The effect of acupuncture and intervention types for treatment of cancer pain: a scoping review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

AbstractThis scoping review used social mentality theory (SMT) as a framework to identify and integrate relevant eating disorder systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic search of the PsycINFO database was conducted, using terms from SMT and eating disorder literature. Eighteen systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Findings suggest that those with eating disorders also experience a number of relationship difficulties, in childhood and/or adulthood, related to attachment style, caregiver experiences, family functioning, social rank, social cognition, and self-compassion. The identification of these social difficulties is established in the eating disorder literature. SMT can provide a theoretical framework to understand how evolved motives to relate to others may contribute to these difficulties.

Objetivos: Resumir as informações publicadas acerca dos problemas de coagulação em adultos com SARS-CoV-2, incluindo características, fisiopatologia, diagnóstico e resposta ao uso profilático ou terapêutico de anticoagulantes ou antiagregantes plaquetários. Métodos: Realizada uma revisão abrangente, de acordo com as guidelines Joanna Briggs Institute Guidelines on Scoping Reviews e Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review guidelines (PRISMA-ScR). Efetuada pesquisa nas bases de dados MEDLINE®, SciELO® e Web of Science® entre 1 e 2 de maio de 2020. A seleção dos artigos foi dividida em etapas sequenciais considerando: título, resumo e artigo integral. Em cada etapa os artigos foram aceites ou rejeitados tendo em conta os critérios de inclusão e exclusão. Foi feito o mapeamento dos dados e a evidência relevante foi sumarizada. Resultados: Após seleção obtiveram-se 106 artigos. Destes, 36 correspondiam a cartas, 28 a estudos originais, 25 a revisões e 14 a relatos de caso; uma meta-análise, um comentário e um consenso também foram incluídos. Os resultados mostraram associação entre COVID-19 e complicações trombóticas, embora com diferentes tipos de eventos e taxas de frequência. A tríade inflamação, disfunção endotelial e coagulopatia parecem estar subjacentes às alterações fisiopatológicas. As técnicas laboratoriais e de imagem podem ser úteis para uma intervenção adequada. A profilaxia com anticoagulantes parentéricos, preferencialmente heparina de baixo peso molecular (HBPM) em dose intermédia, entre as comummente utilizadas para profilaxia ou tratamento, está indicada em pacientes hospitalizados, especialmente com doença grave. Deve ser mantida por um período variável após a alta, dependendo do doente. A anticoagulação terapêutica parece não diferir de outras situações previamente conhecidas. Conclusões: Várias incertezas persistem na abordagem dos problemas da coagulação em pacientes com infeção por SARS-CoV-2. As informações existentes dizem respeito principalmente ao contexto hospitalar e têm origem em fontes pouco robustas. Assim, são necessários ensaios clínicos aleatorizados e controlados para sustentar as decisões clínicas em todos os estadios.

The increasing amount of evidence has caused an increasing amount of literature reviews. There are different types of reviews —systematic reviews are the best known—, and every type of review has different purposes. The scoping review is a recent model that aims to answer broad questions and identify and expose the available evidence for a broader question, using a rigorous and reproducible method. In the last two decades, researchers have discussed the most appropriate method to carry out scoping reviews, and recently the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guideline was published. This is the fifth article of a methodological collaborative series of narrative reviews about general topics on biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. This review aims to describe what scoping reviews are, identify their objectives, differentiate them from other types of reviews, and provide considerations on how to carry them out.

Introduction: Short femoral stems were designed to bridge the gap between conventional straight design stems and hip resurfacing prostheses in total hip arthroplasty (THA). A number of clinical trials have been recently conducted to assess the clinical and safety profile of the cementless, colarless, tapered Metha short hip stem in young or active middle-aged individuals. Methods: A systematic scoping review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. 4 reviewers independently conducted the search using the MEDLINE/PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. These databases were queried with the terms “short” AND “hip” AND “stem”. Results: From the initial 773 studies we finally chose 12 studies after applying our inclusion-exclusion criteria. The number of operated hips that were included in these studies was 5048 (mean BMI range: 22.7–35.2, mean age range: 44.4–60.4 years, mean follow-up range: 2–9 years). The mean modified Coleman methodology score was 52.3/100, while it ranged from 31/100 to 63/100. All mean clinical outcome scores that were used in the studies illustrated significant postoperative improvement when compared with the respective initial values. The revision rate of the Metha stem for component-related reasons was 2.5%, while the rate of major complications not requiring revision of the Metha stem was 2.8%. Conclusions: The Metha stem performs well in young or active middle-aged THA patients. Further studies are required for the assessment of the long-term results.

ObjectiveThe aim of this scoping review was to map evidence gathered through systematic reviews regarding adult attachment and mental health difficulties. This review highlights established, emerging, and inconsistent findings, suggesting areas for future research, and implications for theory and practice.MethodsA systematic search for meta-analyses and systematic reviews measuring adult attachment and concerning mental health difficulties was conducted. In total, 17 studies met the selection criteria.ResultsFindings were presented according to four identified themes, (1) measurement of attachment; (2) measurement of mental health difficulty; (3) intrapersonal processes related to attachment and mental health difficulties; and (4) interpersonal processes related to attachment and mental health difficulties.ConclusionsThis review highlights the connection between attachment style and mental health difficulties, and suggests that relationships can facilitate both mental health and illheath. However, the mechanisms through which insecure attachment confers risk for mental health difficulties require further research.

