Protocol for systematic reviews of determinants/correlates of obesity-related dietary and physical activity behaviors in young children (preschool 0 to 6 years): evidence mapping and syntheses How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis Users identified challenges in applying GRADE to complex interventions and suggested an extension to GRADE. The effectiveness of exercise on recovery and clinical outcomes of soft tissue injuries of the leg, ankle, and foot: A systematic review by the Ontario Protocol for Traffic Injury Management (OPTIMa) Collaboration. Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer Are Electronic Cigarettes an Effective Aid to Smoking Cessation or Reduction Among Vulnerable Groups? A Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence. When Should Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Ankle Fractures Begin Weight Bearing? A Systematic Review Key Steps in Conducting Systematic Reviews for Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines: Methodology of the European Association of Urology. Caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants on permanent teeth: An update of systematic review evidence Using logic model methods in systematic review synthesis: describing complex pathways in referral management interventions Efficiency and Contribution of Strategies for Finding Randomized Controlled Trials: A Case Study from a Systematic Review on Therapeutic Interventions of Chronic Depression Using qualitative comparative analysis in a systematic review of a complex intervention Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach Restructuring physical micro-environments to reduce the demand for meat: a systematic review and qualitative comparative analysis Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews. Determinants of weight loss maintenance: a systematic review. Systematic review of effectiveness of universal self-regulation-based interventions and their effects on distal health and social outcomes in children and adolescents: review protocol [Reviews, systematic reviews, and essays in public health]. Mixed treatment comparison analysis provides internally coherent treatment effect estimates based on overviews of reviews and can reveal inconsistency. Methodological criteria for the assessment of moderators in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials: a consensus study Review article: Methodology for the ‘rapid review’ series on musculoskeletal injuries in the emergency department Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions The burden and determinants of neck pain in workers: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders.
Background The aim of these review s is to inform the design and content of interventions to reduce obesity in young children . The behaviors that are associated with obesity/overweight have been studied extensively ; however , the factors associated with these behaviors in young children ( 0 to 6 years ) have not been systematic ally review ed . Over the past few years the focus of obesity prevention has shifted to preschool children because of the high prevalence of obesity at school entry and recognition that habits formed in early life could track into adulthood . In order to develop effective interventions and change behavior , it is important to underst and the factors that are associated with those behaviors . For example , we need to underst and whether it would be more important to target the family , childcare setting s or the wider environment and identify the most effective way of changing these energy balance related behaviors . Methods / Design Quantitative ( intervention and observational ) and qualitative literature on determinants/correlates of fruit and vegetable intake , sugar sweetened beverage and other unhealthy diet intake , and physical activity and sedentary behaviors in young children will be systematic ally identified , mapped and review ed . A common search strategy ( no language or period restrictions ) will be used to identify papers from eight electronic data bases and this will be supplemented by h and - search ing . Next , studies in developed countries that examine the factors associated with these behaviors in children aged 0 to 6 years ( at baseline ) will be screened and mapped descriptively followed by in-depth data extraction , quality assessment and synthesis . Data from quantitative studies will be summarized using either forest plots or harvest plots and narrative synthesis , and qualitative studies using thematic analysis . Qualitative evidence will be integrated with the quantitative evidence , using a parallel synthesis approach , to provide a deeper underst and ing of effective strategies to influence these energy balance related behaviors . Discussion In addition to updating and mapping current research , these review s will be the first to comprehensively synthesize and integrate both the quantitative and qualitative evidence pertaining to determinants/correlates/barriers/facilitators of obesity related behaviors in this young age group ( 0 to 6 years ) with the aim of informing future interventions . Systematic review registration International Prospect i ve Register for Systematic Review s ( PROSPERO ) Registration number : Context Clinicians rely on systematic review s for current , evidence -based information . Contribution This survival analysis of 100 meta-analyses indexed in ACP Journal Club from 1995 to 2005 found that new evidence that substantively changed conclusions about the effectiveness or harms of therapies arose frequently and within relatively short time periods . The median survival time without substantive new evidence for the meta-analyses was 5.5 years . Significant new evidence was already available for 7 % of the review s at the time of publication and became available for 23 % within 2 years . Implication Clinical ly important evidence that alters conclusions about the effectiveness and harms of treatments can accumulate rapidly . The Editors Systematic review s have become increasingly common in recent years ( 1 ) and are recommended by many as the best sources of evidence to guide both clinical decisions ( 2 ) and health care policy ( 3 ) . For systematic review s to fulfill these roles , their findings must remain relatively stable for at least several years or effective mechanisms must exist for alerting end users to important changes in evidence . Yet , surprisingly little research has assessed the extent to which systematic review s become out of date or the rate at which this occurs ( 47 ) . Some organizations , such as the Cochrane Collaboration , recommend updating systematic review s every 2 years , but few empirical data guide this or other recommendations about updating . We sought to determine how quickly systematic review s meet explicitly defined criteria for changes in evidence of sufficient importance to warrant updating . We also sought