-
Quality of Life Research : An... Oct 2019Quality of life (QOL) is an important concept in the field of health and medicine. QOL is a complex concept that is interpreted and defined differently within and...
PURPOSE
Quality of life (QOL) is an important concept in the field of health and medicine. QOL is a complex concept that is interpreted and defined differently within and between disciplines, including the fields of health and medicine. The aims of this study were to systematically review the literature on QOL in medicine and health research and to describe the country of origin, target groups, instruments, design, and conceptual issues.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted to identify research studies on QOL and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The databases Scopus, which includes Embase and MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched for articles published during one random week in November 2016. The ten predefined criteria of Gill and Feinstein were used to evaluate the conceptual and methodological rigor.
RESULTS
QOL research is international and involves a variety of target groups, research designs, and QOL measures. According to the criteria of Gill and Feinstein, the results show that only 13% provided a definition of QOL, 6% distinguished QOL from HRQOL. The most frequently fulfilled criteria were: (i) stating the domains of QOL to be measured; (ii) giving a reason for choosing the instruments used; and (iii) aggregating the results from multiple items.
CONCLUSION
QOL is an important endpoint in medical and health research, and QOL research involves a variety of patient groups and different research designs. Based on the current evaluation of the methodological and conceptual clarity of QOL research, we conclude that the majority QOL studies in health and medicine have conceptual and methodological challenges.
Topics: Environmental Health; Humans; Medicine; Quality of Life
PubMed: 31187410
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02214-9 -
The American Journal of Gastroenterology May 2009Systematic reviews systematically evaluate and summarize current knowledge and have many advantages over narrative reviews. Meta-analyses provide a more reliable and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
Systematic reviews systematically evaluate and summarize current knowledge and have many advantages over narrative reviews. Meta-analyses provide a more reliable and enhanced precision of effect estimate than do individual studies. Systematic reviews are invaluable for defining the methods used in subsequent studies, but, as retrospective research projects, they are subject to bias. Rigorous research methods are essential, and the quality depends on the extent to which scientific review methods are used. Systematic reviews can be misleading, unhelpful, or even harmful when data are inappropriately handled; meta-analyses can be misused when the difference between a patient seen in the clinic and those included in the meta-analysis is not considered. Furthermore, systematic reviews cannot answer all clinically relevant questions, and their conclusions may be difficult to incorporate into practice. They should be reviewed on an ongoing basis. As clinicians, we need proper methodological training to perform good systematic reviews and must ask the appropriate questions before we can properly interpret such a review and apply its conclusions to our patients. This paper aims to assist in the reading of a systematic review.
Topics: Bias; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Gastroenterology; Humans; Male; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reproducibility of Results; Research Design; Review Literature as Topic; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 19417748
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2009.118 -
The American Journal of Sports Medicine Nov 2014The role of evidence-based medicine in sports medicine and orthopaedic surgery is rapidly growing. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are also proliferating in the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The role of evidence-based medicine in sports medicine and orthopaedic surgery is rapidly growing. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are also proliferating in the medical literature.
PURPOSE
To provide the outline necessary for a practitioner to properly understand and/or conduct a systematic review for publication in a sports medicine journal.
STUDY DESIGN
Review.
METHODS
The steps of a successful systematic review include the following: identification of an unanswered answerable question; explicit definitions of the investigation's participant(s), intervention(s), comparison(s), and outcome(s); utilization of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines and PROSPERO registration; thorough systematic data extraction; and appropriate grading of the evidence and strength of the recommendations.
RESULTS
An outline to understand and conduct a systematic review is provided, and the difference between meta-analyses and systematic reviews is described. The steps necessary to perform a systematic review are fully explained, including the study purpose, search methodology, data extraction, reporting of results, identification of bias, and reporting of the study's main findings.
