scholarly journals International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids 2016 Debate: For Science-Based Dietary Guidelines on Fats, Meta-Analysis and Systematic Reviews Are Decisive

2017 ◽  
Vol 71 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 26-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joyce A. Nettleton ◽  
Clemens von Schacky ◽  
Ingeborg A. Brouwer ◽  
Berthold Koletzko
Keyword(s):  
Fatty Acids ◽  
International Society ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Dietary Fat ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Basis ◽  
Dietary Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Endpoints ◽  
Nutritional Guidelines ◽  
Meta Analyses

This paper summarizes a debate on whether meta-analyses and systematic reviews are decisive in formulating guidelines for dietary fat. Held during the 12th congress of the International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids in Stellenbosch, South Africa, September 7, 2016, the debate was hosted by the International Union of Nutritional Sciences and the International Expert Movement to Improve Dietary Fat Quality (IEM, www.theiem.org). Clemens von Schacky, Ludwig Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany, supported the statement, describing the types of weaknesses in individual studies and clinical trials. With examples of how to overcome such limitations, he concluded that nutritional guidelines on fat need a proper scientific basis in which randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with clinical endpoints and their meta-analyses are essential and decisive. In contention, Ingeborg Brouwer, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, declared that recommendations on dietary fat intake should always be based on the totality of the evidence, including physiologic and biochemical knowledge and associations from observational epidemiology. RCTs and meta-analyses have their shortcomings, but well-conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses support a transparent process for developing dietary fat guidelines. Participants agreed that evidence-based decision-making for dietary guidance should consider all the best available evidence using a transparent, systematic review.

scholarly journals Intake of dietary fats and fatty acids and the incidence of type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective observational studies

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (12) ◽  
pp. e1003347
Author(s):  
Manuela Neuenschwander ◽  
Janett Barbaresko ◽  
Claudia R. Pischke ◽  
Nadine Iser ◽  
Julia Beckhaus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fatty Acids ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Dietary Fat ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Dietary Fats ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Vegetable Fat

Background The role of fat quantity and quality in type 2 diabetes (T2D) prevention is controversial. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the associations between intake of dietary fat and fatty acids and T2D, and to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Methods and findings We systematically searched PubMed and Web of Science through 28 October 2019 for prospective observational studies in adults on the associations between intake of dietary fat and fatty acids and T2D incidence. The systematic literature search and data extraction were conducted independently by 2 researchers. We conducted linear and nonlinear random effects dose–response meta-analyses, calculated summary relative risks (SRRs) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and assessed the certainty of evidence. In total, 15,070 publications were identified in the literature search after the removal of duplicates. Out of the 180 articles screened in full text, 23 studies (19 cohorts) met our inclusion criteria, with 11 studies (6 cohorts) conducted in the US, 7 studies (7 cohorts) in Europe, 4 studies (5 cohorts) in Asia, and 1 study (1 cohort) in Australia. We mainly observed no or weak linear associations between dietary fats and fatty acids and T2D incidence. In nonlinear dose–response meta-analyses, the protective association for vegetable fat and T2D was steeper at lower levels up to 13 g/d (SRR [95% CI]: 0.81 [0.76; 0.88], pnonlinearity = 0.012, n = 5 studies) than at higher levels. Saturated fatty acids showed an apparent protective association above intakes around 17 g/d with T2D (SRR [95% CI]: 0.95 [0.90; 1.00], pnonlinearity = 0.028, n = 11). There was a nonsignificant association of a decrease in T2D incidence for polyunsaturated fatty acid intakes up to 5 g/d (SRR [95% CI]: 0.96 [0.91; 1.01], pnonlinearity = 0.023, n = 8), and for alpha-linolenic acid consumption up to 560 mg/d (SRR [95% CI]: 0.95 [0.90; 1.00], pnonlinearity = 0.014, n = 11), after which the curve rose slightly, remaining close to no association. The association for long-chain omega-3 fatty acids and T2D was approximately linear for intakes up to 270 mg/d (SRR [95% CI]: 1.10 [1.06; 1.15], pnonlinearity < 0.001, n = 16), with a flattening curve thereafter. Certainty of evidence was very low to moderate. Limitations of the study are the high unexplained inconsistency between studies, the measurement of intake of dietary fats and fatty acids via self-report on a food group level, which is likely to lead to measurement errors, and the possible influence of unmeasured confounders on the findings. Conclusions There was no association between total fat intake and the incidence of T2D. However, for specific fats and fatty acids, dose–response curves provided insights for significant associations with T2D. In particular, a high intake of vegetable fat was inversely associated with T2D incidence. Thus, a diet including vegetable fat rather than animal fat might be beneficial regarding T2D prevention.

