, so the evidence is likely to be imprecise. No adverse effects were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence base relating to interventions to improve research integrity is incomplete and the studies that have been done are heterogeneous, inappropriate for meta-analyses and their applicability to other settings and population is uncertain. Many studies had a high risk of bias because of the choice of study design and interventions were often inadequately reported. Even when randomized designs were used, findings were difficult to generalize. Due to the very low quality of evidence, the effects of training in responsible conduct of research on reducing research misconduct are uncertain. Low quality evidence indicates that training about plagiarism, especially if it involves practical exercises and use of text-matching software, may reduce the occurrence of plagiarism.
Topics: Attitude; Biomedical Research; Controlled Before-After Studies; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Plagiarism; Publishing; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Personnel; Scientific Misconduct
PubMed: 27040721
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000038.pub2 -
PloS One 2016Treatment effects of electroacupuncture for patients with subjective tinnitus has yet to be clarified. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Treatment effects of electroacupuncture for patients with subjective tinnitus has yet to be clarified.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of electroacupuncutre for alleviating the symptoms of subjective tinnitus.
METHODS
Extensive literature searches were carried out in three English and four Chinese databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang Chinese Digital Periodical and Conference Database, VIP, and ChiCTR).The date of the most recent search was 1 June 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs were included. The titles, abstracts, and keywords of all records were reviewed by two authors independently. The data were collected and extracted by three authors. The risk of bias in the trials was assessed in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook, version 5.1.0. (http://www.handbook.cochrane.org). Eighty-nine studies were retrieved. After discarding 84 articles, five studies with 322 participants were identified. Assessment of the methodological quality of the studies identified weaknesses in all five studies. All studies were judged as having a high risk of selection and performance bias. The attrition bias was high in four studies. Incompleteness bias was low in all studies. Reporting bias was unclear in all studies. Because of the limited number of trials included and the various types of interventions and outcomes, we were unable to conduct pooled analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the poor methodological quality of the primary studies and the small sample sizes, no convincing evidence that electroacupuncture is beneficial for treating tinnitus could be found. There is an urgent need for more high-quality trials with large sample sizes for the investigation of electroacupuncture treatment for tinnitus.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Electroacupuncture; Humans; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tinnitus
PubMed: 26938213
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0150600 -
PloS One 2017The dual burden of tuberculosis (TB) and diabetes mellitus (DM) has become a major global public health concern. There is mounting evidence from different countries on... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The dual burden of tuberculosis (TB) and diabetes mellitus (DM) has become a major global public health concern. There is mounting evidence from different countries on the burden of TB and DM comorbidity. The objective of this systematic review was to summarize the existing evidence on prevalence and associated/risk factors of TBDM comorbidity at global and regional levels.
METHODS
Ovid Medline, Embase, Global health, Cochrane library, Web of science and Scopus Elsevier databases were searched to identify eligible articles for the systematic review. Data were extracted using standardized excel form and pilot tested. Median with interquartile range (IQR) was used to estimate prevalence of TBDM comorbidity. Associated/risk factors that were identified from individual studies were thematically analyzed and described.
RESULTS
The prevalence of DM among TB patients ranged from 1.9% to 45%. The overall median global prevalence was 16% (IQR 9.0%-25.3%) Similarly, the prevalence of TB among DM patients ranged from 0.38% to 14% and the overall median global prevalence was 4.1% (IQR 1.8%-6.2%). The highest prevalence of DM among TB patients is observed in the studied countries of Asia, North America and Oceania. On the contrary, the prevalence of TB among DM patients is low globally, but relatively higher in the studied countries of Asia and the African continents. Sex, older age, urban residence, tobacco smoking, sedentary lifestyle, poor glycemic control, having family history of DM and TB illness were among the variables identified as associated/risk factors for TBDM comorbidity.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review revealed that there is a high burden of DM among TB patients at global level. On the contrary, the global prevalence of TB among DM patients is low. Assessing the magnitude and risk/associated factors of TBDM comorbidity at country/local level is crucial before making decisions to undertake TBDM integrated services.
Topics: Diabetes Complications; Diabetes Mellitus; Female; Humans; Male; Prevalence; Publication Bias; Risk Factors; Tuberculosis
PubMed: 28430796
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175925 -
Systematic Reviews Oct 2017This study is to perform a systematic review of existing guidance on quality of reporting and methodology for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This study is to perform a systematic review of existing guidance on quality of reporting and methodology for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) in order to compile a list of potential items that might be included in a reporting guideline for such reviews: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA).
METHODS
Study protocol published on EQUATOR website. Articles in full text or abstract form that reported on any aspect of reporting systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy were eligible for inclusion. We used the Ovid platform to search Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid MEDLINE® In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Embase Classic+Embase through May 5, 2016. The Cochrane Methodology Register in the Cochrane Library (Wiley version) was also searched. Title and abstract screening followed by full-text screening of all search results was performed independently by two investigators. Guideline organization websites, published guidance statements, and the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy were also searched. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) were assessed independently by two investigators for relevant items.
