共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
Karla Hemming Thomas Pinkney Kay Futaba Mary Pennant Dion G. Morton Richard J. Lilford 《PloS one》2013,8(10)
Objective
To systematically evaluate the evidence across surgical specialties as to whether staples or sutures better improve patient and provider level outcomes.Design
A systematic review of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis of pooled estimates.Results
Eleven systematic reviews, including 13,661 observations, met the inclusion criteria. In orthopaedic surgery sutures were found to be preferable, and for appendicial stump sutures were protective against both surgical site infection and post surgical complications. However, staples were protective against leak in ilecolic anastomosis. For all other surgery types the evidence was inconclusive with wider confidence intervals including the possibly of preferential outcomes for surgical site infection or post surgical complication for either staples or sutures. Whilst reviews showed substantial variation in mean differences in operating time (I2 94%) there was clear evidence of a reduction in average operating time across all surgery types. Few reviews reported on length of stay, but the three reviews that did (I2 0%, including 950 observations) showed a non significant reduction in length of stay, but showed evidence of publication bias (P-value for Egger test 0.05).Conclusions
Evidence across surgical specialties indicates that wound closure with staples reduces the mean operating time. Despite including several thousand observations, no clear evidence of superiority emerged for either staples or sutures with respect to surgical site infection, post surgical complications, or length of stay. 相似文献2.
Background
Non-surgical interventions for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis remain highly controversial. Despite the publication of numerous reviews no explicit methodological evaluation of papers labeled as, or having a layout of, a systematic review, addressing this subject matter, is available.Objectives
Analysis and comparison of the content, methodology, and evidence-base from systematic reviews regarding non-surgical interventions for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis.Design
Systematic overview of systematic reviews.Methods
Articles meeting the minimal criteria for a systematic review, regarding any non-surgical intervention for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, with any outcomes measured, were included. Multiple general and systematic review specific databases, guideline registries, reference lists and websites of institutions were searched. The AMSTAR tool was used to critically appraise the methodology, and the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine and the Joanna Briggs Institute’s hierarchies were applied to analyze the levels of evidence from included reviews.Results
From 469 citations, twenty one papers were included for analysis. Five reviews assessed the effectiveness of scoliosis-specific exercise treatments, four assessed manual therapies, five evaluated bracing, four assessed different combinations of interventions, and one evaluated usual physical activity. Two reviews addressed the adverse effects of bracing. Two papers were high quality Cochrane reviews, Three were of moderate, and the remaining sixteen were of low or very low methodological quality. The level of evidence of these reviews ranged from 1 or 1+ to 4, and in some reviews, due to their low methodological quality and/or poor reporting, this could not be established.Conclusions
Higher quality reviews indicate that generally there is insufficient evidence to make a judgment on whether non-surgical interventions in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis are effective. Papers labeled as systematic reviews need to be considered in terms of their methodological rigor; otherwise they may be mistakenly regarded as high quality sources of evidence.Protocol registry number
CRD42013003538, PROSPERO 相似文献3.
4.
Welch V Petticrew M Ueffing E Benkhalti Jandu M Brand K Dhaliwal B Kristjansson E Smylie J Wells GA Tugwell P 《PloS one》2012,7(3):e31360
Introduction
Tackling health inequities both within and between countries remains high on the agenda of international organizations including the World Health Organization and local, regional and national governments. Systematic reviews can be a useful tool to assess effects on equity in health status because they include studies conducted in a variety of settings and populations. This study aims to describe the extent to which the impacts of health interventions on equity in health status are considered in systematic reviews, describe methods used, and assess the implications of their equity related findings for policy, practice and research.Methods
We conducted a methodology study of equity assessment in systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers extracted information on the reporting and analysis of impacts of health interventions on equity in health status in a group of 300 systematic reviews collected from all systematic reviews indexed in one month of MEDLINE, using a pre-tested data collection form. Any differences in data extraction were resolved by discussion.Results
Of the 300 systematic reviews, 224 assessed the effectiveness of interventions on health outcomes. Of these 224 reviews, 29 systematic reviews assessed effects on equity in health status using subgroup analysis or targeted analyses of vulnerable populations. Of these, seven conducted subgroup analyses related to health equity which were reported in insufficient detail to judge their credibility. Of these 29 reviews, 18 described implications for policy and practice based on assessment of effects on health equity.Conclusion
The quality and completeness of reporting should be enhanced as a priority, because without this policymakers and practitioners will continue lack the evidence base they need to inform decision-making about health inequity. Furthermore, there is a need to develop methods to systematically consider impacts on equity in health status that is currently lacking in systematic reviews. 相似文献5.
