Cíl: Studie se zaměřuje na deskripci současného stavu poznání o resilienci rodičů sluchově postižených dětí. Metody: V rámci výzkumného přístupu EBN (Evidence Based Nursing) byl za výzkumnou metodu zvolen systematický přehled (systematic review). Byly sledovány tyto proměnné: místo výzkumu, metoda výzkumu, velikost vzorku, složení vzorku, cíl výzkumu, sledované proměnné, navrhované intervence, ošetřovatelské diagnózy NANDA-International. Výsledky: Z celkového počtu 280 nalezených studií bylo na základě vyřazovacích kritérií vybráno 26 studií kvantitativního charakteru. Bylo zjištěno, že žádná ze studií přímo s konceptem resilience nepracuje ani ve svých deklarovaných cílech ani v rámci zkoumaných proměnných. Závěry: Zdroje resilience bude možno odhalit pouze na základě kvalitativní sekundární analýzy obsahů studovaných textů.
Aim: The objective of the research is to identify the state of knowledge about the resilience of parents of hearingimpaired children in relevant researches published up-to-day. Methods: The basic framework of the presented research is evidence-based nursing. The chosen technique is a systematic review. The following variables were monitored: location of the research, the research method, sample size, sample design, the objective of the research, variables, proposed interventions, NANDA-Int. nursing diagnosis. Results: The core sample consisted of 280 articles. On the basis of elimination criteria, most of them were rejected. Twenty six articles with quantitative methods fulfi lled the set criteria and were analysed. It was found that none of the studies works directly with the concept of resilience, neither in its declared objectives nor in the variables. Conclusion: The resources of resilience will be possible to detect on the basis of qualitative secondary analysis of the contents of the studied texts.
- Keywords
- systematické review,
- MeSH
- Data Interpretation, Statistical MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Nursing Diagnosis MeSH
- Evidence-Based Nursing MeSH
- Review Literature as Topic * MeSH
- Surveys and Questionnaires MeSH
- Parents MeSH
- Data Collection MeSH
- Persons with Hearing Disabilities * MeSH
- Research MeSH
- Parent-Child Relations MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
Hlavním cílem systematického review (SR) je zjistit, zda je komprehensivní management bolesti účinný u hospitalizovaných pacientů s obtížně se hojící ulcerací. Protokol SR je připraven dle Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) publikačního guidelinu. Do SR budou zahrnuty všechny experimentální a observační analytické studie, které se zabývají dospělými hospitalizovanými pacienty s obtížně se hojící ulcerací a účinností komprehenzivního managementu bolesti. Tříkrokové systematické vyhledávání proběhne ve 13 databázích bez jazykového a časového omezení. Dvoufázové hodnocení relevance, hodnocení metodologické kvality a zpracování dat pomocí standardizovaných nástrojů vyvinutých Joanna Briggs Institute bude provedeno dvěma nezávislými autory SR. Kvantitativní data, bude-li to možné, budou zpracována statisticky pomocí metaanalýzy v sofwaru RevMan 5.0.
The objective of the systematic review (SR) is to determine the effectiveness of inpatient comprehensive pain management in patients with hard to heal ulcers. The protocol of SR is prepared according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. All experimental and observational analytical studies dealing with adults with hard to heal ulcer and effectiveness of inpatient comprehensive pain management will be considered for inclusion. A three-step strategy will be utilized in this review and 13 databased searched without language and date limitation. Analysis of title, abstracts and full texts, critical appraisal and data extraction will be carried out on selected studies using standardized instruments developed by Joanna Briggs Institute. If possible, statistical meta-analysis using software RevMan 5.0 will be performed.
