Risultati per: Infezione da Helicobacter pylori: review

Introduction
Coercion is inevitably linked to psychiatric and mental healthcare. Though many forms of coercion exist, perceived coercion appears to be a less studied form despite its marked prevalence and negative consequences. In the literature, several factors have been studied for their association with perceived coercion, but few literature reviews have focused on this precise subject. Gaining knowledge of the association between these factors and the degree of perceived coercion is essential to guide future research and develop informed interventions. The purpose of this review will be to identify, in the literature, factors associated with perceived coercion by adults receiving psychiatric care.

Methods and analysis
A scoping review will be conducted by following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. A search with descriptors and keywords will be performed in the following databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Then, a search for grey literature will be conducted, psychiatric and mental health journals will be searched, and reference lists will be examined to identify further pertinent literature. All literature on factors (human, health related, organisational, etc) and their association to perceived coercion by adults (18 and older) in inpatient, outpatient and community-based psychiatry will be included. A quality assessment of the literature included will be performed. The extracted data will be analysed with a method of content analysis. An exploratory search was conducted in September 2021 and will be updated in September 2022 once the evidence selection process is planned to begin.

Ethics and dissemination
No ethics approval is required for this review. The results of this scoping review will be submitted to a scientific journal for publication, presented in conferences and shared with clinicians working in psychiatric and mental healthcare.

Objectives
To assess the cardiovascular and renal efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in patients without diabetes.

Methods
We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library for publications up to 17 August 2022. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to pool effect measures across studies. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs are expressed for composite cardiovascular outcome of cardiovascular death or hospitalisation for heart failure, cardiovascular death, hospitalisation for heart failure, all-cause mortality and composite renal outcome of ≥50% reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), end-stage kidney disease or renal death. Annual rate of change in eGFR is expressed as the mean difference with 95% CI.

Results
We identified four trials with 8927 patients with heart failure or chronic kidney disease (CKD). Compared with placebo, SGLT2 inhibitors showed favourable effects on the composite cardiovascular outcome (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.87; moderate certainty), cardiovascular death (0.85, 0.74 to 0.99; moderate certainty), hospitalisation for heart failure (0.72, 0.62 to 0.82; moderate certainty), the composite renal outcome (0.64, 0.48 to 0.85; low certainty) and the annual rate of change in eGFR (mean difference: 0.99, 0.59 to 1.39 mL/min/1.73 m2/year; moderate certainty), while there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (0.88, 0.77 to 1.01; very low certainty). Moderate certainty evidence indicated that SGLT2 inhibitors reduced the risk of serious adverse events and acute renal failure. Low certainty evidence suggested that SGLT2 inhibitors increased the risk of urinary tract infection and genital infection, while there were no differences in discontinuation due to adverse events, amputation, fracture, hypoglycaemia, ketoacidosis or volume depletion.

Conclusions
Evidence of low to moderate certainty suggests that SGLT2 inhibitors provide cardiorenal benefits but have increased risk for urinary tract infection and genital infection in patients without diabetes and with heart failure or CKD.

PROSPERO registration number
CRD42021239807.

Introduction
An impoverished medical workforce is a global phenomenon, which can impact patient care significantly. Greater flexibility in working patterns is one approach policy-makers adopt to address this issue, and the expansion of less than full-time (LTFT) working forms part of this. Studies suggest that LTFT working has the potential to improve recruitment and retention by aligning with how doctors increasingly want to balance their careers with other commitments and interests. What is less well understood are the influencing factors and outcomes related to LTFT working among doctors. This protocol outlines the methodology for a systematic review that will evaluate existing knowledge on LTFT working in the medical profession.

Methods and analysis
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines will be followed. Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Health Management Information Consortium, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Healthcare Administration, and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts will be searched for studies published up to March 2022. Unpublished literature from EThos and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global will also be searched. Bibliographic searching, citation searching and handsearching will be used to retrieve additional papers. Authors will be contacted for data or publications if necessary. Two independent reviewers will undertake study screening, data extraction and quality assessment, with disagreements resolved by consensus or by a third reviewer if necessary. Data synthesis will be by narrative synthesis and meta-analysis if possible.

Ethics and dissemination
The proposed study does not require ethical approval; however, it forms part of a larger body of research on the impact of LTFT working on the medical workforce for which ethics approval has been granted by the Research Ethics Committee at University College London. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at national and international conferences.

