Determinants of weight loss maintenance: a systematic review. The effect of early mobilization protocols on postoperative outcomes following abdominal and thoracic surgery: A systematic review. Summary: 2017 International Consultation on Incontinence Evidence-Based Surgical Pathway for Pelvic Organ Prolapse 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 Nonpharmacological interventions to prevent type 2 diabetes in women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic overview Simulation-Based Skill Training for Trainees in Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review. Age of red blood cells and transfusion in critically ill patients Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions Obesity in children. Part 2: Prevention and management Efficiency and Contribution of Strategies for Finding Randomized Controlled Trials: A Case Study from a Systematic Review on Therapeutic Interventions of Chronic Depression Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery: an in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set, the BARIACT Study. Systematic review protocol: single-dose histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate vs. intermittent crystalloid or blood cardioplegia. Control of error in randomized clinical trials. Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews. Acupuncture for the Treatment of Opiate Addiction Financial Conflicts of Interest and Conclusions About Neuraminidase Inhibitors for Influenza Systematic review automation technologies Allergen immunotherapy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis and/or asthma: an umbrella review. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach Do sugar-sweetened beverages cause adverse health outcomes in children? A systematic review protocol Energy balance-related behaviours associated with overweight and obesity in preschool children: a systematic review of prospective studies. INVITED COMMENTARY: Rating the Quality of Trials in Systematic Reviews of Physical Therapy Interventions Components of effective randomized controlled trials of hydrotherapy programs for fibromyalgia syndrome: A systematic review
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 Early mobilization is considered an important element of postoperative care ; however , how best to implement this intervention in clinical practice is unknown . This systematic review summarizes the evidence regarding the impact of specific early mobilization protocol s on postoperative outcomes after abdominal and thoracic surgery . METHOD The review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines . We search ed 8 electronic data bases to identify studies comparing patients receiving a specific protocol of early mobilization to a control group .  Method ologic quality was assessed using the Downs and Black tool . RESULTS Four studies in abdominal surgery ( 3 r and omized controlled trials [ RCTs ] and 1 observational prospect i ve study ) and 4 studies in thoracic surgery ( 3 RCTs and 1 observational retrospective study ) were identified . None of the 5 studies evaluating postoperative complications reported differences between groups . One of 4 studies evaluating duration of stay reported a significant decrease in the intervention group . One of 3 studies evaluating gastrointestinal function reported differences in favor of the intervention group . One of 4 studies evaluating performance-based outcomes reported differences in favor of the intervention group . One of 5 studies evaluating patient-reported outcomes reported differences in favor of the intervention group . Overall method ologic quality was poor . CONCLUSION Few comparative studies have evaluated the impact of early mobilization protocol s on outcomes after abdominal and thoracic surgery . The quality of these studies was poor and results were conflicting . Although bed rest is harmful , there is little available evidence to guide clinicians in effective early mobilization protocol s that increase mobilization and improve outcomes Objective The aim of this article is to summarize the relevant findings that inform the 2017 International Consultation on Incontinence pathway for surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse ( POP ) . Methods We conducted an evidence -based review of the English- language peer- review ed literature relating to POP surgery published prior to December 2016 . Level 1 evidence ( r and omized controlled trials [ RCTs ] or systematic review s of RCTs ) was preferred ; however , level 2 ( poor- quality RCT , prospect i ve cohort studies ) or 3 evidence ( case series or retrospective studies ) has been included if level 1 data were lacking . The committee evaluated the literature and made recommendations based on the Oxford grading system summarized as follows : grade A recommendation usually depends on consistent level 1 evidence ; grade B recommendation usually depends on consistent level 2 and /or 3 studies , or “ majority evidence ” from RCTs ; grade C recommendation usually depends on level 3 studies or “ majority evidence ” from level 2/3 studies or Delphi-processed expert opinion ; grade D , “ no recommendation possible , ” would be used where