Conducting separate reviews of benefits and harms could improve systematic reviews and meta-analyses
AbstractGuidance for systematic reviews of interventions recommends both benefits and harms be included. Systematic reviews may reach conclusions about harms (or lack of harms) that are not true when reviews include only some relevant studies, rely on incomplete data from eligible studies, use inappropriate methods for synthesizing data, and report results selectively. Separate reviews about harms could address some of these problems, and we argue that conducting separate reviews of harms is a feasible alternative to current standards and practices. Systematic reviews of potential benefits could be organized around the use...
Source: Systematic Reviews - April 15, 2023 Category: International Medicine & Public Health Source Type: research
Usefulness of machine learning softwares to screen titles of systematic reviews: a methodological study
ConclusionRayyan ®, Abstrackr® and Colandr® are useful tools and provided good metric performance results for systematic title screening. Rayyan® appears to be the best ranked on the quantitative and on the raters’ perspective evaluation. The most important finding of this study is that the use of software to screen titles does not remove any title that would meet the inclusion criteria for the final review, being valuable resources to facilitate the screening process. (Source: Systematic Reviews)
Source: Systematic Reviews - April 15, 2023 Category: International Medicine & Public Health Source Type: research
Over 40 years (1981–2023) assessing stigma with the Community Attitudes to Mental Illness (CAMI) scale: a systematic review of its psychometric properties
ConclusionsThe 3 and 4 factor structure are the most widely reported in the different versions of the CAMI. Even though reliability and construct validity are acceptable, further item refinement by international consensus seems warranted more than 40 years after the original publication.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO identification number: CRD42018098956. (Source: Systematic Reviews)
Source: Systematic Reviews - April 14, 2023 Category: International Medicine & Public Health Source Type: research
The effects of rice bran supplementation for management of blood lipids: A GRADE-assessed systematic review, dose –response meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomized controlled trials
ConclusionOur meta-analysis suggests that rice bran supplementation has no significant effects on serum levels of lipid profile components. However, larger studies with longer durations and improved methodological quality are needed before firm conclusions can be reached. (Source: Systematic Reviews)
Source: Systematic Reviews - April 12, 2023 Category: International Medicine & Public Health Source Type: research
Anxiety among children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: a systematic review protocol
DiscussionThis systematic review will address the lack of a critical and comprehensive summary of findings on the COVID-19 pandemic impact on anxiety among children and adolescents in Europe. In addition, it aims to identify pandemic-policy differences, such as the effect of school-closures, and identify particularly vulnerable risk groups.Systematic review registrationCRD42022303714 (PROSPERO). (Source: Systematic Reviews)
Source: Systematic Reviews - April 11, 2023 Category: International Medicine & Public Health Source Type: research
