Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Medication administration in aged care facilities: A mixed-methods systematic review.

AIM(S): To synthesize aged care provider, resident and residents' family members' perspectives and experiences of medication administration in aged care facilities; to determine the incidence of medication administration errors, and the impact of medication administration on quality of care and resident-centredness in aged care facilities. DESIGN: A mixed-methods systematic review. PROSPERO ID: CRD42023426990. DATA SOURCES: The AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science core collection databases were searched in June 2023. REVIEW METHODS: Included studies were independently screened, selected and appraised by two researchers. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist was followed, with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for critical appraisal. Convergent synthesis of data, thematic synthesis and meta-analysis were performed. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-eight studies were included (33 qualitative, 85 quantitative and 10 mixed-methods). Five themes were formulated, including 1) Staffing concerns, 2) The uncertain role of residents, 3) Medication-related decision-making, 4) Use of electronic medication administration records and 5) Medication administration errors. Educational interventions for aged care workers significantly reduced medication administration errors, examined across five studies (OR = 0.37, 95%CI 0.28-0.50, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Medication administration in aged care facilities is challenging and complex on clinical and interpersonal levels. Clinical processes, medication errors and safety remain focal points for practice. However, more active consideration of residents' autonomy and input by aged care workers and providers is needed to address medication administration's interpersonal and psychosocial aspects. New directions for future research should examine the decision-making behind dose form modification, aged care workers' definitions of medication omission and practical methods to support residents' and their family members' engagement during medication administration. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: It is important that medication administration in aged care facilities be more clearly acknowledged as both a clinical and interpersonal task. More attention is warranted regarding aged care workers clinical decision-making, particularly concerning dose form modification, covert administration and medication omissions. Resident-centred care approaches that support resident and family engagement around medication administration may improve adherence, satisfaction and quality of care. IMPACT: What Problem Did the Study Address? Medication administration in aged care facilities is a complex clinical and interpersonal activity. Still, to date, no attempts have been made to synthesize qualitative and quantitative evidence around this practice. There is a need to establish what evidence exists around the perspectives and experiences of aged care workers, residents and resident's family members to understand the challenges, interpersonal opportunities and risks during medication administration. What Were the Main Findings? There is a lack of empirical evidence around resident-centred care approaches to medication administration, and how residents and their families could be enabled to have more input. Dose form modification occurred overtly and covertly as part of medication administration, not just as a method for older adults with swallowing difficulties, but to enforce adherence with prescribed medications. Medication administration errors typically included medication omission as a category of error, despite some omissions stemming from a clear rationale for medication omission and resident input. WHERE AND ON WHOM WILL THE RESEARCH HAVE AN IMPACT?: The findings of this systematic review contribute to aged care policy and practice regarding medication administration and engagement with older adults. This review presents findings that provide a starting point for aged care workers in regards to professional development and reflection on practice, particularly around clinical decision-making on dose form modification, medication administration errors and the tension on enabling resident input into medication administration. For researchers, this review highlights the need to develop resident-centred care approaches and interventions, and to assess whether these can positively impact medication administration, resident engagement, adherence with prescribed medications and quality of care. REPORTING METHOD: This systematic review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (Page et al., 2021). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution to this systematic review.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

PURPOSE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Impact of Active learning model and prior knowledge on discovery time of elusive relevant papers: a simulation study.

Software that employs screening prioritization through active learning (AL) has accelerated the screening process significantly by ranking an unordered set of records by their predicted relevance. However, failing to find a relevant paper might alter the findings of a systematic review, highlighting the importance of identifying elusive papers. The time to discovery (TD) measures how many records are needed to be screened to find a relevant paper, making it a helpful tool for detecting such papers. The main aim of this project was to investigate how the choice of the model and prior knowledge influence the TD values of the hard-to-find relevant papers and their rank orders. A simulation study was conducted, mimicking the screening process on a dataset containing titles, abstracts, and labels used for an already published systematic review. The results demonstrated that AL model choice, and mostly the choice of the feature extractor but not the choice of prior knowledge, significantly influenced the TD values and the rank order of the elusive relevant papers. Future research should examine the characteristics of elusive relevant papers to discover why they might take a long time to be found.