the evidence is inadequate or conflicting . Results The recommendations from each chapter of the review are presented and serve to inform an evidence -based pathway for the surgical treatment of prolapse . A Web-based interactive application of the pathway is presented . Conclusions The 2017 International Consultation on Incontinence pathway on surgery for POP is design ed as an adjunct to transparent consultation and consent relating to POP surgery . The final decision regarding surgical intervention can be made only after a shared decision-making process between the patient and the clinician that will evaluate a variety of individual factors that can not be assessed in the pathway 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 : 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 BACKGROUND Simulation-based training has been an important part of the solution to address the shortfalls in cardiac surgery training . This review was conducted to identify and systematic ally summarize existing evidence on outcomes and method ological quality of  simulation-based skills training  for cardiac surgery trainees . METHODS MEDLINE , Embase , and ERIC ( Education Re sources Information Center ) data bases were search ed . Studies included peer- review ed publications with simulation-based skill training in cardiac surgery programs with outcome measures of performance . Data extraction covered the type of skills training , simulator type and fidelity , the level of trainees , assessment tools , assessors , study design and its components , strengths and limitations , and elements required for the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument score . The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review s and Meta-Analyses guidelines . RESULTS Of 16 studies that met the criteria , only four ( 25 % ) r and omized controlled trials were identified , and the remaining were observational studies . Seven observational studies ( 43.7 % ) were single-group pre-post tests . The  mean number of trainees was 20.4 ( SD , 14.1 ) .  Low-fidelity simulators were used in 13 studies ( 81.2 % ) . Most of the studies ( 81.3 % ) were high quality based on a Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument score of 12 or more . Evidence of assessment tool validation was absent among all studies . No study outcome measures were directed to skills transfer to the operating room or patient outcomes . Overall learning outcomes ' effect sizes were consistently high ( 2.2 ; SD , 1.6 ) , with junior residents benefitting most ( effect size , 2.8 ; SD , 2.2 ) CONCLUSIONS : Simulation-based skill training is associated with improved learning outcomes for cardiac surgery trainees with large effect sizes , but more behavior-level outcomes are required to fully assess its value Red blood cells ( RBC ) storage facilitates the supply of RBC to meet the clinical dem and for transfusion and to avoid wastage . However , RBC storage is associated with adverse changes in erythrocytes and their preservation medium . These changes are responsible for functional alterations and for the accumulation of potentially injurious bioreactive substances . They also may have clinical ly harmful effects especially in critically ill patients . The clinical consequences of storage lesions , however , remain a matter of persistent controversy . Multiple retrospective , observational , and single-center studies have reported heterogeneous and conflicting findings about the effect of blood storage duration on morbidity and /or mortality in trauma , cardiac surgery , and intensive care unit patients . Describing the details of this controversy , this review not only summarizes the current literature but also highlights the equipoise that currently exists with regard to the use of short versus current st and ard ( extended ) storage duration red cells in critically ill patients and supports the need for large , r and omized , controlled trials evaluating the clinical impact of transfusing fresh ( short duration of storage ) versus older ( extended duration of storage ) red cells in critically ill patients 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 # # # # Summary points In the first part of this article we described how obesity in children is measured , its prevalence , whether children should be screened , and the risk factors for and consequences of obesity.1 In this part we review the current evidence on the prevention and management of childhood obesity . # # # # Sources and selection criteria This review draws on the Foresight report , guidance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the Australian National Health Medical Research Council , and Cochrane review . In April 2008 we search ed the Cochrane Library data base of review s and the Centre for Review s and Dissemination data bases using the search term “ obesity ” . We also conducted a Medline search ( ( Child$ or paediatric or pediatric or adolescent ) and ( Obes$ or overweight ) ) limited to 1 January 2005 to 6 May 2008 and “ review articles ” ; this identified 1105 articles . We read the abstract s of these articles and retrieved relevant papers . We also used articles from our own bibliographies