to identify predictors of survival time , the time to such important changes in evidence . Survival time might vary depending on many factors , including the type of question posed by the original review ( for example , therapeutic or diagnostic ) , the types of studies included ( for example , r and omized trials or observational studies ) , and whether the systematic review provided quantitative synthesis . To limit such variation , we focused on systematic review s of r and omized , controlled trials that evaluated therapeutic benefit or harm by providing quantitative synthesis ( meta- analysis ) for at least 1 outcome . Methods Study Design and Sample We used a quasi-r and om process ( alphabetical sort order by author ) to select 100 systematic review s that were indexed in ACP Journal Club with an accompanying commentary between January 1995 and December 2005 ( with a search date no later than 31 December 2004 to ensure at least 1 full year for new evidence to appear ) . We chose this sampling frame because ACP Journal Club selects systematic review s that meet explicit quality st and ards and are deemed directly relevant to clinical practice ( 8) . We regarded the sample size of 100 as sufficiently large to achieve suitably narrow confidence intervals and to permit evaluation of up to 5 potential predictors of survival . Eligibility Criteria Eligible review s evaluated the benefit or harm of a specific drug , class of drug , device , or procedure ( invasive procedure or surgery ) and included r and omized or quasi-r and omized , controlled trials . We excluded evaluations of alternative and complementary medicines because the stability of review s of such therapies might differ substantially from review s of conventional therapies . We required that review s provide a point estimate and 95 % confidence interval for at least 1 outcome in the form of a relative risk , odds ratio , or absolute risk difference for binary outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes . We excluded meta-analyses of individual-patient data , meta-regressions , and indirect meta-analyses because of the difficulty of determining whether new data would alter previous quantitative results . Two team members independently assessed eligibility , with disagreements resolved by consensus involving a third review er . When more than 1 review on the same topic was identified , only the earliest was included . Search ing For each review , search es for new trials included identifying new systematic review s on the same topic , su bmi tting relevant content terms to the Clinical Queries function in Ovid , applying the Related Articles function in PubMed to the 3 largest and the 3 most recent trials in the original review ( up to 6 trials in total ) , and using Scopus ( www . scopus .com/ scopus /home.url ) to identify new r and omized trials that cited the original review . When these search strategies yielded no eligible new trials , we conducted more comprehensive electronic search es and review ed relevant chapters in such sources as Clinical Evidence and UpTo Date to ensure that we had not missed new trials . Team members who had background s in both medicine and clinical research screened citations retrieved by the preceding methods to identify trials that would have met the inclusion criteria in the original review . Retrieved articles were screened in chronological order to ascertain quantitative or qualitative signals for the need for updating . The review protocol stopped when any criteria for updating were met . Each systematic review was discussed in detail , with the final statussignal for updating was or was not detectedadjudicated by consensus ( Figure 1 ) . Figure 1 . Overall process for determining updating status . ACP Journal Club Signals for the Need to Up date Systematic Review s In design ing criteria for comparing new findings with those in a previous review , we adapted methods used by other investigators to address similar problems with comparing 2 sets of results relating to the same question ( 913 ) , such as r and omized and nonr and omized studies of the same intervention . These investigators identified conflicting findings among different publications using a combination of quantitative thresholds for differences in effect magnitude and qualitative judgments about the language used to describe the results . We have similarly conceptualized quantitative and qualitative signals of potential changes in evidence that are sufficiently important to warrant updating previous systematic review s. Quantitative Signals Quantitative signals consisted of a change in statistical significance or relative change in effect magnitude of at least 50 % . We restricted these changes to those involving 1 of the primary outcomes of the original review or any mortality outcome . We also ignored trivial changes in statistical significance when the original and up date d meta-analytic results both had P values between 0.04 and 0.06so that quantitative signals of changes in evidence would represent robust indicators of the need to up date previous review s. Quantitative signals were detected by combining data from eligible new trials with the previous results using a fixed-effects approach . Use of fixed-effect models allowed pooling of the new trials with the previous meta-analytic result , as opposed to having to obtain original data from all of the included trials in each of 100 systematic review s. Although r and om-effects models are usually preferred to avoid spurious precision in the face of heterogeneity , our goal was to detect potential changes in evidence that would warrant a formal up date , not produce exact estimates of the up date d results . Qualitative Signals Qualitative signals included new information about harm sufficient to affect clinical decision making , important caveats to the original results , emergence of a superior alternate therapy , and important changes in certainty or direction of effect . Qualitative signals were detected by using explicit criteria for comparing the language in the original review with descriptions of findings in new systematic review s that addressed the same topic , pivotal trials , clinical practice guidelines , or recent editions of major textbooks ( for example , UpTo Date ) . Pivotal trials were defined as trials that had a sample size at least 3 times larger than that of the previous largest trial or were published in 1 of the 5 highest-impact general medical journals ( The New Engl and Journal of Medicine , Lancet , Journal of the American Medical Association , Annals of Internal Medicine , and the British Medical Journal ) . We defined 2 levels of importance for qualitative signals : potentially invalidating changes in evidence , which would make one no longer want clinicians or policymakers to base decisions on the original findings ( such as a pivotal trial that characterized treatment effectiveness in terms opposite of