Rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis: an overview of Cochrane Reviews. Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions Measures of Reliability in Sports Medicine and Science Effectiveness of exercise interventions on physical function in community-dwelling frail older people: an umbrella review of systematic reviews Effect of vitamin D supplementation on inflammation: protocol for a systematic review Resting blood pressure reductions following isometric handgrip exercise training and the impact of age and sex: protocol for a systematic review Systematic strength training as a model of therapeutic intervention. A controlled trial in postmenopausal women with osteopenia. All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews. Determinants of weight loss maintenance: a systematic review. Nonpharmacological interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes in women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic overview Rehabilitation in rheumatoid arthritis: a critical review. An international registry of systematic-review protocols Dietetic guidelines: diet in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Effect of dietary interventions in mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review. The effectiveness of conservative and surgical treatment for shoulder stiffness: a systematic review of current literature Enhancing the usability of systematic reviews by improving the consideration and description of interventions The immediate and long-term effects of exercise and patient education on physical, functional, and quality-of-life outcome measures after single-level lumbar microdiscectomy: a randomized controlled trial protocol Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer Room for improvement? A survey of the methods used in systematic reviews of adverse effects Research gaps identified during systematic reviews of clinical trials: glass-ionomer cements The effects of a systematically developed photo-novella on knowledge, attitudes, communication and behavioural intentions with respect to sexually transmitted infections among secondary school learners in South Africa. Assessing the complexity of interventions within systematic reviews: development, content and use of a new tool (iCAT_SR)
BACKGROUND Multiple sclerosis ( MS ) is a major cause of chronic , neurological disability , with a significant long-term disability burden , often requiring comprehensive rehabilitation . OBJECTIVES To systematic ally evaluate evidence from published Cochrane Review s of clinical trials to summarise the evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of rehabilitation interventions for people with MS ( pwMS ) , to improve patient outcomes , and to highlight current gaps in knowledge . METHODS We search ed the Cochrane Data base of Systematic Review s up to December 2017 , to identify Cochrane Review s that assessed the effectiveness of organised rehabilitation interventions for pwMS . Two review ers independently assessed the quality of included review s , using the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review s ( R-AMSTAR ) tool , and the quality of the evidence for reported outcomes , using the GRADE framework . MAIN RESULTS Overall , we included 15 review s published in the Cochrane Library , comprising 164 r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) and four controlled clinical trials , with a total of 10,396 participants . The included review s evaluated a wide range of rehabilitation interventions , including : physical activity and exercise therapy , hyperbaric oxygen therapy ( HBOT ) , whole-body vibration , occupational therapy , cognitive and psychological interventions , nutritional and dietary supplements , vocational rehabilitation , information provision , telerehabilitation , and interventions for the management of spasticity . We assessed all review s to be of high to moderate method ological quality , based on R-AMSTAR criteria .Moderate- quality evidence suggested that physical therapeutic modalities ( exercise and physical activities ) improved functional outcomes ( mobility , muscular strength ) , reduced impairment ( fatigue ) , and improved participation ( quality of life ) . Moderate- quality evidence suggested that inpatient or outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes led to longer-term gains at the levels of activity and participation , and interventions that provided information improved patient knowledge . Low-qualitty evidence suggested that neuropsychological interventions , symptom-management programmes ( spasticity ) , whole body vibration , and telerehabilitation improved some patient outcomes . Evidence for other rehabilitation modalities was inconclusive , due to lack of robust studies . AUTHORS ' CONCLUSIONS The evidence suggests that regular specialist evaluation and follow-up to assess the needs of patients with all types of MS for appropriate rehabilitation interventions may be of benefit , although the certainty of evidence varies across the different types of interventions evaluated by the review s. Structured , multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes and physical therapy ( exercise or physical activities ) can improve functional outcomes ( mobility , muscle strength , aerobic capacity ) , and quality of life . Overall , the evidence for many rehabilitation interventions should be interpreted cautiously , as the majority of included review s did not include data from current studies . More studies , with appropriate design , which report the type and intensity of modalities and their cost-effectiveness are needed to address the current gaps in knowledge At the end of a long week in the office , you sink back into your chair , reflecting on some of the more memorable patients you cared for and counseled . Through gentle history taking , you discovered that urinary incontinence is the underlying cause of an elderly patient 's increasing social isolation . During a careful physical examination , you detected bruising on the torso of a woman with chronic headaches and began to explore the longst and ing abusive relationship between the woman and her alcoholic partner . You discontinued procainamide therapy in a 72-year-old man who had asymptomatic premature ventricular contractions after myocardial infa rct ion . To prevent bleeding from esophageal varices , you started -blocker therapy in a woman with long-st and ing cryptogenic cirrhosis and portal hypertension . In couples ' therapy , discussing the future quality of life of a middle-aged gay man with human immunodeficiency virus infection , you journeyed through emotionally intense dialogue about advance directives . You presented the risk factors for major and minor bleeding to a 39-year-old woman who was considering warfarin therapy because of recently diagnosed atrial fibrillation and valvular heart disease . You listened to , made diagnoses for , treated , advised , and comforted many patients . Yet there were some hiccoughs in your practice along the way . You stumbled while debating the pros and cons of breast cancer screening with a healthy 48-year-old woman who has been staying current with information on the Internet . You question ed the merits of a personalized walking program suggested to you by a motivated 66-year-old man with severe claudication . Explaining that you wanted to review the best current evidence on these issues , you resolved to address your uncertainties before these patients made their next office visits , in a week 's time . Sighing deeply , you acknowledge that you have little time to read . You subscribe to three journals , which you browse months after they arrive-either when your journal stack becomes precariously high or when your guilt is sufficiently motivational . You sometimes find the conclusions of individual articles conflicting