Cancer is the leading cause of death and morbidity among children and adolescents worldwide. Functionality-based interventions are relevant among children and adolescents with an oncological diagnosis, whence studies summarising evidence on this topic are needed. This systematic review will summarise evidence on the effect of interventions to improve functionality indicators among paediatric patients diagnosed with cancer.

This protocol will follow Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA)-Protocols reporting guidelines. The systematic review will be conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA 2020. Studies will be searched in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, LILACS and PEDro. Additional searches will include Google Scholar, reference lists of included studies, relevant reviews and trial registries. Studies will be included if they implement a functionality-based intervention. They must evaluate effects among paediatric patients with an oncological diagnosis. Secondary outcomes will include health-related quality of life. There will be no limits to language or year of publication, and articles published in peer-reviewed journals will be accepted. Only randomised controlled trials will be included. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2. Two independent reviewers will select studies, extract data and assess risk of bias. A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis will be conducted if studies are clinically and methodologically homogeneous. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Higgins’ inconsistency test (I^²). Meta-analysis may estimate combined effects using random-effects and the inverse variance method. The R statistical software will be used. The certainty of evidence will be evaluated for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.

This study used data from previously published studies, thus waiving submission to an Ethics Committee. Scientific dissemination strategies will include publication in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and workshops for the public.

CRD42024462833.

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) remains challenging to diagnose owing to the marked clinical heterogeneity associated with the disease. This heterogeneity stems from the complex interplay of various clinical phenotypes, genetic mutations and underlying neuropathologies, such as TDP-43 and tau proteinopathies. Currently, there is no single confirmed biomarker that can reliably diagnose disease, specifically disease stage, disease subtype and underlying neuropathology. Recent research has indicated that neuroimaging techniques hold the most promise for the discovery of FTD biomarkers. We propose a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify MRI and fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) biomarkers associated with clinical, genetic and pathological subtypes of FTD. We aim to address the following research questions: can regional MRI volumetry and FDG-PET hypometabolism differentiate (1) FTD patients from healthy controls; (2) sporadic cases of FTD from healthy controls; (3) genetic cases of FTD (MAPT, GRN, and C9orf72 mutations); and (4) underlying neuropathology, specifically discriminating between tau- and TDP-43-based FTD?

Literature searches will be performed across three databases: Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase and Web of Science. Publications that have fewer than five participants, are non-human-based, not written in the English language or contain unpublished data will be excluded. Two independent investigators will screen and subsequently evaluate which publications to include. Should any disagreements arise, a third investigator will settle the discrepancy. After the random-effects meta-analysis has been used to extract and pool the data, I² analysis will be used to quantify heterogeneity.

Ethics approval will not be required for this research. On completion, the systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

CRD42024545302.

The COVID-19 pandemic’s unprecedented nature has exposed significant vulnerabilities in most public health systems and highlighted the importance of coordinated responses across various levels of government. A global debate emerged on the types of health measures necessary to curb the rapid spread of contagious and/or lethal diseases. However, some of these measures involved restricting individual rights, raising significant ethical, legal and public health questions. The protocol of this systematic review aims to address a critical gap in the literature by analysing how Public Health Surveillance services worldwide implemented compulsory right-restricting measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, and what impacts these measures had on public health outcomes and individual rights.

This protocol focuses on studies about right-restricting measures enacted by Public Health Surveillance services during the COVID-19 pandemic. It will be unrestrictive as to period (starting in 2019, when the outbreak was identified), language or publication status in a preliminary stage. It will include only peer-reviewed publications, discarding opinion articles, editorials, conference papers and non-peer-reviewed publications. Considering the PICo strategy, the research question of this systematic review can be formulated as follows: Problem—right-restricting measures enacted by Public Health Surveillance services; Interest—implementation modalities and impacts on individual rights and public health outcomes; Context—COVID-19 pandemic. This protocol will use the following databases: Pubmed, Cochrane/CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science. Considering the various measures that may have been adopted, the following categories of analysis will be used: (i) Public Health Surveillance as a field, (ii) the various specific areas of Health Surveillance, (iii) law enforcement, (iv) right-restricting measures and consent, (v) interactions between right-restricting measures and routine Public Health Surveillance functions, (vi) differences between countries and (vii) Health Surveillance lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic. These categories are not strictly mutually exclusive; however, each study will be assigned to the category most aligned with its primary focus. To ensure the validity and reliability of findings, each study will have its risk of bias assessed at both the study and outcome levels.

Patients and the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this systematic review. The results will be presented in one or more articles to be submitted to scientific journals and may also be presented at scientific conferences and to public policy makers.

This systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 20 November 2024 (registration number CRD42024613039).