those in the original systematic review ) , and major changes in evidence , which would affect clinical decision making in important ways without invalidating the previous results ( such as the identification of patient population s for whom treatment is more or less beneficial ) . Major changes also included differing characterizations of effectiveness that were less extreme than those for potentially invalidating signals but that would still affect clinical decision making ( for example , a change from possibly beneficial to definitely beneficial ) . Of importance , such characterizations as possibly effective , probably effective , and promising , were all categorized as possibly effective . Thus , qualitative signals for changes in evidence captured substantive differences in the characterization of treatment effects , not merely semantic differences . Full definitions for each of the specific signals can be found at www.ohri.ca/UpdatingSystRevs . Data Collection For each review , we characterized the clinical content area , eligibility criteria for included trials , definitions of reported outcomes , number of included trials and participants , meta-analytic result for each outcome , identification of statistical heterogeneity , and excerpted quotations of the authors ' characterizations of the main results . We also abstract ed whether a given outcome was explicitly identified as 1 of the primary or main outcomes . We discounted identification of more than 3 such outcomes as inconsistent with the OBJECTIVES To explore user perspectives on applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment , Development and Evaluation ( GRADE ) to systematic review s of complex interventions . STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Thirty-three authors of recent ( 2013 onward ) systematic review s were contacted regarding their perspectives on using  GRADE from three Cochrane review groups : Cochrane Developmental , Psychosocial , and Learning Problems Group ; Cochrane Public Health Group ; and Cochrane Depression , Anxiety , and Neurosis Group . Framework Analysis was applied to the data to identify the challenges in applying GRADE and suggestions for its extension , that is , adaptation . These two themes were cross-compared between the groups of answers from " simple " vs. " complex " intervention review authors to identify the specific perspectives on using GRADE in review s of complex interventions . RESULTS Specific challenges were identified in applying GRADE to review s of complex interventions . These were related to the assessment of nonr and omized studies and performance bias in GRADE . Authors perceived these challenges to contribute to frequent downgrading of the " best evidence possible " for complex interventions . Meanwhile , GRADE was found to lack an analytic approach to enable adequate evidence synthesis and assessment of intervention implementation elements . CONCLUSION Users suggest that the GRADE guidance be extended to address-specific considerations for complex interventions INTRODUCTION Soft tissue injuries of the leg , ankle , or foot are common and often treated by exercise . The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of  exercise  for the management of soft tissue injuries of the leg , ankle , or foot . METHODS A systematic review of the literature was conducted . We search ed five data bases from 1990 to 2015 . Relevant articles were critically appraised using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network ( SIGN ) criteria . The evidence from studies with low risk of bias was synthesized using the best- evidence synthesis methodology . RESULTS We screened 7946 articles . We critically appraised ten r and omized trials and six had a low risk of bias . The evidence suggests that for recent lateral ankle sprain : 1 ) rehabilitation exercises initiated immediately post-injury are as effective as a similar program initiated one week post-injury ; and 2 ) supervised progressive exercise plus education/advice and home exercise lead to similar outcomes as education/advice and home exercise . Eccentric exercises may be more effective than an AirHeel brace but less effective than acupuncture for Achilles tendinopathy of more than two months duration . Finally , for plantar heel pain , static stretching of the calf muscles and sham ultrasound lead to similar outcomes , while static plantar fascia stretching provides short-term benefits compared to shockwave therapy . CONCLUSIONS We found little evidence to support the use of early or supervised exercise interventions for lateral ankle sprains . Eccentric exercises may provide short-term benefits over a brace for persistent Achilles tendinopathy and plantar fascia stretching provides short-term benefits for plantar heel pain 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 INTRODUCTION Smoking prevalence remains high in some vulnerable groups , including those who misuse substances , have a mental illness , are homeless , or are involved with the criminal justice system .  E-cigarette use is increasing and may support smoking cessation/reduction . METHODS Systematic review of quantitative and qualitative data on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation/reduction among vulnerable groups . Data bases search ed were MEDLINE , EMBASE , PsychINFO , CINAHL , ASSIA , ProQuest Dissertations and Theses , and Open Grey . Narrative synthesis of quantitative data and thematic synthesis of qualitative data . RESULTS 2628 records and 46 full texts were screened ; 9 studies were identified for inclusion . Due to low quality of evidence , it is uncertain whether e-cigarettes are effective for smoking cessation in vulnerable population s. A moderate quality study suggested that e-cigarettes were as effective as nicotine replacement therapy . Four studies suggested significant smoking reduction ; however , three were uncontrolled and had sample sizes below 30 . A prospect i ve cohort study found no differences between e-cigarette users and nonusers . No significant adverse events and minimal side effects were identified . Qualitative thematic synthesis revealed barriers and facilitators associated with each component of the COM-B ( capability , opportunity , motivation , and behavior ) model , including practical barriers ; perceptions of effectiveness for cessation/reduction ; design features contributing to automatic and reflective motivation ; smoking bans facilitating practical opportunity ; and social connectedness increasing social opportunity . CONCLUSION Further research is needed to identify the most appropriate device types for practicality and safety , level of support required in e-cigarette interventions , and to compare e-cigarettes with current best practice smoking cessation support among vulnerable groups . IMPLICATION S Smoking prevalence among people with mental illness , substance misuse , homelessness , or criminal justice system