-
Indian Journal of Public Health 2023'Frailty' has no consensual definition till date, although the term occupies a pivotal role in geriatric medicine. A bibliometric analysis of the literature serves to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
'Frailty' has no consensual definition till date, although the term occupies a pivotal role in geriatric medicine. A bibliometric analysis of the literature serves to capture the keyword cooccurrences and linkages, co-citations, author collaborations, research trends and to present the extant research in a nutshell.
OBJECTIVE
To explore the usage of frailty, its domains in medical research and the evolution of the term to other disciplines through systematic mapping by bibliometric analysis.
METHODS
Literature search was done in the Scopus database using a pre-formed search strategy. 2629 documents were retrieved. Co-occurrence citation analysis using keywords and link strength was obtained using the VOSviewer ver.1.6.16. A three-field plot was constructed using 'biblioshiny' package of the R-studio to identify the various domains of frailty. Descriptive statistics were applied to identify the trends in frailty research, number of contributions from countries, fields of research involving frailty.
RESULTS
Total of 3739 publications were observed, with the USA having most number of contributions (740, 20%) as single country, while India has only 19 contributions (0.5%) in the past 20 years. As a region, Europe and Central Asia contributed to the maximum (1714, 46.4%), most of them being from the high-income countries. Research on frailty has steadily increased over the past two decades, with most of the researches being conducted in the fields of Medicine, Biochemistry and Genetics. Cooccurrence citations and three-field plots indicate the evolving usage of frailty in other domains, such as cognition, mental health, indicators of survival, risk assessment, mortality, and quality of life.
CONCLUSION
Upon exploring frailty, it also makes one wonder if frailty could be the cause for what is known as death due to 'natural causes' or 'old age'. The implementation of extension codes in the ICD-11 related to 'Ageing' (XT9T) and 'Old Age' (MG2A), paves way for researchers to further explore 'frailty' as a cause of mortality.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Aging; Bibliometrics; Biomedical Research; Frailty
PubMed: 37039219
DOI: 10.4103/ijph.ijph_962_22 -
BioMed Research International 2020Blood donation is a novel act to save the lives of people who face serious medical and surgical conditions. Since the demand for blood supply is too high, there is a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Blood donation is a novel act to save the lives of people who face serious medical and surgical conditions. Since the demand for blood supply is too high, there is a shortage of blood which causes significant morbidity and mortality. To increase blood supply and maintain adequate quantity of blood, regular and volunteer blood donation practice is needed, which meets the increased demand for blood. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed at assessing the prevalence of blood donation practices and associated factors in Ethiopia.
METHOD
PubMed/MEDLINE, HINARI, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, African Journals Online (AJOL), and published and unpublished articles from the Ethiopian University repository were searched to find articles. Cochrane statistics and Egger's test with funnel plots were done to check heterogeneity and publication bias, respectively. Subgroup analysis by region, study subjects, study setting, and sample size was done due to heterogeneity, as well as sensitivity analysis.
RESULT
Twenty studies from different regions with a total study subject of 8546 were included in the final review. The pooled prevalence of blood donation practice in Ethiopia was 25.82% (95% CI: 21.45-30.19). Having good knowledge of blood donation (AOR = 2.85; 95% CI: 2.33-3.48) and favorable attitude (AOR = 4.35; 95% CI: 2.93-6.45) were factors associated with blood donation practice in Ethiopia.
CONCLUSION
The pooled prevalence of blood donation practices in Ethiopia was short of the demand for blood due to the increase in serious medical conditions and road traffic accidents. Knowledge and attitude towards blood donation were significantly associated with blood donation practice. Therefore, awareness creation and health education programs targeting blood donation practice should be strengthened.
Topics: Blood Donors; Ethiopia; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Humans; Odds Ratio; Prevalence; Publication Bias
PubMed: 33294457
DOI: 10.1155/2020/8852342 -
BMJ Open Oct 2017We audited a selection of systematic reviews published in 2013 and reported on the proportion of reviews that researched for unpublished data, included unpublished data... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
We audited a selection of systematic reviews published in 2013 and reported on the proportion of reviews that researched for unpublished data, included unpublished data in analysis and assessed for publication bias.
DESIGN
Audit of systematic reviews.
DATA SOURCES
We searched PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013 for the following journals: , , , and the . We also searched the Cochrane Library and included 100 randomly selected Cochrane reviews.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Systematic reviews published in 2013 in the selected journals were included. Methodological reviews were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently reviewed each included systematic review. The following data were extracted: whether the review searched for grey literature or unpublished data, the sources searched, whether unpublished data were included in analysis, whether publication bias was assessed and whether there was evidence of publication bias.