Meijer A Roseman M Milette K Coyne JC Stefanek ME Ziegelstein RC Arthurs E Leavens A Palmer SC Stewart DE de Jonge P Thombs BD 《PloS one》2011,6(11):e27181
Background
Several practice guidelines recommend screening for depression in cancer care, but no systematic reviews have examined whether there is evidence that depression screening benefits cancer patients. The objective was to evaluate the potential benefits of depression screening in cancer patients by assessing the (1) accuracy of depression screening tools; (2) effectiveness of depression treatment; and (3) effect of depression screening, either alone or in the context of comprehensive depression care, on depression outcomes.Methods
Data sources were CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and SCOPUS databases through January 24, 2011; manual journal searches; reference lists; citation tracking; trial registry reviews. Articles on cancer patients were included if they (1) compared a depression screening instrument to a valid criterion for major depressive disorder (MDD); (2) compared depression treatment with placebo or usual care in a randomized controlled trial (RCT); (3) assessed the effect of screening on depression outcomes in a RCT.Results
There were 19 studies of screening accuracy, 1 MDD treatment RCT, but no RCTs that investigated effects of screening on depression outcomes. Screening accuracy studies generally had small sample sizes (median = 17 depression cases) and used exploratory methods to set sample-specific cutoff scores that varied substantially across studies. A nurse-delivered intervention for MDD reduced depressive symptoms moderately (effect size = 0.37).Conclusions
The one treatment study reviewed reported modest improvement in depressive symptoms, but no evidence was found on whether or not depression screening in cancer patients, either alone or in the context of optimal depression care, improves depression outcomes compared to usual care. Depression screening in cancer should be evaluated in a RCT in which all patients identified as depressed, either through screening or via physician recognition and referral in a control group, have access to comprehensive depression care. 相似文献6.
Annette M. O'Connor Brent Auvermann Danelle Bickett-Weddle Steve Kirkhorn Jan M. Sargeant Alejandro Ramirez Susanna G. Von Essen 《PloS one》2010,5(3)
Background
A systematic review was conducted for the association between animal feeding operations (AFOs) and the health of individuals living near AFOs.Methodology/Principal Findings
The review was restricted to studies reporting respiratory, gastrointestinal and mental health outcomes in individuals living near AFOs in North America, European Union, United Kingdom, and Scandinavia. From June to September 2008 searches were conducted in PUBMED, CAB, Web-of-Science, and Agricola with no restrictions. Hand searching of narrative reviews was also used. Two reviewers independently evaluated the role of chance, confounding, information, selection and analytic bias on the study outcome. Nine relevant studies were identified. The studies were heterogeneous with respect to outcomes and exposures assessed. Few studies reported an association between surrogate clinical outcomes and AFO proximity. A negative association was reported when odor was the measure of exposure to AFOs and self-reported disease, the measure of outcome. There was evidence of an association between self-reported disease and proximity to AFO in individuals annoyed by AFO odor.Conclusions/Significance
There was inconsistent evidence of a weak association between self-reported disease in people with allergies or familial history of allergies. No consistent dose response relationship between exposure and disease was observable. 相似文献7.
Katharina F. Mueller Matthias Briel Daniel Strech Joerg J. Meerpohl Britta Lang Edith Motschall Viktoria Gloy Francois Lamontagne Dirk Bassler 《PloS one》2014,9(12)
Background
Systematic reviews of preclinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical research and thus even clinical care. Dissemination bias, selective dissemination of positive or significant results, is one of the major threats to validity in systematic reviews also in the realm of animal studies. We conducted a systematic review to determine the number of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present, to investigate their methodological features especially with respect to assessment of dissemination bias, and to investigate the citation of preclinical systematic reviews on clinical research.Methods
Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews that summarize in vivo animal experiments whose results could be interpreted as applicable to clinical care. We systematically searched Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 1st January 2009 to 9th January 2013 for eligible systematic reviews without language restrictions. Furthermore we included articles from two previous systematic reviews by Peters et al. and Korevaar et al.Results
The literature search and screening process resulted in 512 included full text articles. We found an increasing number of published preclinical systematic reviews over time. The methodological quality of preclinical systematic reviews was low. The majority of preclinical systematic reviews did not assess methodological quality of the included studies (71%), nor did they assess heterogeneity (81%) or dissemination bias (87%). Statistics quantifying the importance of clinical research citing systematic reviews of animal studies showed that clinical studies referred to the preclinical research mainly to justify their study or a future study (76%).Discussion
Preclinical systematic reviews may have an influence on clinical research but their methodological quality frequently remains low. Therefore, systematic reviews of animal research should be critically appraised before translating them to a clinical context. 相似文献8.
