Etazolate rescues behavioral deficits in chronic unpredictable mild stress model: Modulation of hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis activity and brain-derived neurotrophic factor level

A. Jindal,R. Mahesh,S. Bhatt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuint.2013.08.005

IF: 4.297

2013-11-01

Neurochemistry International

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Auch in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern¶Radiologenpraxis meldet Konkurs an

Not Available Not Available

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s001170070070

Der Radiologe

Abstract:
A review of the quantitative effectiveness evidence synthesis methods used in public health intervention guidelines

Ellesha A. Smith,Nicola J. Cooper,Alex J. Sutton,Keith R. Abrams,Stephanie J. Hubbard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10162-8

IF: 4.5

2021-02-03

BMC Public Health

Abstract:Abstract Background The complexity of public health interventions create challenges in evaluating their effectiveness. There have been huge advancements in quantitative evidence synthesis methods development (including meta-analysis) for dealing with heterogeneity of intervention effects, inappropriate ‘lumping’ of interventions, adjusting for different populations and outcomes and the inclusion of various study types. Growing awareness of the importance of using all available evidence has led to the publication of guidance documents for implementing methods to improve decision making by answering policy relevant questions. Methods The first part of this paper reviews the methods used to synthesise quantitative effectiveness evidence in public health guidelines by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) that had been published or updated since the previous review in 2012 until the 19th August 2019.The second part of this paper provides an update of the statistical methods and explains how they address issues related to evaluating effectiveness evidence of public health interventions. Results The proportion of NICE public health guidelines that used a meta-analysis as part of the synthesis of effectiveness evidence has increased since the previous review in 2012 from 23% (9 out of 39) to 31% (14 out of 45). The proportion of NICE guidelines that synthesised the evidence using only a narrative review decreased from 74% (29 out of 39) to 60% (27 out of 45).An application in the prevention of accidents in children at home illustrated how the choice of synthesis methods can enable more informed decision making by defining and estimating the effectiveness of more distinct interventions, including combinations of intervention components, and identifying subgroups in which interventions are most effective. Conclusions Despite methodology development and the publication of guidance documents to address issues in public health intervention evaluation since the original review, NICE public health guidelines are not making full use of meta-analysis and other tools that would provide decision makers with fuller information with which to develop policy. There is an evident need to facilitate the translation of the synthesis methods into a public health context and encourage the use of methods to improve decision making.

public, environmental & occupational health
Methods to support evidence-informed decision-making in the midst of COVID-19: creation and evolution of a rapid review service from the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools

Sarah E. Neil-Sztramko,Emily Belita,Robyn L. Traynor,Emily Clark,Leah Hagerman,Maureen Dobbins

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01436-1

2021-10-27

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract:Abstract Background The COVID-19 public health crisis has produced an immense and quickly evolving body of evidence. This research speed and volume, along with variability in quality, could overwhelm public health decision-makers striving to make timely decisions based on the best available evidence. In response to this challenge, the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools developed a Rapid Evidence Service, building on internationally accepted rapid review methodologies, to address priority COVID-19 public health questions. Results Each week, the Rapid Evidence Service team receives requests from public health decision-makers, prioritizes questions received, and frames the prioritized topics into searchable questions. We develop and conduct a comprehensive search strategy and critically appraise all relevant evidence using validated tools. We synthesize the findings into a final report that includes key messages, with a rating of the certainty of the evidence using GRADE, as well as an overview of evidence and remaining knowledge gaps. Rapid reviews are typically completed and disseminated within two weeks. From May 2020 to July 21, 2021, we have answered more than 31 distinct questions and completed 32 updates as new evidence emerged. Reviews receive an average of 213 downloads per week, with some reaching over 7700. To date reviews have been accessed and cited around the world, and a more fulsome evaluation of impact on decision-making is planned. Conclusions The development, evolution, and lessons learned from our process, presented here, provides a real-world example of how review-level evidence can be made available – rapidly and rigorously, and in response to decision-makers’ needs – during an unprecedented public health crisis.