RESULTS
The literature searched yielded 6967 results; 386 were included after title and abstract screening and 203 after full-text screening. After reviewing the existing literature and guidance documents, a preliminary list of 64 items was compiled into the following categories: title (three items); introduction (two items); methods (35 items); results (13 items); discussion (nine items), and disclosure (two items).
CONCLUSION
Items on the methods and reporting of DTA systematic reviews in the present systematic review will provide a basis for generating a PRISMA extension for DTA systematic reviews.
Topics: Checklist; Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 29017574
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0590-8 -
Medicine Dec 2023Metformin is an old drug used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and can play a variety of roles by regulating the gut microbiota. The number of research...
BACKGROUND
Metformin is an old drug used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and can play a variety of roles by regulating the gut microbiota. The number of research articles on metformin in the gut microbiota has increased annually; however, no bibliometric tools have been used to analyze the research status and hot trends in this field. This study presents a bibliometric analysis of publications on metformin and gut microbiota.
METHODS
We searched the Web of Science core collection database on June 8, 2023, for papers related to metformin and gut microbiota from 2012 to 2022. We used Microsoft Excel 2021, VOSviewer1.6.19, CiteSpace 6.2.4, and R software package "bibliometrix" 4.0.0 to analyze the countries, institutions, authors, journals, citations, and keywords of the included publications.
RESULTS
We included 517 papers, and the trend in publications increased over the last 11 years. The 517 articles were from 57 countries, including 991 institutions and 3316 authors, and were published in 259 journals. China led all countries (233 papers) and the most influential institution was the Chinese Academy of Sciences (16 papers). PLOS ONE (19 papers) was the most popular journal, and Nature (1598 citations) was the most cited journal. Li and Kim were the 2 most published authors (six papers each), and Cani (272 co-citations) was the most co-cited author. "Metabolites," "aging," and "intestinal barrier" were emerging topics in this field.
CONCLUSIONS
This bibliometric study comprehensively summarizes the research trends and progress of metformin and gut microbiota, and provides new research topics and trends for studying the effects of metformin on gut microbiota in different diseases.
Topics: Humans; Metformin; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Academies and Institutes; Bibliometrics
PubMed: 38115325
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000036478 -
Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons... Jul 2018Introduction Surgeon-specific outcome data, or consultant outcome publication, refers to public access to named surgeon procedural outcomes. Consultant outcome... (Review)
Review
Introduction Surgeon-specific outcome data, or consultant outcome publication, refers to public access to named surgeon procedural outcomes. Consultant outcome publication originates from cardiothoracic surgery, having been introduced to US and UK surgery in 1991 and 2005, respectively. It has been associated with an improvement in patient outcomes. However, there is concern that it may also have led to changes in surgeon behaviour. This review assesses the literature for evidence of risk-averse behaviour, upgrading of patient risk factors and cessation of low-volume or poorly performing surgeons. Materials and methods A systematic literature review of Embase and Medline databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Original studies including data on consultant outcome publication and its potential effect on surgeon behaviour were included. Results Twenty-five studies were identified from the literature search. Studies suggesting the presence of risk-averse behaviour and upgrading of risk factors tended to be survey based, with studies contrary to these findings using recognised regional and national databases. Discussion and conclusion Our review includes instances of consultant outcome publication leading to risk-averse behaviour, upgrading of risk factors and cessation of low-volume or poorly performing surgeons. As UK data on consultant outcome publication matures, further research is essential to ensure that high-risk patients are not inappropriately turned down for surgery.
Topics: Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Patient Selection; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Publishing; Quality Improvement; Risk Assessment; Risk-Taking; Surgeons; United Kingdom; United States
PubMed: 29962298
DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2018.0052 -
BMC Medical Research Methodology Jun 2020Publication and related biases (including publication bias, time-lag bias, outcome reporting bias and p-hacking) have been well documented in clinical research, but...
BACKGROUND
Publication and related biases (including publication bias, time-lag bias, outcome reporting bias and p-hacking) have been well documented in clinical research, but relatively little is known about their presence and extent in health services research (HSR). This paper aims to systematically review evidence concerning publication and related bias in quantitative HSR.
METHODS
Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC, CINAHL, Web of Science, Health Systems Evidence, Cochrane EPOC Review Group and several websites were searched to July 2018. Information was obtained from: (1) Methodological studies that set out to investigate publication and related biases in HSR; (2) Systematic reviews of HSR topics which examined such biases as part of the review process. Relevant information was extracted from included studies by one reviewer and checked by another. Studies were appraised according to commonly accepted scientific principles due to lack of suitable checklists. Data were synthesised narratively.