MAIN FINDINGS
203 reviews were included for analysis. 36% (73/203) of studies did not describe any attempt to obtain unpublished studies or to search grey literature. 89% (116/130) of studies that sought unpublished data found them. 33% (68/203) of studies included an assessment of publication bias, and 40% (27/68) of these found evidence of publication bias.
CONCLUSION
A significant fraction of systematic reviews included in our study did not search for unpublished data. Publication bias may be present in almost half the published systematic reviews that assessed for it. Exclusion of unpublished data may lead to biased estimates of efficacy or safety in systematic reviews.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Data Collection; Humans; Publication Bias; Research Design; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28988181
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017737 -
PloS One 2021Before anti-EGFR therapy is given to patients with colorectal cancer, it is required to determine KRAS mutation status in tumor. When tumor tissue is not available,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The diagnostic accuracy of digital PCR, ARMS and NGS for detecting KRAS mutation in cell-free DNA of patients with colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Before anti-EGFR therapy is given to patients with colorectal cancer, it is required to determine KRAS mutation status in tumor. When tumor tissue is not available, cell-free DNA (liquid biopsy) is commonly used as an alternative. Due to the low abundance of tumor-derived DNA in cell-free DNA samples, methods with high sensitivity were preferred, including digital polymerase chain reaction, amplification refractory mutation system and next-generation sequencing. The aim of this systemic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the accuracy of those methods in detecting KRAS mutation in cell-free DNA sample from patients with colorectal cancer.
METHODS
Literature search was performed in Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. After removing duplicates from the 170 publications found by literature search, eligible studies were identified using pre-defined criteria. Quality of the publications and relevant data were assessed and extracted thereafter. Meta-DiSc and STATA softwares were used to pool the accuracy parameters from the extracted data.
RESULTS
A total of 33 eligible studies were identified for this systemic review and meta-analysis. After pooling, the overall sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.77 (95%CI: 0.74-0.79), 0.87 (95%CI: 0.85-0.89), and 23.96 (95%CI: 13.72-41.84), respectively. The overall positive and negative likelihood ratios were 5.55 (95%CI: 3.76-8.19) and 0.29 (95%CI: 0.21-0.38), respectively. Area under curve of the summarized ROC curve was 0.8992.
CONCLUSION
Digital polymerase chain reaction, amplification refractory mutation system, and next-generation sequencing had overall high accuracy in detecting KRAS mutation in cell-free DNA sample. Large prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to further convince the accuracy and usefulness of KRAS mutation detection using cfDNA/liquid biopsy samples in clinical practice.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020176682; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=176682.
Topics: Circulating Tumor DNA; Colorectal Neoplasms; High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing; Humans; Mutation; Odds Ratio; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras); Publication Bias; Publications; ROC Curve
PubMed: 33770081
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248775 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2009The tendency for authors to submit, and of journals to accept, manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of the study findings has been termed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The tendency for authors to submit, and of journals to accept, manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of the study findings has been termed publication bias.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the extent to which publication of a cohort of clinical trials is influenced by the statistical significance, perceived importance, or direction of their results.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library [Online] Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (1950 to March Week 2 2007), EMBASE (1980 to Week 11 2007) and Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (March 21 2007). We also searched the Science Citation Index (April 2007), checked reference lists of relevant articles and contacted researchers to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies containing analyses of the association between publication and the statistical significance or direction of the results (trial findings), for a cohort of registered clinical trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently extracted data. We classified findings as either positive (defined as results classified by the investigators as statistically significant (P < 0.05), or perceived as striking or important, or showing a positive direction of effect) or negative (findings that were not statistically significant (P >/= 0.05), or perceived as unimportant, or showing a negative or null direction in effect). We extracted information on other potential risk factors for failure to publish, when these data were available.
MAIN RESULTS
Five studies were included. Trials with positive findings were more likely to be published than trials with negative or null findings (odds ratio 3.90; 95% confidence interval 2.68 to 5.68). This corresponds to a risk ratio of 1.78 (95% CI 1.58 to 1.95), assuming that 41% of negative trials are published (the median among the included studies, range = 11% to 85%). In absolute terms, this means that if 41% of negative trials are published, we would expect that 73% of positive trials would be published.Two studies assessed time to publication and showed that trials with positive findings tended to be published after four to five years compared to those with negative findings, which were published after six to eight years. Three studies found no statistically significant association between sample size and publication. One study found no significant association between either funding mechanism, investigator rank, or sex and publication.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Trials with positive findings are published more often, and more quickly, than trials with negative findings.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Publication Bias
PubMed: 19160345
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Mar 2021Knowledge about the magnitude of Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) impairment across dental patient populations is essential for clinical practice, public... (Review)
Review
Dental patients' functional, pain-related, aesthetic, and psychosocial impact of oral conditions on quality of life-Project overview, data collection, quality assessment, and publication bias.