involvement remains high . E-cigarettes could support cessation . This systematic review found limited quantitative evidence assessing effectiveness . No serious adverse events were identified . Qualitative thematic synthesis revealed barriers and facilitators mapping to each component of the COM-B ( capability , opportunity , motivation , and behavior ) model , including practical barriers ; perceived effectiveness ; design features contributing to automatic and reflective motivation ; smoking bans facilitating practical opportunity ; and social connectedness increasing social opportunity . Further research should consider appropriate devices for practicality and safety , concurrent support , and comparison with best practice smoking cessation support The objective of this paper was to review the literature to assess when  open reduction and internal fixation ankle fractures should commence weight bearing for the best outcome . An electronic search was undertaken of the data bases AMED , Cinahl , Embase , Medline ( via Ovid ) , Pedro and Pubmed , from their inception to November 2005 . References lists were scrutinised and a h and search was also performed . We included all English language , human subject , controlled clinical trials , comparing the effects of early against later weight bearing following  open reduction and internal fixation of ankle fractures . Two review ers independently assessed the method ological quality of the literature using the PEDro ( Physiotherapy Evidence Data base ) scoring system . Five papers comprising of 366 ankle fractures were review ed . Overall , there was no significant difference between commencing early , compared to later weight bearing in subjects following open reduction and internal fixation , when evaluated against function , pain , range of movement , radiological assessment , complications , and return to work . The evidence review ed was generally poor , with numerous method ological design limitations . The literature suggested that were was little difference between encouraging early or delayed weight bearing after open reduction and internal fixation of ankle fractures . Neither early nor later weight bearing significantly improves or jeopardises outcomes . However , due to the plethora of method ological limitations and limited evidence , it is not possible to reference this conclusion with conviction . Further large , well- design ed r and omized controlled trials are required to evaluate this area CONTEXT The findings of systematic review s ( SRs ) and meta-analyses ( MAs ) are used for clinical decision making . The European Association of Urology has committed increasing re sources into the development of high quality clinical guidelines based on such SRs and MAs . OBJECTIVE In this paper , we have summarised the process of conducting SRs for underpinning clinical practice guidelines under the auspices of the European Association of Urology Guidelines Office . EVIDENCE ACQUISITION The process involves explicit methods and the findings should be reproducible . When conducting a SR , the essential first step is to formulate a clear and answerable research question . An extensive literature search lays the foundation for evidence synthesis . Data are extracted independently by two review ers and any disagreements are resolved by discussion or arbitration by a third review er . EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS In SRs , data for particular outcomes in individual r and omised controlled trials may be combined statistically in a meta- analysis to increase power when the studies are similar enough . Biases in studies included in a SR/MA can lead to either an over estimation or an under estimation of true intervention effect size , result ing in heterogeneity in outcome between studies . A number of different tools are available such as Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool for r and omised controlled trials . In circumstances where there is too much heterogeneity , or when a review has included nonr and omised comparative studies , it is more appropriate to conduct a narrative synthesis . The GRADE tool for assessing quality of evidence strives to be a structured and transparent system , which can be applied to all evidence , regardless of quality . A SR not only identifies , evaluates , and summarises the best available evidence , but also the gaps to be targeted by future studies . CONCLUSIONS SRs and MAs are integral in developing sound clinical practice guidelines and recommendations . PATIENT SUMMARY Clinical practice guidelines should be evidence based , and systematic review s and meta-analyses are essential in their production . We have discussed the key steps of conducting systematic review s and meta-analyses in this paper Background This article constitutes a partial up date of the original systematic review evidence by Yengopal et al. from 15 January 2008 ( published in the Journal of Oral Science in 2009 ) with primary focus on research quality in regard to bias risk in trials . Its aim is to up date the existing systematic review evidence from the English literature as to whether caries occurrence on pits and fissures of teeth sealed with either GIC or resin is the same . Methods In addition to the 12 trials included during the original systematic review , 5 new trials were identified during the data base search ( up to 26 August 2010 ) and 2 further trials were included from a h and search and reference check . Of these , 3 trials were excluded and 16 were accepted for data extraction and quality assessment . The quality of accepted trials was assessed , using up date d quality criteria , and the risk of bias was investigated in more depth than previously reported . In addition , the focus of quantitative synthesis was shifted to single data sets that were extracted from the accepted trials . Results Twenty-six dichotomous and 4 continuous data sets were extracted . Meta- analysis and cumulative meta- analysis were used in combining clinical ly homogenous data sets . The overall outcome of the computed data sets suggest no difference between the caries-preventive effects of GIC- and resin-based fissure sealants . Conclusions This overall outcome is in agreement with the conclusions of the original systematic review . Although the findings of the trials identified in this up date may be considered to be less affected by attrition- and publication bias , their risk of selection - and detection-/performance bias is high . Thus , verification of the currently available results requires further high quality r and omised control trials Background There is increasing interest in innovative methods to carry out systematic review s of complex interventions . Theory-based approaches , such as logic models , have been suggested as a means of providing additional insights beyond that obtained via conventional review methods . Methods This paper reports the use of an innovative