Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data

Munn, Zachary; Moola, Sandeep; Lisy, Karolina; Riitano, Dagmara; Tufănaru, Cătălin

doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000054

Cited by 1,873 publications

(1,669 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,646

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The risk of bias (internal validity) and generalizability (external validity) was assessed according to pre-defined criteria which were developed by our group considering published epidemiological literature [18] and internal discussions. The assessment of risk of bias was based on: (i) the reliability of data capture, i.e., whether the prevalence of hearing impairments were judged by the respondents themselves (e.g., in an interview or by means of a questionnaire; high risk of bias), or whether the studies applied standardized audiometric procedures (e.g., pure-tone audiogram; low risk of bias); (ii) definition/specification of the measured hearing loss, i.e., whether the hearing impairment was defined after standardized criteria (e.g., in accordance with WHO criteria; low risk of bias) or whether no adequate definition was used (e.g., this refers primarily to a self-reported hearing impairment; high risk of bias); (iii) the completeness of data, i.e., whether the whole study sample (all recruited people) was considered when data were analyzed (low risk of bias) or whether data were missing (e.g., due to drop-outs; high risk of bias).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The prevalence of hearing loss and use of hearing aids among adults in Germany: a systematic review

Löhler

Walther

Hansen

et al. 2019

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWorldwide approximately 360 million people suffer from hearing impairment, 328 million of whom are adults. Up to now there has been no systematic evaluation of any representative epidemiological data on the prevalence of hearing loss among adults in Germany. The present paper is intended to investigate this within the framework of a systematic review.MethodsA systematic literature search was carried out in electronic databases as well as by means of hand-searching. Studies published after 1975 and indicating the prevalence or incidence of hearing impairment among German adults were included. Study selection, data extraction and additional quality assessments were made by two independent reviewers.ResultsBy means of a systematic literature search it was possible to identify 6 sources, which provided solely cross-sectional data, whereby the reported data are based on a study population of between some hundred and 10 million people living in Germany. The prevalences ascertained showed a broad range of between 16% and 25% and varied according to age, study setting, definition of hearing loss and method of data capture. At present there are no utilizable data on the extent of the use of hearing aids.DiscussionThe present review demonstrates clearly that evidence-based information relating to Germany can only be made on the basis of a clear definition of hearing loss within the framework of an up-to-date and representative epidemiological study carried out with appropriate methodology. In view of the high prevalence of illnesses causing hearing impairment and of the risks to health associated with untreated hearing impairment as well as of socio-economic costs, such an epidemiological study is of great social significance.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00405-019-05312-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The prevalence of hearing loss and use of hearing aids among adults in Germany: a systematic review

Löhler

Walther

Hansen

et al. 2019

Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[25] We assessed quality in two domains: study participation and outcome measurement. We omitted a domain about response rate, which was not relevant to our study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We omitted a domain about response rate, which was not relevant to our study. [25] The detailed method used for risk of bias assessment is presented in e-Appendix 3.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidence proportion of acute cor pulmonale in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome subjected to lung protective ventilation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Das¹,

Choupoo

Saikia

et al. 2017

Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:Reported incidence of acute cor pulmonale (ACP) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) varies from 10% to 84%, despite being subjected to lung protective ventilation according to the current guidelines. The objective of this review is to find pooled cumulative incidence of ACP in patients with ARDS undergoing lung protective ventilation.Materials and Methods:We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, LILACS, and WHO Clinical Trial Registry. Cross-sectional or cohort studies were included if they reported or provided data that could be used to calculate the incidence proportion of ACP. Inverse variance heterogeneity (IVhet) and random effect model were used for the main outcome and measures.Results:We included 16 studies encompassing 1661 patients. The cumulative incidence of ACP using IVhet analysis was 23% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 18%–28%) over 3 days of lung protective ventilation. Random effect analysis of 7 studies (1250 patients) revealed pooled odd ratio of mortality of 1.16 (95% CI = 0.80-1.67, P = 0.44) due to ACP.Conclusion:Patients with ARDS have a 23% risk of developing ACP with lung protective ventilation. Findings of this review indicate the need of updating existing guidelines for ventilating ARDS patients to incorporate right ventricle protective strategy.

show abstract

“…Subgroups consisting of only one to two studies were excluded at this stage. Forest plots were generated for each outcome subgroup, without an overall meta-analysis estimate, to visualize the variability in prevalence estimates across studies [20]. Self-efficacy outcomes were summarized at the study level instead of using the approach described above because these data were frequently measured on an ordinal scale and response options varied across studies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and meta-regression of the knowledge, practices, and training of restaurant and food service personnel toward food allergies and Celiac disease

Young

Thaivalappil

2018

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundUp to 3–5% of adults may be affected by food allergies, while approximately 1% are affected by Celiac disease (CD). Food allergy reactions can be severe and potentially fatal, while CD can result in various symptoms. Restaurant and food service establishment staff have an important role in helping to prevent food allergy and CD risks among affected customers.ObjectivesA systematic review was undertaken to identify, characterize, and synthesize published research on the prevalence of food allergy and CD knowledge, practices, and training among restaurant and food service personnel. The population of interest included any personnel in these settings who prepare, handle, or serve food. Outcomes included the prevalence of food allergy and CD knowledge, practices, and training.MethodsThe review was conducted using standardized methods, including: a comprehensive search strategy; relevance screening of abstracts; characterization of relevant articles; data extraction; and risk of bias assessment. Outcomes were stratified into comparable subgroups and descriptively analyzed to examine prevalence trends across studies. Meta-regression was conducted on selected outcomes to identify possible sources of variability in prevalence estimates across studies.ResultsThirty-eight relevant studies were identified; most were conducted in the United States (50%) and focused on food allergies (90%). Significant variability was identified across studies for most outcomes. Participants generally had a higher knowledge, self-efficacy, and use of practices related to preparing and serving allergen-free meals compared to food allergy emergency response. Participants’ reported use of various risk prevention and response practices was generally low. Most participants across studies had not received prior food allergy training (median prevalence of 65% across 12 studies).ImplicationsKey knowledge and practice gaps were identified that could be targeted by future training programs. Research gaps were also identified, including a need for more experimental studies to evaluate food allergy and CD training interventions.

show abstract

Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data

Cited by 1,873 publications

References 18 publications

The prevalence of hearing loss and use of hearing aids among adults in Germany: a systematic review

The prevalence of hearing loss and use of hearing aids among adults in Germany: a systematic review

Incidence proportion of acute cor pulmonale in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome subjected to lung protective ventilation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

A systematic review and meta-regression of the knowledge, practices, and training of restaurant and food service personnel toward food allergies and Celiac disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About