Objective: This review will evaluate the effectiveness of alternative versus traditional forms of exercise on cardiac rehabilitation program utilization and other outcomes in women with or at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Introduction: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation programs improve health outcomes in women with or at high risk of cardiovascular disease. However, such programs are underutilized worldwide, particularly among women. Some women perceive traditional gym-based exercise in cardiac rehabilitation programs (eg, typically treadmills or cycle ergometers, or traditional resistance training) to be excessively rigorous and unpleasant, resulting in diminished participation and completion. Alternative forms of exercise such as yoga, tai chi, qi gong, or Pilates may be more enjoyable and motivating exercise options for women, enhancing engagement in rehabilitation programs. However, the effectiveness of these alternative exercises in improving program utilization is still inconsistent and needs to be systematically evaluated and synthesized. Inclusion criteria: This review will focus on randomized controlled trials. The review will include studies measuring the effectiveness of alternative versus traditional forms of exercise on cardiac rehabilitation program utilization as well as clinical, physiological, or patient-reported outcomes in women with or at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Methods: The review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Databases including MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase (Ovid), Emcare (Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, and PsycINFO (Ovid) will be searched. Two independent reviewers will screen articles and then extract and synthesize data. Methodological quality will be assessed using JBI’s standardized instruments. GRADE will be used to determine the certainty of evidence. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42022354996

No abstract

To evaluate the effectiveness of bowel preparation innovative technology instructions (BPITIs) among patients undergoing colonoscopy. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs from inception to February 28, 2022. The Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool and GRADE were used to assess RoB and certainty of evidence, respectively. Meta-analyses with random-effects model were used for analysis. This review included 47 RCTs (84 records). Seven BPITIs were found among included studies: (1) mobile apps, (2) VDO stream from personal devices, (3) VDO stream from a hospital device, (4) SMS re-education, (5) telephone re-education, (6) computer-based education, and (7) web-based education. The findings demonstrate that BPITIs have a slight impact on adherence to overall instructions (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.13–1.28; moderate-certainty evidence), adequate bowel preparation (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.07–1.13; low-certainty evidence), and quality of bowel preparation score (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.33–0.52; low-certainty evidence) compared to routine care. BPITIs may enhance the clinical outcomes. Due to the low-certainty evidence and heterogeneity of the included studies, the findings should be interpreted cautiously. Well-designed and reported RCTs are required to confirm the findings.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021217846.

No abstract