ABSTRACT: A systematic review involves the identification, evaluation, and synthesis of the best-available evidence to provide an answer to a specific question. The "best-available evidence" is, in many cases, a peer-reviewed scientific article published in an academic journal that details the conduct and results of a scientific study. Any potential threat to the validity of these individual studies (and hence the resultant synthesis) must be evaluated and critiqued.In science, the number of predatory journals continue to rise. Studies published in predatory journals may be of lower quality and more likely to be impacted by fraud and error compared to studies published in traditional journals. This poses a threat to the validity of systematic reviews that include these studies and, therefore, the translation of evidence into guidance for policy and practice. Despite the challenges predatory journals present to systematic reviewers, there is currently little guidance regarding how they should be managed.In 2020, a subgroup of the JBI Scientific Committee was formed to investigate this issue. In this overview paper, we introduce predatory journals to systematic reviewers, outline the problems they present and their potential impact on systematic reviews, and provide some alternative strategies for consideration of studies from predatory journals in systematic reviews. Options for systematic reviewers could include excluding all studies from suspected predatory journals, applying additional strategies to forensically examine the results of studies published in suspected predatory journals, setting stringent search limits, and applying analytical techniques (such as subgroup or sensitivity analyses) to investigate the impact of suspected predatory journals in a synthesis.
- MeSH
- Periodicals as Topic * MeSH
- Peer Review MeSH
- Systematic Reviews as Topic MeSH
- Research Report MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- MeSH
- Running * MeSH
- Biomechanical Phenomena * MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Meta-Analysis as Topic MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
Systematický přehled je na současné světové vědecké scéně stále častěji užívanou vědeckou formou. Do počátku dvacátého prvního století byl za nejvhodnější formu přehledu považován narativní přehled. V současné době se přesunul zřetel směrem k metaanalýze. V porovnání s těmito dvěma známými formami je systematický přehled v českém prostředí méně známý, a tudíž je mnohdy mylně vnímán jako méně důležitý ve spektru vědeckých prací. Cílem této práce bylo definovat pozici a význam systematického přehledu v současné výzkumné praxi. Systematický přehled byl vymezen z hlediska ostatních výzkumných forem a byla stručně popsána jeho tvorba a její úskalí. Smyslem této práce bylo přiblížit systematický přehled, a podpořit tak jeho častější užití v českých podmínkách.
Scientific reviews play an increasingly important part in contemporary research. Until the nineteen eighties the best type of review was considered to be the Narrative Review. Recent times, however, have witnessed a shift towards Meta-Analysis. Compared to these two study designs, Systematic Review is much less used in the Czech Republic. The reason for this could be that Systematic Review is not so well known and is thus considered as being less important. This work demonstrates the advantages of this third type of study design, the Systematic Review. We give it a place among the other methods of study design and show its importance for research in the Czech Republic.
- Keywords
- vědecká práce, přehledová studie, narativní přehled,
- MeSH
- Meta-Analysis as Topic MeSH
- Review Literature as Topic MeSH
- Research Report MeSH
- Publication type
- Meta-Analysis MeSH
- Systematic Review MeSH
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are time-consuming and labor-intensive to perform. With the growing number of scientific publications, the SR development process becomes even more laborious. This is problematic because timely SR evidence is essential for decision-making in evidence-based healthcare and policymaking. Numerous methods and tools that accelerate SR development have recently emerged. To date, no scoping review has been conducted to provide a comprehensive summary of methods and ready-to-use tools to improve efficiency in SR production. OBJECTIVE: To present an overview of primary studies that evaluated the use of ready-to-use applications of tools or review methods to improve efficiency in the review process. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review. An information specialist performed a systematic literature search in four databases, supplemented with citation-based and grey literature searching. We included studies reporting the performance of methods and ready-to-use tools for improving efficiency when producing or updating a SR in the health field. We performed dual, independent title and abstract screening, full-text selection, and data extraction. The results were analyzed descriptively and presented narratively. RESULTS: We included 103 studies: 51 studies reported on methods, 54 studies on tools, and 2 studies reported on both methods and tools to make SR production more efficient. A total of 72 studies evaluated the validity (n = 69) or usability (n = 3) of one method (n = 33) or tool (n = 39), and 31 studies performed comparative analyses of different methods (n = 15) or tools (n = 16). 20 studies conducted prospective evaluations in real-time workflows. Most studies evaluated methods or tools that aimed at screening titles and abstracts (n = 42) and literature searching (n = 24), while for other steps of the SR process, only a few studies were found. Regarding the outcomes included, most studies reported on validity outcomes (n = 84), while outcomes such as impact on results (n = 23), time-saving (n = 24), usability (n = 13), and cost-saving (n = 3) were less often evaluated. CONCLUSION: For title and abstract screening and literature searching, various evaluated methods and tools are available that aim at improving the efficiency of SR production. However, only few studies have addressed the influence of these methods and tools in real-world workflows. Few studies exist that evaluate methods or tools supporting the remaining tasks. Additionally, while validity outcomes are frequently reported, there is a lack of evaluation regarding other outcomes.
- MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Systematic Reviews as Topic * methods MeSH
- Research Design MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Review MeSH
Cíl. Metodologie systematického přehledu studií ověřujících účinnost intervence při léčbě psychických poruch napomáhá redukci předpojatostí či zkreslení používáním explicitních a rigorózních metod pro vyhledávání literatury a kritickým hodnocením dosavadních studií. Doposud nebyla realizována systematická přehledová studie, která by se věnovala účinnosti individuální formy terapie zaměřené na emoce (EFT), a to navzdory rostoucímu počtu výzkumných zjištění zkoumajících účinnost EFT. Cílem tohoto systematického přehledu je proto zhodnotit účinnost individuální formy EFT při léčbě psychických poruch a potíží. Metoda. V této studii autoři postupovali dle metodologického manuálu PRISMA, včetně vyhledávání v databázích EBSCO, PubMed a Web of Science. Po odstranění duplicitních záznamů, posouzení abstraktů dvěma posuzovateli a poté i obsahu výzkumných studií dle kritérií pro začlenění/vyřazení studií analyzovali identifikované studie. Analýza byla zaměřena na posouzení velikosti efektu pre-post terapeutické změny, udržitelnost změny v rámci follow-up, případně porovnání efektu změny s jiným psychoterapeutickým přístupem zhodnocením statistické praktické významnosti změn (effect size). Výsledky. Autoři identifikovali sedm studií, které využily (kvazi)experimentální metodu výzkumu činnosti EFT. Výsledky podporují účinnost EFT i udržitelnost změny při léčbě depresivity. Při léčbě sociální úzkosti, traumatu a poruch příjmu potravy existuje předběžná podpora účinnosti EFT. Zatím je tedy v případě těchto poruch a potíží možné považovat EFT za pravděpodobně účinnou. Limity. Do tohoto systematického přehledu byly vybrány pouze studie psané v anglickém jazyce, a naopak nebyly zařazeny případové studie.
Objective. The methodology of a systematic review of studies verifying the efficacy of the intervention in the treatment of mental disorders helps to reduce bias by using explicit and rigorous methods for literature search and critical evaluation of previous studies. Up to now, no systematic review has been conducted on the efficacy of individual emotion focused therapy (EFT), despite the growing number of research findings examining the efficacy of EFT. The aim of this systematic review is therefore to evaluate the efficacy of an individual form of EFT in the treatment of mental problems and disorders. Method. In this study, the authors followed the PRISMA methodological manual. A systematic literature search was performed in the EBSCO, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. The analysis was focused on assessing the magnitude of the effect of pre-post therapeutic changes, the sustainability of change within follow-up, or comparing the effect of change with another psychotherapeutic approach by evaluating the statistical and material significance of changes (effect size). Results. The authors identified seven studies that used a (quasi) experimental method to investigate the efficacy of EFT. The results support the efficacy of EFT as well as the sustainability of change in the treatment of depression. There is preliminary support for the efficacy of EFT in the treatment of social anxiety, trauma, and eating disorders. So far, in the case of the above-mentioned disorders and difficulties, it is possible to consider EFT as probably effective. Limitations. Only studies written in English were selected in this systematic review. Case studies were not included.