PROSPERO registration number
CRD42022307174.

Introduction
International students make significant contributions to their host institutions and countries. Yet research shows that not all international students have the financial means to fend for themselves and meet their financial obligations for the entire study programme. Such students are at significant risk of food insecurity. The objective of this scoping review is to synthesise available information on the factors related to food insecurity among international students studying at postsecondary educational institutions and identify the types of food insecurity interventions that have been implemented to address this issue.

Methods and analysis
The Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology will be used to guide this scoping review, and we will search the following databases: MEDLINE (through Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), PubMed, ERIC (via Ovid), PROSPERO and ProQuest. The titles, abstracts, and subsequently full texts of the selected papers will then be screened against the inclusion criteria. Data from articles included in the review will be extracted using a data charting form and will be summarised in a tabular form. Thematic analysis will be used to identify common themes that thread through the selected studies and will be guided by the steps developed by Terry et al.

Ethics and dissemination
Since this project entails a review of available literature, ethical approval is not required. The findings will be presented at academic conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. To make the findings more accessible, they will also be distributed via digital communication platforms.

Introduction
Misuse of psychoactive medicines, especially prescription opioids, but also benzodiazepines, hypnotics and sedatives, has become a significant public health issue in some countries, especially in the USA, where it has been extensively documented, as well as in Canada and Australia. However, in the European Union (EU) published literature on the topic is scarce and heterogeneous regarding definitions, sources of data, tools and methods of analysis.
The aim of this scoping review is to map the key concepts on psychoactive medicines’ misuse and examine the existing body of evidence on this topic in the EU. Data on the possible consequences of medicines’ misuse—adverse drug reactions, poisonings, hospitalisations and deaths—will also be analysed.

Methods and analysis
The scoping review will follow the framework of Arksey and O’Malley, further developed by Levac et al and the Joanna Briggs Institute. The search strategy, developed by the authors, includes querying three electronic databases—PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus—using keywords and the Medical Subject Headings, for evidence published in English, French, Spanish or Portuguese between 2011 and 2020. Additionally, articles from PubMed alerts and other sources will also be considered. The results of the scoping review will describe the currently available evidence regarding misuse of medicines at EU level.

Ethics and dissemination
Since the scoping review methodology focuses on published data, this study does not require ethical approval. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and plan to disseminate our work in conferences and scientific meetings.

Registration details
This scoping review protocol is registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF; see https://osf.io/fzr9u) and has also been shared as a preprint in this free and open-source project management repository. It is available at https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/y3s4q.

Objectives
To assess the comparative accuracy of risk assessment models (RAMs) to identify women during pregnancy and the early postnatal period who are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).

Design
Systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Data sources
MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and two research registers were searched until February 2021.

Eligibility criteria
All validation studies that examined the accuracy of a multivariable RAM (or scoring system) for predicting the risk of developing VTE in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium (within 6 weeks post-delivery).

Data extraction and synthesis
Two authors independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool). Data were synthesised without meta-analysis.

Results
Seventeen studies, comprising 19 externally validated RAMs and 1 internally validated model, met the inclusion criteria. The most widely evaluated RAMs were the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines (six studies), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines (two studies), Swedish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology guidelines (two studies) and the Lyon score (two studies). In general, estimates of sensitivity and specificity were highly variable with sensitivity estimates ranging from 0% to 100% for RAMs that were applied to antepartum women to predict antepartum or postpartum VTE and 0% to 100% for RAMs applied postpartum to predict postpartum VTE. Specificity estimates were similarly diverse ranging from 28% to 98% and 5% to 100%, respectively.

Conclusions
Available data suggest that external validation studies have weak designs and limited generalisability, so estimates of prognostic accuracy are very uncertain.

PROSPERO registration number
CRD42020221094.

Objective
Accurate reporting of birth outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is essential. Mobile health (mHealth) tools have been proposed as a replacement for conventional paper-based registers. mHealth could provide timely data for individual facilities and health departments, as well as capture deliveries outside facilities. This scoping review evaluates which mHealth tools have been reported to birth outcomes in the delivering room in LMICs and documents their reported advantages and drawbacks.

Design
A scoping review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews and the mHealth evidence reporting and assessment checklist for evaluating mHealth interventions.

Data sources
PubMed, CINAHL and Global Health were searched for records until 3 February 2022 with no earliest date limit.

