Materials and Methods: A search of publication was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus database. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and keyword use for the search. Inclusion of studies was based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies that report the difference of opioid addiction treatment outcomes between genders. Any conflict between the two reviewers was resolved through discussion and consensus. The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO with a registration number CRD42019116261.
Results: A total of 25 studies were evaluated as part of qualitative synthesis. The review resulted in three main themes, which are (1) improving well-being and methadone-related outcome (five subthemes), (2) impact on social and behavioral (four subthemes), and (3) illicit drug use pattern-related behavior (four subthemes).
Conclusion: This review will highlight how men and women differ in methadone treatment outcomes for further application and improvement in the clinical setting.
METHODS: A STROCSS 2021 steering group was formed to come up with proposals to update STROCSS 2019 guidelines. An expert panel of researchers assessed these proposals and judged whether they should become part of STROCSS 2021 guidelines or not, through a Delphi consensus exercise.
RESULTS: 42 people (89%) completed the DELPHI survey and hence participated in the development of STROCSS 2021 guidelines. All items received a score between 7 and 9 by greater than 70% of the participants, indicating a high level of agreement among the DELPHI group members with the proposed changes to all the items.
CONCLUSION: We present updated STROCSS 2021 guidelines to ensure ongoing good reporting quality among observational studies in surgery.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Forty-seven rehabilitation clinicians of 5 professions from 7 teams (Belgium, Italy, Malaysia, Pakistan, Poland, Puerto Rico, the USA) reviewed 76 RCTs published by main rehabilitation journals exploring 14 domains chosen through consensus and piloting.
RESULTS: The response rate was 99%. Inter-rater agreement was moderate/good. All clinicians considered unanimously 12 (16%) RCTs clinically replicable and none not replicable. At least one "absent" information was found by all participants in 60 RCTs (79%), and by a minimum of 85% in the remaining 16 (21%). Information considered to be less well described (8-19% "perfect" information) included two providers (skills, experience) and two delivery (cautions, relationships) items. The best described (50-79% "perfect") were the classic methodological items included in CONSORT (descending order: participants, materials, procedures, setting, and intervention).
CONCLUSION: Clinical replicability must be considered in RCTs reporting, particularly for complex interventions. Classical methodological checklists such as CONSORT are not enough, and also Template for Intervention Description and Clinical replication do not cover all the requirements. This study supports the need for field-specific checklists.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic reviews with meta-analyses in paediatric dentistry were searched in PubMed and Scopus databases from inception to December 2017. Selection of studies by title and abstract screening followed by full-text assessment was independently done by two reviewers. The quality of abstracts was assessed by PRISMA-Abstract checklist comprising of 12 items; one each for title and objective, three items for methods, three items for results, two items for discussion and two items for others. PRISMA-A median scores were calculated and compared with the article characteristics. Statistical significance was set at p reporting quality of abstracts.
METHODS: The development of the RAPID guidelines was based on the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. Following a comprehensive search of the literature, the Executive Group identified ten themes in Pediatric Dentistry and compiled a draft checklist of items under each theme. The themes were categorized as: General, Oral Medicine, Pathology and Radiology, Children with Special Health Care Needs, Sedation and Hospital Dentistry, Behavior Guidance, Dental Caries, Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Pulp Therapy, Traumatology, and Interceptive Orthodontics. A RAPID Delphi Group (RDG) was formed comprising of 69 members from 15 countries across six continents. Items were scored using a 9-point rating Likert scale. Items achieving a score of seven and above, marked by at least 70% of RDG members were accepted into the RAPID checklist items. Weighted mean scores were calculated for each item. Statistical significance was set at p
DESIGN: Paediatric Dentistry journals ranked in the top five of the h5 index of Google Scholar Metrics were selected. SRs with MA were searched independently by two reviewers using PubMed and Scopus databases until December 2017. Methodological quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Statistical significance was set at P
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An e-mail invitation to participate in an online survey was sent to hospital laboratories in Malaysia (n=140). Questions regarding methods for measuring creatinine, equations for calculating eGFR, eGFR reporting, the terminology used in reporting urine albumin, types of samples and the cut-off values used for normal albuminuria.
RESULTS: A total of 42/140 (30%) laboratories answered the questionnaire. The prevalent method used for serum creatinine measurement was the Jaffé method (88.1%) traceable to isotope-dilution mass spectrometry. eGFR was reported along with serum creatinine by 61.9% of laboratories while 33.3% of laboratories report eGFR on request. The formula used for eGFR reporting was mainly MDRD (64.3%) and results were reported as exact numbers even when the eGFR was <60 ml/min/1.73m2. The term microalbumin is still used by 83.3% of laboratories. There is a large heterogeneity among the labs regarding the type of sample recommended for measuring urine albumin, reference interval and reporting units.
CONCLUSION: It is evident that the laboratory assessment of chronic kidney disease in Malaysia is not standardised. It is essential to provide a national framework for standardised reporting of eGFR and urine albumin. Recommendations developed by the MACB CKD Task Force, if adopted by all laboratories, will lead to a reduction in this variability.