BACKGROUND
Knowledge about the magnitude of Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) impairment across dental patient populations is essential for clinical practice, public health and research. Within the project Mapping Oral Disease Impact with a Common Metric, this systematic review aimed to describe functional, pain-related, aesthetic and broader psychosocial impact of oral conditions with a single metric using OHRQoL dimensions Oral Function, Oro facial Pain, Oro facial Appearance and Psychosocial Impact.
METHODS
A search using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL and PsycINFO was performed on 8 June 2017, and updated on 14 January 2019. Only publications in the English language were considered. To characterise the extent of available standardised and clinically relevant OHRQoL information, we determined the number of publications, dental patient populations, which are clinically similar, and patient samples within each population with four-dimensional OHRQoL information using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) questionnaire. A quality assessment and a publication bias assessment were performed.
RESULTS
We identified 171 publications that characterised 199 dental populations and 329 patient samples with four-dimensional OHRQoL information. The vast majority of populations were only characterised by one patient sample. Study quality was not related to OHRQoL magnitude, and substantial publication bias could be excluded.
CONCLUSIONS
Standardised and clinically relevant information using the four OHRQoL dimensions Oral Function, Oro facial Pain, Oro facial Appearance and Psychosocial Impact was available for a significant number of dental patient populations. Findings can provide a framework to interpret OHRQoL impairment of individual patients, or groups of patients, for clinical practice, public health and research.
Topics: Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Oral Health; Publication Bias; Quality of Life; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 32628288
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13045 -
Family Medicine and Community Health Nov 2022Artificial intelligence (AI) will have a significant impact on healthcare over the coming decade. At the same time, health inequity remains one of the biggest...
OBJECTIVE
Artificial intelligence (AI) will have a significant impact on healthcare over the coming decade. At the same time, health inequity remains one of the biggest challenges. Primary care is both a driver and a mitigator of health inequities and with AI gaining traction in primary care, there is a need for a holistic understanding of how AI affect health inequities, through the act of providing care and through potential system effects. This paper presents a systematic scoping review of the ways AI implementation in primary care may impact health inequity.
DESIGN
Following a systematic scoping review approach, we searched for literature related to AI, health inequity, and implementation challenges of AI in primary care. In addition, articles from primary exploratory searches were added, and through reference screening.The results were thematically summarised and used to produce both a narrative and conceptual model for the mechanisms by which social determinants of health and AI in primary care could interact to either improve or worsen health inequities.Two public advisors were involved in the review process.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Peer-reviewed publications and grey literature in English and Scandinavian languages.
INFORMATION SOURCES
PubMed, SCOPUS and JSTOR.
RESULTS
A total of 1529 publications were identified, of which 86 met the inclusion criteria. The findings were summarised under six different domains, covering both positive and negative effects: (1) access, (2) trust, (3) dehumanisation, (4) agency for self-care, (5) algorithmic bias and (6) external effects. The five first domains cover aspects of the interface between the patient and the primary care system, while the last domain covers care system-wide and societal effects of AI in primary care. A graphical model has been produced to illustrate this. Community involvement throughout the whole process of designing and implementing of AI in primary care was a common suggestion to mitigate the potential negative effects of AI.
CONCLUSION
AI has the potential to affect health inequities through a multitude of ways, both directly in the patient consultation and through transformative system effects. This review summarises these effects from a system tive and provides a base for future research into responsible implementation.
Topics: Humans; Artificial Intelligence; Health Inequities; Gray Literature; PubMed; Primary Health Care
PubMed: 36450391
DOI: 10.1136/fmch-2022-001670 -
BMJ Open Oct 2023Prospectively registering study plans in a permanent time-stamped and publicly accessible document is becoming more common across disciplines and aims to reduce risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Prospectively registering study plans in a permanent time-stamped and publicly accessible document is becoming more common across disciplines and aims to reduce risk of bias and make risk of bias transparent. Selective reporting persists, however, when researchers deviate from their registered plans without disclosure. This systematic review aimed to estimate the prevalence of undisclosed discrepancies between prospectively registered study plans and their associated publication. We further aimed to identify the research disciplines where these discrepancies have been observed, whether interventions to reduce discrepancies have been conducted, and gaps in the literature.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analyses.
DATA SOURCES
Scopus and Web of Knowledge, published up to 15 December 2019.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Articles that included quantitative data about discrepancies between registrations or study protocols and their associated publications.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Each included article was independently coded by two reviewers using a coding form designed for this review (osf.io/728ys). We used random-effects meta-analyses to synthesise the results.
