7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      ¿Cuándo es necesario un resumen de revisiones sistemáticas? Translated title: When is an overview of systematic reviews necessary?

      letter
      , ,
      Nutrición Hospitalaria
      Grupo Arán

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions

          Background Hundreds of studies of maternity care interventions have been published, too many for most people involved in providing maternity care to identify and consider when making decisions. It became apparent that systematic reviews of individual studies were required to appraise, summarise and bring together existing studies in a single place. However, decision makers are increasingly faced by a plethora of such reviews and these are likely to be of variable quality and scope, with more than one review of important topics. Systematic reviews (or overviews) of reviews are a logical and appropriate next step, allowing the findings of separate reviews to be compared and contrasted, providing clinical decision makers with the evidence they need. Methods The methods used to identify and appraise published and unpublished reviews systematically, drawing on our experiences and good practice in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews are described. The process of identifying and appraising all published reviews allows researchers to describe the quality of this evidence base, summarise and compare the review's conclusions and discuss the strength of these conclusions. Results Methodological challenges and possible solutions are described within the context of (i) sources, (ii) study selection, (iii) quality assessment (i.e. the extent of searching undertaken for the reviews, description of study selection and inclusion criteria, comparability of included studies, assessment of publication bias and assessment of heterogeneity), (iv) presentation of results, and (v) implications for practice and research. Conclusion Conducting a systematic review of reviews highlights the usefulness of bringing together a summary of reviews in one place, where there is more than one review on an important topic. The methods described here should help clinicians to review and appraise published reviews systematically, and aid evidence-based clinical decision-making.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

            Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a major cause of chronic, neurological disability, with a significant long‐term disability burden, often requiring comprehensive rehabilitation. To systematically evaluate evidence from published Cochrane Reviews of clinical trials to summarise the evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of rehabilitation interventions for people with MS (pwMS), to improve patient outcomes, and to highlight current gaps in knowledge. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews up to December 2017, to identify Cochrane Reviews that assessed the effectiveness of organised rehabilitation interventions for pwMS. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included reviews, using the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R‐AMSTAR) tool, and the quality of the evidence for reported outcomes, using the GRADE framework. Overall, we included 15 reviews published in the Cochrane Library, comprising 164 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four controlled clinical trials, with a total of 10,396 participants. The included reviews evaluated a wide range of rehabilitation interventions, including: physical activity and exercise therapy, hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT), whole‐body vibration, occupational therapy, cognitive and psychological interventions, nutritional and dietary supplements, vocational rehabilitation, information provision, telerehabilitation, and interventions for the management of spasticity. We assessed all reviews to be of high to moderate methodological quality, based on R‐AMSTAR criteria. Moderate‐quality evidence suggested that physical therapeutic modalities (exercise and physical activities) improved functional outcomes (mobility, muscular strength), reduced impairment (fatigue), and improved participation (quality of life). Moderate‐quality evidence suggested that inpatient or outpatient multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes led to longer‐term gains at the levels of activity and participation, and interventions that provided information improved patient knowledge. Low‐qualitty evidence suggested that neuropsychological interventions, symptom‐management programmes (spasticity), whole body vibration, and telerehabilitation improved some patient outcomes. Evidence for other rehabilitation modalities was inconclusive, due to lack of robust studies. The evidence suggests that regular specialist evaluation and follow‐up to assess the needs of patients with all types of MS for appropriate rehabilitation interventions may be of benefit, although the certainty of evidence varies across the different types of interventions evaluated by the reviews. Structured, multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes and physical therapy (exercise or physical activities) can improve functional outcomes (mobility, muscle strength, aerobic capacity), and quality of life. Overall, the evidence for many rehabilitation interventions should be interpreted cautiously, as the majority of included reviews did not include data from current studies. More studies, with appropriate design, which report the type and intensity of modalities and their cost‐effectiveness are needed to address the current gaps in knowledge. Review questions Do people with multiple sclerosis (MS), who participate in rehabilitation programmes, improve in their functional activities, disability, and quality of life compared with those who receive no rehabilitation treatment, placebo, or different types of interventions? Background MS is a complex condition, which requires comprehensive, long‐term management. Rehabilitation programmes aim to improve function, well‐being, and quality of life for people with MS. Currently, a wide variety of rehabilitation therapies are used to treat MS. Published literature, including Cochrane Reviews, that evaluates these interventions, has grown. To guide clinicians, this review assessed current Cochrane Reviews, and provides an overview of the effectiveness of rehabilitation therapies used to treat people with MS. Study characteristics We searched for all published Cochrane Reviews of MS clinical trials that evaluated the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions compared with various control groups (no intervention or different type of intervention). We evaluated all relevant reviews, and summarised the findings. Key results and quality of evidence We included a total of 15 Cochrane Reviews, which included 168 clinical trials, and a total of 10,396 people with MS. These good‐quality reviews evaluated a range of rehabilitation interventions, including: physical activity and exercise therapy, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, whole‐body vibration, occupational therapy, cognitive and psychological interventions, nutritional and dietary supplements, vocational rehabilitation, information provision, telerehabilitation, and interventions for the management of spasticity. The findings showed some benefits for people with MS who participated in exercise and physical activity programmes or multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes (where the intervention is provided by a team of health professionals from different professions). They found improvements in everyday activities, function, and health‐related quality of life, compared with those who were not offered rehabilitation. Evidence for other rehabilitation modalities was limited, due to lack of good‐quality studies. More research is needed to determine whether various types of rehabilitation modalities are effective in reducing disability in people with MS.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              ¿Revisión sistemática?, ¿metaanálisis? o ¿resumen de revisiones sistemáticas?

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                nh
                Nutrición Hospitalaria
                Nutr. Hosp.
                Grupo Arán (Madrid, Madrid, Spain )
                0212-1611
                1699-5198
                August 2023
                : 40
                : 4
                : 895-896
                Affiliations
                [3] Santiago Santiago de Chile orgnameUniversidad Santo Tomás orgdiv1Rehabilitación y Reintegro Deportivo. Facultad de Salud orgdiv2Programa Magíster en Ciencias de la Actividad Física y Deportes Aplicadas al Entrenamiento Chile
                [1] Concepción Bío-Bío orgnameUniversidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción orgdiv1Facultad de Medicina, Carrera de Kinesiología orgdiv2Departamento de Salud Pública Chile
                [2] Barcelona Cataluña orgnameUniversitat Autónoma de Barcelona orgdiv1Doctorado en Metodología de la Investigación Biomédica y Salud Pública Spain
                [4] Temuco Araucanía orgnameUniversidad de La Frontera orgdiv1Facultad de Medicina orgdiv2Departamento de Ciencias de la Rehabilitación Chile
                Article
                S0212-16112023000500025 S0212-1611(23)04000400025
                10.20960/nh.03913
                129cff7d-b2ac-40e3-9b34-451e2bf55e42

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 4, Pages: 2
                Product

                SciELO Spain

                Categories
                Cartas al Director

                Comments

                Comment on this article