collected over the past 10 years . The evidence to support the measurement , prevention , and management of obesity in children is still relatively weak , with few r and omised controlled trials or systematic review s. The strength of evidence is developing and the up date d Cochrane review that will be published in 2009 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 Outcome reporting in  bariatric surgery  needs a core outcome set ( COS ) , an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a particular condition . The aim of this study was to summarize outcome reporting in bariatric surgery to inform the development of a COS . Outcomes reported in r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) and large non-r and omized studies identified by a systematic review were listed verbatim and categorized into domains , scrutinizing the frequency of outcome reporting and uniformity of definitions . Ninety studies ( 39 RCTs ) identified 1,088 separate outcomes , grouped into nine domains with most ( n = 920 , 85 % ) reported only once . The largest outcome domain was ' surgical complications ' , and overall , 42 % of outcomes corresponded to a theme of ' adverse events ' . Only a quarter of outcomes were defined , and where provided definitions , which were often contradictory . Percentage of excess weight loss was the main study outcome in 49 studies , but nearly 40 % of weight loss outcomes were heterogeneous , thus not comparable . Outcomes of diverse bariatric operations focus largely on adverse events . Reporting is inconsistent and ill-defined , limiting interpretation and comparison of published studies . Thus , we propose and are developing a COS for the surgical treatment of severe and complex obesity Studies that compare the use of HTK vs. blood or crystalloid cardioplegia for myocardial protection in cardiac surgery , r and omized or non-r and omized , will be selected . Large case series of adult cardiac surgery with the use of HTK for myocardial protection but without a comparator , including more than 100 patients will be included in a separate analysis . Electronic search es will be performed of Medline , the Cochrane Data base of Systematic Review s , Pubmed and EMBASE . Manual search es of reference lists will be used to identify any studies not found in the initial search . Only studies in English will be included . Abstract s , letters , and review articles will be excluded . Differences of opinion between review ers will be discussed with a senior investigator . An in/out form will be prepared to assess studies for inclusion or exclusion using predetermined inclusion criteria . The inclusion of studies will be assessed by two independent review ers , with differences of opinion resolved by discussion with a senior investigator . A PRISMA flow-diagram will summarize inclusion /exclusion of studies . Level of evidence for each study will be reported to assess the quality of the evidence The r and omized clinical trial is the method of choice for comparing the effects of alternative care options , both in its own right and as the cornerstone of systematic review s of the subject . Errors in such trials , therefore , have major consequences for health care . This paper provides a brief introduction to the major sources of such errors , whether they be systematic or chance errors . It addresses selection bias , due to either biased entry in or biased exclusion from the trial , bias in assessing outcomes , and biases due to contamination or co-intervention . R and om errors , including type I and type II errors , are discussed along with ways in which they can be minimized . Small clinical trials , in particular , provide a major problem not only by themselves , but also if they become incorporated in systematic review s without appropriate consideration of the phenomenon of publication bias 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 , Acupuncture is an accepted treatment worldwide for various clinical conditions , and the effects of acupuncture on opiate addiction have been investigated in many clinical trials . The present review systematic ally analyzed data from r and omized clinical trials published in Chinese and English since 1970 . We found that the majority agreed on the efficacy of acupuncture as a strategy for the treatment of opiate addiction . However , some of the methods in several included trials have been criticized for their poor quality . This review summarizes the quality of the study design , the types of acupuncture applied , the commonly selected acupoints or sites of the body , the effectiveness of the treatment , and the possible mechanism underlying the effectiveness of acupuncture  in these trials Industry funding and author financial conflicts of interest may influence the production and synthesis of scientific evidence ( 1 ) . Associations with the pharmaceutical company developing and marketing a drug have been found to influence the design of trials ( 2 ) , the conduct of trials ( 3 ) , and the reporting of trial results ( 47 ) . Furthermore , financial ties and industry funding seem to result in greater rates of favorable conclusions in clinical trials examining new drugs ( 812 ) . Fewer studies have considered the potential influence of financial conflicts of interest on the synthesis of clinical evidence in systematic review s ( 13 , 14 ) . Neuraminidase inhibitors , which are used in the prophylaxis and treatment of seasonal and p and emic influenza , have been the subject of ongoing uncertainty about their specific clinical benefits ( 15 , 16 ) . This is the result of not only the continuing emergence of strains with unknown drug responses but also the increasing awareness in the medical community that , until recently , its knowledge of the safety and efficacy of these drugs has been incomplete ( 17 ) . Despite the abundance of clinical trials and publications on neuraminidase inhibitors , the details of many key trials had not been disclosed ( 18 , 19 ) . As a result , systematic review ers analyzing and synthesizing evidence on the effectiveness of these agents have faced incomplete information , unresolved discrepancies in the data , and a high risk of publication and reporting biases among the primary clinical trials ( 20 , 21 ) . This prompted extensive efforts to access complete records of all published and unpublished clinical trials from manufacturers , culminating in the publication of several review s on the basis of comprehensive clinical study reports and potentially changing the way systematic review s will be undertaken in the future ( 2227 ) . Review s of neuraminidase inhibitors exhibit wide variation in their conclusions , ranging from strong endorsements of the use of these agents in the prophylaxis and treatment of influenza ( 28 , 29 ) to more conservative assessment s question ing the evidence on the drugs ' safety and efficacy ( 15 , 30 ) . The reasons for this discordance in review conclusions are likely multifactorial and may be related in part to the manner in which evidence is accessed , synthesized , and presented ( 23 , 27 ) , both in terms of the numerical results and the authors ' emphasis and interpretation ( 31 , 32 ) . Our aim was to determine whether there is an association between financial conflicts of interest and the favorable presentation of evidence in systematic review s on the use of neuraminidase inhibitors for the prophylaxis and treatment of influenza . Methods Data Sources Systematic review s were identified in PubMed , PubMed In Process , EMBASE , and the Cochrane Data base of Systematic Review s. Search es were done using the keywords influenza , neuraminidase inhibitors , oseltamivir , zanamivir , peramivir , and laninamivir . Articles were retrieved if the search terms appeared in the title or abstract or were included as data base-specific keywords . In PubMed and EMBASE , search es were also constrained to review publication types . We limited our search to English- language articles published since 1 January 2005 . These articles were manually review ed to identify those that focused on the use of neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza prophylaxis or treatment ( such as excluded articles primarily about drug development or other manufacturing processes ) . We selected all review s that used a systematic search protocol , which we defined as the inclusion and reporting of an explicit search strategy , including reasons for subsequent exclusion of articles . The final search es were done on 26 May 2014 . Cochrane review s are periodically up date d to incorporate new evidence , and the results and conclusions are resynthesized as indicated . The authors of these review s are typically different , and there may be differences in the methods as well as the results and language of the review . These up date d review s were included separately . Other Cochrane review s are occasionally rewritten by a subset of the authors for publication in medical journals as abridged versions to increase dissemination . These reports have separate peer review s and are prepared on the basis of a selection of the complete results . We considered these review s separately as well but also did a sensitivity analysis in which they were combined with the original Cochrane review s. Data Extraction Financial conflicts of interest were identified for all authors of the review s and included affiliations with or funding from the pharmaceutical company manufacturing any of the neuraminidase inhibitors under review . We defined financial conflicts of interest as employment , the funding of grants paid to an author or an author 's research group , and the funding of medical writers for the systematic review . These financial conflicts of interest were identified using information about affiliations or funding listed in the systematic review s , as well as in any other articles published by one of the authors during the 3 years before the publication of the index systematic review . In addition , we search ed authors ' personal and institutional Web sites ; lists of disclosures from GlaxoSmithKline ( Research Triangle Park , North Carolina ) and Roche Pharmaceuticals ( Basel , Switzerl and ) ; and performed Web search es combining the names of the authors , drugs , and pharmaceutical companies to identify any additional information about financial relationships . Details of the specific financial conflicts of interest identified for each author are listed in Appendix Table 1 . Appendix Table 1 . Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of the Systematic Review s For each systematic review , we recorded whether prophylaxis or treatment was assessed , the forms of evidence to be included ( such as r and omized , controlled trials and observational studies ) , the specific clinical outcomes assessed , the population s examined , and whether meta-analyses were done . We also examined whether the review s included information about the validity or quality of the primary literature . In particular , we recorded whether there were statements addressing nonpublication of primary studies or publication bias , including tests done by the review ers to assess for bias in meta-analyses ( such as the Egger or Begg test [ 33 , 34 ] ) , difficulty in accessing comprehensive study data , and the prevalence or role of industry in conducting and funding the primary studies . Data Analysis Two investigators were provided with redacted copies of each review that did not include the review s ' authors , their affiliations , or information on financial conflicts of interest . These versions also did not contain the journal name , journal formatting , or the article 's acknowledgments or references . The investigators independently evaluated the review s and classified the prophylaxis and treatment assessment s as favorable or not favorable toward the use of neuraminidase inhibitors . They were instructed to do this grading on the basis of the entirety of the review text without restriction to conclusions or recommendations made in any specific section of the review , thus allowing them to take into account the emphasis and interpretation of the authors throughout the review . The agreement between the investigators was strong at 86 % ( Cohen , 0.72 ; P < 0.001 ) . Disagreements were resolved by a third investigator using the same redacted copies . Descriptive analyses were done to examine the associations between financial conflicts of interest and the grading of the systematic review s. A sensitivity analysis excluding the summary review s was done to further examine this association . We also assessed the association between financial conflicts of interest and the inclusion of statements addressing the validity or quality of the primary evidence . Role of the Funding Source This study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council . The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study , analysis of the results , or the decision to su bmi t the manuscript for publication . Results We identified 827 published articles across the 4 data bases using the specified search criteria , with 26 systematic review s included in the final cohort ( Figure ) . Thirteen review s examined prophylaxis and 24 examined treatment of influenza , accounting for 37 distinct assessment s ( Appendix Table 2 ) . In terms of review methods , 7 were Cochrane systematic review s and 19 conducted and reported a meta- analysis ( 73 % ) . The evidence inclusion criteria were limited to r and omized , controlled trials for 14 of the systematic review s ( 54 % ) , and 5 included evidence from clinical study reports or patient-level data . The main population s examined were healthy adults ( 18 of 26 systematic review s ) , children ( 13 of 26 ) , and hospitalized patients ( 6 of 24 ) . The outcome measures for prophylaxis assessment s included influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed influenza . For the treatment assessment s , the outcomes were illness duration , influenza-related complications , hospitalization , and mortality , mostly in combination . Five review s were up date s of previous Cochrane review s , and 3 were summary review s based on Cochrane review s. Figure . Summary of evidence search and selection . Eligible systematic review s included those with outcomes related to the prophylaxis or treatment of influenza . Appendix Table 2 . Characteristics of Systematic Review s Examining Prophylaxis and Treatment Outcomes for Neuraminidase Inhibitors Association Between Financial Conflicts of Interest and Favorable Assessment s Seven of the 26 systematic review s ( 27 % ) , corresponding to 8 of the 37 assessment s ( 22 % ) , were associated with a financial conflict of interest ( Appendix Table 1 ) . We identified financial conflicts of interest in publications other than the index systematic review in 2 cases , and no additional Systematic review s , a cornerstone of evidence -based medicine , are not produced quickly enough to support clinical practice . The cost of production , availability of the requisite expertise and timeliness are often quoted as major contributors for the delay . This detailed survey of the state of the art of information systems design ed to support or automate individual tasks in the systematic review , and in particular systematic review s of r and omized controlled clinical trials , reveals trends that see the convergence of several parallel research projects . We surveyed literature describing informatics systems that support or automate the processes of systematic review or