Lucinda E. Saunders Judith M. Green Mark P. Petticrew Rebecca Steinbach Helen Roberts 《PloS one》2013,8(8)
Background
Increasing active travel (primarily walking and cycling) has been widely advocated for reducing obesity levels and achieving other population health benefits. However, the strength of evidence underpinning this strategy is unclear. This study aimed to assess the evidence that active travel has significant health benefits.Methods
The study design was a systematic review of (i) non-randomised and randomised controlled trials, and (ii) prospective observational studies examining either (a) the effects of interventions to promote active travel or (b) the association between active travel and health outcomes. Reports of studies were identified by searching 11 electronic databases, websites, reference lists and papers identified by experts in the field. Prospective observational and intervention studies measuring any health outcome of active travel in the general population were included. Studies of patient groups were excluded.Results
Twenty-four studies from 12 countries were included, of which six were studies conducted with children. Five studies evaluated active travel interventions. Nineteen were prospective cohort studies which did not evaluate the impact of a specific intervention. No studies were identified with obesity as an outcome in adults; one of five prospective cohort studies in children found an association between obesity and active travel. Small positive effects on other health outcomes were found in five intervention studies, but these were all at risk of selection bias. Modest benefits for other health outcomes were identified in five prospective studies. There is suggestive evidence that active travel may have a positive effect on diabetes prevention, which may be an important area for future research.Conclusions
Active travel may have positive effects on health outcomes, but there is little robust evidence to date of the effectiveness of active transport interventions for reducing obesity. Future evaluations of such interventions should include an assessment of their impacts on obesity and other health outcomes. 相似文献9.
Michael V. Holmes Tina Shah Christine Vickery Liam Smeeth Aroon D. Hingorani Juan P. Casas 《PloS one》2009,4(12)
Background
Studies of the genetic basis of drug response could help clarify mechanisms of drug action/metabolism, and facilitate development of genotype-based predictive tests of efficacy or toxicity (pharmacogenetics).Objectives
We conducted a systematic review and field synopsis of pharmacogenetic studies to quantify the scope and quality of available evidence in this field in order to inform future research.Data Sources
Original research articles were identified in Medline, reference lists from 24 meta-analyses/systematic reviews/review articles and U.S. Food and Drug Administration website of approved pharmacogenetic tests.Study Eligibility Criteria, Participants, and Intervention Criteria
We included any study in which either intended or adverse response to drug therapy was examined in relation to genetic variation in the germline or cancer cells in humans.Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods
Study characteristics and data reported in abstracts were recorded. We further analysed full text from a random 10% subset of articles spanning the different subclasses of study.Results
From 102,264 Medline hits and 1,641 articles from other sources, we identified 1,668 primary research articles (1987 to 2007, inclusive). A high proportion of remaining articles were reviews/commentaries (ratio of reviews to primary research approximately 25∶1). The majority of studies (81.8%) were set in Europe and North America focussing on cancer, cardiovascular disease and neurology/psychiatry. There was predominantly a candidate gene approach using common alleles, which despite small sample sizes (median 93 [IQR 40–222]) with no trend to an increase over time, generated a high proportion (74.5%) of nominally significant (p<0.05) reported associations suggesting the possibility of significance-chasing bias. Despite 136 examples of gene/drug interventions being the subject of ≥4 studies, only 31 meta-analyses were identified. The majority (69.4%) of end-points were continuous and likely surrogate rather than hard (binary) clinical end-points.Conclusions and Implications of Key Findings
The high expectation but limited translation of pharmacogenetic research thus far may be explained by the preponderance of reviews over primary research, small sample sizes, a mainly candidate gene approach, surrogate markers, an excess of nominally positive to truly positive associations and paucity of meta-analyses. Recommendations based on these findings should inform future study design to help realise the goal of personalised medicines.Systematic Review Registration Number
Not Registered 相似文献10.
