METHODS: The following databases will be searched: Embase, MEDLINE, Emcare, EPPI-Centre database of health promotion research (BiblioMap) EPPI-Centre Database for promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DoPHER), Global Health, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database, Maternity and Infant Care Database, Education Resource Information Center, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science and Global Index Medicus, which indexes Latin America and the Caribbean, Index Medicus for the South-East Asia Region, African Index Medicus, Western Pacific Region Index Medicus. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, conference proceedings, thesis and dissertations, policy and guidelines and their reference lists will also be searched. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts and full text based on predefined eligibility criteria. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews using the Population, Concept and Context framework and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist will be used to structure and report the findings.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics permission to conduct the scoping review is not required as the information collected is publicly available through databases. Findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will follow Arksey and O'Malley's framework and begin with a literature search using keywords in electronic databases such as PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and PsychINFO, covering the period from January 2013 to December 2022 and limited to English language publications. Four independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts based on predefined inclusion criteria, followed by full-text review of selected titles. Relevant references cited in the publications will also be examined. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram will be utilised to illustrate the methodology. Data from selected publications will be extracted, analysed, and categorised for further analysis.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results of the scoping review will provide a comprehensive overview of the barriers and challenges encountered by oncology MDTs over the past decade. These findings will contribute to the existing literature and provide insights into areas that require improvement in the functioning of MDTs in oncology management. The results will be disseminated through publication in a scientific journal, which will help to share the findings with the wider healthcare community and facilitate further research and discussion in this field.
TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: The protocol for this scoping review is registered with Open Science Framework, available at DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/R3Y8U.
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: 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.