health care sciences & services
Rapid reviews and the methodological rigor of evidence synthesis: a JBI position statement

Andrea C. Tricco,Hanan Khalil,Cheryl Holly,Garumma Feyissa,Christina Godfrey,Catrin Evans,Diane Sawchuck,Morankar Sudhakar,Constantine Asahngwa,Daphne Stannard,Misra Abdulahi,Laura Bonnano,Edoardo Aromataris,Patricia McInerney,Rosemary Wilson,Dong Pang,Zhiwen Wang,Ana Filipa Cardoso,Micah D.J. Peters,Casey Marnie,Timothy Barker,Danielle Pollock,Alexa McArthur,Zachary Munn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-21-00371

2022-02-09

JBI Evidence Synthesis

Abstract:ABSTRACT: The demand for rapid reviews has exploded in recent years. A rapid review is an approach to evidence synthesis that provides timely information to decision-makers (eg, health care planners, providers, policymakers, patients) by simplifying the evidence synthesis process. A rapid review is particularly appealing for urgent decisions. JBI is a world-renowned international collaboration for evidence synthesis and implementation methodologies. The principles for JBI evidence synthesis include comprehensiveness, rigor, transparency, and a focus on applicability to clinical practice. As such, JBI has not yet endorsed a specific approach for rapid reviews. In this paper, we compare rapid reviews versus other types of evidence synthesis, provide a range of rapid evidence products, outline how to appraise the quality of rapid reviews, and present the JBI position on rapid reviews. JBI Collaborating Centers conduct rapid reviews for decision-makers in specific circumstances, such as limited time or funding constraints. A standardized approach is not used for these cases;instead, the evidence synthesis methods are tailored to the needs of the decision-maker. The urgent need to deliver timely evidence to decision-makers poses challenges to JBI's mission to produce high-quality, trustworthy evidence. However, JBI recognizes the value of rapid reviews as part of the evidence synthesis ecosystem. As such, it is recommended that rapid reviews be conducted with the same methodological rigor and transparency expected of JBI reviews. Most importantly, transparency is essential, and the rapid review should clearly report where any simplification in the steps of the evidence synthesis process has been taken.

English Else
Need for evidence synthesis for quality control of healthcare decision-making

Brijesh Sathian,Edwin van Teijlingen,Israel Junior Borges do Nascimento,Mahalaqua Nazli Khatib,Indrajit Banerjee,Padam Simkhada,Russell Kabir,Hanadi Al Hamad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v13i3.61004

2023-12-23

Abstract:Systematic reviews that are out-of-date delay policymaking, create controversy, and can erode trust in research. To avoid this issue, it is preferable to keep summaries of the study evidence. Living evidence is a synthesis approach that provides up-to-date rigorous research evidence summaries to decision-makers. This strategy is particularly useful in rapidly expanding research domains, uncertain existing evidence, and new research that may impact policy or practice, ensuring that physicians have access to the most recent evidence. Addressing global challenges - ranging from public health crises to climate change or political instability - requires evidence-based judgements. An obsolete, biased, or selective information poses risks of poor decisions and resource misallocation. The relatively nascent practice of living evidence proves invaluable in maintaining continuous interest and team engagement. The concept of living evidence has been particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the rapidly evolving nature of the virus, the urgent need for timely information, and the continuous emergence of new research findings. Although the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of evidence systems, researchers and funders of research should rigorously test the living-evidence model across diverse domains to further advance and optimize its methodology.
Umbrella Review as an Emerging Approach of Evidence Synthesis in Health Sciences: A Bibliometric Analysis