method which combines systematic review processes with logic model techniques to synthesis e a broad range of literature . The potential value of the model produced was explored with stakeholders . Results The review identified 295 papers that met the inclusion criteria . The papers consisted of 141 intervention studies and 154 non-intervention quantitative and qualitative articles . A logic model was systematic ally built from these studies . The model outlines interventions , short term outcomes , moderating and mediating factors and long term dem and management outcomes and impacts . Interventions were grouped into typologies of practitioner education , process change , system change , and patient intervention . Short-term outcomes identified that may result from these interventions were changed physician or patient knowledge , beliefs or attitudes and also interventions related to changed doctor-patient interaction . A range of factors which may influence whether these outcomes lead to long term change were detailed . Dem and management outcomes and intended impacts included content of referral , rate of referral , and doctor or patient satisfaction . Conclusions The logic model details evidence and assumptions underpinning the complex pathway from interventions to dem and management impact . The method offers a useful addition to systematic review method ologies . Trial registration number PROSPERO registration number : CRD42013004037 Background Identifying all existing evidence is a crucial aspect in conducting systematic review s. Since the retrieval of electronic data base search es alone is limited , guidelines recommend the use of additional search strategies . The aim of this investigation was to assess the efficiency and contribution of additional search strategies for identifying r and omized controlled trials in conducting a systematic review on interventions after performing a sensitive electronic data base search . Design and Methods Seven electronic data bases , 3 journals and 11 systematic review s were search ed . All first authors of the included studies were contacted ; citation tracking and a search in clinical trial registers were performed . A priori defined evaluation criteria were calculated for each search strategy . Results A total of 358 full-text articles were identified ; 50 studies were included in the systematic review , wherefrom 84.0 % ( 42 ) were acquired by the sensitive electronic data base search and 16.0 % ( 8) through additional search strategies . Screening reference lists of related systematic review s was the most beneficial additional search strategy , with an efficiency of 31.3 % ( 5 ) and a contribution of 10.0 % ( 5/50 ) , whereas h and - search ing and author contacts contributed two and one additional studies , respectively . Citation tracking and search ing clinical trial registers did not lead to any further inclusion of primary studies . Conclusions Based on our findings , h and - search ing contents of relevant journals and screening reference lists of related systematic review s may be helpful additional strategies to identify an extensive body of evidence . In case of limited re sources , a sensitive electronic data base search may constitute an appropriate alternative for identifying relevant trials . Significance for public health Systematic review s provide the strongest form of evidence synthesis for therapeutic interventions and are of high relevance for decision makers in public health . Preparing high quality systematic review s can be very time-consuming since all existing evidence should be identified , but the retrieval of electronic data base search es is limited and therefore additional search strategies are recommended . However , the time needed for conducting full systematic review s does often not address the need for urgent evidence . Thus , priorities of summarizing all available evidence and providing fast evidence -based recommendations may conflict . So far , no consensus exists regarding which additional search strategies are beneficial and sparsely time-consuming for conducting systematic review s. We examined the efficiency and contribution of additional search strategies performed after a sensitive electronic data base search . Our results provide highly relevant information for research ers conducting systematic review s in various fields of public health research and for establishing guidelines for conducting rapid review Background Systematic review s evaluating complex interventions often encounter substantial clinical heterogeneity in intervention components and implementation features making synthesis challenging . Qualitative comparative analysis ( QCA ) is a non-probabilistic method that uses mathematical set theory to study complex phenomena ; it has been proposed as a potential method to complement traditional evidence synthesis in review s of complex interventions to identify key intervention components or implementation features that might explain effectiveness or ineffectiveness . The objective of this study was to describe our approach in detail and examine the suitability of using QCA within the context of a systematic review . Methods We used data from a completed systematic review of behavioral interventions to improve medication adherence to conduct two substantive analyses using QCA . The first analysis sought to identify combinations of nine behavior change techniques/components ( BCTs ) found among effective interventions , and the second analysis sought to identify combinations of five implementation features ( e.g. , agent , target , mode , time span , exposure ) found among effective interventions . For each substantive analysis , we reframed the review ’s research questions to be design ed for use with QCA , calibrated sets ( i.e. , transformed raw data into data used in analysis ) , and identified the necessary and /or sufficient combinations of BCTs and implementation features found in effective interventions . Results Our application of QCA for each substantive analysis is described in detail . We extended the original review findings by identifying seven combinations of BCTs and four combinations of implementation features that were sufficient for improving adherence . We found reasonable alignment between several systematic review steps and processes used in QCA except that typical approaches to study abstract ion for some intervention components and features did not support a robust calibration for QCA . Conclusions QCA was suitable for use within a systematic review of medication adherence interventions and offered insights beyond the single dimension stratifications used in the original completed review . Future prospect i ve use of QCA during a review is needed to determine the optimal way to efficiently integrate QCA into existing approaches to evidence synthesis of complex interventions Aims : With the increase in the number of systematic review s available , a logical next step to provide decision makers in healthcare with the evidence they require has been the conduct of review s of existing systematic review s. Syntheses of existing systematic review s are referred to by many different names , one of which is an umbrella review . An umbrella review allows the findings of review s relevant to a review question to be compared and contrasted . An umbrella review 's most characteristic feature is that this type of evidence synthesis only considers for inclusion the highest level of evidence , namely other systematic review s and meta-analyses . A methodology working group was formed by the Joanna Briggs Institute to develop method ological guidance for the conduct of an umbrella review , including diverse types of evidence , both quantitative and qualitative . The aim of this study is to describe the development and guidance for the conduct of an umbrella review . Methods : Discussion and testing of the elements of methods for the conduct of an umbrella review were held over a 6-month period by members of a methodology working group . The working group comprised six participants who corresponded via teleconference , e-mail and face-to-face meeting during this development period . In October 2013 , the methodology was presented in a workshop at the Joanna Briggs Institute Convention . Workshop participants , review authors and method ologists provided further testing , critique and feedback on the proposed methodology . Results : This study describes the methodology and methods developed for the conduct of an umbrella review that includes published systematic review s and meta-analyses as the analytical unit of the review . Details are provided regarding the essential elements of an umbrella review , including presentation of the review question in a Population , Intervention , Comparator , Outcome format , nuances of the inclusion criteria and search strategy . A critical appraisal tool with 10 questions to help assess risk of bias in systematic review s and meta-analyses was also developed and tested . Relevant details to extract from included review s and how to best present the findings of both quantitative and qualitative systematic review s in a reader friendly format are provided . Conclusions : Umbrella review s provide a ready means for decision makers in healthcare to gain a clear underst and ing of a broad topic area . The umbrella review methodology described here is the first to consider review s that report other than quantitative evidence derived from r and omized controlled trials . The methodology includes an easy to use and informative summary of evidence table to readily provide decision makers with the available , highest level of evidence relevant to the question posed Summary Background Reducing meat consumption could help to protect the natural environment and promote population health . Interventions restructuring physical micro-environments might help to change habitual behaviour . We synthesis ed the scientific evidence pertaining to whether , and which , interventions restructuring physical micro-environments effectively reduce the dem and for meat . Methods We did a systematic review of quantitative studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions restructuring physical micro-environments  to reduce the dem and for meat . We identified relevant records by search ing six electronic data bases ( CAB Abstract s , Embase , PsycINFO , Science Citation Index , MEDLINE , and Dissertations & Theses ) on Aug 31 , 2017 , contacting experts , screening publicly accessible online re sources , and search ing references . We included studies that evaluated the effectiveness of interventions restructuring physical micro-environments  to reduce the dem and for meat , defined as the actual or intended consumption , purchase , or selection of meat in real or virtual environments . We extracted data pertaining to the study sample s , the interventions , and meat dem and at the follow-up closest to intervention completion and at the longest follow-up , with the former representing our primary outcome . We synthesis ed data narratively and did a qualitative comparative analysis to identify configurations of intervention characteristics associated with , and those not found to be associated with , significant reductions in meat dem and . Our Systematic Review is registered with PROSPERO , number CRD42017081532 . Results Of 10 733 titles and abstract s screened for eligibility , we assessed 60 full papers and included 14 papers reporting on 18 studies with 22 intervention conditions . Three interventions reducing the portion size of meat servings reduced meat consumption in r and omised trials . Three interventions providing meat alternatives with supporting educational material were associated with reduced meat dem and in pre-post design studies . Three of four interventions altering the sensory properties ( eg , visual presentation ) of meat or meat alternatives at point of purchase reduced meat dem and in r and omised trials . Four interventions repositioning meat products to be less prominent at point of purchase were associated with lower meat dem and , but only two such interventions reached statistical significance in a r and omised trial and a multiple treatment reversal design . Only one of five interventions manipulating the description of meat or meat alternatives at point of purchase was associated with lower meat dem and in a multiple treatment reversal design . Evidence from r and omised trials evaluating a pricing intervention or interventions restructuring several aspects of micro-environments was too scarce or inconsistent to be conclusive . The results from our qualitative comparative analysis supported the findings of this narrative synthesis . Interpretation Some interventions restructuring physical micro-environments could help to promote lower dem and for meat . Interventions reducing portion sizes of meat servings , providing meat alternatives , or changing the sensory properties of meat and meat alternatives at point of purchase offered the most promise in the context of experimental studies . Funding None 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 Background Growing evidence suggests that childhood and adolescence self-regulation contributes to multiple health , educational and social outcomes . Considering the potential impact of self-regulation skills on improved life chances in conjunction with evidence suggesting that self-regulation can be modified by interventions , there is a need to identify interventions which are most effective in improving childhood and adolescence self-regulation . The present systematic review was design ed to determine the effectiveness of universal interventions focused on enhancing the  self-regulation of children and adolescents . As secondary outcomes , we will also examine the effectiveness of such interventions on distal health and