Search

A comprehensive and reproducible search strategy for systematic reviews especially about COVID-19 plays a pivotal role in conducting a reliable and unbiased review. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the quality of the search strategy reporting in systematic reviews conducted on the role of telehealth during COVID-19. The secondary aim of study was to explore some affecting factor in the quality of search strategy. The study evaluated the quality of the search strategy reporting with PRISMA-S checklist. The search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and other related databases. Systematic reviews were included. There was no language restriction. The correlation of the PRISMA-S scores with journal impact factor, CiteScore, and librarians' role were evaluated using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. A total of 85 articles were included in the review. The overall mean score of PRISMA-S checklist was 6.12 ± 1.46. PubMed was the most popular database for search. More than half of the studies did not provide a full search strategy. There was a significant positive correlation between PRISMA-S score and the journal impact factor (Spearman's rho = 0.217; P = 0.46) and CiteScore (Spearman's rho = 0.235; P = 0.03). The quality of literature search was poor in the included studies. Using the PRISMA-S as a search reporting guideline can be a helpful tool for authors. A professional librarian can be beneficial in improving the quality of the search. It is recommended to use a new pattern in COVID-19-related searches, such as preprint sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although mass vaccination is considered one of the most effective public health strategies during the pandemic, in the COVID-19 era, many people considered vaccines unnecessary and, or doubted the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine. This review aimed to tabulate cognitive causes of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy, which may help public health policymakers overcome the barriers to mass vaccinations in future pandemics. Methods: For this systematic review, studies pertaining to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy published up to June 2022 were retrieved from six online databases (Cochrane Library, Google Scholar Medline through PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science). Inclusion criteria were the studies conducted on people who had a delay in accepting or refusing COVID-19 vaccines, reported the impact of cognitive determinants on vaccine hesitancy, and were written in English in the timeframe of 2020-2022. Results: This systematic review initially reviewed 1171 records. From these 91 articles met the inclusion criteria. The vaccination hesitation rate was 29.72% on average. This systematic review identified several cognitive determinants influencing vaccination hesitancy. Lack of confidence and complacency were the most frequent factors that predicted vaccine hesitancy. Conclusion: The identified prevailing cognitive determinants for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy indicated that using initiative and effective communication strategies would be a determinant factor in building people's trust in vaccines during the pandemic and mass vaccinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chlorella vulgaris (CV) as a unicellular algae is a dietary supplement with beneficial nutritious content, used for decades in some countries. Positive effects for CV supplementation on metabolic parameters has been established in animal and human studies. However there is a gap for this results summary for a definite conclusion announce. This systematic review aimed to summarize the effects of CV on body weight, lipid profile, and blood glucose. PRISMA guidelines were charted in this review. Subject search was performed in MEDLINE, ProQuest, PubMed, ISI web of sciences, Google scholar, Cochrane and Scopus databases for randomized clinical trials published in English languages, until December 2020, which assessed the effects of CV on metabolic syndrome related symptoms in clinical trials. Out of 4,821 records screened, after duplicate and irrelevant exclusion by title and abstract, 20 articles remained for full text screening. Finally a total of 12 articles met the study inclusion criteria and were assessed for study method and results. The findings showed controversies in anthropometric, glycemic and lipid profile effects. CV may have beneficial effects on obesity-related metabolic disorders; however, collected studies lacked statistical power to reach a definite conclusion. More well-designed studies are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: It has been shown that the mechanical and physical properties of Calcium Enriched Mixture (CEM) cement are influenced by the mixing methods. Despite several studies conducted on different mixing methods of CEM cement, there is no systematic review to summarize the results. This systematic review was conducted to investigate the effect of different mixing techniques on mechanical and physical characteristics of CEM cement. Methods and Materials: A professional librarian with skills in informatics conducted a systematic search by searching electronic databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Ovid for English language peer-reviewed articles published between 1992 and April 2019. Results: Initial searches from all sources identified 1175 references. Two of the authors examined the titles, abstracts of these articles and the full reports of 20 studies were obtained, and data extraction was performed. Seven studies satisfied the eligibility criteria for the review. The effect of different mixing methods was investigated on bacterial microleakage, push- out bond strength, flow rate, compressive strength, solubility, pH, film thickness, dimensional changes, working time, setting time and quality of the apical plug. Conclusion: Based on the results of this systematic review, some of the important properties of CEM cement were affected by different mixing methods. Although none of these mixing methods could improve all the properties, mechanical and manual methods were more effective compared to ultrasonic method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mobile applications are increasingly being used to support nutrition improvement. They could be effectively used for dietary intake assessment, weight management, physical activity monitoring, nutritional behaviors improvement, and nutrition education. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate current nutrition-related mobile apps on the Iranian apps store (Bazaar) and review their characteristics. Material and Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted on all Iranian mobile applications related to nutrition OR diet in 2022. Bazaar was used to search for nutrition-related applications using the following keywords: "diet", "nutrition", and their Persian translations. For each app, the extracted information was name, requirement for Internet connectivity, estimated number of downloads, user satisfaction rate, developers, and the main features of each app. Data collected from application description and application developer's webpage. Results: 76 mobile apps were identified from Bazaar app store. About 21% of them were developed by personal developers and 10 apps did not mention any specific developer. 42 applications were online and 33 applications were offline. Only 1 app could be used online/offline. In user satisfaction rate, 47 apps had 4-4.9 rating, and 7 apps had a rating of 5. Only 2 apps had under 3 rating. Conclusion: Iranian apps on nutrition and diet are widely available and very popular but currently most of them lack professional and evidence-based content. Developing apps based on standard and evidence-based online approaches would assure content quality, allowing healthcare professionals to recommend their use by people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: It is all accepted that high-quality evidence is essential for clinical decision making. As Haynes "6S pyramid", systems including decision support systems are at the top of this pyramid as the highest level of evidence. There are numerous systematic reviews which have assessed various aspects in this field. The aim of this study is evaluating the methodological quality of decision support system (DSS) systematic reviews. Methods: A comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE (via Ovid), Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Library was conducted until September August 2016. The search was limited to systematic reviews and with no language restriction. Meta-reviews were excluded. Only results of searching for "decision support systems" or "decision support system" keywords and limited to title of documents were included in this study. Two independent authors screened the results. Disagreement was resolved by discussion. The assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) checklist was used to assess methodological quality of selected studies. Data were extracted into Excel 2013. Results: A total of 47 systematic reviews (SRs) were enrolled which only 7 of them had meta-analysis. About 25.5% of studies were published in specialized publications. There was a dramatic increase in the number of SRs in recent decade and near to 66% of studies were published from 2011. The mean AMSTAR score of SRs was 6.78 (out of 9) and 9.71 (out of 11) for SRs with meta-analysis. Meanwhile 52.5% of SRs received a score between 7 and 8 while 70% of them scored more than 7. Near 83% of studies performed a reasonable comprehensive literature search, presented characteristics of the included studies and also stated conflict of interest. It was remarkable that 76.6% of studies had not a list of excluded studies. In more than 95% of SRs the scientific quality of the included studies was mentioned in conclusions. Conclusion: It seems that the quality of reporting in the field of DSS is acceptable. But although the score of literature search was good, lack of full presentation of search strategies was observed. Few meta-analyses in the included studies was notable and most of SRs stated heterogeneity as the reason. It seems that because of the overall view in AMSTAR scoring methods and its questions, it is hard to determine the specific bias and failures in the quality assessment of systematic reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: Search strategies play a major role in developing a systematic review. A comprehensive literature search dramatically reduces publication bias. The higher sensitive search leads to a more well-prepared systematic review. The aim of this study is evaluating the quality of search strategies in decision support system (DSS) systematic reviews. Methods: A comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE (via Ovid), Embase, Pubmed and Cochrane Library was conducted until September August 2016. The search was limited to systematic reviews and with no language restriction. Meta-reviews were excluded. Only results of searching for "decision support systems" or "decision support system" keywords and limited to title of documents were included in this study. Two independent authors screened the results. Disagreement was resolved by discussion. The search strategies of the included studies were assessed with a nine-question checklist prepared by Faggion et al1. Data were extracted into Excel. Results: A total of 47 systematic reviews (SRs) were included. There was a dramatic increase in the number of SRs in recent decade; however no significant improvement was seen in search strategies during the time. The mean score of search strategies among SRs was 4.63 (out of 9). The highest score was 7 (21.2%) and more than 53% of SRs obtained a score between 5 and 7. In 74.4% of SRs, 3-8 databases were searched which 40.4% were considered 4 databases. About 55% of SRs reported search keywords and using Boolean operators that has increased in recent years. Near to 98% of studies were not conducted in duplicate. In near to 75% of studies hand-searching was performed but instead, in 72.3% grey literature was not searched and in 65.9% the authors of studies were not contacted for further relevant information. Fortunately, in about 60% of studies the literature search was performed without language restriction. Conclusions: Lack of duplicate literature searching in systematic reviews was notable. Although most of SRs were searched more than four databases but it seems that in most of them the major databases were not searched and instead, local or specialized databases were considered. Low tendency to grey literature searching was remarkable. It seems that the quality of reporting search strategies in the field of DSS is poor or moderate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]