Complicities

Distiller, Natasha

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-79675-4

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two reviewers will abstract the data independently using a standardised data extraction form in the insightScope platform. 68 Authors will be contacted if relevant data or information is missing.…”

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It will be pilot tested by two reviewers using a sample of five reports, prior to initiation of data collection for the full set of included studies. Two reviewers will abstract the data independently using a standardised data extraction form in the insightScope platform 68. Authors will be contacted if relevant data or information is missing.…”

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies and patient-centred outcomes after surgery: a scoping review protocol

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionFor close to a century opioid administration has been a standard of care to complement anaesthesia during surgery. Considering the worldwide opioid epidemic, this practice is now being challenged and there is a growing use of systemic pharmacological opioid minimising strategies. Our aim is to conduct a scoping review that will examine clinical trials that have evaluated the impact of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies on patient-centred outcomes and identify promising strategies.Methods and analysisOur scoping review will follow the framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and CINAHL from their inception approximately in March 2023. We will include randomised controlled trials, assessing the impact of systemic intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies on patient-centred outcomes. We define an opioid minimisation strategy as any non-opioid drug with antinociceptive properties administered during the intraoperative period. Patient-centred outcomes will be defined and classified based on the consensus definitions established by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative (StEP-COMPAC group) and informed by knowledge users and patient partners. We will use a coproduction approach involving interested parties. Our multidisciplinary team includes knowledge users, patient partners, methodologists and knowledge user organisations. Knowledge users will provide input on methods, outcomes, clinical significance of findings, implementation and feasibility. Patient partners will participate in assessing the relevance of our design, methods and outcomes and help to facilitate evidence translation. We will provide a thorough description of available clinical trials, compare their reported patient-centred outcome measures with established recommendations and identify promising strategies.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for the review. Our scoping review will inform future research including clinical trials and systematic reviews through identification of important intraoperative interventions. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, presentation at conferences and through our network of knowledge user collaborators.RegistrationOpen Science Foundation (currently embargoed)

show abstract

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies and patient-centred outcomes after surgery: a scoping review protocol

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As recommended by the Cochrane Handbook, we will use the most recent Cochrane risk of bias tool, the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 Tool 20 (RoB 2 – 22 August 2019 version) to assess the risk of bias in included trials. The evaluation will be done using pre-tested, web-based forms using DistillerSR software 21 . The risk of bias will be assessed for each outcome separately – pain intensity and functional limitations (our outcomes of interest and the most relevant core domains in low back pain 22 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To improve inter-rater reliability, all team members participated in a two-stage calibration exercise facilitated by the Exercise for chronic low back pain Network Review (forthcoming, Hayden et al, 2022) central team in DistillerSR 21 . All team members were required to complete this calibration exercise before the assessment of RoB 2 for included trials.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does the risk of bias influence the effect sizes of exercise therapy in chronic low back pain randomised controlled trials? A protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

Innocenti

Hayden

Salvioli

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and ObjectivesRisk of bias is a critical issue to consider when appraising studies. Generally, the higher the risk of bias of a study, the less confidence there will be that the results are valid. Considering that low back pain is recognized to have an extremely high disease burden; exercise therapy is one of the most frequently prescribed interventions for chronic low back pain (CLBP) and that most low back pain trials have methodological limitations that could bias treatment effect estimates; the objective of this study is to explore causal pathways between the sources of risk of bias and estimates of the treatment effect of exercise therapy interventions in CLBP trials.MethodsThe 249 RCTs included in the 2021 Cochrane review publication “Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain” will be included. The risk of bias will be evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (ROB 2). Causal pathways between the exposure (risk of bias domains) and our outcomes of interest (effect sizes for pain and functional limitations) will be explored through univariable and multivariable meta-regression models. These models will be adjusted for potential confounders (sample size, trial registration, incomplete flow chart information and treatment comparisons), exploring relevant interactions within each model. Additional and sensitivity analyses will be performed to explore and test the robustness of the primary analyses.Ethics and disseminationA manuscript will be prepared and submitted for publication in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal upon study completion. We believe that the results of this investigation will be relevant to researchers paying more attention to the synthesis of the evidence to translate clinical implications to key stakeholders (healthcare providers and patients).

show abstract

“…DistillerSR 20 was used to conduct the screening in two stages—first on titles/abstracts and then on full-text articles. At least two authors screened each record independently at each stage.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of suicide prevention studies with data on youth and young adults living in low-income and middle-income countries

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThis review aimed to provide a summary of peer-reviewed, published literature on suicide preventive interventions with data on youth and young adults in low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC).DesignA systematic review was conducted using electronic databases of PubMed/MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Education Resources Information Center and The Campbell Collaboration databases for English-language articles published between 1 January 1990 and 15 February 2022.Eligibility criteriaInterventions of interest could include behavioural, community, clinical/medical or policy studies, or any combination of these, so long as the studies had at least one outcome of interest and at least one control group or control period. Outcomes included suicide ideation, suicide attempt and suicide. Interventions must have been conducted in an LMIC. Studies with individuals ages 0–25 in the sample were included. Articles describing data on individuals over age 25 could be included if individuals ages 0–25 were part of the sample.ResultsA total of 44 eligible studies were identified, representing a broad range of universal, selective and indicated interventions. Most studies assessed interventions designed to address lethal means or mental health. Most studies were conducted in lower-middle-income or upper-middle-income countries, with the largest proportion in Asia. Assessment of outcomes across studies was heterogeneous and there were few large-scale investigations tailored specifically for youth.ConclusionsMost of the published, peer-reviewed suicide intervention research from LMIC is concentrated in a few countries. While geographical coverage to date has been limited, strategies and samples in included studies were diverse, representing populations in clinical, educational and community settings. While current findings hold promise, this review identified a need for large-scale studies designed specifically for youth.

show abstract

Complicities

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies and patient-centred outcomes after surgery: a scoping review protocol

Intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies and patient-centred outcomes after surgery: a scoping review protocol

How does the risk of bias influence the effect sizes of exercise therapy in chronic low back pain randomised controlled trials? A protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

Systematic review of suicide prevention studies with data on youth and young adults living in low-income and middle-income countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About