RESULTS
After screening 6155 citations, four methodological studies investigating publication bias in HSR and 184 systematic reviews of HSR topics (including three comparing published with unpublished evidence) were examined. Evidence suggestive of publication bias was reported in some of the methodological studies, but evidence presented was very weak, limited in both quality and scope. Reliable data on outcome reporting bias and p-hacking were scant. HSR systematic reviews in which published literature was compared with unpublished evidence found significant differences in the estimated intervention effects or association in some but not all cases.
CONCLUSIONS
Methodological research on publication and related biases in HSR is sparse. Evidence from available literature suggests that such biases may exist in HSR but their scale and impact are difficult to estimate for various reasons discussed in this paper.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016052333.
Topics: Bias; Health Services Research; Humans; Publication Bias; Research Design
PubMed: 32487022
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-020-01010-1 -
PloS One 2017A meta-analysis as part of a systematic review aims to provide a thorough, comprehensive and unbiased statistical summary of data from the literature. However, relevant... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A meta-analysis as part of a systematic review aims to provide a thorough, comprehensive and unbiased statistical summary of data from the literature. However, relevant study results could be missing from a meta-analysis because of selective publication and inadequate dissemination. If missing outcome data differ systematically from published ones, a meta-analysis will be biased with an inaccurate assessment of the intervention effect. As part of the EU-funded OPEN project (www.open-project.eu) we conducted a systematic review that assessed whether the inclusion of data that were not published at all and/or published only in the grey literature influences pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses and leads to different interpretation.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Systematic review of published literature (methodological research projects). Four bibliographic databases were searched up to February 2016 without restriction of publication year or language. Methodological research projects were considered eligible for inclusion if they reviewed a cohort of meta-analyses which (i) compared pooled effect estimates of meta-analyses of health care interventions according to publication status of data or (ii) examined whether the inclusion of unpublished or grey literature data impacts the result of a meta-analysis. Seven methodological research projects including 187 meta-analyses comparing pooled treatment effect estimates according to different publication status were identified. Two research projects showed that published data showed larger pooled treatment effects in favour of the intervention than unpublished or grey literature data (Ratio of ORs 1.15, 95% CI 1.04-1.28 and 1.34, 95% CI 1.09-1.66). In the remaining research projects pooled effect estimates and/or overall findings were not significantly changed by the inclusion of unpublished and/or grey literature data. The precision of the pooled estimate was increased with narrower 95% confidence interval.
CONCLUSIONS
Although we may anticipate that systematic reviews and meta-analyses not including unpublished or grey literature study results are likely to overestimate the treatment effects, current empirical research shows that this is only the case in a minority of reviews. Therefore, currently, a meta-analyst should particularly consider time, effort and costs when adding such data to their analysis. Future research is needed to identify which reviews may benefit most from including unpublished or grey data.
Topics: Humans; Information Dissemination; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Publication Bias; Publications
PubMed: 28441452
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176210 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023The surge in the number of publications on psoriasis has posed significant challenges for researchers in effectively managing the vast amount of information. However,...
BACKGROUND
The surge in the number of publications on psoriasis has posed significant challenges for researchers in effectively managing the vast amount of information. However, due to the lack of tools to process metadata, no comprehensive bibliometric analysis has been conducted.
OBJECTIVES
This study is to evaluate the trends and current hotspots of psoriatic research from a macroscopic perspective through a bibliometric analysis assisted by machine learning based semantic analysis.
METHODS
Publications indexed under the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term "Psoriasis" from 2003 to 2022 were extracted from PubMed. The generative statistical algorithm latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) was applied to identify specific topics and trends based on abstracts. The unsupervised Louvain algorithm was used to establish a network identifying relationships between topics.
RESULTS
A total of 28,178 publications were identified. The publications were derived from 176 countries, with United States, China, and Italy being the top three countries. For the term "psoriasis", 9,183 MeSH terms appeared 337,545 times. Among them, MeSH term "Severity of illness index", "Treatment outcome", "Dermatologic agents" occur most frequently. A total of 21,928 publications were included in LDA algorithm, which identified three main areas and 50 branched topics, with "Molecular pathogenesis", "Clinical trials", and "Skin inflammation" being the most increased topics. LDA networks identified "Skin inflammation" was tightly associated with "Molecular pathogenesis" and "Biological agents". "Nail psoriasis" and "Epidemiological study" have presented as new research hotspots, and attention on topics of comorbidities, including "Cardiovascular comorbidities", "Psoriatic arthritis", "Obesity" and "Psychological disorders" have increased gradually.
CONCLUSIONS
Research on psoriasis is flourishing, with molecular pathogenesis, skin inflammation, and clinical trials being the current hotspots. The strong association between skin inflammation and biologic agents indicated the effective translation between basic research and clinical application in psoriasis. Besides, nail psoriasis, epidemiological study and comorbidities of psoriasis also draw increased attention.
Topics: Humans; United States; Psoriasis; Arthritis, Psoriatic; Bibliometrics; Dermatitis; Machine Learning; Inflammation
PubMed: 37954610
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1272080