Postoperative outcomes following preoperative inspiratory muscle training in patients undergoing open cardiothoracic or upper abdominal surgery: protocol for a systematic review

Mans, Christina; Reeve, Julie; Gasparini, Catherine A; Elkins, Mark R.

doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-63

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The electronic databases of Medline, CINAHL, AMED, PsychINFO, Scopus, PEDro, and the Cochrane Library were searched for all available years until December 2013. Combinations of the following search terms were included: inspiratory / respiratory / ventilatory / pulmonary / breathing, training / conditioning , and preoperative / pre-operative / presurgical / pre-surgical (see Mans et al, 19 for the full search strategy). Two authors (CM, JR) individually screened the studies against inclusion criteria.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postoperative outcomes following preoperative inspiratory muscle training in patients undergoing cardiothoracic or upper abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta analysis

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postoperative outcomes following preoperative inspiratory muscle training in patients undergoing cardiothoracic or upper abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta analysis

2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…"Postoperative outcomes following preoperative inspiratory muscle training in patients undergoing open cardiothoracic or upper abdominal surgery: protocol for a systematic review" 20…”

Section: Title Item 1a: Identification Identify the Report As A Protmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antegrade intramedullary nail versus plate fixation in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures

Wen

Zhu

et al. 2019

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols-PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol. This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols. Various international organizations such as the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) regularly require and publish protocols. However, outside of such organizations, few protocols are published in traditional journals and most reports of completed reviews (89%) do not mention working from a protocol 1 (2014 update under way). Many experts have called for improved documentation and availability of review protocols. In response, experts (some of whom are authors on this document) launched an international, prospective register for systematic review protocols (PROSPERO, www.crd.york.ac.

show abstract

“…Additionally, the higher incidence of respiratory complications may be a reflection of multiple factors -extended period of general anesthesia, extended period of carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum, post-operative atelectasis or hospital-acquired pneumonia 12 . Overall, the potential for adverse events in this patient population is increased and surgeons can benefit from this knowledge by preparing their patients pre-operatively during the counseling and consenting process.…”

Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open abdominal surgery: a risk factor for future laparoscopic surgery?

Seetahal

Obirieze

Cornwell

et al. 2015

The American Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Postoperative outcomes following preoperative inspiratory muscle training in patients undergoing open cardiothoracic or upper abdominal surgery: protocol for a systematic review

Cited by 11 publications

References 32 publications

Postoperative outcomes following preoperative inspiratory muscle training in patients undergoing cardiothoracic or upper abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta analysis

Postoperative outcomes following preoperative inspiratory muscle training in patients undergoing cardiothoracic or upper abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta analysis

Antegrade intramedullary nail versus plate fixation in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures

Open abdominal surgery: a risk factor for future laparoscopic surgery?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About