Context
Although qualitative studies are becoming more appreciated in healthcare, the number of publications of quality studies remains low. Little is known about the frequency and characteristics of citation in qualitative studies.Objective
To compare the academic impact of qualitative studies to that of two quantitative studies: systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials.Methods
Publications in BMJ between 1997 and 2006 (BMJ’s median impact factor was 7.04 during this period) employing qualitative methods were matched to two quantitative studies appearing the same year using PubMed. Using Web of Science, citations within a 24-month publication period were determined. Additionally, three hypotheses were examined: qualitative studies are 1) infrequently cited in original articles or reviews; 2) rarely cited by authors in non-English-speaking countries; and 3) more frequently cited in non-medical disciplines (e.g., psychology or sociology).Results
A total of 121 qualitative studies, 270 systematic reviews, and 515 randomised controlled trials were retrieved. Qualitative studies were cited a total of 1,089 times, with a median of 7.00 times (range, 0–34) for each study. Matched systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were cited 2,411times and 1,600 times, respectively. With respect to citing documents, original articles and reviews exceeded 60% for each study design. Relative to quantitative studies, qualitative studies were cited more often by authors in English-speaking countries. With respect to subject area, medical disciplines were more frequently cited than non-medical disciplines for all three study designs (>80%).Conclusion
The median number of citations for qualitative studies was almost the same as the median of BMJ’s impact factor during the survey period. For a suitable evaluation of qualitative studies in healthcare, it will be necessary to develop a reporting framework and include explicit discussions of clinical implications when reporting findings. Coordination between researchers and editors will be needed to achieve this goal. 相似文献11.
Objective
To determine whether the patient-clinician relationship has a beneficial effect on either objective or validated subjective healthcare outcomes.Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data Sources
Electronic databases EMBASE and MEDLINE and the reference sections of previous reviews.Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies
Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients in which the patient-clinician relationship was systematically manipulated and healthcare outcomes were either objective (e.g., blood pressure) or validated subjective measures (e.g., pain scores). Studies were excluded if the encounter was a routine physical, or a mental health or substance abuse visit; if the outcome was an intermediate outcome such as patient satisfaction or adherence to treatment; if the patient-clinician relationship was manipulated solely by intervening with patients; or if the duration of the clinical encounter was unequal across conditions.Results
Thirteen RCTs met eligibility criteria. Observed effect sizes for the individual studies ranged from d = −.23 to .66. Using a random-effects model, the estimate of the overall effect size was small (d = .11), but statistically significant (p = .02).Conclusions
This systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs suggests that the patient-clinician relationship has a small, but statistically significant effect on healthcare outcomes. Given that relatively few RCTs met our eligibility criteria, and that the majority of these trials were not specifically designed to test the effect of the patient-clinician relationship on healthcare outcomes, we conclude with a call for more research on this important topic. 相似文献12.
Background
In Western Europe, low back pain has the greatest burden of all diseases. When back pain persists, different medical specialists are involved and a lack of consensus exists among these specialists for medical decision-making in Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP).Objective
To develop a decision tool for secondary or tertiary spine care specialists to decide which patients with CLBP should be seen by a spine surgeon or by other non-surgical medical specialists.Methods
A Delphi study was performed to identify indicators predicting the outcome of interventions. In the preparatory stage evidence from international guidelines and literature were summarized. Eligible studies were reviews and longitudinal studies. Inclusion criteria: surgical or non-surgical interventions and persistence of complaints, CLBP-patients aged 18–65 years, reported baseline measures of predictive indicators, and one or more reported outcomes had to assess functional status, quality of life, pain intensity, employment status or a composite score. Subsequently, a three-round Delphi procedure, to reach consensus on candidate indicators, was performed among a multidisciplinary panel of 29 CLBP-professionals (>five years CLBP-experience). The pre-set threshold for general agreement was ≥70%. The final indicator set was used to develop a clinical decision tool.Results
A draft list with 53 candidate indicators (38 with conclusive evidence and 15 with inconclusive evidence) was included for the Delphi study. Consensus was reached to include 47 indicators. A first version of the decision tool was developed, consisting of a web-based screening questionnaire and a provisional decision algorithm.Conclusions
This is the first clinical decision tool based on current scientific evidence and formal multidisciplinary consensus that helps referring the patient for consultation to a spine surgeon or a non-surgical spine care specialist. We expect that this tool considerably helps in clinical decision-making spine care, thereby improving efficient use of scarce sources and the outcomes of spinal interventions. 相似文献13.