Enquadramento: a implementação da gestão do conhecimento nas organizações hospitalares é considerada um elemento essencial de uma boa governação, que permite dar resposta aos desafios que surgem diariamente com maior facilidade, efetividade e eficiência. Contudo, existem inúmeros fatores influenciadores da implementação deste conceito de interesse nas organizações hospitalares, sendo pertinente identificá-los. Objetivo: mapear os fatores que influenciam a implementação da gestão do conhecimento no contexto hospitalar pelos clínicos e pelos gestores em saúde. Metodologia: scoping review realizada segundo: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Foi realizada uma pesquisa em bases de dados científicas sem restrição ao espaço temporal e nos idiomas português, inglês e espanhol. O processo de seleção de estudos, extração de dados e síntese da informação foi concretizado apenas por um autor. Resultados: através dos quatro estudos incluídos nesta revisão, foi possível identificar 16 fatores influenciadores da implementação da gestão do conhecimento em contexto hospitalar pelos clínicos e gestores em saúde. Conclusão: o mapeamento dos fatores influenciadores permite o desenvolvimento de estratégias organizacionais para potenciar ou colmatar os mesmos, tendo em vista ganhos em saúde e uma boa governação hospitalar. Também serão necessários mais estudos primários, essencialmente em contexto português

IntroductionVulnerable populations face significant challenges in navigating the care continuum, ranging from diagnosis of illness to linkage and retention in healthcare. Understanding how best to move individuals within these vulnerable populations across the care continuum is critical to improving their health. A large body of literature has focused on evaluation of implementation of various health-focused interventions in this population. However, we do not fully understand the unique challenges to implementing healthcare interventions for vulnerable populations. This study aims to examine the literature describing implementation of health service interventions among vulnerable populations to identify how implementations using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research are adapted. Findings from this review will be useful to implementation scientists to identify gaps in evidence and for adapting similar interventions in unique settings.Methods and analysisThis study protocol outlines a scoping review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature, using established approaches delineated in Arksey and O'Malley’s scoping review framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. Search strategies will be developed and refined by a medical librarian in collaboration with the research team. Searches will be conducted in electronic databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, PsychINFO, PubMed, Social Services Abstracts, Web of Science, Google and Google Scholar) and limited to studies published between 1 August 2009 and 1 June 2020. Additionally, hand searches will be conducted in three relevant journals—Implementation Science, Systematic Reviews and BMJ Open. English-language studies and reports meeting inclusion criteria will be screened independently by two reviewers and the final list will be abstracted and charted in duplicate.Ethics and disseminationThis is a review of the literature; ethics approval is not indicated. We will disseminate findings from this study in peer-reviewed journals as well as presentations to relevant stakeholders and conferences.

AimThe aim of this study was to systematically appraise the quality of a sample of COVID-19-related systematic reviews (SRs) and discuss internal validity threats affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence.DesignWe conducted a scoping review of the literature. SRs with or without meta-analysis (MA) that evaluated clinical data, outcomes or treatments for patients with COVID-19 were included.Main outcome measuresWe extracted quality characteristics guided by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 to calculate a qualitative score. Complementary evaluation of the most prominent published limitations affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence was performed.ResultsA total of 63 SRs were included. The majority were judged as a critically low methodological quality. Most of the studies were not guided by a pre-established protocol (39, 62%). More than half (39, 62%) failed to address risk of bias when interpreting their results. A comprehensive literature search strategy was reported in most SRs (54, 86%). Appropriate use of statistical methods was evident in nearly all SRs with MAs (39, 95%). Only 16 (33%) studies recognised heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19 as a limitation of the study, and 15 (24%) recognised repeated patient populations as a limitation.ConclusionThe methodological and reporting quality of current COVID-19 SR is far from optimal. In addition, most of the current SRs fail to address relevant threats to their internal validity, including repeated patients and heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19. Adherence to proper study design and peer-review practices must remain to mitigate current limitations.

Introduction: Working from home (WFH) remotely is a modality of working that requires the careful design of systems of rules and tools to enable people to exchange information and perform actions. WFH is expected to expand after the COVID-19 pandemic, and how best to reliably assess and compare the experience of workers with different (sociotechnical) systems of WFH is central to the diffusion of acceptable modalities of remote working. However, the concept of experience and how it can be measured in the domain in WFH is yet to be clearly characterized.Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology for scoping reviews, we systematically map the approaches used by researchers to assess WFH, identify which aspects are usually investigated, and examine how such aspects are usually measured in terms of questions and tools. Literature is collected using Scopus and Web of Science.Results: Thirty-four records out of 323 focusing either on validating a scale, presenting theoretically the experience of workers or testing this empirically are included in the qualitative synthesis. The results highlight a lack of unified terminology and tools, with assessments of workers’ experience mainly characterized by survey approaches and qualitative questions. Conclusion: Clustering together the most investigated aspects in the literature and reviewing how these aspects are assessed, we propose a list of 10 relevant overarching dimensions and attempt to define workers’ experience in the domain of WFH remotely. This definition can be used as a tool by researchers aiming to assess the experience of workers in order to inform the design or redesign of the sociotechnical systems that enable WFH.