Eligibility criteria
Studies were included where healthcare workers used mHealth tools in LMICs to record birth outcomes. Exclusion criteria included mHealth not being used at the point of delivery, non-peer reviewed literature and studies not written in English.

Data extraction and synthesis
Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Common themes among studies were identified.

Results
640 records were screened, 21 of which met the inclusion criteria, describing 15 different mHealth tools. We identified six themes: (1) digital tools for labour monitoring (8 studies); (2) digital data collection of specific birth outcomes (3 studies); (3) digital technologies used in community settings (6 studies); (4) attitudes of healthcare workers (10 studies); (5) paper versus electronic data collection (3 studies) and (6) infrastructure, interoperability and sustainability (8 studies).

Conclusion
Several mHealth technologies are reported to have the capability to record birth outcomes at delivery, but none were identified that were designed solely for that purpose. Use of digital delivery registers appears feasible and acceptable to healthcare workers, but definitive evaluations are lacking. Further assessment of the sustainability of technologies and their ability to integrate with existing health information systems is needed.

Ntlantsana V, Molebatsi K, Mashaphu S, et al. Post-traumatic stress disorder psychological interventions in sub-Saharan Africa: protocol for a systematic review of the literature. BMJ Open 2022;12:e052903. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052903.
The authors want to alert the readers on the updated Funding statement.
Funding: The publication was financially supported by the Schizophrenia Research Society (SIRS), and by the University of KwaZulu-Natal Research Innovation and Sequencing Platform (KRISP).

Objective
To identify nurse staffing and patient care outcome literature in published systematic reviews and map out the evidence gaps for low/middle-income countries (LMICs).

Methods
We included quantitative systematic reviews on nurse staffing levels and patient care outcomes in regular ward settings published in English. We excluded qualitative reviews or reviews on nursing skill mix. We searched the Cochrane Register of Systematic Reviews, the Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Medline, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception until July 2021. We used the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews -2 (AMSTAR-2) criteria for risk of bias assessment and conducted a narrative synthesis.

Results
From 843 papers, we included 14 in our final synthesis. There were overlaps in primary studies summarised across reviews, but overall, the reviews summarised 136 unique primary articles. Only 4 out of 14 reviews had data on LMIC publications and only 9 (6.6%) of 136 unique primary articles were conducted in LMICs. Only 8 of 23 patient care outcomes were reported from LMICs. Less research was conducted in contexts with staffing levels that are typical of many LMIC contexts.

Discussion
Our umbrella review identified very limited data for nurse staffing and patient care outcomes in LMICs. We also identified data from high-income countries might not be good proxies for LMICs as staffing levels where this research was conducted had comparatively better staffing levels than the few LMIC studies. This highlights a critical need for the conduct of nurse staffing research in LMIC contexts.

Limitations
We included data on systematic reviews that scored low on our risk of bias assessment because we sought to provide a broad description of the research area. We only considered systematic reviews published in English and did not include any qualitative reviews in our synthesis.

PROSPERO registration number
CRD42021286908.

Objectives
This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in adults with heart failure (HF) and summarise the all-cause mortality ratio among adult patients with coexisting HF and AF in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

Setting
This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional and cohort studies with primary data on the prevalence and incidence of AF among patients with HF and the all-cause mortality ratio among patients with HF and AF in SSA. We combined text words and MeSH terms to search MEDLINE, PubMed and Global Health Library through Ovid SP, African Journals Online and African Index Medicus from database inception to 10 November 2021. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled prevalence.

Primary outcome measures
The prevalence and incidence of AF among patients with HF, and the all-cause mortality ratio among patients with HF and AF.

Results
Twenty-seven of the 1902 records retrieved from database searches were included in the review, totalling 9987 patients with HF. The pooled prevalence of AF among patients with HF was 15.6% (95% CI 12.0% to 19.6%). At six months, the all-cause mortality was 18.4% (95% CI 13.1% to 23.6%) in a multinational registry and 67.7% (95% CI 51.1% to 74.3%) in one study in Tanzania. The one-year mortality was 48.6% (95% CI 32.5% to 64.7%) in a study in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We did not find any study reporting the incidence of AF in HF.

Conclusion
AF is common among patients with HF in SSA, and patients with AF and HF have poor survival. There is an urgent need for large-scale population-based prospective data to reliably estimate the prevalence, incidence and risk of mortality of AF among HF patients in SSA to better understand the burden of AF in patients with HF in the region.

