scholarly journals Improving the usefulness of evidence concerning the effectiveness of implementation strategies for knowledge products in primary healthcare: Protocol for a series of systematic reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun ◽  
José Massougbodji ◽  
André Bussières ◽  
Aliki Thomas ◽  
Dahlia Kairy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Primary Healthcare ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Psychosocial Health ◽  
Performance Outcomes ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background : The literature on the implementation of knowledge products is extensive. However, this literature is still difficult to interpret for policymakers and other stakeholders when faced with choosing implementation strategies likely to bring about successful change in their health systems. This work has the particularity to examine the scope of this literature, and to clarify the effectiveness of implementation strategies for different knowledge products. Consequently, we aim to: 1) determine the strengths and weaknesses of existing literature overviews; 2) produce a detailed portrait of the literature on implementation strategies for various knowledge products; and 3) assess the effectiveness of implementation strategies for each knowledge product identified and classify them. Methods : We will use a three-phase approach consisting of a critical analysis of existing literature overviews, a systematic review of systematic reviews, and a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We will follow the Cochrane Methodology for each of three phases. Our eligibility criteria are defined following a PICOS approach: Population , individuals or stakeholders participating in healthcare delivery, specifically, healthcare providers, caregivers, and end users; I ntervention, any type of strategy aiming to implement a knowledge product including, but not limited to, a decision support tool, a clinical practice guideline, a policy brief, or a decision-making tool, a one-pager, or a health intervention; Comparison, any comparator will be considered; Outcomes, Phases 1 and 2 – any outcome related to implementation strategies including, but not limited to, the measures of adherence/fidelity to the use of knowledge products, their acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, adaptability, implementation costs, penetration/reach and sustainability; Phase 3 – any additional outcome related to patients (psychosocial, health behavioral, and clinical outcomes) or healthcare professionals (behavioral and performance outcomes); Setting , primary healthcare has to be covered. For each phase, two reviewers will independently perform the selection of studies, data extraction, and assess their methodological quality. We will analyze extracted data, and perform narrative syntheses and meta-analyses when possible. Discussion : Our results could inform not only the overviews’ methodology, but also the development of an online platform for the implementation strategies of knowledge products. This platform could be useful for stakeholders in implementation science.

scholarly journals Improving the usefulness of evidence concerning the effectiveness of implementation strategies for knowledge products in primary healthcare: Protocol for a series of systematic reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun ◽  
José Massougbodji ◽  
André Bussières ◽  
Aliki Thomas ◽  
Dahlia Kairy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Primary Healthcare ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Psychosocial Health ◽  
Performance Outcomes ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: The literature on the implementation of knowledge products is extensive. However, this literature is still difficult to interpret for policymakers and other stakeholders when faced with choosing implementation strategies likely to bring about successful change in their health systems. This work has the particularity to examine the scope of this literature, and to clarify the effectiveness of implementation strategies for different knowledge products. Consequently, we aim to: 1) determine the strengths and weaknesses of existing literature overviews; 2) produce a detailed portrait of the literature on implementation strategies for various knowledge products; and 3) assess the effectiveness of implementation strategies for each knowledge product identified and classify them.Methods: We will use a three-phase approach consisting of a critical analysis of existing literature overviews, a systematic review of systematic reviews, and a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We will follow the Cochrane Methodology for each of three phases. Our eligibility criteria are defined following a PICOS approach: Population, individuals or stakeholders participating in healthcare delivery, specifically, healthcare providers, caregivers, and end users; Intervention, any type of strategy aiming to implement a knowledge product including, but not limited to, a decision support tool, a clinical practice guideline, a policy brief, or a decision-making tool, a one-pager, or a health intervention; Comparison, any comparator will be considered; Outcomes, Phases 1 and 2 – any outcome related to implementation strategies including, but not limited to, the measures of adherence/fidelity to the use of knowledge products, their acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, adaptability, implementation costs, penetration/reach and sustainability; Phase 3 – any additional outcome related to patients (psychosocial, health behavioral, and clinical outcomes) or healthcare professionals (behavioral and performance outcomes); Setting, primary healthcare has to be covered. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from their inception onwards. For each phase, two reviewers will independently perform the selection of studies, data extraction, and assess their methodological quality. We will analyze extracted data, and perform narrative syntheses, and meta-analyses when possible.Discussion: Our results could inform not only the overviews’ methodology, but also the development of an online platform for the implementation strategies of knowledge products. This platform could be useful for stakeholders in implementation science.Systematic review registration: Protocol registered on Open science Framework, https://osf.io/hqbx8