Efficacy of virtual reality exercise in knee osteoarthritis rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the effects of virtual reality (VR) exercise compared to traditional rehabilitation on pain, function, and muscle strength in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Additionally, the study explores the mechanisms by which VR exercise contributes to the rehabilitation of KOA patients. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and PEDro according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Our search spanned from the library construction to 24 May 2024, focusing on randomized controlled trials Primary outcomes included pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and muscle strength. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan (version 5.4) and Stata (version 14.0). The bias risk of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, while the quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: This meta-analysis and systematic review included nine studies involving 456 KOA patients. The results indicated that VR exercise significantly improved pain scores (SMD, -1.53; 95% CI: -2.50 to -0.55; p = 0.002), WOMAC total score (MD, -14.79; 95% CI: -28.26 to -1.33; p = 0.03), WOMAC pain score (MD, -0.93; 95% CI: -1.52 to -0.34; p = 0.002), knee extensor strength (SMD, 0.51; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.87; p = 0.006), and knee flexor strength (SMD, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.01; p = 0.0005), but not significantly for WOMAC stiffness (MD, -0.01; 95% CI: -1.21 to 1.19; p = 0.99) and physical function (MD, -0.35; 95% CI: -0.79 to -0.09; p = 0.12). Conclusion: VR exercise significantly alleviates pain, enhances muscle strength and WOMAC total score in KOA patients, but improvements in joint stiffness and physical function are not significant. However, the current number of studies is limited, necessitating further research to expand on the present findings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024540061, identifier CRD42024540061.

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments: an overview of reviews.

PURPOSE: Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards. METHODS: One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies' findings. RESULTS: A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use. CONCLUSION: Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.

Machine learning enables automated screening for systematic reviews and meta-analysis in urology.

PURPOSE: To investigate and implement semiautomated screening for meta-analyses (MA) in urology under consideration of class imbalance. METHODS: Machine learning algorithms were trained on data from three MA with detailed information of the screening process. Different methods to account for class imbalance (Sampling (up- and downsampling, weighting and cost-sensitive learning), thresholding) were implemented in different machine learning (ML) algorithms (Random Forest, Logistic Regression with Elastic Net Regularization, Support Vector Machines). Models were optimized for sensitivity. Besides metrics such as specificity, receiver operating curves, total missed studies, and work saved over sampling were calculated. RESULTS: During training, models trained after downsampling achieved the best results consistently among all algorithms. Computing time ranged between 251 and 5834 s. However, when evaluated on the final test data set, the weighting approach performed best. In addition, thresholding helped to improve results as compared to the standard of 0.5. However, due to heterogeneity of results no clear recommendation can be made for a universal sample size. Misses of relevant studies were 0 for the optimized models except for one review. CONCLUSION: It will be necessary to design a holistic methodology that implements the presented methods in a practical manner, but also takes into account other algorithms and the most sophisticated methods for text preprocessing. In addition, the different methods of a cost-sensitive learning approach can be the subject of further investigations.

Clinical decision support systems in addiction and concurrent disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: This review aims to synthesise the literature on the efficacy, evolution, and challenges of implementing Clincian Decision Support Systems (CDSS) in the realm of mental health, addiction, and concurrent disorders. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Searches conducted in databases such as MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science through 25 May 2023, yielded 27,344 records. After necessary exclusions, 69 records were allocated for detailed synthesis. In the examination of patient outcomes with a focus on metrics such as therapeutic efficacy, patient satisfaction, and treatment acceptance, meta-analytic techniques were employed to synthesise data from randomised controlled trials. RESULTS: A total of 69 studies were included, revealing a shift from knowledge-based models pre-2017 to a rise in data-driven models post-2017. The majority of models were found to be in Stage 2 or 4 of maturity. The meta-analysis showed an effect size of -0.11 for addiction-related outcomes and a stronger effect size of -0.50 for patient satisfaction and acceptance of CDSS. DISCUSSION: The results indicate a shift from knowledge-based to data-driven CDSS approaches, aligned with advances in machine learning and big data. Although the immediate impact on addiction outcomes is modest, higher patient satisfaction suggests promise for wider CDSS use. Identified challenges include alert fatigue and opaque AI models. CONCLUSION: CDSS shows promise in mental health and addiction treatment but requires a nuanced approach for effective and ethical implementation. The results emphasise the need for continued research to ensure optimised and equitable use in healthcare settings.

[Review of Reviews (Umbrella Reviews): Step-by-Step Guide]. / Revisão das Revisões (Revisões Umbrella): Guia Passo a Passo.

In recent years, as a result of the dramatic increase in the number of systematic reviews, a new type of systematic review, the 'systematic reviews of systematic reviews', also known as umbrella reviews, reviews of reviews, meta-reviews or synthesis of review, was developed. The aim of this article is to provide recommendations on how this type of systematic review should be conducted and reported to ensure its quality and usefulness. These reviews are designed to compile evidence from multiple systematic reviews of interventions into an accessible and usable document and are one of the highest levels of evidence synthesis.