What Is the Impact of Different Glucose-lowering Agents for Atrial Fibrillation Risk: A Systematic Review and a Network Meta-analysis 

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wence Shi ◽  
Zhang Wenchang ◽  
Gao Lihua ◽  
Ding Chunhua
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Glucose Lowering ◽  
Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 ◽  
Clinical Endpoints ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Diabetes Patients

Abstract Background: The emergence of new glucose-lowering agents has brought revolutionary changes to the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Diabetes is associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL) progression, while whether or not glucose-lowering agents would bring a reduction of AF/AFL is not clear. We therefore evaluate the effect of different glucose-lowering agents on AF/AFL and made this network meta-analysis to identify the optimal treatment for diabetes patients to reduce AF/AFL events.Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library until September 30 2020, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used in this network meta-analysis. The primary endpoint for our study was AF or AFL events. Only studies with a follow-up period of at least 12 months and reporting AF/AFL as clinical endpoints were included. Results from trials were presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were pooled using a bayesian random-effects model.Results: 5 eligible studies (9 glucose-lowering agents were analyzed including thiazolidinedione[TZD], metformin[Met], sulfonylurea[SU], insulin[Insu], dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor[DPP-4i], glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist[GLP-1RA], sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor[SGLT2i], alpha glucosidase inhibitor[AGI], and non-sulfonylurea[nSU]) consisting of 263583 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were included. Pooled results show that GLP1-RA, when compared to Met (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.61), SU (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07-0.73), Insu (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07-0.86), and nSU (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.66) significantly reduce AF/AFL events. In addition, DPP-4i could also reduce AF/AFL events when compared with nSU (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12-0.92).Conclusion: The finding of our study indicated that GLP1-RA could be optimal glucose-lowering agent for diabetes patients to prevents AF/AFL. Met and insulin-providing therapy (insulin, sulfonylurea, or non- sulfonylurea) should be avoided to patients with high risk of AF/AFL.Trial registration: We have registered in PROSPERO (international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020212994) for this network meta-analysis

scholarly journals Application of the Subspace-Based Methods in Health Monitoring of Civil Structures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 3607
Author(s):  
Hoofar Shokravi ◽  
Hooman Shokravi ◽  
Norhisham Bakhary ◽  
Mahshid Heidarrezaei ◽  
Seyed Saeid Rahimian Koloor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
System Identification ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Monitoring ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Civil Structures ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Research Gap ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Subspace System Identification ◽  
Insight Into

A large number of research studies in structural health monitoring (SHM) have presented, extended, and used subspace system identification. However, there is a lack of research on systematic literature reviews and surveys of studies in this field. Therefore, the current study is undertaken to systematically review the literature published on the development and application of subspace system identification methods. In this regard, major databases in SHM, including Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, have been selected and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) has been applied to ensure complete and transparent reporting of systematic reviews. Along this line, the presented review addresses the available studies that employed subspace-based techniques in the vibration-based damage detection (VDD) of civil structures. The selected papers in this review were categorized into authors, publication year, name of journal, applied techniques, research objectives, research gap, proposed solutions and models, and findings. This study can assist practitioners and academicians for better condition assessment of structures and to gain insight into the literature.

scholarly journals A systematic review of pharmacist-led audit and feedback interventions to influence prescribing behaviour in general practice settings

