Systematic review of the quality of clinical guidelines for aphasia in stroke management

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 994-1003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexia Rohde ◽  
Linda Worrall ◽  
Guylaine Le Dorze
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Stroke Management

scholarly journals The Factors Influencing the Implementation of Clinical Guidelines in the World; a Systematic Review Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javad Babaei ◽  
Sakineh Hajebrahimi ◽  
Ali Jannati ◽  
Mina Azizzadeh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Medical Centers ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Third Person ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
The Way

Abstract Background: Clinical guidelines are a systematic collection of the latest and most authoritative scientific evidence that describes thediagnostic steps and methods of clinical treatment of a patient in a categorized manner, taking into account priorities, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. It is necessary to explore and categorize influencing factors in the implementation of clinical guidelines worldwide to pave the way for their implementation in medical centers.Methods: In this systematic review we will search Scopus, PubMed, Web of sciences, clinical key, Google Scholar (Search Engine as well as Iranian data bases including: Magiran, SID, Irandoc, Iranmedex. We will include all related original studies that generally cover all relevant outcomes to determine the factors influencing the success of the implementation of clinical guidelines and to identify barriers and facilitators as well.The quality of the included studies will be assessed by appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklists according to the type of studies. The selection and appraisal process will be performed by two members of the research team; and in case of disagreement between the two researchers, the third person will review the articles.Discussion: Identifying the facilitators and factors affecting the implementation of clinical guidelines as well as the related obstacles is expected to pave the way for helping managers, policymakers and health planners in implementing them correctly.Systematic review registration: CRD42020201350

scholarly journals Major Mistakes and Errors in the Use of Trial Sequential Analysis in Systematic Reviews or Meta-analyses – Protocol for a Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Gunge Riberholt ◽  
Markus Harboe Olsen ◽  
Joachim Birch Milan ◽  
Christian Gluud
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Type I ◽  
Research Waste ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Adequately conducted systematic reviews with meta-analyses are considered the highest level of evidence and thus directly defines many clinical guidelines. However, the risk of type I and II errors in meta-analyses are substantial. Trial Sequential Analysis is a method for controlling these risks. Erroneous use of the method might lead to research waste or misleading conclusions. Methods: The current protocol describes a systematic review aimed to identify common and major mistakes and errors in the use of Trial Sequential Analysis by evaluating published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that include this method. We plan to include all studies using Trial Sequential Analysis published from 2018 to 2021, an estimated 400 to 600 publications. We will search Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), including studies with all types of participants, interventions, and outcomes. The search will begin in July 2021. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, include relevant full text articles, extract data from the studies into a predefined checklist, and evaluate the methodological quality of the study using the AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews). Discussion: This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). The identified mistakes and errors will form the basis of a reviewed guideline for the use of Trial Sequential Analysis. Appropriately controlling for type I and II errors might reduce research waste and improve quality and precision of the evidence that clinical guidelines are based upon.

Characteristics of the Frequency-Following Response to Speech in Neonates and Potential Applicability in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
pp. 1618-1635
Author(s):  
Céline Richard ◽  
Mary Lauren Neel ◽  
Arnaud Jeanvoine ◽  
Sharon Mc Connell ◽  
Alison Gehred ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Neurodevelopmental Outcomes ◽  
Frequency Following Response ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Potential Applicability ◽  
Clinical Potential

Purpose We sought to critically analyze and evaluate published evidence regarding feasibility and clinical potential for predicting neurodevelopmental outcomes of the frequency-following responses (FFRs) to speech recordings in neonates (birth to 28 days). Method A systematic search of MeSH terms in the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied HealthLiterature, Embase, Google Scholar, Ovid Medline (R) and E-Pub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Web of Science, SCOPUS, COCHRANE Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed. Manual review of all items identified in the search was performed by two independent reviewers. Articles were evaluated based on the level of methodological quality and evidence according to the RTI item bank. Results Seven articles met inclusion criteria. None of the included studies reported neurodevelopmental outcomes past 3 months of age. Quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to high. Protocol variations were frequent. Conclusions Based on this systematic review, the FFR to speech can capture both temporal and spectral acoustic features in neonates. It can accurately be recorded in a fast and easy manner at the infant's bedside. However, at this time, further studies are needed to identify and validate which FFR features could be incorporated as an addition to standard evaluation of infant sound processing evaluation in subcortico-cortical networks. This review identifies the need for further research focused on identifying specific features of the neonatal FFRs, those with predictive value for early childhood outcomes to help guide targeted early speech and hearing interventions.

Psychological and Cognitive Aspects of Borderline Intellectual Functioning

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 159-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bastianina Contena ◽  
Stefano Taddei
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intellectual Functioning ◽  
Clinical Impact ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Borderline Intellectual Functioning ◽  
General Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Over Time

Abstract. Borderline Intellectual Functioning (BIF) refers to a global IQ ranging from 71 to 84, and it represents a condition of clinical attention for its association with other disorders and its influence on the outcomes of treatments and, in general, quality of life and adaptation. Furthermore, its definition has changed over time causing a relevant clinical impact. For this reason, a systematic review of the literature on this topic can promote an understanding of what has been studied, and can differentiate what is currently attributable to BIF from that which cannot be associated with this kind of intellectual functioning. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria, we have conducted a review of the literature about BIF. The results suggest that this condition is still associated with mental retardation, and only a few studies have focused specifically on this condition.

How Does Mindfulness Affect Cognition? A Reflection on Confounding Issues Surrounding Mindfulness-based Intervention Research Targeting Cognitive Outcomes

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R Vago ◽  
Resh Gupta ◽  
Sara Lazar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Cognitive Functioning ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cognitive Outcomes ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Existing Data

One potential pathway by which mindfulness-based meditation improves health outcomes is through changes in cognitive functioning. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) was conducted with a focus on assessing the state of the evidence for effects on cognitive processes and associated assays. Here, we comment on confounding issues surrounding the reporting of these and related findings, including 1) criteria that appropriately define an MBI; 2) limitations of assays used to measure cognition; and 3) methodological quality of MBI trials and reporting of findings. Because these issues contribute to potentially distorted interpretations of existing data, we offer constructive means for interpretation and recommendations for moving the field of mindfulness research forward regarding the effects on cognition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document