PROSPERO registration number
CRD42018087564.

Introduction
Overdiagnosis is the diagnosis of a disease that would never have caused any symptom or problem. It is a harmful side effect of screening and may lead to unnecessary treatment, costs and emotional drawbacks. Doctors and other healthcare professionals (HCPs) have the opportunity to mitigate these consequences, not only by informing their patients or the public but also by adjusting screening methods or even by refraining from screening. However, it is unclear to what extent HCPs are fully aware of overdiagnosis and whether it affects their screening decisions. With this systematic review, we aim to synthesise all available research about what HCPs know and think about overdiagnosis, how it affects their position on screening policy and whether they think patients and the public should be informed about it.

Methods and analysis
We will systematically search several databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycArticles) for studies that directly examine HCPs’ knowledge and subjective perceptions of overdiagnosis due to health screening, both qualitatively and quantitatively. We will optimise our search by scanning reference and citation lists, contacting experts in the field and hand searching abstracts from the annual conference on ‘Preventing Overdiagnosis’. After selection and quality appraisal, we will analyse qualitative and quantitative findings separately in a segregated design for mixed-method reviews. The data will be examined and presented descriptively. If the retrieved studies allow it, we will review them from a constructivist perspective through a critical interpretive synthesis.

Ethics and dissemination
For this type of research, no ethical approval is required. Findings from this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at the annual congress of ‘Preventing Overdiagnosis’. In addition, the results will serve as guidance for further research on this topic.

PROSPERO registration number
CRD42021244513.

Objectives
The comparative clinical effectiveness of common surgical techniques to address long head of biceps (LHB) pathology is unclear. We synthesised the evidence to compare the clinical effectiveness of tenotomy versus tenodesis.

Design
A systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

Data sources
EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library of randomised controlled trials were searched through 31 October 2021.

Eligibility criteria
We included randomised controlled trials, reporting patient reported outcome measures, comparing LHB tenotomy with tenodesis for LHB pathology, with or without concomitant rotator cuff pathology. Studies including patients treated for superior labral anterior–posterior tears were excluded. No language limits were employed. All publications from database inception to 31 October 2021 were included.

Data extraction and synthesis
Screening was performed by two authors independently. A third author reviewed the article, where consensus for inclusion was required. Data were extracted by two authors. Data were synthesised using RevMan. Inverse variance statistics and a random effects model were used.

Results
860 patients from 11 RCTs (426 tenotomy vs 434 tenodesis) were included. Pooled analysis of patient-reported functional outcome measures data demonstrated comparable outcomes (n=10 studies; 403 tenotomy vs 416 tenodesis; standardised mean difference (SMD): 0.14, 95% CI –0.04 to 0.32, p=0.13). There was no significant difference for pain (Visual Analogue Scale) (n=8 studies; 345 tenotomy vs 350 tenodesis; MD: –0.11, 95% CI –0.28 to 0.06, p=0.21). Tenodesis resulted in a lower rate of Popeye deformity (n=10 studies; 401 tenotomy vs 410 tenodesis; OR: 0.29, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.45, p

Objectives
To systematically review existing literature on hospital-based quality improvement studies in sub-Saharan Africa that aim to improve surgical and anaesthesia care, capturing clinical, process and implementation outcomes in order to evaluate the impact of the intervention and implementation learning.

Design
We conducted a systematic literature review and narrative synthesis.

Setting
Literature on hospital-based quality improvement studies in sub-Saharan Africa reviewed until 31 December 2021.

Participants
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, CINAHL, Web of Science databases and grey literature were searched.

Intervention
We extracted data on intervention characteristics and how the intervention was delivered and evaluated.

Primary and secondary outcome measures
Importantly, we assessed whether clinical, process and implementation outcomes were collected and separately categorised the outcomes under the Institute of Medicine quality domains. Risk of bias was not assessed.

Results
Of 1573 articles identified, 49 were included from 17/48 sub-Saharan African countries, 16 of which were low-income or lower middle-income countries. Almost two-thirds of the studies took place in East Africa (31/49, 63.2%). The most common intervention focus was reduction of surgical site infection (12/49, 24.5%) and use of a surgical safety checklist (14/49, 28.6%). Use of implementation and quality improvement science methods were rare. Over half the studies measured clinical outcomes (29/49, 59.2%), with the most commonly reported ones being perioperative mortality (13/29, 44.8%) and surgical site infection rate (14/29, 48.3%). Process and implementation outcomes were reported in over two thirds of the studies (34/49, 69.4% and 35, 71.4%, respectively). The most studied quality domain was safety (44/49, 89.8%), with efficiency (4/49, 8.2%) and equitability (2/49, 4.1%) the least studied domains.