or confusing . You know that some of the decisions and suggestions you made this week , specifically your decisions about stopping procainamide therapy and starting -blocker therapy and your advice about bleeding risks from anticoagulant therapy , were based on the best current research evidence [ 1 - 3 ] . On the other h and , your patients ' inquiries about breast cancer screening and exercise treatment for claudication highlight your need for a concise , current , rigorous synthesis of the best available evidence on each of these topics : in brief , a systematic review [ 4 , 5 ] . Incorporating Research Evidence into Clinical Decision Making The foregoing scenario is familiar to practitioners . In a typical week , we encounter patients with diverse problems ; exercise numerous clinical , interpersonal , and technical skills ; and make many decisions . The factors that affect these decisions and their outcomes are complex . For instance , each patient has unique sociodemographic characteristics , cultural circumstances , and personal preferences . Each physician has unique knowledge , experiences , and values . Moreover , practitioners and their patients make decisions within the context of a rapidly changing health care system that influences the availability , accessibility , and cost of diagnostic tests and therapies [ 6 ] . Timely , useful evidence from the biomedical literature should be an integral component of clinical decision making . If one treatment has been shown to be better than another , we need to know , so that we can recommend the treatment to the appropriate patients . The worldwide effort to develop new tests and treatments , and to determine their usefulness , has never been stronger , and our patients and their families expect us to be fonts of the knowledge that results from this effort [ 7 ] . Unfortunately , it is easy for current best research evidence to pass us by [ 8 ] . We may lack the time , motivation , and basic skills needed to find , critically appraise , and synthesize information , all of which we must do if we are to integrate the results of original studies into our practice . Fortunately , several potent methods are emerging that can greatly enhance our ability to interpret and apply research evidence ; foremost among them is the systematic review . This article begins a series in Annals that will examine systematic review s in detail and explore their many applications . Systematic review s represent the best chance that most practitioners will have to underst and and accurately apply the key signals arising from the robust and increasingly productive search for solutions to medical problems . A properly conducted systematic review faithfully summarizes the evidence from all relevant studies on the topic of interest , and it does so concisely and transparently . What Is a Systematic Review ? Systematic review s are scientific investigations in themselves , with pre-planned methods and an assembly of original studies as their subjects . They synthesize the results of multiple primary investigations by using strategies that limit bias and r and om error [ 9 , 10 ] . These strategies include a comprehensive search of all potentially relevant articles and the use of explicit , reproducible criteria in the selection of articles for review . Primary research design s and study characteristics are appraised , data are synthesized , and results are interpreted . When the results of primary studies are summarized but not statistically combined , the review may be called a qualitative systematic review . A quantitative systematic review , or meta- analysis , is a systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine the results of two or more studies . The term overview is sometimes used to denote a systematic review , whether quantitative or qualitative . Summaries of research that lack explicit descriptions of systematic methods are often called narrative review s. Review articles are one type of integrative publication ; practice guidelines , economic evaluations , and clinical decision analyses are others . These other types of integrative articles often incorporate the results of systematic review s. For example , practice guidelines are systematic ally developed statements intended to assist practitioners and patients with decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances [ 11 ] . Evidence -based practice guidelines are based on systematic review s of the literature , appropriately adapted to local circumstances and values . Economic evaluations compare both the costs and the consequences of different courses of action ; the knowledge of consequences that are considered in these evaluations is often generated by systematic review s of primary studies . Decision analyses quantify both the likelihood and the valuation of the expected outcomes associated with competing alternatives . Differences between Systematic and Narrative Review s All review s , narrative and systematic alike , are retrospective , observational research studies and are therefore subject to systematic and r and om error . Accordingly , the quality of a review - and thus its worth-depends on the extent to which scientific review methods have been used to minimize error and bias . This is the key feature that distinguishes traditional narrative review s from systematic review s ( Table 1 ) . If a review is prepared according to the steps outlined in the right column of Table 1 , it is more likely to be systematic and to provide unbiased conclusions . If review methods approximate those found in the middle column of Table 1 , the article is more likely to be a narrative review , and the conclusions are less likely to be based on an unbiased summary of all relevant evidence . Table 1 . Differences between Narrative Review s and Systematic Review s Systematic review s are generated to answer specific , often narrow , clinical questions in depth . These questions can be formulated explicitly according to four variables : a specific population and setting ( such as elderly out patients ) , the condition of interest ( for example , hypertension ) , an exposure to a test or treatment ( such as pharmacologic management ) , and one or more specific outcomes ( such as cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and mortality ) [ 12 ] . Thus , an example of a well-formulated , clinical ly relevant question is , Does pharmacologic treatment of hypertension in the elderly prevent strokes and myocardial infa rct ions or delay death ? If the question that is driving the review is not clear from the title , abstract , or introduction , or if no methods section is included , the paper is more likely to be a narrative review than a systematic review [ 13 ] . Most narrative review articles deal with a broad range of issues related to a given topic rather than addressing a particular issue in depth [ 9 ] . For example , a narrative review on diabetes ( such as that which might be found in a textbook chapter ) might include sections on the physiology and pathophysiology of carbohydrate , lipid , and protein metabolism ; the epidemiology of and prognosis associated with diabetes ; diagnostic and screening approaches ; and preventive , therapeutic , rehabilitative , and palliative interventions . Thus , narrative review s may be most useful for obtaining a broad perspective on a topic ; they are less often useful in furnishing quantitative answers to specific clinical questions . Narrative review s are appropriate for describing the history or development of a problem and its management . Narrative review s may better describe cutting-edge developments if research is scant or preliminary or if studies are very limited by flawed design or execution [ 13 ] . They may be particularly useful for discussing data in light of underlying theory and context . Narrative review s