Nos últimos anos, em consequência do aumento dramático do número de revisões sistemáticas, surgiu um novo tipo de revisões sistemáticas, as revi- sões sistemáticas das revisões sistemáticas, também conhecidas como umbrella reviews, reviews of reviews, meta-reviews, ou synthesis of review. O objetivo deste artigo é fornecer recomendações sobre como este tipo de revisão sistemática deve ser conduzido e relatado para garantir a sua qualidade e utilidade. Estas revisões são concebidas para compilar evidências de múltiplas revisões sistemáticas de intervenções num documento acessível e utilizável e constituem um dos níveis mais elevados de síntese de evidência.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. METHODS: The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement. RESULTS: From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts. CONCLUSION: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: This paper was jointly developed by Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Quality of Life Research, Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes and jointly published by Elsevier Inc, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, and BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.

A Review of Systematic Reviews: Gatekeeper Training for Suicide Prevention with a Focus on Effectiveness and Findings.

OBJECTIVES: Suicide prevention gatekeeper training (GKT) is considered an important component of an overall suicide-prevention strategy. The primary aim of this study was to conduct the first robust review of systematic reviews of GKT to examine the overall effectiveness of GKT on knowledge, self-efficacy, attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavioral change. The study also examined the extent to which outcomes were retained long term, the frequency of refresher sessions, and the effectiveness of GKT with Indigenous populations and e-learning delivery. METHODS: For this review of reviews, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase; and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. ROBIS was applied to assess risk of bias and findings were synthesized using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Six systematic reviews were included comprising 61 studies, of which only 10 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Immediate positive effects of GKT on knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy were confirmed, including for interventions tailored for Indigenous communities. Evidence was mixed for change in attitude; few studies measured e-learning GKT, retention of outcomes, booster sessions, behavioral intentions, and behavioral change, with some positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supports the immediate effects of GKT but highlights a need for more high-quality RCTs, particularly for Indigenous and e-learning GKT. This review identified a concerning lack of long-term follow-up assessments at multiple time points, which could capture behavioral change and a significant gap in studies focused on post-training interventions that maintain GKT effects over time.

This first review of systematic reviews for GKT confirmed positive effects for GKT, although mixed evidence exists for changes in attitude.Very few studies include long-term measurement of retention of outcomes and what facilitates retention.There is an urgent need for more research into the effectiveness of GKT with Indigenous populations and e-learning GKT.

The effect of clear aligner treatment on masticatory muscles (masseter, temporalis) activity in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of clear aligners is becoming more common for aesthetic orthodontic treatment, but there are still concerns about how they affect mastication biomechanics in the short and long term. The clear aligners treatment (CAT) mechanism changes the position of the mandible and maxilla, especially impacting the masseter muscle. Surface electromyography (sEMG) proves to be a useful method to evaluate masticatory muscle activity (MMA). OBJECTIVES: To analyze the effect of clear aligners treatment on alterations in masticatory muscles (masseter, temporalis) using surface electromyography. SEARCH METHODS: Five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) were searched up to March 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies in which MMA was evaluated after the installation of orthodontic clear aligners. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening, data extraction, and quality assessments were performed by four investigators independently. The data, which evaluated temporalis and masseter muscle characteristics during CAT using surface electromyography, was extracted, and the quality of the studies was evaluated. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: Six studies (two prospective cohort studies, three observational longitudinal studies, and one observational longitudinal case-control study) with low and moderate risk of bias were included in the qualitative synthesis. Six of these were also included in the meta-analysis. Our study investigated the dynamics of masseter and temporalis muscle activity during CAT. The results show that during maximal voluntary clenching, the masseter muscle demonstrated a significant initial increase (P < .05) followed by a subsequent non-significant decrease. It also showed that submaximal voluntary clenching consistently exhibited a significant reduction in muscle activity throughout the study period (P < .01). Assessment of muscle activity at the mandibular resting position revealed a variety of responses, with some participants showing a significant increase while others exhibited non-significant changes (P < .05, P > .05, respectively). However, the meta-analysis showed a non-significant difference in measuring masseter and temporalis muscles activity during CAT. CONCLUSIONS: Based on existing evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that CAT affected MMA. During maximal voluntary clenching, masseter muscle activity initially increased but later decreased, while temporalis muscle activity showed mixed results. Submaximal voluntary clenching revealed a consistent decrease in muscle activity over time. Mandibular resting position assessments showed both increases and no significant changes in muscle activity. However, the existing literature is insufficient to draw concrete conclusions; therefore, well-conducted further research is needed to confirm this statement. REGISTRATION: This systematic review and meta-analysis were registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42024522231).

