Conectar
by Daniel W. Flowers, Brian T. Swanson, Stephen M. Shaffer, Derek J. Clewley, Sean P. Riley
The primary objective of this review was to create a ‘trustworthy,’ living systematic review and meta-analysis for the application of manual therapy interventions in treating patients with shoulder dysfunction. Included studies were English-language randomized controlled trials published between 1/1/2010 and 8/3/2023, with searches performed in: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINHAL, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health, EBSCO Medline, and PEDro. The population of focus included adults 18 years and older with musculoskeletal impairments related to shoulder dysfunction. Our primary outcomes included pain and region-specific outcome measures. We excluded trials, including participants having shoulder dysfunction resulting from surgery, radicular pain, instability/dislocation, fracture, lymphedema, and radiation. Our screening methodology was based upon a previously published ‘trustworthy’ systematic review protocol. This included the application of our PICOTS criteria in addition to screening for prospective clinical trial registration and following of prospective intent, as well as assessment of PEDro scores, risk-of-bias ratings, GRADE scoring, and examination of confidence in estimated effects. Twenty-six randomized controlled trials met our PICOTS criteria; however, only 15 of these were registered. Only three were registered prospectively. Two of these did not have discussions and conclusions that aligned with their primary outcome. The remaining single study was found to have a high risk-of-bias, meaning the remainder of the protocol could not be employed and that no randomized controlled trials could undergo further assessment or meta-analysis. The results of this systematic review indicate there are no ‘trustworthy’ randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness of manual therapy interventions for the treatment of patients with shoulder dysfunction, as defined by the prospectively established methodology. Therefore, these findings signal that creating a ‘trustworthy,’ living systematic review on this clinically relevant topic is not yet possible due to a lack of ‘trustworthy’ randomized controlled trials.Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening condition commonly seen in the intensive care unit. COVID-19 has dramatically increased the incidence of ARDS—with this rise in cases comes the ability to detect predisposing factors perhaps not recognised before, such as metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its associated conditions (hypertension, obesity, dyslipidaemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus). In this systematic review, we seek to describe the complex relationship between MetS, its associated conditions and ARDS (including COVID-19 ARDS).
A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL and Web of Science will be conducted. The population of interest is adults with ARDS and MetS (as defined according to the study author recognising that MetS definitions vary) or any MetS-associated condition. The control group will be adult patients with ARDS without MetS or any individual MetS-associated condition. We will search studies published in English, with a date restriction from the year 2000 to June 2023 and employ the search phrases ‘metabolic syndrome’, ‘acute respiratory distress syndrome’ and related terms. Search terms including ‘dyslipidaemia’, ‘hypertension’, ‘diabetes mellitus’ and ‘obesity’ will also be utilised. Outcomes of interest will include mortality (in-hospital, ICU, 28-day, 60-day and 90-day), days requiring mechanical ventilation and hospital and/or ICU length of stay. Study bias will be assessed using the NIH Bias Scale.
Ethical approval is not required because this study includes previously published and publicly accessible data. Findings from this review will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
CRD42023405816.
FreshRSS 