can draw analogies and can conceptually integrate two independent fields of research , such as Abstract Reliability refers to the reproducibility of values of a test , assay or other measurement in repeated trials on the same individuals . Better reliability implies better precision of single measurements and better tracking of changes in measurements in research or practical setting s. The main measures of reliability are within-subject r and om variation , systematic change in the mean , and retest correlation . A simple , adaptable form of within-subject variation is the typical ( st and ard ) error of measurement : the st and ard deviation of an individual ’s repeated measurements . For many measurements in sports medicine and science , the typical error is best expressed as a coefficient of variation ( percentage of the mean ) . A biased , more limited form of within-subject variation is the limits of agreement : the 95 % likely range of change of an individual ’s measurements between 2 trials . Systematic changes in the mean of a measure between consecutive trials represent such effects as learning , motivation or fatigue ; these changes need to be eliminated from estimates of within-subject variation . Retest correlation is difficult to interpret , mainly because its value is sensitive to the heterogeneity of the sample of participants . Uses of reliability include decision-making when monitoring individuals , comparison of tests or equipment , estimation of sample size in experiments and estimation of the magnitude of individual differences in the response to a treatment . Reasonable precision for estimates of reliability requires approximately 50 study participants and at least 3 trials . Studies aim ed at assessing variation in reliability between tests or equipment require complex design s and analyses that research ers seldom perform correctly . A wider underst and ing of reliability and adoption of the typical error as the st and ard measure of reliability would improve the assessment of tests and equipment in our disciplines Objectives : This umbrella review aim ed to determine the effectiveness of exercise interventions , alone or in combination with other interventions , in improving physical function in community-dwelling older people identified as pre-frail or frail . Introduction : Exercise is said to have a positive impact on muscle mass and strength which improves physical function and hence is beneficial for the treatment of frailty . Several systematic review s discuss the effects of exercise interventions on physical function parameters , such as strength , mobility , gait , balance and physical performance , and indicate that multi-component exercise , including resistance , aerobic , balance and flexibility training , appears to be the best way in which to improve physical function parameters in frail older people . However , there is still uncertainty as to which exercise characteristics ( type , frequency , intensity , duration and combinations ) are the most effective and sustainable over the long-term . Inclusion criteria : Participants were adults , 60 years or over , living in the community and identified as pre-frail or frail . Quantitative systematic review s , with or without meta- analysis that examined the effectiveness of exercise interventions of any form , duration , frequency and intensity , alone or in combination with other interventions design ed to alter physical function parameters in frail older people , were considered . The quantitative outcome measures were physical function , including muscular strength , gait , balance , mobility and physical performance . Methods : An iterative search strategy for ten bibliometric data bases and gray literature was developed . Critical appraisal of seven systematic review s was conducted independently by two review ers using a st and ard Joanna Briggs Institute tool . Data was extracted independently by two review ers using a st and ard Joanna Briggs Institute data extraction tool and summarized using a narrative synthesis approach . Results : Seven systematic review s were included in this umbrella review , with a total of 58 relevant r and omized controlled trials and 6927 participants . Five systematic review s examined the effects of exercise only , while two systematic review s reported on exercise in combination with a nutritional approach , including protein supplementations , as well as fruit and dairy products . The average  exercise frequency was 2–3 times per week ( mean 3.0 ± 1.5 times per week ; range 1–7 weekly ) for 10–90 minutes per session ( mean of 52.0 ± 16.5 mins ) and a total duration of 5–72 weeks with the majority lasting a minimum of 2.5 months ( mean 22.7 ± 17.7 weeks ) . Multi-component exercise interventions can currently be recommended for pre-frail and frail older adults to improve muscular strength , gait speed , balance and physical performance , including resistance , aerobic , balance and flexibility tasks . Resistance training alone also appeared to be beneficial , in particular for improving muscular strength , gait speed and physical performance . Other types of exercise were not sufficiently studied and their effectiveness is yet to be established . Conclusions : Interventions for pre-frail and frail older adults should include multi-component exercises , including in particular resistance training , as well as aerobic , balance and flexibility tasks . Future research should adopt a consistent definition of frailty and investigate the effects of other types of exercise alone or in combination with nutritional interventions so that more specific recommendations can be made Introduction The extraskeletal role of vitamin D is being increasingly recognised . This has important clinical implication s , as vitamin D deficiency has reached epidemic proportions worldwide . Vitamin D has proposed anti-inflammatory properties , yet the role of vitamin D supplementation in reducing inflammation remains largely unknown . The purpose of this review is to investigate the impact of vitamin D supplementation on inflammation , and to identify relevant knowledge gaps in the field . Methods and analysis Medline , CINAHL , EMBASE and All EBM will be systematic ally search ed for r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) and systematic review s of RCTs , comparing vitamin D supplementation with placebo , usual care or other pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions . One review er will assess articles for eligibility according to prespecified selection criteria , after which 2 independent review ers will perform data extraction and quality appraisal . Meta-analyses will be conducted where appropriate . Ethics and dissemination Formal ethical approval is not required as no primary data is collected . This systematic review will identify potential clinical implication s of vitamin D deficiency and supplementation , and will be disseminated through a peer- review ed publication and at conference meetings , to inform future research on the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation for inflammation and inflammatory diseases . PROSPERO registration number CRD42016037104 Background The risk of developing cardiovascular disease is directly correlated to one ’s resting blood pressure ( BP ) , age , and biological sex . Resting BP can be reduced using h and grip exercise training , but the impact of age and sex on the effectiveness of training is not well documented . Methods / design A systematic search of the literature will be conducted for all experimental studies ( including r and omized controlled trials and prospect i ve experiments ) that report the influence of isometric h and grip exercise training on resting systolic blood pressure . The data bases Medline , Embase , Cochrane Review s , Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature ( CINAHL ) , SPORTD iscus , Web of Science , Allied and Complementary Medicine ( AMED ) , PubMed , and Scopus will be search ed until 1 December 2015 . Screening of potential articles , data abstract ion , and quality appraisal will be completed in duplicate independently . When necessary , corresponding authors will be contacted in order to facilitate the separation of pooled data into age and sex categories . Method ological quality will be determined using the Quality Assessment Framework developed by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale as appropriate . Any discrepancies will be resolved by a third author . Findings will be presented in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic review s and meta- analysis ( PRISMA ) guidelines . Discussion This systematic review will determine the overall effectiveness  of h and grip exercise training in improving resting blood pressure . A novel , focused assessment will contrast  effectiveness of h and grip training  based on the age ( younger 18–54 years , older > 55 years ) and the sex ( men , women ) of study participants . This information is essential to consoli date before moving forward with the development and implementation of h and grip exercise training programmes which are design ed to best meet the needs of particular cohorts . Systematic review registration PROSPERO Physical exercise is often recommended as a therapeutic tool to combat pre- and postmenopausal loss of bone density . However , the relationship between training dosage ( intensity , duration , frequency ) and the effect on bone density still is undergoing discussion . Furthermore , the exercise quantification programs are often described so inadequately that they are neither quantitatively nor qualitatively reproducible . The aim of this investigation was to determine whether a clearly defined training of muscle strength , under defined safety aspects , performed only twice weekly , can counteract bone density loss in women with postmenopausal osteopenia . Data from 16 women in the training group ( age , 63.6 + /- 6.2 yr ) and 15 women in the control group ( age , 67.4 + /-9.7 yr ) , of comparable height and weight , were evaluated .  Strength training was performed for 6 mo as continually adapted strength training , providing an intensity of about 70 % of each test person 's one repetition maximum . Bone mineral density of lumbar vertebrae 2 to 4 and the femoral neck was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry . Maximum performance in watts and parameters of hemodynamics were controlled with a bicycle ergometer test to maximal effort . In addition , metabolic data were assessed . In the lumbar spine and femoral neck , the training group showed no significant changes , whereas the control group demonstrated a significant loss of bone mineral density , especially in the femoral neck ( P<0.05 ) . The strength increase was highly significant in all exercised muscle groups , rising to about 70 % above the pretraining status ( P<0.001 ) . Heart rate and blood pressure data indicated a slight economization , metabolism was not significantly influenced . Based on these findings , we conclude that continually adapted strength training is an effective , safe , reproducible , and adaptable method of therapeutic strength training , following only two exercise sessions per week Three years ago , we founded this journal focusing on publishing systematic review s , systematic review protocol s , and associated method ological development papers . Systematic review s , which developed in the social sciences in the 1970s , began to gain rapid momentum during the 1990s in response to concerns by policymakers and clinicians about the scientific validity of the prevailing paradigm of traditional narrative review s written by authoritative experts . What distinguished systematic review s was the use of formal explicit methods , in other words pre-specification , of what exactly was the question to be answered , how evidence was search ed for and assessed , and how it was synthesized in order to reach the conclusion . Importantly , these formal methods were described as part of the review itself in a Methods section . In turn , these methods themselves became the subject of hypothesis-testing studies , as investigators sought how best to search for evidence , assess studies for quality or risk of bias , determine under what conditions meta- analysis was justified , and how to best determine and characterize our confidence in the conclusions . The results of these hypothesis-testing studies led over time to improvements in the methods we use for systematic review s. Thus , systematic review s and this journal are part of an ever-evolving process whose foundations are rooted in the scientific method . Today , new forms of review s are appearing . These have emerged in response to policymakers and other stakeholders ’ needs for information , sometimes emergently or urgently , for which the existing systematic review model does not quite fit . Hence , the rapid review , when time is of the essence ; the scoping review , when what is needed is not detailed answers to specific questions but rather an overview of a broad field ; the evidence map , a cousin of scoping review s that commonly has a specific visual presentation of the evidence across a broad field ; and the realist review , where the question of interest includes how and why complex social interventions work in certain situations , rather than assume they either do or do not work at all . As Editors , we regularly get contacted by prospect i ve authors asking whether realist review s , or scoping review s , etc . , are “ within the scope ” for Systematic Review s , and therefore we judge it an opportune time to state our position on this matter . It is our view that all of these new forms of review s are related to systematic review s , similar to the way that different biological Species within the same Family are related to each other . We consider “ systematic review s ” to be the Family and the different forms of review s to be the different species . Just as in the biological classification , where the related organisms must share certain characteristics , so too must the different types of review s share a common characteristic . In this case , what is shared is their foundation in the scientific method , with their methods articulated in advance in sufficient detail that the review can be reproduced by others . A further defining feature is that there are scholars devoted to improving the methods over time via hypothesis-testing studies . Systematic Review s has responded to these emerging techniques and already publishes papers reporting methods and findings from the systematic review family and has for example published an extremely popular series on rapid review s. We would like to consoli date this position and invite su bmi ssion of these new species of review s , as long as they meet the qualifications just listed . We expect this process of evolution to continue and to refine the methods such that in 10 years ’ time , there will appear new , as yet unimagined species of review s— and perhaps some current species of review will become extinct . Thus , it is with the scientific method , which we believe is the foundation that unites the Family of systematic review The m and ate of Human Reproduction Up date involves several roles : ( i ) to provide a synthesis of evidence that can aid scientists and clinicians in their daily work ; ( ii ) to help reproductive specialists underst and concepts from related disciplines ; and ( iii ) to summarize current knowledge generated by basic science as the foundation of future scientific and clinical advancement . Given that review and synthesis are central to good scientific and clinical practice , and that a grasp of the current