social outcomes . Methods Eligible studies include r and omised controlled trials ( including cluster r and omised trials ) reporting on universal interventions design ed to improve self-regulation in childhood and adolescence ( age 0–19 years ) . The following data bases will be search ed for peer- review ed publications using an iterative search strategy : Medline , PsycINFO , EMBASE , ERIC , CINAHL Plus , British Education Index , Child Development & Adolescent Studies and CENTRAL without applying language or date filters . Additionally , reference lists and citations of included studies will be search ed for eligible studies . A 10 % proportion of the total titles and abstract s will be r and omly selected and screened independently by two review ers ( AP and DH ) . Results will be compared to ensure less than 5 % discrepancy , followed by screening of all results by one review er ( AP ) . Full-text review and data collection will be independently performed by two review ers . Any discrepancies will be solved by mutual discussion , and if unresolved , a third review er ( RV ) will be consulted . Meta- analysis will be conducted to quantify trial effects , if the data is sufficiently homogenous to allow quantitative synthesis . Otherwise , results will be described narratively . Discussion The evidence derived from the systematic review will strengthen the evidence base to inform planning of effective interventions targeting self-regulation skills in childhood and adolescence . This will benefit policy makers , academicians , research ers , health professionals , and also , young people who will benefit from policy and interventions informed by this review . Systematic review registration CRD42016047661 Cad . Saúde Pública , Rio de Janeiro , 23(6):1252 - 1253 , jun , 2007 For the first time in the history of Cadernos de Saúde Pública/Reports in Public Health , the journal has recently design ated a specific Associate Editor to receive and h and le review and essay articles . The clash between “ traditional ” and systematic review s is now at the center of an instigating debate . Two quite recent articles conducting review s of review s ( Annu Rev Public Health 2006 ; 27:81 - 102 and BMC Med Res Method ol 2006 ; 6:35 ) question the supposedly unequivocal advantages of systematic over traditional review s , basically in the following terms : that the former do not necessarily confirm their self-ascribed rigor ( almost as if it were an intrinsic attribute of the systematic review process itself ) ; that on many occasions systematic review s have lost their critical perspective ; and finally that they fail to deal adequately with the gap between evidence and its translation into public policies . The above critiques sound pertinent , but in my view they stem from the uncomfortable coexistence of review s , systematic review s , and essays in public health , as if the undeniable rise of systematic review s in recent years ( especially in the field of epidemiology ) must necessarily have taken place at the expense of traditional review s and essays . In my point of view , such a clash is artificial . The mistakes have arisen from simplistic historical readings and conceptual views , as in a purported linear order between the application of statistical methods to public health and the emergence of clinical epidemiology and evidence -based medicine , and the subsequent translation into a view that public policies should likewise be based strictly on evidence . As Stephen Senn contends in Dicing with Death : Chance , Risk and Health , the historical facts do not precisely follow this sequence . British statistician Archie Cochrane ( immortalized in the Cochrane Library , including the Data base of Systematic Review s by the same name ) was initially commissioned to apply statistical analysis methods to evaluate the British National Health System , with a view towards reducing waste in the NHS and increasing its effectiveness and caseresolving capacity . The Cochrane Data base was thus born from the initial systematization of r and omized trials , where observational studies display what is considered second-order evidence , serving as the empirical basis for evidence -based medicine . However , the methods and techniques developed by Cochrane and his original group are not tributaries of the emergence of clinical epidemiology , which took place decades later , but converse very closely with the daily operation of the NHS . To some quantitative research ers , essays in public health sound like the “ ugly duckling ” of review s. Therein likes another conceptual error , in my view . Epidemiology has much to gain from encouragement for systematic review s , but much to lose if it foregoes critical review s and essays . An example is the seminal essay by Stephen J. Gould on the interface between public health , statistics , and psychology ( The Mismeasure of Man ) . Few realize that in parallel with this essay , Gould published an article reanalyzing empirical data through factor analysis , in Science ( 1978 ; 200:503 - 9 ) . Thus , there is nothing strange or bad about combining essays and the application of quantitative methods . In short , different watersheds for the review of findings and concepts all have their place . Bring on new review s , systematic review s , and essays , as long as they are based on quality and readability ! All three are more than welcome ! Review s , systematic review s , and essays in public health OBJECTIVES To propose methods for mixed treatment comparisons ( MTC ) based on pooled summaries of the type produced in overviews of review s. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Overviews of review s ( umbrella review s ) summarize the results of multiple systematic review s into a single document . They report the summary estimates from the original pairwise meta-analyses and discuss them in narrative form , with the intention of identifying the most effective treatment . We present methods for MTC synthesis , tailored for use with overviews of review s. These generate a single internally consistent summary of all the relative treatment effects and assessment s of whether the summary is consistent with the data . These methods are applied to a published overview of treatments for childhood nocturnal enuresis . We apply the methods to both fixed-effect ( FE ) and r and om-effects ( RE ) meta-analyses of the original trials . RESULTS The summary relative risks based on FE meta-analyses , as originally published , were highly inconsistent . Those based on RE meta-analyses were consistent and could , given st and ard assumptions on comparability of treatment effects in meta- analysis , form a basis for coherent decision making . CONCLUSION Along with the summaries from systematic review s , MTC methods should be used in overviews to provide a single coherent analysis of all treatment comparisons and to check for evidence consistency Background