Mahbub Hossain,Md Mahbub Hossain

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3551055

2020-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Background: In the era of a growing need for evidence-based decision-making in healthcare, umbrella reviews offer one of the highest possible quality of evidence synthesized from existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This bibliometric evaluation aimed to inform the development of this newer method within the landscape of evidence-based health sciences. Methods: In this study, global literature on umbrella review topic published until 2019 were included and analyzed to evaluate the characteristics of published studies including top journals, authors, institutions, and countries alongside an evaluation of how collaborative research has been conducted in this field. Results: A total of 299 documents from 180 scholarly sources were included, which were authored by 1279 authors with a collaboration index of 4.43. The number of documents markedly increased since 2015. Most prolific journals and authors in the field of umbrella review were identified. Most articles were affiliated with institutions from high-income countries. Moreover, an assessment of the evolution of knowledge areas identified key terms related to review methodologies, prevalence and risk factors of different diseases, prevention of noncommunicable diseases, and health promotion. Conclusion: This bibliometric study found a rapid development of umbrella reviews in health sciences literature since 2015 in diverse knowledge domains predominantly in epidemiological studies. Future research using the umbrella review method should focus on healthcare interventions. Also, it is essential to strengthening the institutional capacities for evidence synthesis in low and middle-income countries to ensure equitable global collaboration in the development of evidence-based health sciences.
The evolution and adaptation of evidence synthesis during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: Perspectives of evidence synthesis producers

Tricia Corrin,Eric B. Kennedy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314657

IF: 3.7

2024-11-28

PLoS ONE

Abstract:The demand for evidence syntheses to inform urgent decision-making surged during the pandemic. The challenging circumstances of the pandemic created significant hurdles for both those requesting and creating evidence syntheses, leading to the refinement and adjustment of evidence synthesis practices. This research sought to capture and explore how the field of evidence synthesis evolved and adapted during the pandemic from the perspective of those who produced evidence syntheses in Canada. In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were carried out between October 2022 to January 2023. Twenty-two participants from 19 different organizations across seven provinces and one territory were interviewed. This included producers of evidence syntheses from academic institutions, not-for-profit organizations, and provincial and federal government. Data analysis was conducted thematically using a phenomenological approach. Results indicated the evidence synthesis landscape drastically changed during the pandemic including short timelines to produce syntheses and changes in the volume, types, and quality of literature included in them. Due to the changing landscape and different needs of requestors, evidence synthesis methodologies evolved, synthesis products were tailored, and quality assessment tools were adapted. In addition, the use of artificial intelligence, processes for engaging subject matter experts and patient-citizen partners, and the coordination of the evidence synthesis community changed. The findings of this study contribute to the ongoing dialogue surrounding evidence synthesis to inform decision-making, and highlights the importance of flexibility and necessity of continuously evolving methodologies to meet the demands of frequently changing landscapes. The lessons learned from this study can help inform future strategies for improving evidence synthesis practices not only in the face of public health emergencies, but also in everyday practice.

multidisciplinary sciences
Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews

Paolo Fusar-Poli,Joaquim Radua

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2018-300014

2018-07-13

Abstract:Objective Evidence syntheses such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a rigorous and transparent knowledge base for translating clinical research into decisions, and thus they represent the basic unit of knowledge in medicine. Umbrella reviews are reviews of previously published systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Therefore, they represent one of the highest levels of evidence synthesis currently available, and are becoming increasingly influential in biomedical literature. However, practical guidance on how to conduct umbrella reviews is relatively limited. Methods We present a critical educational review of published umbrella reviews, focusing on the essential practical steps required to produce robust umbrella reviews in the medical field. Results The current manuscript discusses 10 key points to consider for conducting robust umbrella reviews. The points are: ensure that the umbrella review is really needed, prespecify the protocol, clearly define the variables of interest, estimate a common effect size, report the heterogeneity and potential biases, perform a stratification of the evidence, conduct sensitivity analyses, report transparent results, use appropriate software and acknowledge the limitations. We illustrate these points through recent examples from umbrella reviews and suggest specific practical recommendations. Conclusions The current manuscript provides a practical guidance for conducting umbrella reviews in medical areas. Researchers, clinicians and policy makers might use the key points illustrated here to inform the planning, conduction and reporting of umbrella reviews in medicine.

psychiatry
Bibliometric study of ‘overviews of systematic reviews’ of health interventions: Evaluation of prevalence, citation and journal impact factor