state of knowledge is a prerequisite to design ing new studies , it is pertinent to ask which review s are most likely to fulfil the needs of readers . A related question concerns whether systematic review s meet the needs of all review topics and all readers . Summarizing evidence or knowledge is a difficult problem in reproductive medicine , as in other branches of science and medical care ( Eddy et al. , 1992 ) . For each question there may be multiple studies that use different design s and inclusion criteria . For clinical questions , the interventions , outcomes and measures of effect may vary : the effect measures in treatment studies include odds ratios , relative risks and absolute differences . For scientific questions , the experimental species , models and design s may differ . Moreover , it is always uncertain whether all of the relevant evidence has been evaluated . Even when the search has been exhaustive , there are no simple guides on how to interpret conflicting results and whether to accept apparently outlying studies . The choices that the review er makes to address the variable conditions and uncertainties may be conservative , strict and exclusive , or liberal , open and inclusive . The decisions made by the review er may not be consistent throughout and these choices may or may not satisfy the reader who seeks out the review to address a clinical or research question . Faced with uncertainty and doubt , readers nonetheless must form an impression of the evidence and synthesize the state of knowledge in order to address the clinical or research question that stimulated their interest in the review . We argue that the reader is better served when the choices made in the review , regardless of whether they are strict or open , should be explicit , transparent , clearly stated and reproducible by interested readers . This list of objectives for review s is more easily satisfied by systematic review s , which use explicit methods to method ically search , critically appraise and synthesize the available literature on a specific issue . The question or issue need not be clinical : indeed , the concept evolved primarily in psychology studies ( Light and Pillemer , 1984 ) . The systematic review attempts to reduce review er bias through the use of objective , reproducible criteria to select relevant individual publications and assess their validity . A systematic review may include a meta- analysis or statistical summary of the individual study results : the aggregate of effects from several studies yields an average treatment effect that is more precise than the individual study results ( Schlesselman and Collins , 2003 ) . Thus , the systematic review involves explicit , transparent methods which are clearly stated , and reproducible by others . Whether a systematic review of r and omized controlled trials adheres to the guidelines can easily be evaluated by means of a widely used checklist ( the QUORUM statement ) ( Moher et al. , 1999 ) . The strengths of the systematic review include the narrow focus of the question , the comprehensive search for evidence , the criterion-based selection of relevant evidence , the rigorous appraisal of validity , the objective or quantitative summary , and the evidence -based inferences ( Cook et al. , 1997 ) . For some review topics , however , the strengths of the systematic review may turn into weaknesses . The primary problem is that the narrow focus and prescribed methods of the systematic review do not allow for comprehensive coverage . For example , the historical review is an irreplaceable means of tracing the development of a scientific principle or clinical concept , but the narrative thread could be lost in the strict rules of systematic review . As other examples , it would be burdensome to apply systematic methods to a survey on  aneuploidy and fertility in the aging female or to an assessment of mouse knockout models and polycystic ovarian phenotype . Such topics would require the wider scope of a traditional narrative review , in Human Reproduction Up date , Vol.11 , No.2 pp . 103–104 , 2005 doi:10.1093/humupd/dmh058 Advance Access publication December 23 , BACKGROUND Discerning the determinants of weight loss maintenance is important in the planning of future interventions and policies regarding overweight and obesity . We have therefore systematic ally synthesized recent literature on determinants of weight loss maintenance for individuals with overweight and obesity . METHODS With the use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review s and Meta-Analyses statement , prospect i ve studies were identified from search es in PubMed and PsycINFO from 2006 to 2016 . We included articles investigating adults with overweight and obesity undergoing weight loss without surgery or medication .  Included articles were scored on their method ological quality , and a best- evidence synthesis was applied to summarize the results . RESULTS Our search result ed in 8,222 articles of which 67 articles were selected . In total , 124 determinants were identified of which 5 were demographic , 59 were behavioural , 51 were psychological/cognitive and 9 were social and physical environmental determinants . We found consistent evidence that demographic determinants were not predictive of weight loss maintenance . Behavioural and cognitive determinants that promote a reduction in energy intake , an increase in energy expenditure and monitoring of this balance are predictive determinants . CONCLUSION This review identifies key determinants in weight loss maintenance . However , more research regarding cognitive and environmental determinants of weight loss maintenance is needed to advance our knowledge on determinants of weight loss maintenance This systematic overview summarizes the relevant evidence from multiple systematic review s of the benefits of nonpharmacological interventions for preventing  type 2 diabetes mellitus ( T2MD ) in women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus ( GDM ) . A comprehensive search using the Cochrane Library , CINAHL , EMBASE and MEDLINE via Ovid SP , and PubMed data bases was completed on 18 November 2015 . Any systematic review s that evaluated r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) with defined nonpharmacological interventions for preventing T2DM in women diagnosed with GDM were eligible for inclusion . The authors independently performed critical appraisal s and quality assessment s of the included review s using the AMSTAR tool , and extracted data were converted to coherent values for tabular summarization . Six eligible review s of diet and /or exercise , breastfeeding , and reminder interventions were identified ; however , the method ologies of the review s varied greatly , and the majority of the evidence suggested unclear bias . We found inconsistent reporting on the rates at which diet and exercise interventions reduced the risk of T2DM progression , but these interventions were found to be effective at reducing glycemic load . Combined diet , exercise , and breastfeeding interventions proved to be effective at returning women to their postpartum weight . Neither diet alone nor exercise alone proved to be effective at lowering the risk of T2DM . Overall , there was no robust evidence to support the hypothesis that nonpharmacological interventions are effective at lowering the risk of T2DM in women diagnosed with GDM , and there was no consistent evidence showing that these interventions improved the predictor outcomes of T2DM , such as glycemic load or anthropometric changes This article considers the evidence for effectiveness and timing of rehabilitation  for people with rheumatoid arthritis ( RA ) . The Cochrane Library , DARE , Medline , Embase , CINAHL and AMED were search ed to identify systematic review s and r and omized controlled trials evaluating