Enhancing your practice through evidence-based decision making: PICO, learning how to ask good questions

Miller, Syrene A.; Forrest, Jane L.

doi:10.1016/s1532-3382(01)70024-3

Cited by 247 publications

(173 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

156

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews specifies using PICO as a model for developing a review question, thus ensuring that the relevant components of the question are well defined. 26,27 The protocol of the current study has been registered in PROSPERO with the identification number of CRD42019122272. Moreover, the study protocol has also been registered by the ethics committee of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (Registration number: IR.TBZMED.VCR.…”

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Dietary acid load, blood pressure, fasting blood sugar and biomarkers of insulin resistance among adults: Findings from an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

Dehghan

Farhangi

2020

Int J Clin Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives There is no clear summarised report of the association between dietary acid load components including potential renal acid load (PRAL) and net‐endogenous acid production (NEAP) with cardiometabolic risk factors. In the current meta‐analysis, we aimed to systematically review and summarise the eligible observational studies evaluating the association between PRAL and NEAP with blood pressure and hypertension and markers of glucose haemostasis among adults. Design and Setting In a systematic search from PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Sciences and Cochrane electronic databases up to May 2019, relevant studies were included in the literature review. Observational studies evaluating the association between PRAL and NEAP with the systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), fasting blood glucose, insulin, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA‐IR), haemoglobin A1C (HbA1C), HOMA‐β and quantitative insulin check index (QUICKI) and also prevalence or odds of hypertension, hyperglycaemia and diabetes were included. Results Total number of studies included in the 14 separate meta‐analyses were as follows: Mean (SD) of SBP (PRAL, n = 12; NEAP, n = 6), mean (SD) of DBP (PRAL, n = 8; NEAP, n = 3), mean (SD) of FBS (PRAL, n = 12; NEAP, n = 5), mean (SD) of HbA1C (PRAL, n = 6; NEAP, n = 4), mean (SD) of HOMA‐IR (PRAL, n = 7), mean (SD) of insulin (PRAL, n = 7; NEAP, n = 2); OR of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) (PRAL, n = 8; NEAP; n = 6), HTN prevalence (PRAL, n = 9; NEAP, n = 9), T2DM prevalence (PRAL, n = 7; NEAP, n = 6). According to our results, being in the highest PRAL categories was associated with higher SBP (WMD = 0.98; CI: 0.51, 1.45; P < .001), DBP (WMD = 0.61; CI: 0.089, 1.135; P = .022), insulin (WMD = −0.235, CI: 0.070, 0.400; P = .005), higher odds of diabetes (OR = 1.19; CI: 1.092, 1.311; P < .001), higher prevalence of T2DM (13% and 11% in highest vs lowest category). While, being in the highest category of NEAP was only associated with higher odds of diabetes (OR = 1.22; CI: 1.14, 1.31, P < .001). In subgroup analysis for finding the possible source of heterogeneity, the continent, dietary assessment tool, sample size and gender were the potent sources of heterogeneity. No association between PRAL and NEAP with HbA1C, HOMA‐IR was reported. Conclusions In the current meta‐analysis, we found potent negative effects of high dietary acid load particularly higher PRAL scores cardiometabolic risk factors. Therefore, lower acidogenic food ingredients in the diets are suggested for the prevention of cardiovascular risk factors and diabetes.

show abstract

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Dietary acid load, blood pressure, fasting blood sugar and biomarkers of insulin resistance among adults: Findings from an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

Dehghan

Farhangi

2020

Int J Clin Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study protocol was developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement. 36 The following focused question in the Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome format was used 37 : "How much do ridge dimension and histology of fresh extraction sockets alternate in different kinds of ARP compared to unassisted socket healing?" Primary outcomes of this study were the horizontal (bucco-oral) ridge dimension changes, the vertical (apico-coronal) ridge dimension changes on a mid-buccal reference point between the tooth extraction and the point of follow-up, as well as the percentage of vital bone in a histological core, which was yielded at the time of implantation.…”

Section: Protocol Development and Outcomes Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Meta‐Analysis

Willenbacher

Al‐Nawas

Berres

et al. 2015

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resorption of the alveolar ridge cannot be totally stopped by ARP, while it still can be prevented compared with unassisted healing. No reliable predictions on the histological effects could be made due to limited data. Further on, no recommendation for a specific technique of ARP could be made. In conclusion, there is still need for ongoing research on the topic, even though the lower percentage of implant sites that needed additional augmentation in test sockets seemed to bring a patient benefit.

show abstract

“…These research questions were designed according to the following P.I.C.O. question (Miller & Forrest 2001).…”

Section: Protocol Development and Eligibility Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of quality of reporting, outcome measurements and methods to study efficacy of preventive and therapeutic approaches to peri‐implant diseases

Graziani

Figuero

Herrera

2012

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic review of quality of reporting, outcome measurements and methods to study efficacy of preventive and therapeutic approaches to peri-implant diseases. J Clin Periodontol 2012; 39 (Suppl. 12): 224-244. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01832.x. AbstractAim To systematically review the literature and to assess the quality of reporting, outcome measurements and methods in both preventive and therapeutic approaches to peri-implant mucositis (PM) and peri-implantitis (PI). Materials and Methods Randomized (RCT) and Controlled Clinical Trials (CCT), evaluating preventive or therapeutic interventions in patients with PM or PI, were identified through searching in electronic databases and in relevant journals. Reporting and methods were evaluated through an analysis of the risk of biases and quality score. Sub-analysis was performed in four subgroups: prevention of PM and PI, treatment of PM, and non-surgical and surgical treatment of PI. Results Thirty-two trials (29 RCT) were identified as accomplishing inclusion criteria after full-text reading. Seven focused on prevention, and among those dealing with therapy, six were related to PM and 19 related to PI therapy (10 non-surgical and 9 surgical). Analysis found that quality of reporting and methods was generally low and surrogate outcomes were often chosen. Conclusions Current literature on PM and PI prevention and treatment does not allow extracting applicable clinical information. Quality of methods and reporting guidelines should be encouraged. In particular, ad hoc guidelines should be designed for peri-implant diseases.

show abstract

Enhancing your practice through evidence-based decision making: PICO, learning how to ask good questions

Cited by 247 publications

References 1 publication

Dietary acid load, blood pressure, fasting blood sugar and biomarkers of insulin resistance among adults: Findings from an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

Dietary acid load, blood pressure, fasting blood sugar and biomarkers of insulin resistance among adults: Findings from an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

The Effects of Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Meta‐Analysis

Systematic review of quality of reporting, outcome measurements and methods to study efficacy of preventive and therapeutic approaches to peri‐implant diseases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About