14.
Background
There is no consensus as to what extent of “wrap” is required in a fundoplication for correction of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).Objective
To evaluate if a complete (360 degree) or partial fundoplication gives better control of GERD.Methods
A systematic search of MEDLINE and Scopus identified interventional and observational studies of fundoplication in children. Screening identified those comparing techniques. The primary outcome was recurrence of GERD following surgery. Dysphagia and complications were secondary outcomes of interest. Meta-analysis was performed when appropriate. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.Results
2289 abstracts were screened, yielding 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 retrospective cohort studies. The RCTs were pooled. There was no difference in surgical success between partial and complete fundoplication, OR 1.33 [0.67,2.66]. In the 12 cohort studies, 3 (25%) used an objective assessment of the surgery, one of which showed improved outcomes with complete fundoplication. Twenty-five different complications were reported; common were dysphagia and gas-bloat syndrome. Overall study quality was poor.Conclusions
The comparison of partial fundoplication with complete fundoplication warrants further study. The evidence does not demonstrate superiority of one technique. The lack of high quality RCTs and the methodological heterogeneity of observational studies limits a powerful meta-analysis. 相似文献15.
Dwan K Altman DG Arnaiz JA Bloom J Chan AW Cronin E Decullier E Easterbrook PJ Von Elm E Gamble C Ghersi D Ioannidis JP Simes J Williamson PR 《PloS one》2008,3(8):e3081
Background
The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention.Methodology/Principal Findings
We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40–62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies.Conclusions
Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials. 相似文献16.
Background
Systematic reviews (SRs) of TCM have become increasingly popular in China and have been published in large numbers. This review provides the first examination of epidemiological characteristics of these SRs as well as compliance with the PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines.Objectives
To examine epidemiological and reporting characteristics as well as methodological quality of SRs of TCM published in Chinese journals.Methods
Four Chinese databases were searched (CBM, CSJD, CJFD and Wanfang Database) for SRs of TCM, from inception through Dec 2009. Data were extracted into Excel spreadsheets. The PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively.Results
A total of 369 SRs were identified, most (97.6%) of which used the terms systematic review or meta-analysis in the title. None of the reviews had been updated. Half (49.8%) were written by clinicians and nearly half (47.7%) were reported in specialty journals. The impact factors of 45.8% of the journals published in were zero. The most commonly treated conditions were diseases of the circulatory and digestive disease. Funding sources were not reported for any reviews. Most (68.8%) reported information about quality assessment, while less than half (43.6%) reported assessing for publication bias. Statistical mistakes appeared in one-third (29.3%) of reviews and most (91.9%) did not report on conflict of interest.Conclusions
While many SRs of TCM interventions have been published in Chinese journals, the quality of these reviews is troubling. As a potential key source of information for clinicians and researchers, not only were many of these reviews incomplete, some contained mistakes or were misleading. Focusing on improving the quality of SRs of TCM, rather than continuing to publish them in great quantity, is urgently needed in order to increase the value of these studies. 相似文献17.
Ivor Popovich Bethany Windsor Vanessa Jordan Marian Showell Bev Shea Cynthia M. Farquhar 《PloS one》2012,7(12)
Background
Systematic reviews are used widely to guide health care decisions. Several tools have been created to assess systematic review quality. The measurement tool for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews known as the AMSTAR tool applies a yes/no score to eleven relevant domains of review methodology. This tool has been reworked so that each domain is scored based on a four point scale, producing R-AMSTAR.Methods and Findings
We aimed to compare the AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR tools in assessing systematic reviews in the field of assisted reproduction for subfertility. All published systematic reviews on assisted reproductive technology, with the latest search for studies taking place from 2007–2011, were considered. Reviews that contained no included studies or considered diagnostic outcomes were excluded. Thirty each of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews were randomly selected from a search of relevant databases. Both tools were then applied to all sixty reviews. The results were converted to percentage scores and all reviews graded and ranked based on this. AMSTAR produced a much wider variation in percentage scores and achieved higher inter-rater reliability than R-AMSTAR according to kappa statistics. The average rating for Cochrane reviews was consistent between the two tools (88.3% for R-AMSTAR versus 83.6% for AMSTAR) but inconsistent for non-Cochrane reviews (63.9% R-AMSTAR vs. 38.5% AMSTAR). In comparing the rankings generated between the two tools Cochrane reviews changed an average of 4.2 places, compared to 2.9 for non-Cochrane.Conclusion
R-AMSTAR provided greater guidance in the assessment of domains and produced quantitative results. However, there were many problems with the construction of its criteria and AMSTAR was much easier to apply consistently. We recommend that AMSTAR incorporates the findings of this study and produces additional guidance for its application in order to improve its reliability and usefulness. 相似文献18.