rehabilitation interventions for people with rheumatoid arthritis . Many trials identified had method ological limitations ( e.g. short follow-up periods , small sample sizes ) . Evidence to date is that symptomatic relief results from thermotherapy , laser therapy , acupuncture and assistive devices . In the short-term , comprehensive occupational therapy ( in established rheumatoid arthritis ) , orthoses , and mind-body approaches can help maintain function . Over at least a one-year period , the following are effective in reducing pain and maintaining function :  patient education and joint protection training using behavioural approaches ; dynamic exercise therapy , h and exercises and hydrotherapy ; and cognitive-behavioural therapy ( in people with poorer psychological status ) . Many trials have recruited people with moderate to severe , established RA and relatively little is known about the long-term effectiveness of early rehabilitation , although this is becoming much more common in practice . Despite the increased availability of guidelines and systematic review s , most conclude there is insufficient evidence for many areas of rheumatology rehabilitation . Further well- design ed clinical trials are needed recruiting people with early disease using patient-centred outcomes Support for prospect i ve registration of protocol s for systematic review s has been gathering momentum . The PRISMA statement , a guideline for reporting systematic review s and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health-care interventions , advocates registration . Well-conducted systematic review s are accepted as the best- quality evidence to inform policy and practice , and the dramatic upward trend in the number of systematic review s published annually ( fi gure ) is set to continue . However , there is currently no single facility for identifying this type of research in advance of the appearance of the results of the review . There is concern about and evidence of publication and selective outcome -reporting biases associated with systematic review s. An open registry of review s captured at the protocol stage would facilitate good practice in systematic review s by providing transparency of the review process and outcomes . Discrepancies between the methods of the published review and those planned in the registered protocol could be more readily identifi ed . Registration might also encourage full publication of the review ’s fi ndings and transparency in changes to methods that could bias fi ndings . In both the prevention and revelation of potential bias , registration should improve quality and increase confi dence that policy or practice informed by the fi ndings of systematic review s are indeed drawing on best- quality evidence . A registry of protocol s of systematic review s could assist those planning new review s and updating existing ones . Easy access to information about ongoing review s should help to optimise the use of fi nite re sources by enabling funding and commissioning agencies to avoid unnecessary duplication and encourage collaboration . A comprehensive registry could also create opportunities for method ological and other research , both within and across disciplines . Existing access to systematic - review protocol s is limited to the outputs of individual organisations , such as the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations and the Joanna Briggs Institute . The National Public Health Service for Wales is piloting an All Wales Systematic Review s Register , but , up to now , there has been no central ised comprehensive registry of systematic - review protocol s. We are developing an international facility to register the details of ongoing systematic review s in health and social care . Our registry is being established with the existing platform and infrastructure that supports the Data base of Abstract s of Review s of Eff ects ( DARE ) , the NHS Economic Evaluations Data base ( NHS EED ) and the Health Technology Assessment ( HTA ) data base produced by the Centre for Review s and Dissemination . The initial scope of the registry will be limited to systematic review s of the eff ectiveness of health interventions . However , the longterm aim is for the registry to include details of all ongoing systematic review s with a health-related outcome in the broadest sense . Ultimately , inclusion will encompass systematic review s of health-care interventions , and review s of the social determinants of health , of service delivery , and of risk factors and genetic associations . Our web-based registry will off er free public access , be electronically search able , and open to all prospect i ve registrants . Registration will require the provision of a minimum data set , the completeness of which will be checked automatically before registration . After acceptance , the registry ’s entry and protocol for the review , if available , will be loaded on the data base as a permanent entry and a unique identifi cation number issued . An audit trail for any amendments to the information will be available within the record . Links to result ing publications will be added . These provisions ensure that the registry will match the relevant criteria required of clinical trials registries AIM To produce dietetic guidelines summarizing the systematic review evidence on dietary advice for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease . METHODS The Cochrane Library , MEDLINE and EMBASE were comprehensively search ed for systematic review s on aspects of diet and heart health . Review s were included if they search ed systematic ally for r and omised controlled trials relating to diet and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease . Two members of the UK Heart Health and Thoracic Dietitians Group critically appraised each review . The quality and results of each review were discussed and summarized in a whole group meeting . The guidelines were trialled in seven dietetic departments and modified where necessary . RESULTS Providing evidence -based dietary information ( including increasing omega-3 fat plus fruit and vegetable intake ) to all people after myocardial infa rct ion will save more lives than concentrating dietary advice on those in need of weight loss or lipid lowering . The practice of prioritizing dietetic time to those with raised lipids is out of date since the advent of statin therapy . CONCLUSION There is good systematic review evidence that dietary advice to those with cardiovascular disease can reduce mortality and morbidity as well as modify risk factors .  Dietary advice that does this most effectively should be prioritized Diet has been investigated in relation to its ability to promote cognitive function . However , evidence is currently limited and has rarely been systematic ally review ed , particularly in a mild cognitive impairment ( MCI ) population . This review examined the effect of diet on cognitive outcomes in MCI patients . A total of five data bases were search ed to find r and omised controlled trial ( RCT ) studies , with diet as the main focus , in MCI participants . The primary outcome was incident dementia and /or Alzheimer 's disease ( AD ) and secondary outcomes included cognitive function across different domains using vali date d neuropsychological tests .  Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria . There was a high degree of heterogeneity relating to the nature of the dietary intervention and cognitive outcomes measured , thus making study comparisons difficult . Supplementation with vitamin E ( one study , n 516 ) , ginkgo biloba ( one study , n 482 ) or Fortasyn Connect ( one study , n 311 ) had no significant effect on progression from MCI to dementia and /or AD . For cognitive function , the findings showed some improvements in performance , particularly in memory , with the most consistent results shown by B vitamins , including  folic acid  ( one study , n 266 ) ,  folic acid alone  ( one study , n 180 ) ,  DHA and EPA  ( two studies , n 36 and n 86 ) ,  DHA  ( one study , n 240 ) and  flavonol supplementation  ( one study , n 90 ) . The findings indicate that dietary factors may have a potential benefit for cognitive function in MCI patients . Further well- design ed trials are needed , with st and ardised and robust measures of cognition to investigate the influence of diet on cognitive status Introduction Currently , no therapeutic intervention is universally accepted , and the most effective management for restoring motion and diminishing pain in patients with shoulder stiffness has yet to be defined . This systematic review analyses outcomes of conservative and surgical interventions to treat shoulder stiffness . Source of data A systematic review of literature according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed . A comprehensive search of PubMed , Medline , CINAHL , Cochrane , Embase , Ovid and Google Scholar data bases using various combinations of the keywords ' shoulder ' ,  ' shoulder stiffness ' ,  ' stiff shoulder ' ,  '  conservative  '  , since inception of data bases to June 2018 was performed . Areas of agreement Shoulder stiffness could be treated with conservative means including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications , corticosteroid injections , or transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation , manipulation under anaesthesia , and arthroscopic capsular release . Areas of controversy No therapeutic intervention is universally accepted , and the most effective management to restore motion and diminish pain in patients with shoulder stiffness has yet to be defined . Growing points The rate of failure after treatment for stiff shoulder is higher in the surgical group than in the conservative group . Areas timely for developing research There is insufficient evidence to establish whether surgical or conservative management is the best choice to manage shoulder stiffness . Prospect i ve , r and omized studies are needed to establish whether surgical or conservative management produce a clinical ly relevant difference in functional outcome The importance of adequate intervention descriptions in minimising research waste and improving research usability and reproducibility has gained attention in the past few years . Nearly all focus to date has been on intervention reporting in r and omised trials . Yet clinicians are encouraged to use systematic review s , whenever available , rather than single trials to inform their practice . This article explores the problem and implication s of incomplete intervention details during the planning , conduct , and reporting of systematic review s and makes recommendations for review authors , peer review ers , and journal Background Low back pain remains a costly quality -of-life-related health problem . Microdiscectomy is often the surgical procedure of choice for a symptomatic , single-level , lumbar disc herniation in younger and middle-aged adults . The question of whether a post-microdiscectomy exercise program enhances function , quality of life , and disability status has not been systematic ally explored . Thus , the overall purpose of this study is to assess immediate and long-term outcomes of an exercise program , developed at University of Southern California ( USC ) , targeting the trunk and lower extremities ( USC Spine Exercise Program ) for persons who have undergone a single-level microdiscectomy for the first time . Methods / design One hundred individuals between the ages of 18 and 60 who consent to undergo lumbar microdiscectomy will be recruited to participate in this study . Subjects will be r and omly assigned to one of two groups : 1 ) one session of back care education , or 2 ) a back care education session followed by the 12-week USC Spine Exercise Program . The outcome examiners ( evaluators ) , as well as the data managers , will be blinded to group allocation . Education will consist of a one-hour " one-on-one " session with the intervention therapist , guided by an educational booklet specifically design ed for post-microdiscectomy care . This session will occur four to six weeks after surgery . The USC Spine Exercise Program consists of two parts : back extensor strength and endurance , and mat and upright therapeutic exercises . This exercise program is goal -oriented , performance-based , and periodized . It will begin two to three days after the education session , and will occur three times a week for 12 weeks . Primary outcome measures include the Oswestry Disability Question naire , Rol and -Morris Disability Question naire , SF-36 ® quality of life assessment , Subjective Quality of Life Scale , 50-foot Walk , Repeated Sit-to-St and , and a modified Sorensen test . The outcome measures in the study will be assessed before and after the 12-week post-surgical intervention program . Long-term follow up assessment s will occur every six months beginning one year after surgery and ending five years after surgery . Immediate and long-term effects will be assessed using repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance ( MANOVA ) . If significant interactions are found , one-way ANOVAs will be performed followed by post-hoc testing to determine statistically significant pairwise comparisons . Discussion We have presented the rationale and design for a r and omized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a treatment regimen  for people who have undergone a single-level lumbar microdiscectomy Background Multiple treatments are frequently available for a given condition , and clinicians and patients need a comprehensive , up-to- date synthesis of evidence for all competing treatments . We aim ed to quantify the waste of research related to the failure of systematic review s to provide a complete and up-to- date evidence synthesis over time . Methods We performed a series of systematic overviews and networks of r and omized trials assessing the gap between evidence covered by systematic review s and available trials of second-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer . We search ed the Cochrane Data base of Systematic Review s , Data base of Abstract s of Review s of Effects , MEDLINE , EMBASE , and other re sources sequentially by year from 2009 to March 2 , 2015 . We sequentially compared the amount of evidence missing from systematic review s to the r and omized evidence available for inclusion each year . We constructed cumulative networks of r and omized evidence over time and evaluated the proportion of trials , patients , treatments , and treatment comparisons not covered by systematic review s on December 31 each year from 2009 to 2015 . Results We identified 77 trials ( 28,636 patients ) assessing 47 treatments with 54 comparisons and 29 systematic review s ( 13 published after 2013 ) . From 2009 to 2015 , the evidence covered by existing systematic review s was consistently incomplete : 45 % to 70 % of trials ; 30 % to 58 % of patients ; 40 % to 66 % of treatments ; and 38 % to 71 % of comparisons were missing . In the cumulative networks of r and omized evidence , 10 % to 17 % of treatment comparisons were partially covered by systematic review s and 55 % to 85 % were partially or not covered . Conclusions We illustrate how systematic review s of a given condition provide a fragmented , out-of- date panorama of the evidence for all treatments . This waste of research might be reduced by the development of live cumulative network meta-analyses Background Although the methods for conducting systematic review s of efficacy are well established , there is much less guidance on how systematic review s of adverse effects should be performed . Methods In order to determine