-
International Journal of Environmental... Feb 2023Primary amoebic meningoencephalitis (PAM) is a rare but lethal infection of the brain caused by a eukaryote called (). The aim of this review is to consolidate the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Primary amoebic meningoencephalitis (PAM) is a rare but lethal infection of the brain caused by a eukaryote called (). The aim of this review is to consolidate the recently published case reports of infection by describing its epidemiology and clinical features with the goal of ultimately disseminating this information to healthcare personnel.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was carried out using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and OVID databases until 31 December 2022 by two independent reviewers. All studies from the year 2013 were extracted, and quality assessments were carried out meticulously prior to their inclusion in the final analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 21 studies were selected for qualitative analyses out of the 461 studies extracted. The cases were distributed globally, and 72.7% of the cases succumbed to mortality. The youngest case was an 11-day-old boy, while the eldest was a 75-year-old. Significant exposure to freshwater either from recreational activities or from a habit of irrigating the nostrils preceded onset. The symptoms at early presentation included fever, headache, and vomiting, while late sequalae showed neurological manifestation. An accurate diagnosis remains a challenge, as the symptoms mimic bacterial meningitis. Confirmatory tests include the direct visualisation of the amoeba or the use of the polymerase chain reaction method.
CONCLUSIONS
infection is rare but leads to PAM. Its occurrence is worldwide with a significant risk of fatality. The suggested probable case definition based on the findings is the acute onset of fever, headache, and vomiting with meningeal symptoms following exposure to freshwater within the previous 14 days. Continuous health promotion and health education activities for the public can help to improve knowledge and awareness prior to engagement in freshwater activities.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Male; Amoeba; Brain; Central Nervous System Protozoal Infections; Fever; Headache; Naegleria fowleri
PubMed: 36833715
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20043021 -
PloS One 2014Systematic reviews of preclinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical research and thus even clinical care. Dissemination bias,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Systematic reviews of preclinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical research and thus even clinical care. Dissemination bias, selective dissemination of positive or significant results, is one of the major threats to validity in systematic reviews also in the realm of animal studies. We conducted a systematic review to determine the number of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present, to investigate their methodological features especially with respect to assessment of dissemination bias, and to investigate the citation of preclinical systematic reviews on clinical research.
METHODS
Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews that summarize in vivo animal experiments whose results could be interpreted as applicable to clinical care. We systematically searched Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 1st January 2009 to 9th January 2013 for eligible systematic reviews without language restrictions. Furthermore we included articles from two previous systematic reviews by Peters et al. and Korevaar et al.
RESULTS
The literature search and screening process resulted in 512 included full text articles. We found an increasing number of published preclinical systematic reviews over time. The methodological quality of preclinical systematic reviews was low. The majority of preclinical systematic reviews did not assess methodological quality of the included studies (71%), nor did they assess heterogeneity (81%) or dissemination bias (87%). Statistics quantifying the importance of clinical research citing systematic reviews of animal studies showed that clinical studies referred to the preclinical research mainly to justify their study or a future study (76%).
DISCUSSION
Preclinical systematic reviews may have an influence on clinical research but their methodological quality frequently remains low. Therefore, systematic reviews of animal research should be critically appraised before translating them to a clinical context.