Vinícius Ynoe de Moraes Katelyn Godin Marcel Jun Sugawara Tamaoki Flávio Faloppa Mohit Bhandari Jo?o Carlos Belloti 《PloS one》2012,7(12)
Introduction
Previous reviews have demonstrated that patient outcomes following orthopaedic surgery are strongly influenced by the presence of Workers’ Compensation. However, the variability in the reviews’ methodology may have inflated the estimated strength of this association. The main objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the influence of Workers’ Compensation on the outcomes of orthopaedic surgical procedures.Methods
We conducted a systematic search of the literature published in this area from 1992–2012, with no language restrictions. The following databases were used MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, Google Scholar, LILACS and Pubmed. We also hand-searched the reference sections of all selected papers. We included all prospective studies evaluating the effect of compensation status on outcomes in adult patients who had undergone surgery due to orthopaedic conditions or diseases. Outcomes of interest included disease specific, region specific and/or overall quality of life scales/questionnaires and surgeons’ personal judgment of the results. We used an assessment tool to appraise the quality of all included studies. We used Review Manager to create forest plots to summarize study data and funnel plots for the assessment of publication bias.Results
Twenty studies met our eligibility criteria. The overall risk ratio for experiencing an unsatisfactory result after orthopaedic surgery for patients with compensation compared to non-compensated patients is 2.08 (95% CI 1.54–2.82). A similar association was shown for continuous data extracted from the studies using assessment scales or questionnaires (Standard Mean Difference = −0.70 95% CI -0.97- −0.43).Conclusions
Among patients who undergo orthopaedic surgical procedures, those receiving Workers’ Compensation experience a two-fold greater risk of a negative outcome. Our findings show a considerably lower estimate of risk compared to previous reviews that include retrospective data. Further research is warranted to determine the etiological explanation for the influence of compensation status on patient outcomes.Systematic Review Registration Number
CRD42012002121 相似文献19.
Stephanie L. Harrison Jie Ding Eugene Y. H. Tang Mario Siervo Louise Robinson Carol Jagger Blossom C. M. Stephan 《PloS one》2014,9(12)
Background
Cardiovascular disease and its risk factors have consistently been associated with poor cognitive function and incident dementia. Whether cardiovascular disease prediction models, developed to predict an individual''s risk of future cardiovascular disease or stroke, are also informative for predicting risk of cognitive decline and dementia is not known.Objective
The objective of this systematic review was to compare cohort studies examining the association between cardiovascular disease risk models and longitudinal changes in cognitive function or risk of incident cognitive impairment or dementia.Materials and Methods
Medline, PsychINFO, and Embase were searched from inception to March 28, 2014. From 3,413 records initially screened, 21 were included.Results
The association between numerous different cardiovascular disease risk models and cognitive outcomes has been tested, including Framingham and non-Framingham risk models. Five studies examined dementia as an outcome; fourteen studies examined cognitive decline or incident cognitive impairment as an outcome; and two studies examined both dementia and cognitive changes as outcomes. In all studies, higher cardiovascular disease risk scores were associated with cognitive changes or risk of dementia. Only four studies reported model prognostic performance indices, such as Area Under the Curve (AUC), for predicting incident dementia or cognitive impairment and these studies all examined non-Framingham Risk models (AUC range: 0.74 to 0.78).Conclusions
Cardiovascular risk prediction models are associated with cognitive changes over time and risk of dementia. Such models are easily obtainable in clinical and research settings and may be useful for identifying individuals at high risk of future cognitive decline and dementia. 相似文献20.
Tessa Dieltjens Inge Moonens Koen Van Praet Emmy De Buck Philippe Vandekerckhove 《PloS one》2014,9(12)