Conectar
Parkinson’s disease is a neurological disease with a rising incidence and prevalence. Patients with Parkinson’s disease may receive antipsychotics, for example, due to Parkinson’s disease psychosis. Parkinson’s disease psychosis is characterised by visual hallucinations and other psychotic symptoms. To date, no systematic review has evaluated the effects of antipsychotics in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Therefore, this review aims to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antipsychotics for Parkinson’s disease.
This is a protocol for a systematic review. A search specialist will perform a search in major medical databases (eg, MEDLINE (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online), EMBASE (Excerpta Medica database), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials)) and clinical trial registries. Published and unpublished randomised clinical trials comparing antipsychotics to any control (placebo, standard care or other antipsychotics) in patients with Parkinson’s disease will be included. Two review authors will independently extract data and conduct risk of bias assessments with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool—V.2. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality, serious adverse events and significant falls. Secondary outcomes will be hospitalisations, non-serious adverse events, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale total score and psychotic symptoms using any valid symptom scale. Data will be synthesised by aggregate meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis and network meta-analysis. Several subgroup analyses are planned. An eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations) and CiNeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) approach.
This protocol does not include results, and ethics approval is not required for the project. The findings from the systematic review will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.
PROSPERO ID: CRD42025633985. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025633985.
Transvaginal and transabdominal cerclage procedures have become established interventions to prevent mid-trimester pregnancy loss and preterm birth. Transabdominal cerclage seems to be superior to transvaginal cerclage in women with a history of a failed transvaginal cerclage. However, with the availability of a less invasive laparoscopic procedure, there is limited evidence concerning which type of cerclage to recommend to many other risk groups. The objective of this trial is to compare laparoscopic abdominal cerclage and transvaginal cerclage in women at moderate to high risk of spontaneous preterm birth.
The trial is an open, multicentre, superiority, parallel arm randomised controlled investigator-initiated trial with an embedded internal pilot. Women in whom the clinician has clinical equipoise between laparoscopic and transvaginal cerclage are randomised to either laparoscopic abdominal or transvaginal cerclage in a ratio of 1:1. The trial extends from sites in Denmark, Finland and Norway. The primary outcome is birth
The Central Denmark Region Committee on Biomedical Research Ethics, Denmark, Helsinki University Hospital Ethics committee, Finland and the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics, Norway approved the trial. This protocol is published prior to complete data collection and analysis. Important protocol changes will be made publicly available on ClinicalTrials.org, on the trial website and distributed electronically to all active sites. Positive, inconclusive as well as negative results from the trial will be published in peer-reviewed international scientific journals.
To explore nursing students' experience of how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the learning environment in clinical setting and how they responded to the change.
Qualitative descriptive interview study.
Eleven third-year baccalaureate nursing students from a University College in Northern Denmark participated in individual semi-structured interviews conducted in the spring 2021. Data analysis was guided by Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis.
Two themes were generated: ‘A compromised learning environment’ and ‘Adjusting to circumstances and making things work’.
Students perceived that their learning became secondary and was influenced negatively. Some students' focus shifted from an attention to learning opportunities to managing daily patient care and became hesitant to pose questions that were relevant to their learning. Students faced a dilemma between helping with daily tasks and prioritising their learning needs. Some students adjusted to the circumstances by taking the lead. Others reacted more passively and prioritised helping nurses in managing the daily workload.
The study highlights that changes in the work environment impact students. Institutions must ensure that students feel a sense of belonging and prioritise time with clinical supervisors for questions and reflection, avoiding situations where practical tasks take priority over learning. Since students manage changes differently, they require tailored support.
The study addressed changes in the clinical learning environment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The changes within the environment influenced the students learning negatively. The findings are of relevance to lecturers, supervisors, and academic decision-makers within nursing education and may guide the planning of clinical placements to better accommodate individual learning needs.
The study adheres to the COREQ guidelines.
This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct, or reporting.
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides real-time glucose data for people with diabetes. However, detailed knowledge of its use in daily life remains limited. We aim to investigate the interaction between people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and their CGM data and the impact of the interaction on glycaemia and diabetes distress.
This is a two-centre observational study of adults (n=500) with T1D using FreeStyle Libre 2. Over a period of 14 days, participants will continue their regular CGM use, record insulin doses and timing with smart insulin pens, track activity and sleep with an activity tracker, log all food intake in the LibreLink app and answer questions about quality of life and hypoglycaemia two times per day. Before the study period, the participants will complete a survey of 11 validated questionnaires assessing diabetes distress, hypoglycaemia awareness and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs). After the study period, the participants will complete two additional questionnaires assessing diabetes distress and health literacy.
The collected data will be used in two substudies with the overall aims of:
Substudy 1: to investigate how CGM is used in practice and the impact of the interaction on diabetes distress and glycaemia.
Substudy 2: to investigate whether and how CGM functions as a technological substitute for impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia, focusing on alarm data.
Endpoints will include CGM metrics, alarm data and PROs.
The Danish Data Protection Agency approved the study (P-2024–15985), and the regional committee on health research ethics has granted an ethical waiver (H-24014662). All participants have signed written informed consent forms before participating. The results will be published in an international peer-reviewed scientific journal by the study investigators and shared via www.clinicaltrials.gov. Participants who agreed to receive information about the study will be sent the results after publication.
ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06453434).
To examine the feasibility of using a large language model (LLM) as a screening tool during structured literature reviews to facilitate evidence-based practice.
A proof-of-concept study.
This paper outlines an innovative method of abstract screening using ChatGPT and computer coding for large scale, effective and efficient abstract screening. The authors, new to ChatGPT and computer coding, used online education and ChatGPT to upskill. The method was empirically tested using 400 abstracts relating to public involvement in nursing education from four different databases (CINAHL, Scopus, ERIC and MEDLINE), using four versions of ChatGPT. Results were compared with a human nursing researcher and reported using the CONSORT 2010 extension for pilot and feasibility trials checklist.
ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo was most effective for rapid screening and had a broad inclusionary approach with a false-negative rate lower than the human researcher. More recent versions of ChatGPT-4, 4 Turbo, and 4 omni were less effective and had a higher number of false negatives compared to ChatGPT-3.5 Turbo and the human researcher. These more recent versions of ChatGPT did not appear to appreciate the nuance and complexities of concepts that underpin nursing practice.
LLMs can be useful in reducing the time nurses spend screening research abstracts without compromising on literature review quality, indicating the potential for expedited synthesis of research evidence to bridge the research–practice gap. However, the benefits of using LLMs can only be realised if nurses actively engage with LLMs, explore LLMs' capabilities to address complex nursing issues, and report on their findings.
Nurses need to engage with LLMs to explore their capabilities and suitability for nursing purposes.
No patient or public contribution.
FreshRSS 