Topics: Animals; Drug Evaluation, Preclinical; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Publication Bias; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 25541734
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116016 -
International Journal of Molecular... Mar 2024This systematic review delves into the connections between microRNAs and preterm labor, with a focus on identifying diagnostic and prognostic markers for this crucial... (Review)
Review
This systematic review delves into the connections between microRNAs and preterm labor, with a focus on identifying diagnostic and prognostic markers for this crucial pregnancy complication. Covering studies disseminated from 2018 to 2023, the review integrates discoveries from diverse pregnancy-related scenarios, encompassing gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders and pregnancy loss. Through meticulous search strategies and rigorous quality assessments, 47 relevant studies were incorporated. The synthesis highlights the transformative potential of microRNAs as valuable diagnostic tools, offering promising avenues for early intervention. Notably, specific miRNAs demonstrate robust predictive capabilities. In conclusion, this comprehensive analysis lays the foundation for subsequent research, intervention strategies and improved outcomes in the realm of preterm labor.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Obstetric Labor, Premature; Abortion, Spontaneous; Diabetes, Gestational; Hypertension
PubMed: 38612564
DOI: 10.3390/ijms25073755 -
Indian Journal of Sexually Transmitted... 2022Prevention of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) is critical. Despite developing treatment and prevention programs, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are... (Review)
Review
Prevention of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) is critical. Despite developing treatment and prevention programs, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are essential in developing acute and chronic diseases. Because "eHealth" (electronic-Health) has excellent potential for disseminating health information to the public regarding STDs, we aimed to identify and review all published articles focusing on preventing STIs. After constructing the design and answering population, intervention, comparison, and outcome questions, two authors conducted a systematic literature search in four online databases in January 2022. The screening process and data extraction were conducted by two authors independently, and then, a quality assessment was performed. After removing duplicates, and two rounds of shortlisting, 16 articles were included for data extraction out of 5113 entries. Included studies were of different designs and assessed six preventive outcomes categories, with condom use being the most frequent result among studies. We also extracted implementation outcomes and reviewed them. Included studies with 13,137 participants have provided reasonable evidence of the effectiveness of different types of eHealth in improving STI prevention interventions. Although this systematic review was not without limitations, it can no longer be ignored that eHealth modes offer many opportunities to prevent STDs, especially among the young population.
PubMed: 36743108
DOI: 10.4103/ijstd.ijstd_55_22 -
JAMA Ophthalmology Apr 2020Conference proceedings are platforms for early communication and dissemination of relevant and timely topics of interest. More than half of abstracts presented at...
IMPORTANCE
Conference proceedings are platforms for early communication and dissemination of relevant and timely topics of interest. More than half of abstracts presented at biomedical conferences fail to be published in full, resulting in wasted time and resources.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review reports evaluating the proportion of abstracts presented at eye and vision conferences that are subsequently published in full and investigate factors associated with publication.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and reference lists of included reports were systematically searched from inception to January 11, 2019.
STUDY SELECTION
Reports that examined the proportion of abstracts presented at eye and vision conferences and subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals 24 or more months later.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, abstracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the proportion of abstracts published in full and assess factors associated with subsequent full publication.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Proportion of abstracts presented at eye and vision conferences subsequently published in full.
RESULTS
There were 19 reports covering 12 261 abstracts presented at 11 unique eye and vision conferences. The overall risk of bias of the reports was low. The weighted proportion of abstracts published in full was 38.0% (95% CI, 31.7%-44.3%) and 54.9% (95% CI, 34.6%-73.7%) among reports restricted to abstracts describing randomized clinical trials. Nine reports (47.4%) investigated the proportion of abstracts subsequently published by ophthalmic subspecialties, ranging from 28.3% (oculoplastics: 95% CI, 17.2%-42.9%) to 42.7% (glaucoma: 95% CI, 34.7%-51.0%). Oral presentation (risk ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.20-1.76) and basic science (risk ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.47) were significantly associated with higher full publication; factors not significantly associated with full publication included positive results, randomized clinical trial vs other study design, multicenter study, and industry funding.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE
More than 60% of abstracts presented at eye and vision conferences were not published in full within 2 years of conference presentation. Failure to disseminate research studies in peer-reviewed journals is not desired, especially when involving human participants.
PubMed: 32352508
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.1264 -
PloS One 2016Incorrect knowledge of laws may affect how women enter the health system or seek services, and it likely contributes to the disconnect between official laws and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Incorrect knowledge of laws may affect how women enter the health system or seek services, and it likely contributes to the disconnect between official laws and practical applications of the laws that influence women's access to safe, legal abortion services.
OBJECTIVE
To provide a synthesis of evidence of women's awareness and knowledge of the legal status of abortion in their country, and the accuracy of women's knowledge on specific legal grounds and restrictions outlined in a country's abortion law.