CONCLUSION
Systematic reviews or meta-analyses critically appraise and formally synthesize the best existing evidence to provide a statement of conclusion that answers specific clinical questions. Readers and reviewers, however, must recognize that the quality and strength of recommendations in a review are only as strong as the quality of studies that it analyzes. Thus, great care must be used in the interpretation of bias and extrapolation of the review's findings to translation to clinical practice. Without advanced education on the topic, the reader may follow the steps discussed herein to perform a systematic review.
Topics: Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Medical Writing; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Orthopedics; Publishing; Review Literature as Topic; Sports Medicine
PubMed: 23925575
DOI: 10.1177/0363546513497567 -
The Lancet. Oncology Mar 2023Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with metastatic cancer, especially when characterised by a low tumour burden (ie, oligometastatic disease), receiving... (Review)
Review
Metastases-directed stereotactic body radiotherapy in combination with targeted therapy or immunotherapy: systematic review and consensus recommendations by the EORTC-ESTRO OligoCare consortium.
Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with metastatic cancer, especially when characterised by a low tumour burden (ie, oligometastatic disease), receiving targeted therapy or immunotherapy has become a frequently practised and guideline-supported treatment strategy. Despite the increasing use in routine clinical practice, there is little information on the safety of combining SBRT with modern targeted therapy or immunotherapy and a paucity of high-level evidence to guide clinical management. A systematic literature review was performed to identify the toxicity profiles of combined metastases-directed SBRT and targeted therapy or immunotherapy. These results served as the basis for an international Delphi consensus process among 28 interdisciplinary experts who are members of the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) OligoCare consortium. Consensus was sought about risk mitigation strategies of metastases-directed SBRT combined with targeted therapy or immunotherapy; a potential need for and length of interruption to targeted therapy or immunotherapy around SBRT delivery; and potential adaptations of radiation dose and fractionation. Results of this systematic review and consensus process compile the best available evidence for safe combination of metastases-directed SBRT and targeted therapy or immunotherapy for patients with metastatic or oligometastatic cancer and aim to guide today's clinical practice and the design of future clinical trials.
Topics: Humans; Radiosurgery; Consensus; Immunotherapy; Radiation Oncology; Medical Oncology; Neoplasms
PubMed: 36858728
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00752-5 -
JBRA Assisted Reproduction Jan 2019Primary dysmenorrhea is a painful uterine contraction caused by endometrial laceration. Drug therapies and complementary medicine have been used to treat dysmenorrhea....
OBJECTIVES
Primary dysmenorrhea is a painful uterine contraction caused by endometrial laceration. Drug therapies and complementary medicine have been used to treat dysmenorrhea. The aim of this study was to investigate and offer an updated perspective on the treatments for dysmenorrhea.
METHODS
The present study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The required information was collected based on searches for the following keywords: treatment, primary dysmenorrhea, medicinal plants, chemical drugs, and herbs. Searches were performed on databases Pubmed, Web of Sciences, Scopus, Iran medex, and SID by March 2018 to find literature in the English and Persian languages on this subject without a time limit.
RESULTS
This review included 17 papers, 10 of which on complementary medicine, three on drug therapies, and four on acupuncture and acupressure. The largest and smallest samples had 303 and 24 patients, respectively. Length of treatment ranged from one to six months and the measures most commonly used in the studies were the visual analogue scale and clinical efficacy. Reported complications included gastrointestinal events, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and liver and kidney disorders.
CONCLUSION
Medicinal plants, drugs, and acupressure seem to suppress pain by reducing the level of prostaglandins, mediating nitric oxide, increasing beta-endorphin levels, blocking the calcium channel, and enhancing circulatory flow through the uterine pathway. Further trials are required to confirm the benefits of the procedures described and ensure the absence of complications.