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i34-i35
Author(s):  
M Carter ◽  
N Abutheraa ◽  
N Ivers ◽  
J Grimshaw ◽  
S Chapman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Audit And Feedback ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Prescribing Behaviour ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Introduction Audit and Feedback (A&F) involves measuring data about practice, comparing it with clinical guidelines, professional standards or peer performance, and then feeding back the data to individuals/groups of health professionals to encourage change in practice (if required). A 2012 Cochrane review (1) found A&F was effective in changing health professionals’ behaviour and suggested that the person who delivers the A&F intervention influences its effect. Increasingly, pharmacists work in general practice and often have responsibility for medication review and repeat prescriptions. The effectiveness of pharmacist-led A&F in influencing prescribing behaviour is uncertain. Aim This secondary analysis from an ongoing update of the original Cochrane review aims to identify and describe pharmacist-led A&F interventions and evaluate their impact on prescribing behaviour in general practice compared with no intervention. Methods This sub-review is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42020194355 and complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (2). For the updated Cochrane review, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group searched MEDLINE (1946 to present), EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library (March 2019) to identify randomised trials featuring A&F interventions. For this sub-review, authors screened titles and abstracts (May 2020) to identify trials involving pharmacist-led A&F interventions in primary care, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (RoB) in eligible studies. Review results are summarised descriptively. Heterogeneity will be assessed and a random-effects meta-analysis is planned. Publication bias for selected outcomes and the certainty of the body of evidence will be evaluated and presented. Sub-group analyses will be conducted. Results Titles and abstracts of 295 studies identified for inclusion in the Cochrane A&F review update were screened. Eleven studies (all cluster-randomised trials) conducted in 9 countries (Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Ireland, UK, Australia, Malaysia, USA) were identified for inclusion (Figure 1). Six studies had low RoB, two had high risk due to dissimilarities between trial arms at baseline and/or insufficient detail about randomisation, and three studies had unclear RoB. Studies examined the effect of A&F on prescribing for specific conditions (e.g. hypertension), medications (e.g. antibiotics), populations (e.g. patients &gt;70), and prescribing errors (e.g. inappropriate dose). The pharmacist delivering A&F was a colleague of intervention participants in five studies. Pharmacists’ levels of skill and experience varied; seven studies reported details of pharmacist training undertaken for trial purposes. A&F interventions in nine studies demonstrated changes in prescribing, including reductions in errors or inappropriate prescribing according to the study aims and smaller increases in unwanted prescribing compared with the control group. Data analyses are ongoing (results will be available for the conference). Conclusion The preliminary results demonstrate the effectiveness of pharmacist-led A&F interventions in different countries and health systems with influencing prescribing practice to align more closely with guidance. Studies measured different prescribing behaviours; meta-analysis is unlikely to include all 11 studies. Further detailed analysis including feedback format/content/frequency and pharmacist skill level/experience, work-base (external/internal to recipients), will examine the impact of specific features on intervention effectiveness. References 1. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(6):CD000259. 2. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol examining the clinical characteristics and epidemiological features of olfactory dysfunction (OD) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemond Qian-Xiu Tan ◽  
Wai Tak Victor Li ◽  
Wing-Zi Shum ◽  
Sheung Chit Chu ◽  
Hang-Long Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Olfactory Dysfunction ◽  
Statistical Analyses ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Analysis Protocol

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused recurring and major outbreaks in multiple human populations around the world. The plethora of clinical presentations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been described extensively, of which olfactory dysfunction (OD) was established as an important and common extrapulmonary manifestation of COVID-19 infection. The aim of this protocol is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on peer-reviewed articles which described clinical data of OD in COVID-19 patients. Methods This research protocol has been prospectively registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42020196202). CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed, as well as Chinese medical databases China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP and WANFANG, will be searched using keywords including ‘COVID-19’, ‘coronavirus disease’, ‘2019-nCoV’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, ‘novel coronavirus’, ‘anosmia’, ‘hyposmia’, ‘loss of smell’, and ‘olfactory dysfunction’. Systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Articles will be screened according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria to extract studies that include new clinical data investigating the effect of COVID-19 on olfactory dysfunction. Included articles will be reviewed in full; data including patient demographics, clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD, methods of olfactory assessment and relevant clinical outcomes will be extracted. Statistical analyses will be performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3. Discussion This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol will aim to collate and synthesise all available clinical evidence regarding COVID-19-related OD as an important neurosensory dysfunction of COVID-19 infection. A comprehensive search strategy and screening process will be conducted to incorporate broad clinical data for robust statistical analyses and representation. The outcome of the systematic review and meta-analysis will aim to improve our understanding of the symptomatology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD and identify knowledge gaps in its disease process, which will guide future research in this specific neurosensory defect. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020196202.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017868
Author(s):  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
Sheyu Li ◽  
Wan-Jie Gu ◽  
Hao Chen ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Coronary Revascularisation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Collection Form ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.