- MeSH
- Depression psychology therapy MeSH
- Emotions * ethics MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Evidence-Based Medicine methods MeSH
- Follow-Up Studies MeSH
- Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic MeSH
- Psychotherapy * methods MeSH
- Comparative Effectiveness Research MeSH
- Systematic Reviews as Topic methods MeSH
- Anxiety Disorders psychology therapy MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this qualitative systematic review is to understand the experiences of mental health practitioners after clients' suicide. INTRODUCTION: Mental health practitioners inevitably encounter client suicide during their careers, which can significantly affect their personal lives and professional outcomes. A deeper understanding of mental health practitioners' experiences in the aftermath of clients' suicide is necessary to provide effective support and assist with adaptation to this situation. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This systematic review will consider qualitative studies that explore the experiences of mental health practitioners, including psychotherapists, psychiatrists, psychological counselors, clinical psychologists, psychiatric mental health nurse practitioners, and social workers following clients' suicide. Experiences may include emotional responses, coping strategies, changes in social relationships, and reflections on practice. METHODS: This review will follow the JBI methodology for qualitative systematic reviews. The databases to be searched will include PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase, PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), SocINDEX (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Bibliographia Medica Čechoslovaca, and Bibliographia Medica Slovaca. Gray literature sources will include Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Studies in English, Czech, Slovak, and Chinese will be assessed for inclusion regardless of publication date. Studies that are initially selected will be assessed for methodological quality using the JBI critical appraisal tool for qualitative studies. Then, findings with illustrations will be extracted for subsequent meta-aggregation and ConQual assessment. All the above steps will be conducted by 2 independent reviewers. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023410523.
- MeSH
- Adaptation, Psychological MeSH
- Qualitative Research * MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Suicide * psychology MeSH
- Systematic Reviews as Topic * MeSH
- Health Personnel psychology MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
OBJECTIVES: To present an overall picture of the evidence regarding the association of erectile dysfunction (ED) with cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that studied the association of ED with any CVD were included in this umbrella review. We did not restrict the population to a particular group or age. PubMed, Embase, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the PROSPERO register were searched to find relevant systematic reviews, with or without meta-analyses, from inception to April 2020. The JBI Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses was used for the critical appraisal. Only studies with acceptable quality were included. Two independent reviewers extracted the data using the JBI data extraction tool for qualitative and quantitative data extraction. RESULTS: The summary estimate showed a higher risk of CVD (relative risk [RR] 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-1.54; P < 0.001), coronary heart disease (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.37-1.64; P < 0.001), cardiovascular-related mortality (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.37-1.64; P < 0.001), all-cause mortality (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18-1.32; P < 0.001), myocardial infarction (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.33-1.80; P < 0.001) and stroke (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.26-1.46; P < 0.001) in patients with ED than in other patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that ED is an independent predictor of CVD and their outcomes. ED and CVD are two presentations of the same physiological phenomenon. ED normally precedes symptomatic CVD, providing a window of opportunity for healthcare practitioners to screen and detect high-risk patients early to prevent avoidable morbidity and mortality.
- MeSH
- Erectile Dysfunction complications MeSH
- Cardiovascular Diseases complications MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Meta-Analysis as Topic * MeSH
- Systematic Reviews as Topic * MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Review MeSH
INTRODUCTION: Perioperative care is a broad field covering an array of elective and emergency procedures. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for perioperative care exist with various degrees of methodological quality. We intend to critically appraise them using AGREE II instrument and investigate the use of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and PROSPERO and did not identify any similar systematic review in this area. We will search databases, repositories and websites of guideline developers and medical societies, including MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), DynaMed, the GIN international guideline library and registry of guidelines in development, BIGG international database of GRADE guidelines, ECRI Guideline Trust or National Institute for Clinical Evidence to identify all CPGs for perioperative care in an adult population in a general clinical setting. We will include CPGs, expert guidance, position papers, guidance documents and consensus statements published in the last 5 years by experts or international organisations that provide guidance or recommendations in the available full text with no geographical or language limitation. Excluded will be those containing only good practice statements. Two independent reviewers will perform critical appraisal using the AGREE II tool. The data presented in a narrative and tabular form will include the results of the critical appraisal for all identified CPGs for all AGREE II domains and an assessment of the use of the GRADE approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. We will disseminate the findings through professional networks and conference presentations and will publish the results.
- MeSH
- Databases, Factual MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Consensus MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Perioperative Care * MeSH
- GRADE Approach * MeSH
- Systematic Reviews as Topic MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