Conclusions
There are few hospital-based studies that focus on improving the quality of surgical and anaesthesia care in sub-Saharan Africa. Use of implementation and quality improvement methodologies remain low, and some quality domains are neglected.

PROSPERO registration number
CRD42019125570

Objective
The improvement of patient experience (PE) is related to the experience of staff caring for them. Yet there is little evidence as to which interactions matter the most for both patients and staff, or how they are perceived by them. We aimed to summarise the interactions and the perceptions between patients and staff from studies by using both patient and staff experience data in healthcare institutions.

Design
Scoping review.

Methods
We conducted a scoping review, including studies dealing with PE and staff experience. Two authors independently reviewed each title/abstract and the selected full-text articles. A list of variables (objective, study design, data sources, tools used, results, interactions, perceptions and actions) was charted and summarised using a narrative approach including both qualitative and quantitative data. Studies were grouped according to their objective and the key interactions summarised according to this stratification. The perceptions of patients and staff were identified in the results of selected studies and were classified into four categories: commonalities and disagreements of perceptions, patients’ perceptions not perceived by professionals and professional’s perceptions not perceived by patients.

Results
A total of 42 studies were included. The stratification of studies by type of objective resulted in six groups that allowed to classify the key interactions (n=154) identified in the results of the selected studies. A total of 128 perceptions related to interaction between patient and staff were reported with the following distribution: commonalities (n=35), disagreements (n=18), patients’ perceptions not perceived by professionals (n=47) and professional’s perceptions not perceived by patients (n=28). We separated positive and negative perceptions, which resulted in seven scenarios, each with actions that can be carried out for one or both populations to overcome barriers.

Conclusion
The study of both patient and staff experience allowed the identification of actions that can be taken to change the perceptions of patients and staff.

Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic is exacerbating a wide range of symptoms of poor mental health among emergency medical service (EMS) ambulance populations. Evidence suggests that using organisational support can improve employee outcomes and in turn, patient outcomes. Understanding why EMS staff do and do not use support services is therefore critical to improving uptake, ensuring equitable access, and potentially influencing workforce well-being, organisational sustainability and patient care delivery. This systematic review aims to identify what support is available and any perceived barriers and facilitators to accessing and utilising organisational support.

Methods and analysis
Searches performed between 18 February 2022 and 23 February 2022 will be used to identify studies that report barriers and facilitators to EMS employee support among all government/state commissioned EMS ambulance systems. Electronic databases, AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, EMCARE, HMIC, Medline and PsycINFO will be searched. All relevant English-language studies of adult employees of government/state commissioned EMS ambulance organisations published since December 2004 will be screened and relevant data extracted by two independent reviewers. A third reviewer will resolve any disagreements.
The primary outcome is the identification of perceived barriers or facilitators to EMS staff using organisational support for mental health. The secondary outcome is the identification of supportive interventions offered through or by ambulance trusts. Study selection will follow Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and the methodological quality of included studies will be appraised by administering rating checklists. A narrative synthesis will be conducted to report qualitative and quantitative data and will include population characteristics, methodological approach and information about barriers and facilitators.

Ethics and dissemination
Ethical approval is not required because only available published data will be analysed. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation.

PROSPERO registration number
CRD42022299650.

Objectives
To identify the evidence gaps that exist regarding the efficacy or effectiveness of hand surgery.

Setting
A scoping review. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL databases to identify all hand surgical randomised controlled trials from inception to 7 November 2020.

Results
Of the 220 identified randomised controlled trials, none were fundamental efficacy trials, that is, compared surgery with placebo surgery. 172 (78%) trials compared the outcomes of different surgical techniques, and 143 (65%) trials were trauma related. We identified only 47 (21%) trials comparing surgery with non-operative care or injection.

Conclusion
The evidence supporting use of surgery especially for chronic hand conditions is scarce. To determine optimal care for people with hand conditions, more resources should be aimed at placebo-controlled trials and pragmatic effectiveness trials comparing hand surgery with non-operative care.

PROSPERO registration number
CRD42019122710.