Carole Lunny,Trish Neelakant,Alyssa Chen,Gavindeep Shinger,Adrienne Stevens,Sara Tasnim,Shadi Sadeghipouya,Stephen Adams,Yi Wen Zheng,Lester Lin,Pei Hsuan Yang,Manpreet Dosanjh,Peter Ngsee,Ursula Ellis,Beverley J. Shea,Emma K. Reid,James M. Wright

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1530

2021-10-25

Research Synthesis Methods

Abstract:Overviews synthesising the results of multiple systematic reviews help inform evidence-based clinical practice. In this first of two companion papers, we evaluate the bibliometrics of overviews, including their prevalence and factors affecting citation rates and JIF (JIF). We searched MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). We included overviews that: (a) synthesised reviews, (b) conducted a systematic search, (c) had a methods section, and (d) examined a healthcare intervention. Multivariable regression was conducted to determine the association between citation density, JIF and 6 predictor variables. We found 1218 overviews published from 2000 to 2020; the majority (73%) were published in the most recent 5-year period. We extracted a selection of these overviews (n = 541; 44%) dated from 2000 to 2018. The 541 overviews were published in 307 journals; CDSR (8%), PLOS ONE (3%) and Sao Paulo Medical Journal (2%) were the most prevalent. The majority (70%) were published in journals with impact factors between 0.05 and 3.97. We found a mean citation count of 10 overviews per year, published in journals with a mean JIF of 4.4. In multivariable analysis, overviews with a high number of citations and JIFs had more authors, larger sample sizes, were open access and reported the funding source. An 8-fold increase in the number of overviews was found between 2009 and 2020. We identified 332 overviews published in 2020, which is equivalent to 1 overview published per day. Overviews perform above average for the journals in which they publish.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

multidisciplinary sciences,mathematical & computational biology
Bibliometric study of ‘overviews of systematic reviews’ of health interventions: evaluation of prevalence, citation and impact factor

Carole Lunny,Trish Neelakant,Alyssa Chen,Gavindeep Shinger,Adrienne Stevens,Sara Tasnim,Shadi Sadeghipouya,Stephen Adams,Yi Wen Zheng,Lester Lin,Pei Hsuan Yang,Manpreet Dosanjh,Peter Ngsee,Ursula Ellis,Beverley J. Shea,Emma K. Reid,James M. Wright

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-237881/v2

2021-06-28

Abstract:Abstract Background: Overviews synthesising the results of multiple systematic reviews help inform evidence-based clinical practice. In this first of two companion papers, we evaluate the bibliometrics of overviews, including their prevalence and factors affecting citation rates and journal impact factor. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Cochrane databases. We included overviews that: (a) synthesised reviews, (b) conducted a systematic search, (c) had a methods section, and (d) examined a healthcare intervention. Multivariate regression was conducted to determine the association between citation density, impact factor and 6 predictor variables. Results: We found 1218 overviews published from 2000 to 2020; the majority (73%) were published in the most recent 5-year period. We extracted a selection of these overviews (n=541; 44%) dated from 2000 to 2018. The 541 overviews were published in 307 journals; Cochrane Database (8%), PLOS ONE (3%) and Sao Paulo Medical Journal (2%) were the most prevalent. The majority (70%) were published in journals with impact factors between 0.05 and 3.97. We found a mean citation count of 10 overviews per year, published in journals with a mean impact factor of 4.4. In multivariate analysis, overviews with a high number of citations and impact factors had more authors, larger sample sizes, were open access and reported the funding source. Conclusions: An 8-fold increase in the number of overviews was found between 2009 and 2020. We identified 332 overviews published in 2020, which is equivalent to 1 overview published per day. Overviews perform above average for the journals in which they publish.
Systematic reviews of the literature: an introduction to current methods

Romina Brignardello-Petersen,Nancy Santesso,Gordon H Guyatt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae232

