A Process for Systematically Reviewing the Literature: Providing the Research Evidence for Public Health Nursing Interventions

Thomas, Betsy; Ciliska, Donna; Dobbins, Maureen; Micucci, Stephanie

doi:10.1111/j.1524-475x.2004.04006.x

Cited by 1,748 publications

(1,653 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,624

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This tool was selected for its comprehensive ability to assess the methodological quality of non‐randomized studies and has shown good reliability and validity 21, 22. A 3‐point scale was used for the following criteria: selection bias, study design, confounders, blinding, data collection methods, and study withdrawals.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The frequency of influenza and bacterial coinfection: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Klein

Monteforte

Gupta

et al. 2016

Influenza Resp Viruses

461

355

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimCoinfecting bacterial pathogens are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in influenza. However, there remains a paucity of literature on the magnitude of coinfection in influenza patients.MethodA systematic search of MeSH, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and PubMed was performed. Studies of humans in which all individuals had laboratory confirmed influenza, and all individuals were tested for an array of common bacterial species, met inclusion criteria.ResultsTwenty‐seven studies including 3215 participants met all inclusion criteria. Common etiologies were defined from a subset of eight articles. There was high heterogeneity in the results (I 2 = 95%), with reported coinfection rates ranging from 2% to 65%. Although only a subset of papers were responsible for observed heterogeneity, subanalyses and meta‐regression analysis found no study characteristic that was significantly associated with coinfection. The most common coinfecting species were Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus, which accounted for 35% (95% CI, 14%–56%) and 28% (95% CI, 16%–40%) of infections, respectively; a wide range of other pathogens caused the remaining infections. An assessment of bias suggested that lack of small‐study publications may have biased the results.ConclusionsThe frequency of coinfection in the published studies included in this review suggests that although providers should consider possible bacterial coinfection in all patients hospitalized with influenza, they should not assume all patients are coinfected and be sure to properly treat underlying viral processes. Further, high heterogeneity suggests additional large‐scale studies are needed to better understand the etiology of influenza bacterial coinfection.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The frequency of influenza and bacterial coinfection: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Klein

Monteforte

Gupta

et al. 2016

Influenza Resp Viruses

461

355

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Risk of bias was assessed for each study using accepted tools for cross-sectional study designs (National Institutes of Health, 2014;The Joanna Briggs Institute, 2016;Thomas, Ciliska, Dobbins, & Micucci, 2004). Items were adapted to the current question using pre-decided criteria, and updated, as needed, after the two assessors (KS, MM) had independently rated and discussed the first three papers (alphabetically) until agreement was reached.…”

Section: Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship between gluten free diet adherence and depressive symptoms in adults with coeliac disease: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Sainsbury

Marques

2018

Appetite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflicts of interest: none Funding: none 2The relationship between gluten free diet adherence and depressive symptoms in adults with coeliac disease: A systematic review with meta-analysis ABSTRACT Purpose: Depressive symptoms are common in patients with coeliac disease (CD) and may represent a barrier to gluten free diet (GFD) adherence. The aims of this meta-analysis were: (1) to synthesise the evidence on the relationship between depression or depressive symptoms and degree of adherence to a GFD in patients with CD who are already attempting a GFD (i.e., post-diagnosis and onset of GFD), and (2) to summarise the direction of causation of any observed relationship. Methods:A random effects meta-analysis of 8 cross-sectional studies (N=1644) was conducted.Included studies measured self-reported depressive symptoms and GFD adherence using either a dietitian interview or validated self-report questionnaire that considered unintentional gluten consumption.Results: There was a moderate association between poorer GFD adherence and greater depressive symptoms (r=0.398, 95% CI=0.321-0.469), with marked heterogeneity in the effects (I 2 =66.8%). A sensitivity analysis excluding studies with a moderate/high (k=1) or unclear risk of bias (k=1) did not change the results. Conclusion:The low number of studies meeting inclusion criteria limits the strength of the conclusions. Available evidence suggests there is an association between poorer GFD adherence and self-reported depressive symptoms; however, studies using longitudinal and prospective designs, and reliable measures, particularly for adherence, are needed to confirm this association. The direction of causation between depression and adherence remains unclear.

show abstract

“…Study quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) "Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies", developed for use in public health research [45] a robust tool with appropriate psychometric properties to adequately assess quality of evidence [46]. Included studies were assessed for homogeneity and synthesis via meta-analysis ruled out due to the extreme heterogeneity in participant selection criteria, interventions e.g.…”

Section: Data Extraction and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead a narrative analysis was conducted as a best case alternative, able to cope with this variation [50] using methodological guidance outlined in Thomas et al [45] and reported according to the framework recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (www.prismastatement.org), providing an analysis of the relationships within and between studies and an overall assessment of the robustness of the evidence.…”

Section: Data Extraction and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of bariatric surgery on long term psychosocial quality of life – A systematic review

Jumbe

Bartlett

Jumbe

et al. 2016

Obesity Research & Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Process for Systematically Reviewing the Literature: Providing the Research Evidence for Public Health Nursing Interventions

Cited by 1,748 publications

References 19 publications

The frequency of influenza and bacterial coinfection: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

The frequency of influenza and bacterial coinfection: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

The relationship between gluten free diet adherence and depressive symptoms in adults with coeliac disease: A systematic review with meta-analysis

The effectiveness of bariatric surgery on long term psychosocial quality of life – A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About