Topics: Acupressure; Acupuncture Therapy; Complementary Therapies; Drug Therapy; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Dysmenorrhea; Female; Gynecology; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30521155
DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20180083 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Apr 2022The applications of artificial intelligence (AI) processes have grown significantly in all medical disciplines during the last decades. Two main types of AI have been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The applications of artificial intelligence (AI) processes have grown significantly in all medical disciplines during the last decades. Two main types of AI have been applied in medicine: symbolic AI (eg, knowledge base and ontologies) and nonsymbolic AI (eg, machine learning and artificial neural networks). Consequently, AI has also been applied across most obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) domains, including general obstetrics, gynecology surgery, fetal ultrasound, and assisted reproductive medicine, among others.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to provide a systematic review to establish the actual contributions of AI reported in OB/GYN discipline journals.
METHODS
The PubMed database was searched for citations indexed with "artificial intelligence" and at least one of the following medical subject heading (MeSH) terms between January 1, 2000, and April 30, 2020: "obstetrics"; "gynecology"; "reproductive techniques, assisted"; or "pregnancy." All publications in OB/GYN core disciplines journals were considered. The selection of journals was based on disciplines defined in Web of Science. The publications were excluded if no AI process was used in the study. Review, editorial, and commentary articles were also excluded. The study analysis comprised (1) classification of publications into OB/GYN domains, (2) description of AI methods, (3) description of AI algorithms, (4) description of data sets, (5) description of AI contributions, and (6) description of the validation of the AI process.
RESULTS
The PubMed search retrieved 579 citations and 66 publications met the selection criteria. All OB/GYN subdomains were covered: obstetrics (41%, 27/66), gynecology (3%, 2/66), assisted reproductive medicine (33%, 22/66), early pregnancy (2%, 1/66), and fetal medicine (21%, 14/66). Both machine learning methods (39/66) and knowledge base methods (25/66) were represented. Machine learning used imaging, numerical, and clinical data sets. Knowledge base methods used mostly omics data sets. The actual contributions of AI were method/algorithm development (53%, 35/66), hypothesis generation (42%, 28/66), or software development (3%, 2/66). Validation was performed on one data set (86%, 57/66) and no external validation was reported. We observed a general rising trend in publications related to AI in OB/GYN over the last two decades. Most of these publications (82%, 54/66) remain out of the scope of the usual OB/GYN journals.
CONCLUSIONS
In OB/GYN discipline journals, mostly preliminary work (eg, proof-of-concept algorithm or method) in AI applied to this discipline is reported and clinical validation remains an unmet prerequisite. Improvement driven by new AI research guidelines is expected. However, these guidelines are covering only a part of AI approaches (nonsymbolic) reported in this review; hence, updates need to be considered.
Topics: Artificial Intelligence; Female; Gynecology; Humans; Obstetrics; Periodicals as Topic; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35297766
DOI: 10.2196/35465 -
Body Image Sep 2016Our aim was to systematically review the prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) in a variety of settings. Weighted prevalence estimate and 95% confidence intervals... (Review)
Review
Our aim was to systematically review the prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) in a variety of settings. Weighted prevalence estimate and 95% confidence intervals in each study were calculated. The weighted prevalence of BDD in adults in the community was estimated to be 1.9%; in adolescents 2.2%; in student populations 3.3%; in adult psychiatric inpatients 7.4%; in adolescent psychiatric inpatients 7.4%; in adult psychiatric outpatients 5.8%; in general cosmetic surgery 13.2%; in rhinoplasty surgery 20.1%; in orthognathic surgery 11.2%; in orthodontics/cosmetic dentistry settings 5.2%; in dermatology outpatients 11.3%; in cosmetic dermatology outpatients 9.2%; and in acne dermatology clinics 11.1%. Women outnumbered men in the majority of settings but not in cosmetic or dermatological settings. BDD is common in some psychiatric and cosmetic settings but is poorly identified.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Body Dysmorphic Disorders; Body Image; Cross-Cultural Comparison; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dermatology; Female; Humans; Male; Mass Screening; Medicine; Middle Aged; Referral and Consultation; Rhinoplasty; Surgery, Plastic; Young Adult
PubMed: 27498379
DOI: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.07.003 -
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica... Apr 2018A randomized controlled trial is a prospective, comparative, quantitative study/experiment performed under controlled conditions with random allocation of interventions... (Review)
Review
A randomized controlled trial is a prospective, comparative, quantitative study/experiment performed under controlled conditions with random allocation of interventions to comparison groups. The randomized controlled trial is the most rigorous and robust research method of determining whether a cause-effect relation exists between an intervention and an outcome. High-quality evidence can be generated by performing an randomized controlled trial when evaluating the effectiveness and safety of an intervention. Furthermore, randomized controlled trials yield themselves well to systematic review and meta-analysis providing a solid base for synthesizing evidence generated by such studies. Evidence-based clinical practice improves patient outcomes and safety, and is generally cost-effective. Therefore, randomized controlled trials are becoming increasingly popular in all areas of clinical medicine including perinatology. However, designing and conducting an randomized controlled trial, analyzing data, interpreting findings and disseminating results can be challenging as there are several practicalities to be considered. In this review, we provide simple descriptive guidance on planning, conducting, analyzing and reporting randomized controlled trials.