2024-07-20

American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract:Abstract Systematic reviews are a type of evidence synthesis in which authors develop explicit eligibility criteria, collect all the available studies that meet these criteria, and summarize results using reproducible methods that minimize biases and errors. Systematic reviews serve different purposes and use a different methodology than other types of evidence synthesis that include narrative reviews, scoping reviews, and overviews of reviews. Systematic reviews can address questions regarding effects of interventions or exposures, diagnostic properties of tests, and prevalence or prognosis of diseases. All rigorous systematic reviews have common processes that include: 1) determining the question and eligibility criteria, including a priori specification of subgroup hypotheses 2) searching for evidence and selecting studies, 3) abstracting data and assessing risk of bias of the included studies, 4) summarizing the data for each outcome of interest, whenever possible using meta-analyses, and 5) assessing the certainty of the evidence and drawing conclusions. There are several tools that can guide and facilitate the systematic review process, but methodological and content expertise are always necessary.

public, environmental & occupational health
Neuromedin U—A study of its distribution in the rat

J. Domin,M. Ghatei,Punam K. Chohan,S. Bloom

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0196-9781(87)90058-1

IF: 3.867

1987-09-01

Peptides

Abstract:
The use of ‘PICO for synthesis’ and methods for synthesis without meta-analysis: protocol for a survey of current practice in systematic reviews of health interventions

Miranda S. Cumpston,Joanne E. McKenzie,James Thomas,Sue E. Brennan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.24469.2

2021-01-29

F1000Research

Abstract:Introduction: Systematic reviews involve synthesis of research to inform decision making by clinicians, consumers, policy makers and researchers. While guidance for synthesis often focuses on meta-analysis, synthesis begins with specifying the ’PICO for each synthesis’ (i.e. the criteria for deciding which populations, interventions, comparators and outcomes are eligible for each analysis). Synthesis may also involve the use of statistical methods other than meta-analysis (e.g. vote counting based on the direction of effect, presenting the range of effects, combining P values) augmented by visual display, tables and text-based summaries. This study examines these two aspects of synthesis. Objectives: To identify and describe current practice in systematic reviews of health interventions in relation to: (i) approaches to grouping and definition of PICO characteristics for synthesis; and (ii) methods of summary and synthesis when meta-analysis is not used. Methods: We will randomly sample 100 systematic reviews of the quantitative effects of public health and health systems interventions published in 2018 and indexed in the Health Evidence and Health Systems Evidence databases. Two authors will independently screen citations for eligibility. Two authors will confirm eligibility based on full text, then extract data for 20% of reviews on the specification and use of PICO for synthesis, and the presentation and synthesis methods used (e.g. statistical synthesis methods, tabulation, visual displays, structured summary). The remaining reviews will be confirmed as eligible and data extracted by a single author. We will use descriptive statistics to summarise the specification of methods and their use in practice. We will compare how clearly the PICO for synthesis is specified in reviews that primarily use meta-analysis and those that do not. Conclusion: This study will provide an understanding of current practice in two important aspects of the synthesis process, enabling future research to test the feasibility and impact of different approaches.
Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions

Deborah J. Cook

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006

IF: 39.2

1997-03-01

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:Systematic reviews can help practitioners keep abreast of the medical literature by summarizing large bodies of evidence and helping to explain differences among studies on the same question. A systematic review involves the application of scientific strategies, in ways that limit bias, to the assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies that address a specific clinical question. A meta-analysis is a type of systematic review that uses statistical methods to combine and summarize the results of several primary studies. Because the review process itself (like any other type of research) is subject to bias, a useful review requires clear reporting of information obtained using rigorous methods. Used increasingly to inform medical decision making, plan future research agendas, and establish clinical policy, systematic reviews may strengthen the link between best research evidence and optimal health care.

medicine, general & internal
Synthesis for health services and policy: case studies in the scoping of reviews

Rob Anderson,Andrew Booth,Alison Eastwood,Mark Rodgers,Liz Shaw,Jo Thompson Coon,Simon Briscoe,Anna Cantrell,Duncan Chambers,Elizabeth Goyder,Michael Nunns,Louise Preston,Gary Raine,Sian Thomas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr09150

