Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in dockworkers. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dockworkers are exposed to physical overloads that can contribute to the development of musculoskeletal disorders, leading to functional disability and absenteeism. OBJECTIVE: to map, critically appraise, and synthesize the available evidence on the prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases associated with port occupational activities. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in structured and unstructured databases in August 2023, with no date or language restriction, to identify observational studies evaluating the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders in dockworkers' occupational activity. The risk of bias was assessed using validated tools based on the included study designs. Data from studies were pooled in meta-analyses. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 12 analytical cross-sectional studies involving 7821 participants in ports of five countries. Most studies (75%) had a moderate methodological quality according to the Joanna Briggs Institute tool. Considering the overall worker categories and any musculoskeletal disorders, the meta-analysis showed a prevalence of 58% (95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] 37% to 78%), with degenerative spinal diseases 42% (95% CI -0.6% to 91%) and low back pain 36% (95% CI 21% to 50%) being the most prevalent conditions. Symptoms were predominantly in foremen and stevedores. The certainty of the evidence was very low. CONCLUSIONS: Musculoskeletal disorders seem prevalent among dockworkers, mainly degenerative spinal diseases and low back pain. Studies with greater methodological consistency are still needed to validate these hypotheses and assist in decision-making for implementing preventive and informational policies in maritime port management organizations. PROSPERO registry CRD42021257677.

Quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of vesiculobullous skin diseases. A meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are considered high-level evidence to support a decision on therapeutic interventions, and their methodological quality is essential to provide reliable and applicable results. OBJECTIVE: This meta-epidemiological study aimed to map and critically appraise systematic reviews assessing treatments for vesiculobullous skin diseases. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search strategy on MEDLINE (via Pubmed) in December 2022 without restrictions to find systematic reviews evaluating pharmacological interventions for vesiculobullous skin diseases. The methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool, and additional information was extracted. We identified nine systematic reviews published between 2002 and 2021, seven assessing pemphigus. RESULTS: According to the AMSTAR-2 tool, 55.6% were classified as critically low quality, 22.2% as moderate quality, 11.1% as low and 11.1% as high quality. No review assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE); 86% of pemphigus reviews had at least two overlapping RCTs. There were some limitations regarding methodological flaws and the AMSTAR-2 tool use CONCLUSIONS: These findings reveal a frail methodological quality of systematic reviews about vesiculobullous diseases treatment that may impact the results. Therefore, methodological rigor is mandatory for future systematic reviews to avoid duplication of effort and increase the certainty of the evidence supporting decision-making.

Quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of vesiculobullous skin diseases. A meta-epidemiological study

Abstract Background Systematic reviews of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are considered high-level evidence to support a decision on therapeutic interventions, and their methodological quality is essential to provide reliable and applicable results. Objective This meta-epidemiological study aimed to map and critically appraise systematic reviews assessing treatments for vesiculobullous skin diseases. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search strategy on MEDLINE (via Pubmed) in December 2022 without restrictions to find systematic reviews evaluating pharmacological interventions for vesiculobullous skin diseases. The methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool, and additional information was extracted. We identified nine systematic reviews published between 2002 and 2021, seven assessing pemphigus. Results According to the AMSTAR-2 tool, 55.6% were classified as critically low quality, 22.2% as moderate quality, 11.1% as low and 11.1% as high quality. No review assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE); 86% of pemphigus reviews had at least two overlapping RCTs. There were some limitations regarding methodological flaws and the AMSTAR-2 tool use Conclusions These findings reveal a frail methodological quality of systematic reviews about vesiculobullous diseases treatment that may impact the results. Therefore, methodological rigor is mandatory for future systematic reviews to avoid duplication of effort and increase the certainty of the evidence supporting decision-making.