METHODS
A systematic search was carried for articles published between 1980-2015. Quantitative, mixed-method data collection, and objectives related to women's awareness or knowledge of the abortion law was included. Full texts were assessed, and data extraction done by a single reviewer. Final inclusion for analysis was assessed by two reviewers. The results were synthesised into tables, using narrative synthesis.
RESULTS
Of the original 3,126 articles, and 16 hand searched citations, 24 studies were included for analysis. Women's correct general awareness and knowledge of the legal status was less than 50% in nine studies. In six studies, knowledge of legalization/liberalisation ranged between 32.3%-68.2%. Correct knowledge of abortion on the grounds of rape ranged from 12.8%-98%, while in the case of incest, ranged from 9.8%-64.5%. Abortion on the grounds of fetal impairment and gestational limits, varied widely from 7%-94% and 0%-89.5% respectively.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review synthesizes literature on women's awareness and knowledge of the abortion law in their own context. The findings show that correct general awareness and knowledge of the abortion law and legal grounds and restrictions amongst women was limited, even in countries where the laws were liberal. Thus, interventions to disseminate accurate information on the legal context are necessary.
Topics: Abortion, Legal; Awareness; Female; Humans; Knowledge
PubMed: 27010629
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152224 -
Health Informatics Journal Sep 2015This article reviews the peer-reviewed literature addressing the healthcare information available on YouTube. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined, and the... (Review)
Review
This article reviews the peer-reviewed literature addressing the healthcare information available on YouTube. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined, and the online databases PubMed and Web of Knowledge were searched using the search phrases: (1) YouTube* AND Health* and (2) YouTube* AND Healthcare*. In all, 18 articles were reviewed, with the results suggesting that (1) YouTube is increasingly being used as a platform for disseminating health information; (2) content and frame analysis were the primary techniques employed by researchers to analyze the characteristics of this information; (3) YouTube contains misleading information, primarily anecdotal, that contradicts the reference standards and the probability of a lay user finding such content is relatively high; (4) the retrieval of relevant videos is dependent on the search term used; and (5) videos from government organizations and professional associations contained trustworthy and high-quality information. YouTube is used as a medium for promoting unscientific therapies and drugs that are yet to be approved by the appropriate agencies and has the potential to change the beliefs of patients concerning controversial topics such as vaccinations. This review recognizes the need to design interventions to enable consumers to critically assimilate the information posted on YouTube with more authoritative information sources to make effective healthcare decisions.
Topics: Consumer Health Information; Health Education; Humans; Internet; Social Media
PubMed: 24670899
DOI: 10.1177/1460458213512220 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2023In the age of digitalization and big data, personal health information is a key resource for health care and clinical research. This study aimed to analyze the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In the age of digitalization and big data, personal health information is a key resource for health care and clinical research. This study aimed to analyze the determinants and describe the measurement of the willingness to disclose personal health information.
METHODS
The study conducted a systematic review of articles assessing willingness to share personal health information as a primary or secondary outcome. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis protocol. English and Italian peer-reviewed research articles were included with no restrictions for publication years. Findings were narratively synthesized.
RESULTS
The search strategy found 1,087 papers, 89 of which passed the screening for title and abstract and the full-text assessment.
CONCLUSION
No validated measurement tool has been developed for willingness to share personal health information. The reviewed papers measured it through surveys, interviews, and questionnaires, which were mutually incomparable. The secondary use of data was the most important determinant of willingness to share, whereas clinical and socioeconomic variables had a slight effect. The main concern discouraging data sharing was privacy, although good data anonymization and the high perceived benefits of sharing may overcome this issue.
Topics: Health Records, Personal; Privacy; Information Dissemination; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 37546309
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1213615 -
Health Technology Assessment... Feb 2010To identify and appraise empirical studies on publication and related biases published since 1998; to assess methods to deal with publication and related biases; and to... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To identify and appraise empirical studies on publication and related biases published since 1998; to assess methods to deal with publication and related biases; and to examine, in a random sample of published systematic reviews, measures taken to prevent, reduce and detect dissemination bias.
