Conectar
Systematic reviews are considered the highest level of evidence that can help guide evidence-informed decisions in nursing practice, education, and even health policy. Systematic review publications have increased from a sporadic few in 1980s to more than 10,000 systematic reviews published every year and around 30,000 registered in prospective registries.
A cross-sectional design and a variety of data sources were triangulated to identify the journals from which systematic reviews would be evaluated for adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 reporting guidelines and scope. Specifically, this study used the PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines to assess the reporting of the introduction, methods, information sources and search strategy, study selection process, quality/bias assessments, and results and discussion aspects of the included systematic reviews.
Upon review of the 215 systematic reviews published in 10 top-tier journals in the field of nursing in 2019 and 2020, this study identified several opportunities to improve the reporting of systematic reviews in the context of the 2020 PRISMA statement. Areas of priority for reporting include the following key areas: (1) information sources, (2) search strategies, (3) study selection process, (4) bias reporting, (5) explicit discussion of the implications to policy, and lastly, the need for (6) prospective protocol registration.
The use of the PRISMA 2020 guidelines by authors, peer reviewers, and editors can help to ensure the transparent and detailed reporting of systematic reviews published in the nursing literature.
Systematic reviews are considered strong research evidence that can guide evidence-based practice and even clinical decision-making. This paper addresses some common methodological and process issues among systematic reviews that can guide clinicians and practitioners to be more critical in appraising research evidence that can shape nursing practice.
To investigate whether intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) improves neurological outcomes in children with encephalitis when administered early in the illness.
Phase 3b multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial.
Twenty-one hospitals in the UK.
Children aged 6 months to 16 years with a diagnosis of acute or subacute encephalitis, with a planned sample size of 308.
Two doses (1 g/kg/dose) of either IVIG or matching placebo given 24–36 hours apart, in addition to standard treatment.
The primary outcome was a ‘good recovery’ at 12 months after randomisation, defined as a score of≤2 on the Paediatric Glasgow Outcome Score Extended.
The secondary outcomes were clinical, neurological, neuroimaging and neuropsychological results, identification of the proportion of children with immune-mediated encephalitis, and IVIG safety data.
18 participants were recruited from 12 hospitals and randomised to receive either IVIG (n=10) or placebo (n=8) between 23 December 2015 and 26 September 2017. The study was terminated early following withdrawal of funding due to slower than anticipated recruitment, and therefore did not reach the predetermined sample size required to achieve the primary study objective; thus, the results are descriptive. At 12 months after randomisation, 9 of the 18 participants (IVIG n=5/10 (50%), placebo n=4/8 (50%)) made a good recovery and 5 participants (IVIG n=3/10 (30%), placebo n=2/8 (25%)) made a poor recovery. Three participants (IVIG n=1/10 (10%), placebo n=2/8 (25%)) had a new diagnosis of epilepsy during the study period. Two participants were found to have specific autoantibodies associated with autoimmune encephalitis. No serious adverse events were reported in participants receiving IVIG.
The IgNiTE (ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis) study findings support existing evidence of poor neurological outcomes in children with encephalitis. However, the study was halted prematurely and was therefore underpowered to evaluate the effect of early IVIG treatment compared with placebo in childhood encephalitis.
Clinical Trials.gov NCT02308982; ICRCTN registry
FreshRSS 