where method ological research is most needed to improve systematic review s of adverse effects of health care interventions , we conducted a descriptive analysis of systematic review s published between 1994 and 2005 . We search ed the Data base of Abstract s of Review s of Effects ( DARE ) and The Cochrane Data base of Systematic Review s ( CDSR ) to identify systematic review s in which the primary outcome was an adverse effect or effects . We then extracted data on many of the elements of the systematic review process including : types of interventions studied , adverse effects of interest , re sources search ed , search strategies , data sources included in review s , quality assessment of primary data , nature of the data analysis , and source of funding . Results 256 review s were included in our analysis , of which the majority evaluated drug interventions and pre-specified the adverse effect or effects of interest . A median of 3 re sources were search ed for each review and very few review s ( 13/256 ) provided sufficient information to reproduce their search strategies . Although more than three quarters ( 185/243 ) of the review s sought to include data from sources other than r and omised controlled trials , fewer than half ( 106/256 ) assessed the quality of the studies that were included . Data were pooled quantitatively in most of the review s ( 165/256 ) but heterogeneity was not always considered . Less than half ( 123/256 ) of the review s reported on the source of funding . Conclusion There is an obvious need to improve the methodology and reporting of systematic review s of adverse effects . The methodology around identification and quality assessment of primary data is the main concern Background To report the results of an audit concerning research gaps in clinical trials that were accepted for appraisal in authored and published systematic review s regarding the application of glass-ionomer cements ( GIC ) in dental practice Methods Information concerning research gaps in trial precision was extracted , following a framework that included classification of the research gap reasons : ‘ imprecision of information ( results ) ’ , ‘ biased information ’ , ‘ inconsistency or unknown consistency ’ and ‘ not the right information ’ , as well as research gap characterization using PICOS elements : population ( P ) , intervention ( I ) , comparison ( C ) , outcomes ( O ) and setting ( S ) . Internal trial validity assessment was based on the underst and ing that successful control for systematic error can not be assured on the basis of inclusion of adequate methods alone , but also requires empirical evidence about whether such attempt was successful . Results A comprehensive and interconnected coverage of GIC-related clinical topics was established . The most common reasons found for gaps in trial precision were lack of sufficient trials and lack of sufficient large sample size . Only a few research gaps were ascribed to ‘ Lack of information ’ caused by focus on mainly surrogate trial outcomes . According to the chosen assessment criteria , a lack of adequate r and omisation , allocation concealment and blinding/masking in trials covering all review ed GIC topics was noted ( selection - and detection/performance bias risk ) . Trial results appear to be less affected by loss-to-follow-up ( attrition bias risk ) . Conclusion This audit represents an adjunct of the systematic review articles it has covered . Its results do not change the systematic review ’s conclusions but highlight existing research gaps concerning the precision and internal validity of review ed trials in detail . These gaps should be addressed in future GIC-related clinical research A pre-post test follow-up design was used to test the effects of a systematic ally developed photo-novella ( Laduma ) on knowledge , attitudes , communication and behavioural intentions with respect to sexually transmitted infections , after a single reading by 1168 secondary school learners in South Africa . The reading result ed in an increase in knowledge on the spread of sexually transmitted infections ( STIs ) , change in attitude to condom use and towards people with STIs and /or HIV/AIDS , as well as increased intention to practice safe sex . Laduma did not influence communication about sexually transmitted infections and reported sexual behaviour and condom use . While print media proved to be an effective strategy to reach large numbers of youth and prepare them for adequate preventive behaviours , the study also identified the need to combine print media with other planned theory-based interventions that build confidence and skills to initiate the preventive behaviour Background Health interventions fall along a spectrum from simple to more complex . There is wide interest in methods for review ing ‘ complex interventions ’ , but few transparent approaches for assessing intervention complexity in systematic review s. Such assessment s may assist review authors in , for example , systematic ally describing interventions and developing logic models . This paper describes the development and application of the intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Review s ( iCAT_SR ) , a new tool to assess and categorise levels of intervention complexity in systematic review s. Methods We developed the iCAT_SR by adapting and extending an existing complexity assessment tool for r and omized trials . We undertook this adaptation using a consensus approach in which possible complexity dimensions were circulated for feedback to a panel of method ologists with expertise in complex interventions and systematic review s. Based on these inputs , we developed a draft version of the tool . We then invited a second round of feedback from the panel and a wider group of systematic review ers . This informed further refinement of the tool . Results The tool comprises ten dimensions : ( 1 ) the number of active components in the intervention ; ( 2 ) the number of behaviours of recipients to which the intervention is directed ; ( 3 ) the range and number of organizational levels targeted by the intervention ; ( 4 ) the degree of tailoring intended or flexibility permitted across sites or individuals in applying or implementing the intervention ; ( 5 ) the level of skill required by those delivering the intervention ; ( 6 ) the level of skill required by those receiving the intervention ; ( 7 ) the degree of interaction between intervention components ; ( 8) the degree to which the effects of the intervention are context dependent ; ( 9 ) the degree to which the effects of the interventions are changed by recipient or provider factors ; ( 10 ) and the nature of the causal pathway between intervention and outcome . Dimensions 1–6 are considered ‘ core ’ dimensions . Dimensions 7–10 are optional and may not be useful for all interventions . Conclusions The iCAT_SR tool facilitates more in-depth , systematic assessment of the complexity of interventions in systematic review s and can assist in undertaking review s and interpreting review findings . Further testing of the tool is now needed
Good repeatability ( for the 6MWT and ESWT ) and reproducibility ( for the 6MWT , 12-minute walk test , ISWT , ESWT , and incremental cycle ergometer test ) were reported by most studies assessing these tests , providing patients were familiarized with them beforeh and .
The 6MWT , ISWT , and particularly the ESWT were reported to be sensitive to therapeutic intervention .
Exercise tests are often used to evaluate the functional status of patients with COPD .
However , to the best of our knowledge , a comprehensive systematic comparison of these tests has not been performed .
We systematic ally review ed studies reporting the repeatability and /or reproducibility of these tests , and studies comparing their sensitivity to therapeutic intervention .