each of the tasks of the systematic review . Several projects focus on automating , simplifying and /or streamlining specific tasks of the systematic review . Some tasks are already fully automated while others are still largely manual . In this review , we describe each task and the effect that its automation would have on the entire systematic review process , summarize the existing information system support for each task , and highlight where further research is needed for realizing automation for the task . Integration of the systems that automate systematic review tasks may lead to a revised systematic review workflow . We envisage the optimized workflow will lead to system in which each systematic review is described as a computer program that automatically retrieves relevant trials , appraises them , extracts and synthesizes data , evaluates the risk of bias , performs meta- analysis calculations , and produces a report in real time BACKGROUND Allergic rhinitis and asthma are important public health concerns , yet there is no consensus about the benefits and harms of allergen-specific immunotherapy to treat these conditions . We performed an umbrella review of systematic review s summarizing the current evidence for the benefits and harms of subcutaneous immunotherapy ( SCIT ) and sublingual immunotherapy ( SLIT ) . METHODS We search ed MEDLINE , Embase , the Cochrane Library and the grey literature from Jan. 1 , 2010 to Nov. 20 , 2016 for systematic review s of r and omized controlled trials or prospect ively controlled studies involving children or adults with allergic rhinitis or asthma . Outcomes were summarized narratively ( benefits : total combined symptom-medication score , symptom score , medication score , disease-specific quality of life , adherence ; harms : anaphylaxis , death , local and systemic reactions ) . RESULTS Twenty-three systematic review s were included . SCIT and SLIT were more effective than placebo for most outcomes . SCIT was better than SLIT at improving medication and symptom scores , with no differences in quality of life ; however , data were limited for this comparison . Anaphylaxis and death were infrequently reported . Few review s assessed benefits or harms among children . INTERPRETATION Allergen immunotherapy appears to be effective among patients with allergic rhinitis and asthma . The safety of allergen immunotherapy is not conclusively established , although death and anaphylaxis appear to be rare . PROSPERO no. : CRD42015024590 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 Background Cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes are examples of chronic diseases that impose significant morbidity and mortality in the general population worldwide . Most chronic diseases are associated with underlying preventable risk factors , such as elevated blood pressure , high blood glucose or glucose intolerance , high lipid levels , physical inactivity , excessive sedentary behaviours , and overweight/obesity . The occurrence of intermediate outcomes during childhood increases the risk of disease in adulthood . Sugar-sweetened beverages are known to be significant sources of additional caloric intake , and given recent attention to their contribution in the development of chronic diseases , a systematic review is warranted . We will assess whether the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in children is associated with adverse health outcomes and what the potential moderating factors are . Methods / Design Of interest are studies addressing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption , taking a broad perspective . Both direct consumption studies as well as those evaluating interventions that influence consumption ( e.g. school policy , educational ) will be relevant . Non-specific or multi-faceted behavioural , educational , or policy interventions may also be included subject to the level of evidence that exists for the other interventions /exposures . Comparisons of interest and endpoints of interest are pre-specified . We will include r and omized controlled trials , controlled clinical trials , interrupted time series studies , controlled before-after studies , prospect i ve and retrospective comparative cohort studies , case – control studies , and nested case – control design s. The MEDLINE ® , Embase , The Cochrane Library , CINAHL , ERIC , and PsycINFO ® data bases and grey literature sources will be search ed . The processes for selecting studies , abstract ing data , and resolving conflicts are described . We will assess risk of bias using design -specific tools . To determine sets of confounding variables that should be adjusted for , we have developed causal directed acyclic graphs and will use those to inform our risk of bias assessment s. Meta- analysis will be conducted where appropriate ; parameters for exploring statistical heterogeneity and effect modifiers are pre-specified . The Grading of Recommendations Assessment , Development and Evaluation ( GRADE ) approach will be used to determine the quality of evidence for outcomes . Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014009641 The current review aim ed to systematic ally identify dietary , physical activity and sedentary behaviours in preschool children ( 4 - 6 years of age ) that are prospect ively related to overweight or obesity later in childhood . Prospect i ve studies published between January 1990 and June 2010 were selected from search es in PubMed , EMBASE , PsycINFO , CINAHL and Cochrane Library . Studies examining the prospect i ve association between at least one relevant behaviour measured during preschool period ( children aged 4 - 6 years at baseline ) in relation to at least one anthropometric measurement at follow-up ( age < 18 years ) were included . Harvest plots were used to summarize the results and draw conclusions from the evidence . Of the 8,718 retrieved papers , 23 papers reporting on 15 different study sample s were included in this review . Strong evidence was found for an inverse association between total physical activity and overweight . Moderate evidence was observed for a positive association between television viewing and overweight . Because of the heterogeneity in the assessed dietary behaviours , insufficient evidence was found for an association between  dietary intake or specific dietary behaviours and overweight . These results suggest that interventions aim ing to prevent overweight among preschool children should focus on promotion of total physical activity and limitation of screen time and that further research is needed to establish whether and which dietary behaviours are important for obesity prevention in this age group . However , despite the lack of evidence for dietary behaviours from the present review , future interventions may already target specific dietary behaviours that are highly prevalent and for which there a clear rationale as well as preliminary evidence that these behaviours are associated with overweight & NA ; Physical therapists seeking to use evidence to guide their practice may have limited time to read research reports . One way to reduce the time required to identify and read about the research that is relevant to a particular clinical question is to read a systematic review that summarizes multiple studies . This paper explains the process that is used to conduct systematic review s , which includes the establishment of a protocol , comprehensive search ing , appraisal of the quality of the included studies , data extraction and meta analysis , and consideration of the clinical and research implication s of the findings . We also consider how the reader of a systematic review can determine whether the review is likely to provide an unbiased ( believable ) estimate of the treatment effect . A systematic review of r and omized trials of a  cardiopulmonary physical therapy intervention is used as an example . The issue of appraisal of quality is then discussed further , with a demonstration of how one vali date d tool for quality appraisal ‐‐the PEDro scale‐‐can be used to evaluate a r and omized trial in cardiopulmonary physical therapy Aim Previous systematic review s have found hydrotherapy to be an effective management strategy for  fibromyalgia syndrome ( FMS ) .  The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the components of hydrotherapy programs used in r and omized controlled trials . Method A systematic review of r and omized controlled trials was conducted . Only trials that have reported significant FMS-related outcomes were included . Data relating to the components of hydrotherapy programs ( exercise type , duration , frequency and intensity , environmental factors , and service delivery ) were analyzed . Results Eleven r and omized controlled trials were included in this review . Overall , the quality of trials was good . Aerobic exercise featured in all 11 trials and the majority of hydrotherapy programs included either a strengthening or flexibility component . Great variability was noted in both the environmental components of hydrotherapy programs and service delivery . Conclusions Aerobic exercise , warm up and cool-down periods and relaxation exercises are common features of hydrotherapy programs that report significant FMS-related outcomes . Treatment duration of 60 minutes , frequency of three sessions per week and an intensity equivalent to 60%–80 % maximum heart rate were the most commonly reported exercise components . Exercise appears to be the most important component of an effective hydrotherapy program for FMS , particularly when considering mental health-related outcomes
Results Insulin resistance indicators were significantly improved after bariatric surgery .
Leptin was also significantly decreased while adiponectin was significantly increased .
Although the level of metabolic hormones changed after bariatric surgery , they were not statistically significant .
Inflammation indicators were significantly decreased .
Significant reduction was also detected in PAI-1 and sICAM-1 .
Conclusions Bariatric surgery is beneficial in morbidly obese patients .
Although treating obesity in a surgical way may cause some complications , the weight loss is generally safe and effective
Background Considering conflicting results on the consequences of all types of obesity surgery , we were to summarize them via a systematic review .