2021-08-01

Health Services and Delivery Research

Abstract:Background For systematic reviews to be rigorous, deliverable and useful, they need a well-defined review question. Scoping for a review also requires the specification of clear inclusion criteria and planned synthesis methods. Guidance is lacking on how to develop these, especially in the context of undertaking rapid and responsive systematic reviews to inform health services and health policy. Objective This report describes and discusses the experiences of review scoping of three commissioned research centres that conducted evidence syntheses to inform health and social care organisation, delivery and policy in the UK, between 2017 and 2020. Data sources Sources included researcher recollection, project meeting minutes, e-mail correspondence with stakeholders and scoping searches, from allocation of a review topic through to review protocol agreement. Methods We produced eight descriptive case studies of selected reviews from the three teams. From case studies, we identified key issues that shape the processes of scoping and question formulation for evidence synthesis. The issues were then discussed and lessons drawn. Findings Across the eight diverse case studies, we identified 14 recurrent issues that were important in shaping the scoping processes and formulating a review’s questions. There were ‘consultative issues’ that related to securing input from review commissioners, policy customers, experts, patients and other stakeholders. These included managing and deciding priorities, reconciling different priorities/perspectives, achieving buy-in and engagement, educating the end-user about synthesis processes and products, and managing stakeholder expectations. There were ‘interface issues’ that related to the interaction between the review team and potential review users. These included identifying the niche/gap and optimising value, assuring and balancing rigour/reliability/relevance, and assuring the transferability/applicability of study evidence to specific policy/service user contexts. There were also ‘technical issues’ that were associated with the methods and conduct of the review. These were choosing the method(s) of synthesis, balancing fixed and fluid review questions/components/definitions, taking stock of what research already exists, mapping versus scoping versus reviewing, scoping/relevance as a continuous process and not just an initial stage, and calibrating general compared with specific and broad compared with deep coverage of topics. Limitations As a retrospective joint reflection by review teams on their experiences of scoping processes, this report is not based on prospectively collected research data. In addition, our evaluations were not externally validated by, for example, policy and service evidence users or patients and the public. Conclusions We have summarised our reflections on scoping from this programme of reviews as 14 common issues and 28 practical ‘lessons learned’. Effective scoping of rapid, responsive reviews extends beyond information exchange and technical procedures for specifying a ‘gap’ in the evidence. These considerations work alongside social processes, in particular the building of relationships and shared understanding between reviewers, research commissioners and potential review users that may be reflective of consultancy, negotiation and co-production models of research and information use. Funding This report has been based on work commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research (HSDR) programme as three university-based evidence synthesis centres to inform the organisation, delivery and commissioning of health and social care; at the University of Exeter (NIHR 16/47/22), the University of Sheffield (NIHR 16/47/17) and the University of York (NIHR 16/47/11). This report was commissioned by the NIHR HSDR programme as a review project (NIHR132708) within the NIHR HSDR programme. This project was funded by the NIHR HSDR programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research ; Vol. 9, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Estimation of Baseline Dopamine D2 Receptor Occupancy in Striatum and Extrastriatal Regions in Humans with Positron Emission Tomography with [18F] Fallypride

Patrizia Riccardi,R. Baldwin,Ronald Salomon,S. Anderson,M. Ansari,Rui Li,B. Dawant,A. Bauernfeind,D. Schmidt,R. Kessler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.03.022

IF: 12.81

2008-01-15

Biological Psychiatry

Abstract:
Direct evidence for the absence of active Na+ reabsorption in hamster ascending thin limb of Henle's loop.