Topics: Gynecology; Humans; Obstetrics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design
PubMed: 29377058
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13309 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Feb 2020To systematically review the effectiveness of telehealth interventions for improving obstetric and gynecologic health outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the effectiveness of telehealth interventions for improving obstetric and gynecologic health outcomes.
DATA SOURCES
We conducted a comprehensive search for primary literature in ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PubMed, and MEDLINE.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION
Qualifying primary studies had a comparison group, were conducted in countries ranked very high on the United Nations Human Development Index, published in English, and evaluated obstetric and gynecologic health outcomes. Cochrane Collaboration's tool and ROBINS-I tool were used for assessing risk of bias. Summary of evidence tables were created using the United States Preventive Services Task Force Summary of Evidence Table for Evidence Reviews.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, RESULTS
Of the 3,926 published abstracts identified, 47 met criteria for inclusion and included 31,967 participants. Telehealth interventions overall improved obstetric outcomes related to smoking cessation and breastfeeding. Telehealth interventions decreased the need for high-risk obstetric monitoring office visits while maintaining maternal and fetal outcomes. One study found reductions in diagnosed preeclampsia among women with gestational hypertension. Telehealth interventions were effective for continuation of oral and injectable contraception; one text-based study found increased oral contraception rates at 6 months. Telehealth provision of medication abortion services had similar clinical outcomes compared with in-person care and improved access to early abortion. Few studies suggested utility for telehealth to improve notification of sexually transmitted infection test results and app-based intervention to improve urinary incontinence symptoms.
CONCLUSION
Telehealth interventions were associated with improvements in obstetric outcomes, perinatal smoking cessation, breastfeeding, early access to medical abortion services, and schedule optimization for high-risk obstetrics. Further well-designed studies are needed to examine these interventions and others to generate evidence that can inform decisions about implementation of newer telehealth technologies into obstetrics and gynecology practice.
Topics: Female; Gynecology; Humans; Obstetrics; Pregnancy; Prenatal Care; Quality of Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Telemedicine
PubMed: 31977782
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003646 -
Pediatric Blood & Cancer Dec 2015The study team conducted a systematic review of pediatric and adolescent palliative cancer care literature from 1995 to 2015 using four databases to inform development... (Review)
Review
The study team conducted a systematic review of pediatric and adolescent palliative cancer care literature from 1995 to 2015 using four databases to inform development of a palliative care psychosocial standard. A total of 209 papers were reviewed with inclusion of 73 papers for final synthesis. Revealed topics of urgent consideration include the following: symptom assessment and intervention, direct patient report, effective communication, and shared decision-making. Standardization of palliative care assessments and interventions in pediatric oncology has the potential to foster improved quality of care across the cancer trajectory for children and adolescents with cancer and their family members.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Hospice Care; Humans; Medical Oncology; Palliative Care; Palliative Medicine; Pediatrics; Psychology; Standard of Care
PubMed: 26700928
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.25695