scholarly journals Research Implications for future telemedicine studies and innovations

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
P Timpel ◽  
L Harst
Keyword(s):  
Information And Communication Technologies ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Despite the increasing application of information and communication technologies (ICT) in health care, robust data on the effectiveness and implementation of digital health solutions is lacking. Therefore, the objective of this analysis is to identify and categorise implications for future research in order to inform policy and practice decisions. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of telemedicine in chronic diseases, all identified via a recent umbrella review, were used as primary sources of information. Qualitative content analysis following Mayring (2000) was used to categorize future research topics mentioned in the discussion sections and conclusions of included research published after 2015. Parallel, independent data extraction and coding using inductive category development was performed by two researchers with previous coding experience. Any disagreements were solved by discussion. Of the 25 included systematic reviews and meta analyses, 23 reported on future research implications. They were categorised as follows: (1) Need for high quality studies including specific outcome measures; (2) Need for comprehensive technology assessment; (3) Need for in-depth considerations of patients’ characteristics & more diverse study populations; (4) Ethics & Safety; and (5) Translation & implementation strategies. A codebook comprising descriptions and examples of those categories and sub-categories was developed. Results show a need for larger and more rigorous studies with longer intervention durations, mid- to long-term follow-ups as well as more heterogeneous study populations. More pragmatic study designs to evaluate multimodal and tailored interventions like telemedicine solutions are needed to develop an improved understanding on mechanisms and target-group specific effectiveness. Key messages We need a stronger focus on relevant and well-designed studies to improve the impact of telemedicine trials. Identified needs have the potential to inform future guidelines for the use of telemedicine.

scholarly journals Factors underpinning discrepant findings from reviews on the same topic: A systematic analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Hacke ◽  
David Nunan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
List Type ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractObjectiveTo explore factors underpinning discrepancies in reported pooled effect estimates from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews answering the same question.Study Design and SettingWe observed discrepant pooled effects in 23 out of 24 pairs of meta-analyses from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews answering the same question. Here we present the results of a systematic assessment of methodological quality and factors that explain the observed quantitative discrepancies. Methodological quality of each review was assessed using AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Matched pairs were contrasted at the macro- (review methodology), meso- (application of methodology) and micro- (data extraction) level and reasons for differences were derived.ResultsAll Cochrane reviews had high methodological quality (AMSTAR 8-11), whereas the majority (87.5%) of non-Cochrane reviews were classified as moderate (AMSTAR 4-7). Only one pair included exactly the same studies for their respective meta-analyses but there was still a discrepancy in the pooled estimate due to differences in data extraction. One pair did not include any study of its match and for one pair the same effect estimates were reported despite inclusion of different studies. The remaining pairs included at least one study in their match. Due to insufficient reporting (predominantly affecting non-Cochrane reviews) we were only able to completely ascertain the reasons for discrepancies in all included studies for 9/24 (37.5%) pairs. Across all pairs, differences in pre-defined methods (macro-level) including search strategy, eligibility criteria and performance of dual screening could possibly explain mismatches in included studies. Study selection procedures (meso-level) including disagreements in the interpretation of pre-defined eligibility criteria (14 matches) were identified as reasons underpinning discrepant review findings. Comparison of data extraction from primary studies (micro-level) was not possible in 13/24 pairs as a result of the non-Cochrane review providing insufficient details of the studies included in their meta-analyses. Two out of 24 pairs completely agreed on the numerical data presented for the same studies in their respective meta-analysis. Both review types provided sufficient information to check the accuracy of data extraction for 8 pairs (45 studies) where there were discrepancies. An assessment of 50% (22 studies) of these showed that reasons for differences in extracted data could be identified in 15 studies. We found examples for both types of review where data presented were discrepant from that given in the source study without a plausible explanation.ConclusionMethodological and author judgements and performance are key aspects underpinning poor overlap of included studies and discrepancies in reported pooled effect estimates between topic-matched reviews. Though caution must be taken when extrapolating, our findings raise the question as to what extent the entire meta-analysis evidence-base accurately reflects the available primary research both in terms of volume and data. Reinforcing awareness of the application of guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses may help mitigate some of the key issues identified in our analysis.What is new?Key findings Non-Cochrane reviews were of a lower overall methodological quality compared with Cochrane reviews. Discrepant results of meta-analyses on the same topic can be attributed to differences in included studies based on review author decision, judgements and performance at different stages of the review process.What this adds to what was known?This study provides the most robust analysis to date of the potential methodological factors underpinning discrepant review findings between matched meta-analyses answering the same question. Assessing differences between reviews at the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels is a useful method to identify reasons for discrepant meta-analyses at key stages of the review process.What is the implication and what should change now?There is a need for a standardised approach to performing matched-pair analysis of meta-analyses and systematic reviews answering the same question. Our paper provides a base for this that can be refined by replication and expert consensus.

