Systematic reviews
-
Patient-reported outcomes and experience measures (jointly referred to here as PROs) are internationally recognized as a means for patients to provide information about their quality of life, symptoms, and experiences with care. Although increasingly recognized as key to improving the quality of healthcare at individual (e.g., patients, caregivers, and providers) and aggregate (e.g., government, policy/system-wide decision-making) levels, there are important knowledge gaps in our understanding of how PROs are, and can be, used across different settings, particularly in nephrology to enhance person-centered care. This knowledge is needed for developing strategies to guide optimal use of PROs in nephrology care. Currently, no strategies exist. The purpose of this review is to address this knowledge gap by answering the following realist question: How can PROs be used to enhance person-centered nephrology care, both at individual and aggregate levels? ⋯ PROSPERO CRD42017056063.
-
While 80% of critically ill patients treated in an intensive care unit (ICU) will survive, survivors often suffer a constellation of new or worsening physical, cognitive, and psychiatric complications, termed post-intensive care syndrome. Emerging evidence paints a challenging picture of complex, long-term complications that are often untreated and culminate in substantial dependence on acute care services. Clinicians and decision-makers in the Fraser Health Authority of British Columbia are working to develop evidence-based community healthcare solutions that will be successful in the context of existing healthcare services. The objective of the proposed review is to provide the theoretical scaffolding to transform the care of survivors of critical illness by a synthesis of relevant clinical and healthcare service programs. ⋯ PROSPERO CRD42018087795.
-
Meta Analysis
Sonographic reference values of median nerve cross-sectional area: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Median nerve cross-sectional area (CSA) is the primary sonographic parameter for assessing and diagnosing median nerve pathology, such as carpal tunnel syndrome. However, variability in the sensitivity of diagnostic thresholds exists, which may be due to a lack of standardized normative reference values. Current estimates of normal median nerve CSA stem largely from small studies using a local pool of healthy controls. A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted to identify all available data for median nerve CSA in healthy, asymptomatic individuals to create a comprehensive set of normative reference values. ⋯ PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016037286.
-
Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a constellation of conditions that increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases. It is an emerging concern in sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries, particularly because of an increasingly aging population and lifestyle changes. There is an increased risk of MetS and its components among people living with Human immune deficiency syndrome (HIV) individuals; however, the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in the SSA population and its differential contribution by HIV status is not yet established. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to estimate the pooled prevalence of metabolic syndrome in people living with HIV and uninfected populations, its variation by sub-components. ⋯ PROSPERO CRD42016045727.
-
Systematic reviews, which assess the risk of bias in included studies, are increasingly used to develop environmental hazard assessments and public health guidelines. These research areas typically rely on evidence from human observational studies of exposures, yet there are currently no universally accepted standards for assessing risk of bias in such studies. The risk of bias in non-randomised studies of exposures (ROBINS-E) tool has been developed by building upon tools for risk of bias assessment of randomised trials, diagnostic test accuracy studies and observational studies of interventions. This paper reports our experience with the application of the ROBINS-E tool. ⋯ Our experience suggests that the ROBINS-E tool does not meet the need for an international standard for evaluating human observational studies for questions of harm relevant to public and environmental health. We propose that a simpler tool, based on empirical evidence of bias, would provide accurate measures of risk of bias and is more likely to meet the needs of the environmental and public health community.