The effect of non-pharmacological prenatal interventions on fear of childbirth: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: During pregnancy and childbirth, alongside positive feelings, women undergo feelings such as fear of childbirth (FoC) and worry about its consequences, which could leave negative effects on the mother and her child during pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum. The study was carried out to determine the effectiveness of prenatal non-pharmacological interventions on reducing the FoC. METHODS: The protocol of the study was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023468547). PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus, SID (Scientific Information Database) and Google Scholar search engine databases were systematically searched until July 27, 2023 with no limitation of time and limited to Persian and English studies in order to perform this overview. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE, methodological quality using AMSTAR 2 and reporting quality using PRISMA score. Meta-analysis was performed on the data extracted from the original trials to evaluate the effect of different interventions on reducing the FoC. Sub-group analysis and meta-regression models were used to examine high heterogeneity, and sensitivity analysis was used to eliminate the effect of high risk of bias studies on the study findings. RESULTS: Overall, 15 systematic reviews (SRs) were included in the overview, among which meta-analysis was performed in 9 studies. Considering methodological quality, these SRs were in low to critically low status and had relatively complete reports regarding reporting quality. Meta-analysis findings indicated that psychological interventions (SMD -2.02, 95% CI -2.69 to -1.36, 16 trials, 1057 participants, I2 = 95%) and prenatal educations (SMD -0.88, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.61, 4 trials, 432 participants, I2 = 72.8%) cause a significant reduction in FoC relative to prenatal usual cares with low certainty of evidence. Distraction techniques lead to a significant reduction in FoC relative to prenatal usual care with high certainty of evidence (SMD -0.75, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.33, 4 trials, 329 participants, I2 = 69%), but enhanced cares do not result in a significant decrease FoC relative to prenatal usual care with very low certainty of evidence (SMD -1.14, 95% CI -2.85 to 0.58, 3 trials, 232 participants, I2 = 97%). CONCLUSIONS: Distraction techniques are effective in reducing FoC. Regarding the effect of psychological interventions and prenatal educations on the reduction of FoC, the findings indicated that the interventions may result in the reduction of FoC. Very uncertain evidence showed that enhanced cares are not effective in reducing the FoC.

Validation of an interprofessional education search strategy in PubMed to optimize IPE literature searching.

Objective: With exponential growth in the publication of interprofessional education (IPE) research studies, it has become more difficult to find relevant literature and stay abreast of the latest research. To address this gap, we developed, evaluated, and validated search strategies for IPE studies in PubMed, to improve future access to and synthesis of IPE research. These search strategies, or search hedges, provide comprehensive, validated sets of search terms for IPE publications. Methods: The search strategies were created for PubMed using relative recall methodology. The research methods followed the guidance of previous search hedge and search filter validation studies in creating a gold standard set of relevant references using systematic reviews, having expert searchers identify and test search terms, and using relative recall calculations to validate the searches' performance against the gold standard set. Results: The three recommended search hedges for IPE studies presented had recall of 71.5%, 82.7%, and 95.1%; the first more focused for efficient literature searching, the last with high recall for comprehensive literature searching, and the remaining hedge as a middle ground between the other two options. Conclusion: These validated search hedges can be used in PubMed to expedite finding relevant scholarships, staying up to date with IPE research, and conducting literature reviews and evidence syntheses.

Features of databases that supported searching for rapid evidence synthesis during COVID-19: implications for future public health emergencies.

BACKGROUND: As evidence related to the COVID-19 pandemic surged, databases, platforms, and repositories evolved with features and functions to assist users in promptly finding the most relevant evidence. In response, research synthesis teams adopted novel searching strategies to sift through the vast amount of evidence to synthesize and disseminate the most up-to-date evidence. This paper explores the key database features that facilitated systematic searching for rapid evidence synthesis during the COVID-19 pandemic to inform knowledge management infrastructure during future global health emergencies. METHODS: This paper outlines the features and functions of previously existing and newly created evidence sources routinely searched as part of the NCCMT's Rapid Evidence Service methods, including databases, platforms, and repositories. Specific functions of each evidence source were assessed as they pertain to searching in the context of a public health emergency, including the topics of indexed citations, the level of evidence of indexed citations, and specific usability features of each evidence source. RESULTS: Thirteen evidence sources were assessed, of which four were newly created and nine were either pre-existing or adapted from previously existing resources. Evidence sources varied in topics indexed, level of evidence indexed, and specific searching functions. CONCLUSION: This paper offers insights into which features enabled systematic searching for the completion of rapid reviews to inform decision makers within 5-10 days. These findings provide guidance for knowledge management strategies and evidence infrastructures during future public health emergencies.

