METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A living systematic review will be conducted which includes an initial systematic review and bimonthly review updates. Searching and screening for the review and subsequent updates will be done in four streams: a systematic search of six databases, grey literature review, preprint review and citizen sourcing. The screening will be done by a minimum of two reviewers at title/abstract and full-text in Covidence, a systematic review management software. Data will be extracted across predefined fields in an excel spreadsheet that includes information about article characteristics, context and population, community engagement approaches, and outcomes. Synthesis will occur using the convergent integrated approach. We will explore the potential to quantitatively synthesise primary outcomes depending on heterogeneity of the studies.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The initial review and subsequent bimonthly searches and their results will be disseminated transparently via open-access methods. Quarterly briefs will be shared on the reviews' social media platforms and across other interested networks and repositories. A dedicated web link will be created on the Community Health-Community of Practice site for sharing findings and obtaining feedback. A mailing list will be developed and interested parties can subscribe for updates.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022301996.
DESIGN: Data-based convergent mixed-method systematic review.
METHODS: Three electronic databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) will be used in the identification stage. The first search will use the search string for each database to identify relevant studies. The articles retrieved will be screened by year of publication, article type and language. Abstracts and full-text of selected studies will be screened for eligibility independently by a minimum of two reviewers. The reference lists will be manually screened to identify additional publications. The quality assessment will be conducted by two reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tools. Quantitative and mixed-method studies will be transformed into qualitative. A thematic approach will be used to synthesize and report the data. Ethics approval and funding have been approved in April 2020.
DISCUSSION: This study will synthesize the types of challenges perceived by final-year undergraduate nursing students in different clinical learning environments across the country.
IMPACT: The proposed study findings will help nursing education stakeholders and faculty provide assistance to final-year nursing students in their transition year to become registered nurses.
OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the existing cost-effectiveness evaluations of breast-cancer medication in developing-countries.
METHODOLOGY: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and EconLit. Two researchers determined the final articles, extracted data, and evaluated their quality using the Quality of Health-Economic Studies (QHES) tool. The interclass-correlation-coefficient (ICC) was calculated to assess interrater-reliability. Data were summarized descriptively.
RESULTS: Fourteen pharmacoeconomic studies published from 2009 to 2019 were included. Thirteen used patient-life-years as their effectiveness unit, of which 10 used quality-adjusted life-years. Most of the evaluations focused on trastuzumab as a single agent or on regimens containing trastuzumab (n = 10). The conclusion of cost-effectiveness analysis varied among the studies. All the studies were of high quality (QHES score >75). Interrater reliability between the two reviewers was high (ICC = 0.76).
CONCLUSION: In many studies included in the review, the use of breast-cancer drugs in developing countries was not cost-effective. Yet, more pharmacoeconomic evaluations for the use of recently approved agents in different disease stages are needed in developing countries.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed-method project has two phases. In phase 1, we will identify a list of patient-reported and clinical outcomes through qualitative research and systematic reviews. In phase 2, we will categorise the identified outcomes using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy of core domains and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. We will develop questionnaires from the list of outcomes identified from each domain for the two-round online Delphi exercise, aiming to reach a consensus on the COS. The Delphi process will include patients, carers, researchers and healthcare participants. We will hold an online consensus meeting involving representatives of all key stakeholders to establish the final COS.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects, Universiti Putra Malaysia and the Research Ethics Committee, National University of Malaysia. This proposed COS in TD will improve the value of data, facilitate high-quality evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. Furthermore, we will present the results to participants, in peer-reviewed academic journals and conferences.
REGISTRATION DETAILS: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative database registration: http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1371.
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 researchers, authors, reviewers and editors, to ensure that all elements relevant to particular studies are adequately reported.