Most Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols did not adhere to the Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the frequency of Cochrane systematic reviews and Cochrane systematic reviews protocols using (or planning to use) the risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias of the included randomized clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN: This is a meta-research study. METHODS: We included Cochrane systematic reviews or Cochrane systematic reviews protocols that planned to include randomized clinical trials. We assessed the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and screened for issues published after the launch of risk of bias 2.0 tool (2019-2022). Two independent investigators performed the study selection and data extraction. RESULTS: We analyzed 440 Cochrane systematic reviews and 536 Cochrane systematic reviews protocols. Overall, 4.8% of the Cochrane systematic reviews and 28.5% of the Cochrane systematic reviews protocols used or planned to use risk of bias 2.0 tool. Although low, adherence is increasing over time. In 2019, 0% of Cochrane systematic reviews used risk of bias 2.0 tool, compared to 24.1% in 2022. In Cochrane systematic reviews protocols, adherence increased from 6.9% in 2019 to 41.5% in 2022. A total of 274 (62.1%) Cochrane systematic reviews had their protocols published before 2018; only one used risk of bias 2.0 tool and reported the change of versions in the "Differences between protocol and revision" section. CONCLUSION: The Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool has low adherence among Cochrane protocols and systematic reviews. Further efforts are necessary to facilitate the implementation of this new tool.

Most Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols did not adhere to the Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the frequency of Cochrane systematic reviews and Cochrane systematic reviews protocols using (or planning to use) the risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias of the included randomized clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN: This is a meta-research study. METHODS: We included Cochrane systematic reviews or Cochrane systematic reviews protocols that planned to include randomized clinical trials. We assessed the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and screened for issues published after the launch of risk of bias 2.0 tool (2019-2022). Two independent investigators performed the study selection and data extraction. RESULTS: We analyzed 440 Cochrane systematic reviews and 536 Cochrane systematic reviews protocols. Overall, 4.8% of the Cochrane systematic reviews and 28.5% of the Cochrane systematic reviews protocols used or planned to use risk of bias 2.0 tool. Although low, adherence is increasing over time. In 2019, 0% of Cochrane systematic reviews used risk of bias 2.0 tool, compared to 24.1% in 2022. In Cochrane systematic reviews protocols, adherence increased from 6.9% in 2019 to 41.5% in 2022. A total of 274 (62.1%) Cochrane systematic reviews had their protocols published before 2018; only one used risk of bias 2.0 tool and reported the change of versions in the "Differences between protocol and revision" section. CONCLUSION: The Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool has low adherence among Cochrane protocols and systematic reviews. Further efforts are necessary to facilitate the implementation of this new tool.

Resistance training for postmenopausal women: systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Numerous studies have been published assessing the effects of resistance muscle training to mitigate menopausal symptoms, given the endocrine muscle function and its metabolic regulation. Therefore, mapping and synthesizing high-quality studies are necessary to help clinical decisions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effects (benefits and harms) of resistance muscle training for postmenopausal women. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, CENTRAL, PEDro, LILACS, and SPORTDiscus up to December 2021. Two independent reviewers selected the retrieved references and extracted relevant data from included studies. The methodological quality (risk of bias) using the Cochrane Risk of Bias table and the certainty of the evidence (GRADE approach) were assessed. FINDINGS: Twelve randomized clinical trials (n = 452) with unclear to high risk of bias were identified. Compared with no exercise, resistance training (up to 16 weeks) seems to promote an improvement in functional capacity (mean difference [MD], 2.90 points; 95% CI, 0.60-5.20) and bone mineral density (MD, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.10-0.10) and a reduction in the hot flash frequency (13/29 vs 1/29; risk ratio, 13.0; 95% CI, 1.82-93.01) and fat mass (MD, -3.15; 95% CI, -6.68 to 0.38), and no differences were observed between groups regarding abdominal circumference and body mass index. When compared with aerobic exercises, resistance training may result in a reduction of hot flash frequency (7/18 vs 14/18; risk ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.27-0.94) and fat mass (MD, -7.80; 95% CI, -14.02 to -1.58) and no difference in the quality of life and body mass index. Regarding safety, no serious adverse events were reported. Based on the GRADE approach, the certainty of this evidence was graded as very low to low, leading to imprecisely estimated effects. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Resistance muscle training seems to improve postmenopausal symptoms and functional capacity. Given the low to very low certainty of the evidence, further randomized clinical trials with higher methodological quality and better reports are still needed. As an implication for clinical practice, health professionals should consider individualized aspects such as the previous history of exercise practice, physical capacity, and adaptation period.