Co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching: a mixed methods case study within a review.

BACKGROUND: Co-production is a collaborative approach to prepare, plan, conduct, and apply research with those who will use or be impacted by research (knowledge users). Our team of knowledge users and researchers sought to conduct and evaluate co-production of a systematic review on decision coaching. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods case study within a review to describe team co-production of a systematic review. We used the Collaborative Research Framework to support an integrated knowledge translation approach to guide a team through the steps in co-production of a systematic review. The team agreed to conduct self-study as a study within a review to learn from belonging to a co-production research team. A core group that includes a patient partner developed and conducted the study within a review. Data sources were surveys and documents. The study coordinator administered surveys to determine participant preferred and actual levels of engagement, experiences, and perceptions. We included frequency counts, content, and document analysis. RESULTS: We describe co-production of a systematic review. Of 17 team members, 14 (82%) agreed to study participation and of those 12 (86%) provided data pre- and post-systematic review. Most participants identified as women (n = 9, 75.0%), researchers (n = 7, 58%), trainees (n = 4, 33%), and/or clinicians (n = 2, 17%) with two patient/caregiver partners (17%). The team self-organized study governance with an executive and Steering Committee and agreed on research co-production actions and strategies. Satisfaction for engagement in the 11 systematic review steps ranged from 75 to 92%, with one participant who did not respond to any of the questions (8%) for all. Participants reported positive experiences with team communication processes (n = 12, 100%), collaboration (n = 12, 100%), and negotiation (n = 10-12, 83-100%). Participants perceived the systematic review as co-produced (n = 12, 100%) with collaborative (n = 8, 67%) and engagement activities to characterize co-production (n = 8, 67%). Participants indicated that they would not change the co-production approach (n = 8, 66%). Five participants (42%) reported team logistics challenges and four (33%) were unaware of challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is feasible to use an integrated knowledge translation approach to conduct a systematic review. We demonstrate the importance of a relational approach to research co-production, and that it is essential to plan and actively support team engagement in the research lifecycle.

Vitamin D for the Prevention of Disease: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies demonstrate associations between serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and a variety of common disorders, including musculoskeletal, metabolic, cardiovascular, malignant, autoimmune, and infectious diseases. Although a causal link between serum 25(OH)D concentrations and many disorders has not been clearly established, these associations have led to widespread supplementation with vitamin D and increased laboratory testing for 25(OH)D in the general population. The benefit-risk ratio of this increase in vitamin D use is not clear, and the optimal vitamin D intake and the role of testing for 25(OH)D for disease prevention remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To develop clinical guidelines for the use of vitamin D (cholecalciferol [vitamin D3] or ergocalciferol [vitamin D2]) to lower the risk of disease in individuals without established indications for vitamin D treatment or 25(OH)D testing. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts, along with experts in guideline methodology and systematic literature review, identified and prioritized 14 clinically relevant questions related to the use of vitamin D and 25(OH)D testing to lower the risk of disease. The panel prioritized randomized placebo-controlled trials in general populations (without an established indication for vitamin D treatment or 25[OH]D testing), evaluating the effects of empiric vitamin D administration throughout the lifespan, as well as in select conditions (pregnancy and prediabetes). The panel defined "empiric supplementation" as vitamin D intake that (a) exceeds the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) and (b) is implemented without testing for 25(OH)D. Systematic reviews queried electronic databases for publications related to these 14 clinical questions. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and guide recommendations. The approach incorporated perspectives from a patient representative and considered patient values, costs and resources required, acceptability and feasibility, and impact on health equity of the proposed recommendations. The process to develop this clinical guideline did not use a risk assessment framework and was not designed to replace current DRI for vitamin D. RESULTS: The panel suggests empiric vitamin D supplementation for children and adolescents aged 1 to 18 years to prevent nutritional rickets and because of its potential to lower the risk of respiratory tract infections; for those aged 75 years and older because of its potential to lower the risk of mortality; for those who are pregnant because of its potential to lower the risk of preeclampsia, intra-uterine mortality, preterm birth, small-for-gestational-age birth, and neonatal mortality; and for those with high-risk prediabetes because of its potential to reduce progression to diabetes. Because the vitamin D doses in the included clinical trials varied considerably and many trial participants were allowed to continue their own vitamin D-containing supplements, the optimal doses for empiric vitamin D supplementation remain unclear for the populations considered. For nonpregnant people older than 50 years for whom vitamin D is indicated, the panel suggests supplementation via daily administration of vitamin D, rather than intermittent use of high doses. The panel suggests against empiric vitamin D supplementation above the current DRI to lower the risk of disease in healthy adults younger than 75 years. No clinical trial evidence was found to support routine screening for 25(OH)D in the general population, nor in those with obesity or dark complexion, and there was no clear evidence defining the optimal target level of 25(OH)D required for disease prevention in the populations considered; thus, the panel suggests against routine 25(OH)D testing in all populations considered. The panel judged that, in most situations, empiric vitamin D supplementation is inexpensive, feasible, acceptable to both healthy individuals and health care professionals, and has no negative effect on health equity. CONCLUSION: The panel suggests empiric vitamin D for those aged 1 to 18 years and adults over 75 years of age, those who are pregnant, and those with high-risk prediabetes. Due to the scarcity of natural food sources rich in vitamin D, empiric supplementation can be achieved through a combination of fortified foods and supplements that contain vitamin D. Based on the absence of supportive clinical trial evidence, the panel suggests against routine 25(OH)D testing in the absence of established indications. These recommendations are not meant to replace the current DRIs for vitamin D, nor do they apply to people with established indications for vitamin D treatment or 25(OH)D testing. Further research is needed to determine optimal 25(OH)D levels for specific health benefits.

