Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk

Moola, Sandeep; Munn, Zachary; Tufănaru, Cătălin; Aromataris, Edoardo; Sears, Kim; Sfetic, Raluca; Currie, Marian J.; Lisy, Karolina; Qureshi, Rubab; Mattis, Patrick; Mu, Pei Fan

doi:10.46658/jbirm-17-06

Cited by 1,363 publications

(1,356 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,055

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Randomized and quasi‐RCTs are considered together with 10 questions for critical appraisal; there are 9 questions to critically appraise comparable cohort/case‐control studies and 9 for descriptive/case series studies. The critical appraisal is incorporated into the analytical module of the JBI systematic review software, and guidance is provided for each instrument …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical appraisal of nonrandomized studies—A review of recommended and commonly used tools

Quigley

Thompson

Halfpenny

et al. 2018

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical appraisal of nonrandomized studies—A review of recommended and commonly used tools

Quigley

Thompson

Halfpenny

et al. 2018

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During this quality assessment process, the two authors followed the blind review protocol [ 34 ]. In detail, Cochrane Collaboration’s checklist was used to assess risk of bias for randomized control trials [ 35 ], as well as Joanna Brigg’s checklist for quasi-experimental [ 36 ] and cohort [ 37 ] studies. All disagreements were settled through discussions with a third member until consensus was reached.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions for increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake among African-American men: A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background African-American men have the lowest 5-year survival rate in the U.S. for colorectal cancer (CRC) of any racial group, which may partly stem from low screening adherence. It is imperative to synthesize the literature evaluating the effectiveness of interventions on CRC screening uptake in this population. Materials and methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for U.S.-based interventions that: were published after 1998–January 2020; included African-American men; and evaluated CRC screening uptake explicitly. Checklist by Cochrane Collaboration and Joanna Brigg were utilized to assess risk of bias, and meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were employed to identify the most effective interventions. Results Our final sample comprised 41 studies with 2 focused exclusively on African-American men. The most frequently adopted interventions were educational materials (39%), stool-based screening kits (14%), and patient navigation (11%). Most randomized controlled trials failed to provide details about the blinding of the participant recruitment method, allocation concealment method, and/or the outcome assessment. Due to high heterogeneity, meta-analysis was conducted among 17 eligible studies. Interventions utilizing stool-based kits or patient navigation were most effective at increasing CRC screening completion, with odds ratios of 9.60 (95% CI 2.89–31.82, p = 0.0002) and 2.84 (95% CI 1.23–6.49, p = 0.01). No evidence of publication bias was present for this study registered with the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019119510). Conclusions Additional research is warranted to uncover effective, affordable interventions focused on increasing CRC screening completion among African-American men. When designing and implementing future multicomponent interventions, employing 4 or fewer interventions types may reduce bias risk. Since only 5% of the interventions solely focused on African-American men, future theory-driven interventions should consider recruiting samples comprised solely of this population.

show abstract

“…Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by DS and checked in full by KT; any discrepancies were resolved through discussion between the reviewers and then if agreement could not be reached by consensus through consulting the project lead (AT). Quality appraisal was conducted using the checklist for analytical cross sectional studies produced by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) [ 21 ]. The checklist includes questions relating to sampling, inclusion criteria, confounding, types of outcomes and statistical analyses (Appendix B).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The breast cancer paradox: A systematic review of the association between area-level deprivation and breast cancer screening uptake in Europe

Smith

Thomson

Bambra

et al. 2019

Cancer Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk

Cited by 1,363 publications

References 0 publications

Critical appraisal of nonrandomized studies—A review of recommended and commonly used tools

Critical appraisal of nonrandomized studies—A review of recommended and commonly used tools

Interventions for increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake among African-American men: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The breast cancer paradox: A systematic review of the association between area-level deprivation and breast cancer screening uptake in Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About