Y. Kondo,K. Abe,Y. Igarashi,K. Kudo,K. Tada,K. Yoshinaga

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI116199

IF: 19.456

Journal of Clinical Investigation

Abstract:The mechanisms of Na+ transport across cell membranes were investigated in the in vitro microperfused hamster ascending thin limb (ATL) of Henle's loop using a fluorescent Na+ indicator sodium-binding benzofuran isophthalate. The intracellular Na+ concentration ([Na+]i) of the ATL cells was 17.1 +/- 1.7 mM (n = 22) when the ATL was microperfused in vitro with Hepes-buffered solution containing 204 mM Na+. Elimination of metabolites such as glucose and alanine from the basolateral solution increased [Na+]i. Applying either 5 mM cyanide or 5 mM iodoacetic acid to the bath also increased [Na+]i. The elimination of K+ and the addition of 10(-4) M ouabain in the bath increased [Na+]i by 25.0 +/- 5.0 mM (n = 5) in 3 min and by 10.7 +/- 2.4 mM (n = 4), respectively. The elimination of luminal and basolateral Na+ resulted in a decrease in [Na+]i, indicating Na+ permeability of both the luminal and basolateral cell membranes. The luminal Na+ permeability was not affected by furosemide. The presence of luminal Na+ permeability and the basolateral Na+/K+ ATPase suggests the presence of net active reabsorption of Na+, which is not a physiologically important amount, in our estimation.
Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions published 2012-2016: protocol for a systematic review

Dawid Pieper,Michelle Pollock,Ricardo M Fernandes,Roland Brian Büchter,Lisa Hartling

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0468-9

2017-04-07

Abstract:Background: Overviews of systematic reviews (overviews) attempt to systematically retrieve and summarize the results of multiple systematic reviews (SRs) for a given condition or public health problem. Two prior descriptive analyses of overviews found substantial variation in the methodological approaches used in overviews, and deficiencies in reporting of key methodological steps. Since then, new methods have been developed so it is timely to update the prior descriptive analyses. The objectives are to: (1) investigate the epidemiological, descriptive, and reporting characteristics of a random sample of 100 overviews published from 2012 to 2016 and (2) compare these recently published overviews (2012-2016) to those published prior to 2012 (based on the prior descriptive analyses). Methods: Medline, EMBASE, and CDSR will be searched for overviews published 2012-2016, using a validated search filter for overviews. Only overviews written in English will be included. All titles and abstracts will be screened by one review author; those deemed not relevant will be verified by a second person for exclusion. Full-texts will be assessed for inclusion by two reviewers independently. Of those deemed relevant, a random sample of 100 overviews will be selected for inclusion. Data extraction will be either performed by one reviewer with verification by a second reviewer or by one reviewer only depending on the complexity of the item. Discrepancies at any stage will be resolved by consensus or consulting a third person. Data will be extracted on the epidemiological, descriptive, and reporting characteristics of each overview. Data will be analyzed descriptively. When data are available for both time points (up to 2011 vs. 2012-2016), we will compare characteristics by calculating risk ratios or applying the Mann-Whitney test. Discussion: Overviews are becoming increasingly valuable evidence syntheses, and the number of published overviews is increasing. However, former analyses found limitations in the conduct and reporting of overviews. This update of a recent sample of overviews will inform whether this has changed, while also identifying areas for further improvement. Systematic review registration: The review will not be registered in PROSPERO as it does not meet the eligibility criterion of dealing with health-related outcomes.
Paper 2: Performing rapid reviews

Valerie J King,Adrienne Stevens,Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit,Chris Kamel,Chantelle Garritty