Current method ological guidelines provide advice about the assessment of sub-group analysis within RCTs , but do not specify explicit criteria for assessment . Our objective was to provide research ers with a set of criteria that will facilitate the grading of evidence for moderators , in systematic review s. Method We developed a set of criteria from method ological manuscripts ( n = 18 ) using snowballing technique , and electronic data base search es . Criteria were review ed by an international Delphi panel ( n = 21 ) , comprising authors who have published method ological papers in this area , and research ers who have been active in the study of sub-group analysis in RCTs . We used the Research ANd Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method to assess consensus on the quantitative data . Free responses were coded for consensus and disagreement . In a subsequent round additional criteria were extracted from the Cochrane Review ers ' H and book , and the process was repeated . Results The recommendations are that meta-analysts report both confirmatory and exploratory findings for sub-groups analysis . Confirmatory findings must only come from studies in which a specific theory/ evidence based a-priori statement is made . Exploratory findings may be used to inform future/subsequent trials . However , for inclusion in the meta- analysis of moderators , the following additional criteria should be applied to each study : Baseline factors should be measured prior to r and omisation , measurement of baseline factors should be of adequate reliability and validity , and a specific test of the interaction between baseline factors and interventions must be presented . Conclusions There is consensus from a group of 21 international experts that method ological criteria to assess moderators within systematic review s of RCTs is both timely and necessary . The consensus from the experts result ed in five criteria divided into two groups when synthesis ing evidence : confirmatory findings to support hypotheses about moderators and exploratory findings to inform future research . These recommendations are discussed in reference to previous recommendations for evaluating and reporting moderator studies Musculoskeletal injuries are a common presentation to the ED , with significant costs involved in the management of these injuries , variances in care within the ED and associated morbidity . A series of rapid review papers were completed to guide best practice for the assessment and management of common musculoskeletal injuries presenting to the ED . This paper presents the methodology used across the rapid review s. PubMed , CINAHL , EMBASE , TRIP and the grey literature , including relevant organisational websites , were search ed in 2015 . The search was repeated consistently for each topic area ( injuries of the foot and ankle , knee , h and and wrist , elbow , shoulder , lumbar spine and cervical spine ) . English- language primary studies , systematic review s and guidelines that were published in the last 10 years and addressed acute musculoskeletal injury management were considered for inclusion . Data extraction of each included article was conducted , followed by a quality appraisal . The extracted data from each article was synthesis ed to group similar evidence together . For each rapid review , the evidence has been organised in a way that a clinician can direct their attention to a specific component of the clinical cycle of care in the ED , such as the assessment , diagnostic tests , management and follow-up considerations from ED . The series of rapid review s are design ed to foster evidence -based practice within the ED , targeting the injuries most commonly presenting . The review s provide clinicians in EDs with rapid access to the best current evidence , which has been synthesis ed and organised to assist decision-making 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 STUDY DESIGN Systematic review and best evidence synthesis . OBJECTIVES To describe the prevalence and incidence of  neck pain and disability in workers ; to identify risk factors for neck pain in workers ; to propose an etiological diagram ; and to make recommendations for future research . SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Previous review s of the etiology of neck pain in workers relied on cross-sectional evidence . Recently published cohorts and r and omized trials warrant a re- analysis of this body of research . METHODS We systematic ally search ed Medline for literature published from 1980 - 2006 . Retrieved articles were review ed for relevance . Relevant articles were critically appraised . Articles judged to have adequate internal validity were included in our best evidence synthesis . RESULTS One hundred and nine papers on the burden and determinants of neck pain in workers were scientifically admissible . The annual prevalence of neck pain varied from 27.1 % in Norway to 47.8 % in Québec , Canada . Each year , between 11 % and 14.1 % of workers were limited in their activities because of neck pain . Risk factors associated with neck pain in workers include age , previous musculoskeletal pain , high quantitative job dem and s , low social support at work , job insecurity , low physical capacity , poor computer workstation design and work posture , sedentary work position , repetitive work and precision work . We found preliminary evidence that gender , occupation , headaches , emotional problems , smoking , poor job satisfaction , awkward work postures , poor physical work environment , and workers ' ethnicity may be associated with neck pain . There is evidence that interventions aim ed at modifying workstations and worker posture are not effective in reducing the incidence of neck pain in workers . CONCLUSION Neck disorders are a significant source of pain and activity limitations in workers . Most neck pain results from complex relationships between individual and workplace risk factors . No prevention strategies have been shown to reduce the incidence of neck pain in workers
No adverse events were reported .
Kinesiotape may produce different effects in healthy and injured ankles .
In healthy ankles , kinesiotape may increase postural control , whereas in injured ankles it may improve proprioception , plantarflexor endurance and the performance of activities .
CONCLUSIONS It is recommended that kinesiotape may be used in clinical practice to prevent lateral ankle injuries ( through its effects on postural control ) and manage lateral ankle injuries due to its positive effects on proprioception , muscle endurance and activity performance .
It appears that kinesiotape may not provide sufficient mechanical support to improve postural control in unstable ankles .
OBJECTIVE To identify , evaluate and synthesis e evidence on the effect of kinesiotape applied to the lateral aspect of the ankle , through a systematic review of quantitative studies .