BackgroundScoping reviews are used to identify knowledge gaps, set research agendas, and identify implications for decision-making. The conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is inconsistent in the literature. We conducted a scoping review to identify: papers that utilized and/or described scoping review methods; guidelines for reporting scoping reviews; and studies that assessed the quality of reporting of scoping reviews.MethodsWe searched nine electronic databases for published and unpublished literature scoping review papers, scoping review methodology, and reporting guidance for scoping reviews. Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion. Data abstraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative (e.g. frequencies of methods) and qualitative (i.e. content analysis of the methods) syntheses were conducted.ResultsAfter searching 1525 citations and 874 full-text papers, 516 articles were included, of which 494 were scoping reviews. The 494 scoping reviews were disseminated between 1999 and 2014, with 45 % published after 2012. Most of the scoping reviews were conducted in North America (53 %) or Europe (38 %), and reported a public source of funding (64 %). The number of studies included in the scoping reviews ranged from 1 to 2600 (mean of 118). Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology guidance for scoping reviews, only 13 % of the scoping reviews reported the use of a protocol, 36 % used two reviewers for selecting citations for inclusion, 29 % used two reviewers for full-text screening, 30 % used two reviewers for data charting, and 43 % used a pre-defined charting form. In most cases, the results of the scoping review were used to identify evidence gaps (85 %), provide recommendations for future research (84 %), or identify strengths and limitations (69 %). We did not identify any guidelines for reporting scoping reviews or studies that assessed the quality of scoping review reporting.ConclusionThe number of scoping reviews conducted per year has steadily increased since 2012. Scoping reviews are used to inform research agendas and identify implications for policy or practice. As such, improvements in reporting and conduct are imperative. Further research on scoping review methodology is warranted, and in particular, there is need for a guideline to standardize reporting.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Exercise alone and various combinations of interventions were associated with lower risk of injurious falls compared with usual care. Choice of fall-prevention intervention may depend on patient and caregiver values and preferences.
High cereal fibre intake is associated with reduced risk for type 2 diabetes, but wheat fibre had little or no effect on glycaemic control or oral glucose tolerance in clinical trials lasting 4 -12 weeks. To explain this discrepancy, we hypothesised that colonic adaptation to increased wheat fibre intake takes many months but eventually results in increased SCFA production and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) secretion. Thus, the primary objective was to determine the time-course of the effects of increased wheat fibre intake on plasma acetate, butyrate and GLP-1 concentrations in hyperinsulinaemic human subjects over 1 year. Subjects with fasting plasma insulin $ 40 pmol/l were randomly assigned by computer to receive either a high-wheat fibre cereal (fibre group; 24 g fibre/d; twenty assigned; six dropped out, fourteen included) or a lowfibre cereal (control group; twenty assigned; six dropped-out, fourteen included) daily for 1 year. Acetate, butyrate and GLP-1 were measured during 8 h metabolic profiles performed every 3 months. There were no differences in body weight in the fibre group compared with the control group. After 9 months baseline-adjusted mean 8 h acetate and butyrate concentrations were higher on the high-fibre than the control cereal (P, 0·05). After 12 months on the high-fibre cereal, baseline-adjusted mean plasma GLP-1 was 1·3 (95 % CI 0·4, 2·2) pmol/l (P, 0·05) higher than at baseline (about 25 % increase) and 1·4 (95 % CI 0·1, 2·7) pmol/l (P,0·05) higher than after 12 months on control. It is concluded that wheat fibre increased SCFA production and GLP-1 secretion in hyperinsulinaemic humans, but these effects took 9 -12 months to develop. Since GLP-1 may increase insulin sensitivity and secretion, these results may provide a mechanism for the epidemiological association between high cereal fibre intake and reduced risk for diabetes. High cereal fibre intake is linked to reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes, increased insulin sensitivity and reduced weight gain (1 -3) . The source of cereal fibre in these studies is not clear, but the majority is probably wheat fibre; about 70 % of the servings of foods in the highest quintile of cereal fibre intake in US nurses consisted of dark bread, wheat germ and wheat bran (4) , and, in Europe, cereal fibre intake was more strongly correlated with wholegrain bread (r 0·71) than muesli (r 0·34) (3)
Objective To examine the safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of long acting insulin for type 1 diabetes.Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sources Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and grey literature were searched through January 2013.Study selection Randomized controlled trials or non-randomized studies of long acting (glargine, detemir) and intermediate acting (neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), lente) insulin for adults with type 1 diabetes were included.Results 39 studies (27 randomized controlled trials including 7496 patients) were included after screening of 6501 titles/abstracts and 190 full text articles. Glargine once daily, detemir once daily, and detemir once/twice daily significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c compared with NPH once daily in network meta-analysis (26 randomized controlled trials, mean difference −0.39%, 95% confidence interval −0.59% to −0.19%; −0.26%, −0.48% to −0.03%; and −0.36%, −0.65% to −0.08%; respectively). Differences in network meta-analysis were observed between long acting and intermediate acting insulin for severe hypoglycemia (16 randomized controlled trials; detemir once/twice daily versus NPH once/twice daily: odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.91) and weight gain (13 randomized controlled trials; detemir once daily versus NPH once/twice daily: mean difference 4.04 kg, 3.06 to 5.02 kg; detemir once/twice daily versus NPH once daily: −5.51 kg, −6.56 to −4.46 kg; glargine once daily versus NPH once daily: −5.14 kg, −6.07 to −4.21). Compared with NPH, detemir was less costly and more effective in 3/14 cost effectiveness analyses and glargine was less costly and more effective in 2/8 cost effectiveness analyses. The remaining cost effectiveness analyses found that detemir and glargine were more costly but more effective than NPH. Glargine was not cost effective compared with detemir in 2/2 cost effectiveness analyses.Conclusions Long acting insulin analogs are probably superior to intermediate acting insulin analogs, although the difference is small for hemoglobin A1c. Patients and their physicians should tailor their choice of insulin according to preference, cost, and accessibility.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42013003610.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.