DATA SOURCES
The main literature search, in August 2008, covered the Cochrane Methodology Register Database, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and CINAHL. In May 2009, PubMed, PsycINFO and OpenSIGLE were also searched. Reference lists of retrieved studies were also examined.
REVIEW METHODS
In Part I, studies were classified as evidence or method studies and data were extracted according to types of dissemination bias or methods for dealing with it. Evidence from empirical studies was summarised narratively. In Part II, 300 systematic reviews were randomly selected from MEDLINE and the methods used to deal with publication and related biases were assessed.
RESULTS
Studies with significant or positive results were more likely to be published than those with non-significant or negative results, thereby confirming findings from a previous HTA report. There was convincing evidence that outcome reporting bias exists and has an impact on the pooled summary in systematic reviews. Studies with significant results tended to be published earlier than studies with non-significant results, and empirical evidence suggests that published studies tended to report a greater treatment effect than those from the grey literature. Exclusion of non-English-language studies appeared to result in a high risk of bias in some areas of research such as complementary and alternative medicine. In a few cases, publication and related biases had a potentially detrimental impact on patients or resource use. Publication bias can be prevented before a literature review (e.g. by prospective registration of trials), or detected during a literature review (e.g. by locating unpublished studies, funnel plot and related tests, sensitivity analysis modelling), or its impact can be minimised after a literature review (e.g. by confirmatory large-scale trials, updating the systematic review). The interpretation of funnel plot and related statistical tests, often used to assess publication bias, was often too simplistic and likely misleading. More sophisticated modelling methods have not been widely used. Compared with systematic reviews published in 1996, recent reviews of health-care interventions were more likely to locate and include non-English-language studies and grey literature or unpublished studies, and to test for publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Dissemination of research findings is likely to be a biased process, although the actual impact of such bias depends on specific circumstances. The prospective registration of clinical trials and the endorsement of reporting guidelines may reduce research dissemination bias in clinical research. In systematic reviews, measures can be taken to minimise the impact of dissemination bias by systematically searching for and including relevant studies that are difficult to access. Statistical methods can be useful for sensitivity analyses. Further research is needed to develop methods for qualitatively assessing the risk of publication bias in systematic reviews, and to evaluate the effect of prospective registration of studies, open access policy and improved publication guidelines.
Topics: Bias; Biomedical Research; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Information Dissemination; Publication Bias; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 20181324
DOI: 10.3310/hta14080 -
The Journal of Nutrition Dec 2013Significant efforts have been made to improve the nutritional support of preterm infants in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) to avoid cumulative nutritional... (Review)
Review
Significant efforts have been made to improve the nutritional support of preterm infants in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) to avoid cumulative nutritional deficits, reduce postnatal growth restriction, and promote optimal long-term development. The objective of this systematic review was to compare the characteristics and results of all surveys published in the past 10 y (2002-2012) that used a questionnaire to survey at least 2 NICUs receiving preterm infants with an intention to treat with parenteral nutrition (PN) and that reported information on at least 1 macronutrient. A total of 6 surveys were identified, which were conducted in the United States (n = 2) or Europe (n = 4). There was wide variability in the response rate (23-100%), with a higher response rate in the smaller studies (81-100%; 8-64 respondents) compared with the larger studies (23-58%; 296-809 respondents). Large differences were observed in the nutritional protocols both among the NICUs in the individual surveys and between surveys. PN was initiated on the first day of life (DOL) by only 24-54% of respondents (4 surveys) and within the second DOL by 67-94% of respondents (5 surveys). Lipids were initiated before the third DOL for 46-96% of respondents (3 surveys). The results of this systematic review suggest that continuous education is needed and that greater efforts are required to disseminate and implement guidelines. Repeated surveys are needed to highlight trends in clinical practices and level of compliance of NICUs with existing guidelines.
Topics: Europe; Guideline Adherence; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Lipids; Parenteral Nutrition; Practice Guidelines as Topic; United States
PubMed: 24108136
DOI: 10.3945/jn.113.176982