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02011-5

2022-07-30

Abstract:Background: Health policy-makers must often make decisions in compressed time frames and with limited resources. Hence, rapid reviews have become a pragmatic alternative to comprehensive systematic reviews. However, it is important that rapid review methods remain rigorous to support good policy development and decisions. There is currently little evidence about which streamlined steps in a rapid review are less likely to introduce unacceptable levels of uncertainty while still producing a product that remains useful to policy-makers. Methods: This paper summarizes current research describing commonly used methods and practices that are used to conduct rapid reviews and presents key considerations and options to guide methodological choices for a rapid review. Results: The most important step for a rapid review is for an experienced research team to have early and ongoing engagement with the people who have requested the review. A clear research protocol, derived from a needs assessment conducted with the requester, serves to focus the review, defines the scope of the rapid review, and guides all subsequent steps. Common recommendations for rapid review methods include tailoring the literature search in terms of databases, dates, and languages. Researchers can consider using a staged search to locate high-quality systematic reviews and then subsequently published primary studies. The approaches used for study screening and selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment should be tailored to the topic, researcher experience, and available resources. Many rapid reviews use a single reviewer for study selection, risk-of-bias assessment, or data abstraction, sometimes with partial or full verification by a second reviewer. Rapid reviews usually use a descriptive synthesis method rather than quantitative meta-analysis. Use of brief report templates and standardized production methods helps to speed final report publication. Conclusions: Researchers conducting rapid reviews need to make transparent methodological choices, informed by stakeholder input, to ensure that rapid reviews meet their intended purpose. Transparency is critical because it is unclear how or how much streamlined methods can bias the conclusions of reviews. There are not yet internationally accepted standards for conducting or reporting rapid reviews. Thus, this article proposes interim guidance for researchers who are increasingly employing these methods.
Late stage drainage of block copolymer stabilized emulsion drops.

Damith P Rozairo,A. Croll

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/C6SM01938B

IF: 4.046

2016-12-06

Soft Matter

Abstract:Polymer covered emulsion droplets have a considerable number of applications ranging from active cosmetics to advance drug delivery systems. In many of these systems the emulsion droplets do not exist in isolation but interact with other drops, surfaces and particles. In a step towards understanding how these complex mechanical interactions take place, we examine the interaction between a block copolymer covered emulsion droplet (polystyrene-b-poly(ethylene oxide) (PS-PEO) covered toluene) and a flat mica interface. As buoyancy pushes the droplet upwards, it buckles in as it nears the mica and traps a droplet of the surrounding fluid. The trapped outer fluid (water/glycerine in our experiment) drains out through an annular region of PEO brush. This study focuses on the late stage drainage, unique to large molecule surfactants, and examines the effects of the polymer and droplet size on the drainage rate. We introduce a scaling model of the drainage which highlights the importance of three lengthscales in the problem - the brush height, the slip length along the emulsion drop interface and the width of the annular contact region.

Etazolate rescues behavioral deficits in chronic unpredictable mild stress model: Modulation of hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis activity and brain-derived neurotrophic factor level

Auch in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern¶Radiologenpraxis meldet Konkurs an

A review of the quantitative effectiveness evidence synthesis methods used in public health intervention guidelines

Methods to support evidence-informed decision-making in the midst of COVID-19: creation and evolution of a rapid review service from the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools

Rapid reviews and the methodological rigor of evidence synthesis: a JBI position statement

Need for evidence synthesis for quality control of healthcare decision-making

Umbrella Review as an Emerging Approach of Evidence Synthesis in Health Sciences: A Bibliometric Analysis

The evolution and adaptation of evidence synthesis during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: Perspectives of evidence synthesis producers

Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews

Bibliometric study of ‘overviews of systematic reviews’ of health interventions: Evaluation of prevalence, citation and journal impact factor

Bibliometric study of ‘overviews of systematic reviews’ of health interventions: evaluation of prevalence, citation and impact factor

Systematic reviews of the literature: an introduction to current methods

Neuromedin U—A study of its distribution in the rat

The use of ‘PICO for synthesis’ and methods for synthesis without meta-analysis: protocol for a survey of current practice in systematic reviews of health interventions

Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions

Synthesis for health services and policy: case studies in the scoping of reviews

Estimation of Baseline Dopamine D2 Receptor Occupancy in Striatum and Extrastriatal Regions in Humans with Positron Emission Tomography with [18F] Fallypride

Direct evidence for the absence of active Na+ reabsorption in hamster ascending thin limb of Henle's loop.

Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions published 2012-2016: protocol for a systematic review

Paper 2: Performing rapid reviews

Late stage drainage of block copolymer stabilized emulsion drops.