METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library from inception to Feb 24th, 2017, to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials that assessed interventions or strategies to improve oral anticoagulant use in AF patients.
RESULTS: Thirty-four systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion but only 11 were included in the qualitative analyses, corresponding to 40 unique meta-analyses, as the remaining systematic reviews had overlapping primary studies. There was insufficient evidence to support the efficacy of genotype-guided dosing and pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinics for stroke prevention in AF patients. Conversely, patient's self-management and novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs), in general were superior to warfarin for preventing stroke and reducing mortality. All interventions showed comparable risk of major bleeding with warfarin.
CONCLUSION: Findings from this overview support the superiority of NOACs and patient's self-management for preventing stroke in AF patients. However, uncertainties remain on the benefits of genotype-guided dosing and pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinics due to poor quality evidence, and future research is warranted.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic search will be conducted across nine electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Data. The search will identify literature published in English and Chinese from January 2012 onwards. Articles will be selected based on their relevance to older adults aged ≥60 with disabilities or life-threatening chronic conditions receiving end-of-life care in nursing homes or similar settings. The data extraction process will be guided by the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association model (CHPCA) and the Respectful Death model. Qualitative data analysis will be performed using a framework method and thematic analysis, employing both inductive and deductive approaches, with three reviewers participating in the review process.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required because the data for this review is obtained from selected publicly available articles. The results will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. Furthermore, the findings will be shared with policymakers and healthcare professionals engaged in end-of-life care to inform practice and decision making.
STUDY REGISTRATION: The review protocol has been registered on osf.io (https://osf.io/3u4mp).
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception to 31 August 2018 for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of studies that examined the impact of distal technology and reported any clinical or patient-related outcomes among people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.
RESULTS: The umbrella review identified 95 reviews, including 162 meta-analyses with 46 unique outcomes. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies supports the use of distal technology, especially telehealth and mHealth (healthcare delivered by mobile technology), in people with diabetes for improving HbA1c values by 2-4 mmol/mol (0.2-0.4%). For other health outcomes, such as changes in fasting plasma glucose levels, risk of diabetic ketoacidosis or frequency of severe hypoglycaemia, the evidence was weaker. No evidence was reported for most patient-reported outcomes including quality of life, self-efficacy and medication-taking. The evidence base was poor, with most studies rated as low to very low quality.
CONCLUSION: Distal technologies were associated with a modest improvement in glycaemic control, but it was unclear if they improved major clinical outcomes or were cost-effective in people with diabetes. More robust research to improve wider outcomes in people with diabetes is needed before such technologies can be recommended as part of routine care for any patient group.