Sinus Radiological Findings in General Asymptomatic Populations: A Systematic Review of Incidental Mucosal Changes

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110350
Author(s):  
Basil Razi ◽  
Adam Perkovic ◽  
Raquel Alvarado ◽  
Anna Stroud ◽  
Jacqueline Ho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Population Groups ◽  
Bibliographic Search ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
Mucosal Changes ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Asymptomatic Subjects ◽  
Mucosal Thickening ◽  
Retention Cysts

Objective To determine the range of incidental mucosal changes in a general sinonasally asymptomatic population on radiology. Data Sources Medline (1996-present) and Embase (1974-present) were searched on March 14, 2020, to identify articles that reported radiological sinus mucosal findings in asymptomatic population groups. Bibliographic search of included studies was conducted to identify additional articles. Review Methods The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A comprehensive search strategy was formulated and articles screened to extract data reporting Lund-Mackay (LM) score, presence of mucous retention cysts, and maxillary mucosal thickening. A random-effects model was used in meta-analysis. Results A total of 950 articles were identified, of which 33 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria. The included studies involved 16,966 sinonasally asymptomatic subjects. The mean LM score was 2.24 (95% CI, 1.61-2.87), and an LM score of ≥4 in 14.71% (95% CI, 6.86-24.82%) was present across all general asymptomatic population groups. Mucous retention cysts were noted in 13% (95% CI, 8.33-18.55%) and maxillary mucosal thickening of ≥2 mm in 17.73% (95% CI, 8.67-29.08%). Conclusion The prevalence of incidental mucosal changes in a general asymptomatic population on radiology needs to be considered when making a diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis.

scholarly journals Relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and outcomes in joint arthroplasty: protocol for a suite of systematic reviews and dose–response meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e022797 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiang-Dong Wu ◽  
Meng-Meng Liu ◽  
Ya-Ying Sun ◽  
Zhi-Hu Zhao ◽  
Quan Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Joint Arthroplasty ◽  
Surgeon Volume ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Records Management ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionJoint arthroplasty is a particularly complex orthopaedic surgical procedure performed on joints, including the hip, knee, shoulder, ankle, elbow, wrist and even digit joints. Increasing evidence from volume–outcomes research supports the finding that patients undergoing joint arthroplasty in high-volume hospitals or by high-volume surgeons achieve better outcomes, and minimum case load requirements have been established in some areas. However, the relationships between hospital/surgeon volume and outcomes in patients undergoing arthroplasty are not fully understood. Furthermore, whether elective arthroplasty should be restricted to high-volume hospitals or surgeons remains in dispute, and little is known regarding where the thresholds should be set for different types of joint arthroplasties.Methods and analysesThis is a protocol for a suite of systematic reviews and dose–response meta-analyses, which will be amended and updated in conjunction with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. Electronic databases, including PubMed and Embase, will be searched for observational studies examining the relationship between the hospital or surgeon volume and clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing primary or revision of joint arthroplasty. We will use records management software for study selection and a predefined standardised file for data extraction and management. Quality will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed using Stata statistical software. Once the volume–outcome relationships are established, we will examine the potential non-linear relationships between hospital/surgeon volume and outcomes and detect whether thresholds or turning points exist.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required, because these studies are based on aggregated published data. The results of this suite of systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017056639.

scholarly journals Comparative Effectiveness Research: Using Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses to Synthesize Empirical Evidence

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 191-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria C. Katapodi ◽  
Laurel L. Northouse
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Effectiveness Research ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Research Studies

The increased demand for evidence-based health care practices calls for comparative effectiveness research (CER), namely the generation and synthesis of research evidence to compare the benefits and harms of alternative methods of care. A significant contribution of CER is the systematic identification and synthesis of available research studies on a specific topic. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of methodological issues pertaining to systematic reviews and meta-analyses to be used by investigators with the purpose of conducting CER. A systematic review or meta-analysis is guided by a research protocol, which includes (a) the research question, (b) inclusion and exclusion criteria with respect to the target population and studies, © guidelines for obtaining relevant studies, (d) methods for data extraction and coding, (e) methods for data synthesis, and (f ) guidelines for reporting results and assessing for bias. This article presents an algorithm for generating evidence-based knowledge by systematically identifying, retrieving, and synthesizing large bodies of research studies. Recommendations for evaluating the strength of evidence, interpreting findings, and discussing clinical applicability are offered.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document