The association between body mass index and the risk of different urinary cancers: Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between cancer with body mass index has been extensively reported. However, association between urinary cancers with these risk factors remains unclear, with existing reports showing conflicting findings. The current review, therefore, sought to clarify the latter association by assessing the methodological and reporting quality of existing systematic reviews on the subject. METHODS: We will screen PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant literature and subjected the resulting articles to meta-analysis. We will adopt the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists for assessing methodological, and reporting quality, respectively. The association between BMI and different urinary cancers will be estimated by computing the pooled relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), which will be calculated from the adjusted RR, odds ratio, or hazard ratio, and 95% CI offered in the studies. Heterogeneity between studies will be assessed with the I statistic as a measure of the proportion of total variation in estimates that is due to heterogeneity, where I values of 25%, 50%, and 75% correspond to cut-off points for low, moderate, and high degrees of heterogeneity. The random effects model will be used as the pooling method when significant heterogeneity existed and the fixed effect model will be used when no heterogeneity was observed. Possible publication bias will be tested by Begg and Egger test. CONCLUSION: Our evidence synthesis will provide a new commentary on the current systematic review evidence for the association between BMI and the risk of different urinary cancers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019119459.

Determine what to measure and how to measure in clinical trials for the treatment of pressure injury: A protocol for the development of a core outcome set.

BACKGROUND: A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical trials in specific areas of health care. A considerable amount of trials did not report essential outcomes or outcomes measurement methods, which makes it challenging to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment strategies for pressure injury (PI) and produced significant heterogeneity of reported outcomes. It is necessary to develop a COS, which can be used for clinical trials in PI treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: The development of this COS will be guided by an advisory group composed of clinicians, senior nurses, patients, and methodologists. We will search six databases and 2 registry platforms to identify currently reported PI treatment outcomes and outcome measurement instruments in randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis, and systematic reviews. We will also conduct a semi-structured interview with clinicians, nurses, and adult PI patients to collect their opinions on important outcomes. Each outcome of the initial list generated from systematic review and interviews will be scored and reach a consensus through two rounds of international Delphi survey with all key stakeholders. A face-to-face consensus meeting with key stakeholders will be conducted to finish a final COS and recommend measurement instruments for each outcome. RESULTS: We will develop a COS that should be reported in future clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of PI treatment. DISCUSSION: The COS will follow current guidance to develop a high-quality COS in the field of PI treatment to reduce heterogeneity in trial reporting, facilitate valid comparisons of new therapies, and improve the quality of clinical trials.