This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Prognosis). The objectives are as follows:Primary objective: to assess whether ACB in older adults is a prognostic factor for future cognitive decline or dementia. Secondary objective(s):to assess whether ACB is a prognostic factor for older adults recruited in primary care, secondary care, or community settings (with setting used as the basis for subgroup analyses); whether ACB is associated with mortality; to compare the prognostic validity of respective ACB scales; and to examine the e ect of duration of exposure and duration of follow-up on the ACBdementia risk association.Anticholinergic burden (prognostic factor) for prediction of dementia or cognitive decline in older adults with no known cognitive syndrome (Protocol)
Background: Pain is a common problem after stroke and is associated with poor outcomes. There is no consensus on the optimal method of pain assessment in stroke. A review of the properties of tools should allow an evidence based approach to assessment. Objectives: We aimed to systematically review published data on pain assessment tools used in stroke, with particular focus on classical test properties of: validity, reliability, feasibility, responsiveness. Methods: We searched multiple, cross-disciplinary databases for studies evaluating properties of pain assessment tools used in stroke. We assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. We used a modified harvest plot to visually represent psychometric properties across tests. Results: The search yielded 12 relevant articles, describing 10 different tools (n = 1,106 participants). There was substantial heterogeneity and an overall high risk of bias. The most commonly assessed property was validity (eight studies) and responsiveness the least (one study). There were no studies with a neuropathic or headache focus. Included tools were either scales or questionnaires. The most commonly assessed tool was the Faces Pain Scale (FPS) (6 studies). The limited number of papers precluded meaningful meta-analysis at level of pain assessment tool or pain syndrome. Even where common data were available across papers, results were conflicting e.g., two papers described FPS as feasible and two described the scale as having feasibility issues. Conclusion: Robust data on the properties of pain assessment tools for stroke are limited. Our review highlights specific areas where evidence is lacking and could guide further research to identify the best tool(s) for assessing post-stroke pain. Improving feasibility of assessment in stroke survivors should be a future research target.
Given that cardiovascular diseases remain a primary cause of mortality and morbidity, there is a need to consider preventative strategies to improve vascular function from early in life. The aims of this study were therefore to investigate which interventions may improve endothelial function, intima media thickness and arterial stiffness in children and young people and to assess whether these interventions differ in boys and girls. A systematic literature search of Science Direct, Pubmed, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library by two independent reviewers was performed to source articles. Inclusion criteria were any studies including any child ≤18 years of age receiving an intervention, which measured vascular function other than blood pressure. Exclusion criteria were studies assessing children with chronic medical conditions. A total of 72 studies were identified, which met the inclusion criteria. A measurable change in outcome was more likely to be reported in studies investigating endothelial function (p = 0.03). Interventions which improved vascular function included physical activity and dietary programmes. Under 10% of studies considered sex differences. In conclusion, school-based physical activity interventions are most likely to result in improvements in vascular function. Endothelial function may be the first variable of vascular function to change secondary to an intervention. Standardisation of reporting of differences between the sexes is essential to be able to ensure interventions are equally effective for boys and girls.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.