A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guidelines on Vitamin D.

CONTEXT: Low vitamin D status is common and is associated with various common medical conditions. OBJECTIVE: To support the development of the Endocrine Society's Clinical Practice Guideline on Vitamin D for the Prevention of Disease. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies that addressed 14 clinical questions prioritized by the guideline panel. Of the 14 questions, 10 clinical questions assessed the effect of vitamin D vs no vitamin D in the general population throughout the lifespan, during pregnancy, and in adults with prediabetes; 1 question assessed dosing; and 3 questions addressed screening with serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Electronic searches yielded 37 007 citations, from which we included 151 studies. In children and adolescents, low-certainty evidence suggested reduction in respiratory tract infections with empiric vitamin D. There was no significant effect on select outcomes in healthy adults aged 19 to 74 years with variable certainty of evidence. There was a very small reduction in mortality among adults older than 75 years with high certainty of evidence. In pregnant women, low-certainty evidence suggested possible benefit on various maternal, fetal, and neonatal outcomes. In adults with prediabetes, moderate certainty of evidence suggested reduction in the rate of progression to diabetes. Administration of high-dose intermittent vitamin D may increase falls, compared to lower-dose daily dosing. We did not identify trials on the benefits and harms of screening with serum 25(OH)D. CONCLUSION: The evidence summarized in this systematic review addresses the benefits and harms of vitamin D for the prevention of disease. The guideline panel considered additional information about individuals' and providers' values and preferences and other important decisional and contextual factors to develop clinical recommendations.

Vitamin D Insufficiency and Epistemic Humility: An Endocrine Society Guideline Communication.

A long-held precept is that vitamin D supplementation primarily, if not exclusively, benefits individuals with low circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations at baseline. However, the most appropriate 25(OH)D threshold to distinguish unacceptably low vs reliably adequate concentrations remains controversial. Such threshold proposals have largely been based on observational studies, which provide less robust evidence compared to randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Since the Endocrine Society's first vitamin D-related guideline was published in 2011, several large vitamin D-related RCTs have been published, and a newly commissioned guideline development panel (GDP) prioritized 4 clinical questions related to the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation in generally healthy individuals with 25(OH)D levels below a threshold. The GDP determined that available clinical trial evidence does not permit the establishment of 25(OH)D thresholds that specifically predict meaningful benefit with vitamin D supplementation. The panel noted important limitations in the available evidence, and the panel's overall certainty in the available evidence was very low. Nonetheless, based on the GDP's analyses and judgments, the Endocrine Society no longer endorses its previously proposed definition of vitamin D "sufficiency" (ie, at least 30 ng/mL [75 nmol/L]) or its previously proposed definition of vitamin D "insufficiency" (ie, greater than 20 ng/mL [50 nmol/L] but lower than 30 ng/mL [75 nmol/L]). The Endocrine Society's rationale for such is the subject of this Guideline Communication.