RESULTS
We reviewed k=89 articles, which included k=70 that reported on primary outcome discrepancies from n=6314 studies and, k=22 that reported on secondary outcome discrepancies from n=1436 studies. Meta-analyses indicated that between 29% and 37% (95% CI) of studies contained at least one primary outcome discrepancy and between 50% and 75% (95% CI) contained at least one secondary outcome discrepancy. Almost all articles assessed clinical literature, and there was considerable heterogeneity. We identified only one article that attempted to correct discrepancies.
CONCLUSIONS
Many articles did not include information on whether discrepancies were disclosed, which version of a registration they compared publications to and whether the registration was prospective. Thus, our estimates represent discrepancies broadly, rather than our target of discrepancies between registered study plans and their associated publications. Discrepancies are common and reduce the trustworthiness of medical research. Interventions to reduce discrepancies could prove valuable.
REGISTRATION
osf.io/ktmdg. Protocol amendments are listed in online supplemental material A.
Topics: Humans; Prospective Studies; Prevalence; Bias; Publication Bias; Biomedical Research
PubMed: 37793922
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076264 -
BMC Health Services Research Nov 2014When the nature and direction of research results affect their chances of publication, a distortion of the evidence base - termed publication bias - results. Despite... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
When the nature and direction of research results affect their chances of publication, a distortion of the evidence base - termed publication bias - results. Despite considerable recent efforts to implement measures to reduce the non-publication of trials, publication bias is still a major problem in medical research. The objective of our study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to prevent or reduce publication bias.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed the scholarly literature and extracted data from articles. Further, we performed semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. We performed an inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias.
RESULTS
The systematic review identified 39 articles. Thirty-four of 89 invited interview partners agreed to be interviewed. We clustered interventions into four categories: prospective trial registration, incentives for reporting in peer-reviewed journals or research reports, public availability of individual patient-level data, and peer-review/editorial processes. Barriers we identified included economic and personal interests, lack of financial resources for a global comprehensive trial registry, and different legal systems. Facilitators identified included: raising awareness of the effects of publication bias, providing incentives to make data publically available, and implementing laws to enforce prospective registration and reporting of clinical trial results.
CONCLUSIONS
Publication bias is a complex problem that reflects the complex system in which it occurs. The cooperation amongst stakeholders to increase public awareness of the problem, better tailoring of incentives to publish, and ultimately legislative regulations have the greatest potential for reducing publication bias.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Humans; Peer Review; Prospective Studies; Publication Bias; Publishing; Registries; Research Report; Surveys and Questionnaires; United Kingdom
PubMed: 25719959
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-014-0551-z -
BMC Medical Research Methodology Apr 2012Prognostic factors are associated with the risk of a subsequent outcome in people with a given disease or health condition. Meta-analysis using individual participant... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Prognostic factors are associated with the risk of a subsequent outcome in people with a given disease or health condition. Meta-analysis using individual participant data (IPD), where the raw data are synthesised from multiple studies, has been championed as the gold-standard for synthesising prognostic factor studies. We assessed the feasibility and conduct of this approach.
METHODS
A systematic review to identify published IPD meta-analyses of prognostic factors studies, followed by detailed assessment of a random sample of 20 articles published from 2006. Six of these 20 articles were from the IMPACT (International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in traumatic brain injury) collaboration, for which additional information was also used from simultaneously published companion papers.
RESULTS
Forty-eight published IPD meta-analyses of prognostic factors were identified up to March 2009. Only three were published before 2000 but thereafter a median of four articles exist per year, with traumatic brain injury the most active research field. Availability of IPD offered many advantages, such as checking modelling assumptions; analysing variables on their continuous scale with the possibility of assessing for non-linear relationships; and obtaining results adjusted for other variables. However, researchers also faced many challenges, such as large cost and time required to obtain and clean IPD; unavailable IPD for some studies; different sets of prognostic factors in each study; and variability in study methods of measurement. The IMPACT initiative is a leading example, and had generally strong design, methodological and statistical standards. Elsewhere, standards are not always as high and improvements in the conduct of IPD meta-analyses of prognostic factor studies are often needed; in particular, continuous variables are often categorised without reason; publication bias and availability bias are rarely examined; and important methodological details and summary results are often inadequately reported.
CONCLUSIONS
IPD meta-analyses of prognostic factors are achievable and offer many advantages, as displayed most expertly by the IMPACT initiative. However such projects face numerous logistical and methodological obstacles, and their conduct and reporting can often be substantially improved.
Topics: Data Interpretation, Statistical; Feasibility Studies; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Prognosis; Publication Bias
PubMed: 22530717
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-56