The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Page, Matthew J.; McKenzie, Joanne E.; Bossuyt, Patrick M.; Boutron, Isabelle; Hoffmann, Tammy; Mulrow, Cynthia D.; Shamseer, Larissa; Tetzlaff, Jennifer; Akl, Elie A.; Brennan, Sue; Chou, Roger; Glanville, Julie; Grimshaw, Jeremy; Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn; Lalu, Manoj M.; Li, Tianjing; Loder, Elizabeth; Mayo‐Wilson, Evan; McDonald, Steve; McGuinness, Luke A; Stewart, Lesley; Thomas, James; Tricco, Andrea C.; Welch, Vivian; Whiting, Penny; Moher, David

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001

Cited by 5,369 publications

(5,976 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

5,792

Contrasting

Unclassified

173

Order By: Relevance

“…This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines [ 9 ] in conjunction with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [ 10 ]. To identify original research studies related to mental health and climate change, the following online databases were searched from 1 January 2001, to 31 December 2020: PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Change and Mental Health: A Scoping Review

Charlson

Ali

Benmarhnia

et al. 2021

IJERPH

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change is negatively impacting the mental health of populations. This scoping review aims to assess the available literature related to climate change and mental health across the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) five global research priorities for protecting human health from climate change. We conducted a scoping review to identify original research studies related to mental health and climate change using online academic databases. We assessed the quality of studies where appropriate assessment tools were available. We identified 120 original studies published between 2001 and 2020. Most studies were quantitative (n = 67), cross-sectional (n = 42), conducted in high-income countries (n = 87), and concerned with the first of the WHO global research priorities—assessing the mental health risks associated with climate change (n = 101). Several climate-related exposures, including heat, humidity, rainfall, drought, wildfires, and floods were associated with psychological distress, worsened mental health, and higher mortality among people with pre-existing mental health conditions, increased psychiatric hospitalisations, and heightened suicide rates. Few studies (n = 19) addressed the other four global research priorities of protecting health from climate change (effective interventions (n = 8); mitigation and adaptation (n = 7); improving decision-support (n = 3); and cost estimations (n = 1)). While climate change and mental health represents a rapidly growing area of research, it needs to accelerate and broaden in scope to respond with evidence-based mitigation and adaptation strategies.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Change and Mental Health: A Scoping Review

Charlson

Ali

Benmarhnia

et al. 2021

IJERPH

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Figure 1 shows the literature search process as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines [ 12 ]. A total of 11 studies describing outcomes if retained or removed screws were found.…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Removal of Syndesmotic Screw After Fixation in Ankle Fractures: A Systematic Review

Desouky¹,

Elseby²,

Ghalab³

2021

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Syndesmotic injuries can occur with ankle fractures and can lead to destabilization of the ankle joint. As a result, it usually requires a transyndesmotic screw insertion to stabilize it. Currently, there is no consensus on the type, amount and diameter of screws used, the number of cortices needed to be engaged, the recommended time to weight-bearing, and whether the screw should be removed in these types of injuries. The aim of this study is to evaluate the evidence comparing the removal and non-removal of syndesmotic screws in open and closed ankle fractures that are associated with unstable syndesmosis in terms of functional, clinical, and radiological evidence. The study also looked at the evidence behind broken screw effects. The literature search was conducted on March 16, 2021, using the Ovid Medline and Embase databases. The literature was eligible if it aimed to compare syndesmotic screw removal and retention in ankle fractures. One study found that those with a broken screw had a better clinical outcome than those with an intact screw. The studies were excluded if they were biomechanical studies, case reports, or were relevant but had no adequate English translation. Initially, 53 studies were included but after scanning for eligibility, 11 were identified (including those added from references). Nine were cohort studies, seven of which did not find any difference in functional outcome between routine removal and retention of the syndesmotic screw. Two studies found there were better clinical outcomes in the broken screw group. Another study found that there were slightly worse functional outcomes in patients with intact screws as compared with those with broken, loosened, or removed screws. Two studies were randomized control studies that no significant functional outcomes between removed and intact syndesmotic screws. However, the majority of these studies had a high risk of bias. Overall, the current literature provides no evidence to support routine removal of syndesmotic screws. Keeping in mind the clear complications and financial burden, syndesmotic screw removal should not be performed unless there is a clear indication. Furthermore, removal in the clinic, with the use of prophylactic antibiotics should be considered if indicated in cases with pain or loss of function. Further research in a structured randomized controlled trial (RCT) to examine if there is any difference in short- or long-term outcomes between removed, intact, loose, or broken syndesmotic screws might be beneficial. A multinational protocol for randomized control trials (RODEO-trial) is an example of such a study to determine the usefulness of on-demand and routine removal of screws.

show abstract

“…The two urologists also had experience in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The authors conducted this study in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [ 39 ] and Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) [ 40 ] guidelines for evidence selection, quality assessment, evidence synthesis, and research reporting. PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists (with overall confidence rating) were presented in Supplementary Material Tables S4 and S5 , respectively.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoendoscopic single-site adrenalectomy versus multi-port laparoendoscopic adrenalectomy: A systemic review and meta-analysis

Kang

et al. 2021

Annals of Medicine &Amp; Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To investigate the outcomes of laparoendoscopic single-site adrenalectomy (LESS-A) compared to multi-port laparoendoscopic adrenalectomy (m-LA). Methods Studies comparing LESS-A with m-LA were identified from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library before June 2020. Post-operative pain, resumption outcomes, and perioperative outcomes were analyzed. We conducted meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects model. Subset analyses were conducted according to peritoneal and retroperitoneal approaches. A small study effect was illustrated using funnel plots and Egger's test. Results One randomized controlled trial (RCT) and nineteen retrospective cohort studies involving 1554 patients were included for analyzed. Pooled analysis showed that LESS-A had significantly lower postoperative pain scores (MD −0.77, 95%CI −1.45 to −0.10) and less pain medication used (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.60 to 0.91) compared to m-LA. Besides, LESS-A had significantly shorter hospital stays (MD −0.75, 95%CI −1.18 to −0.33), shorter duration of oral intake resumption (MD −0.33, 95%CI −0.60 to −0.06), and better cosmetic satisfaction (SMD 1.15, 95%CI 0.21 to −2.09). As for perioperative outcomes, LESS-A led to significant longer operative time (MD 13.43, 95%CI 4.08 to 22.77). No significant differences were observed in terms of the remaining perioperative outcomes. Conclusions LESS-A is associated with less post-operative pain and quicker recovery duration. However, the longer operative time of LESS-A compared with m-LA is a drawback.

show abstract

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Cited by 5,369 publications

References 64 publications

Climate Change and Mental Health: A Scoping Review

Climate Change and Mental Health: A Scoping Review

Removal of Syndesmotic Screw After Fixation in Ankle Fractures: A Systematic Review

Laparoendoscopic single-site adrenalectomy versus multi-port laparoendoscopic adrenalectomy: A systemic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About