scholarly journals Do we need to improve the reporting of evidence in tendinopathy management? A critical appraisal of systematic reviews with recommendations on strength of evidence assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. e000920
Author(s):  
Dimitris Challoumas ◽  
Neal L Millar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Strength Of Evidence ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

ObjectiveTo critically appraise the quality of published systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in tendinopathy with regard to handling and reporting of results with special emphasis on strength of evidence assessment.Data sourcesMedline from inception to June 2020.Study eligibilityAll SRs of RCTs assessing the effectiveness of any intervention(s) on any location of tendinopathy.Data extraction and synthesisIncluded SRs were appraised with the use of a 12-item tool devised by the authors arising from the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and other relevant guidance. Subgroup analyses were performed based on impact factor (IF) of publishing journals and date of publication.ResultsA total of 57 SRs were included published in 38 journals between 2006 and 2020. The most commonly used risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment tool and strength of evidence assessment tool were the Cochrane Collaboration RoB tool and the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group tool, respectively. The mean score on the appraisal tool was 46.5% (range 0%–100%). SRs published in higher IF journals (>4.7) were associated with a higher mean score than those in lower IF journals (mean difference 26.4%±8.8%, p=0.004). The mean score of the 10 most recently published SRs was similar to that of the first 10 published SRs (mean difference 8.3%±13.7%, p=0.54). Only 23 SRs (40%) used the results of their RoB assessment in data synthesis and more than half (n=30; 50%) did not assess the strength of evidence of their results. Only 12 SRs (21%) assessed their strength of evidence appropriately.ConclusionsIn light of the poor presentation of evidence identified by our review, we provide recommendations to increase transparency and reproducibility in future SRs.

scholarly journals Interoperability frameworks linking mHealth applications to electronic record systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kagiso Ndlovu ◽  
Maurice Mars ◽  
Richard E. Scott
Keyword(s):  
Primary Healthcare ◽  
Developing World ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Electronic Record ◽  
Digital Information ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Health Records ◽  
Healthcare Needs ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background mHealth presents innovative approaches to enhance primary healthcare delivery in developing countries like Botswana. The impact of mHealth solutions can be improved if they are interoperable with eRecord systems such as electronic health records, electronic medical records and patient health records. eHealth interoperability frameworks exist but their availability and utility for linking mHealth solutions to eRecords in developing world settings like Botswana is unknown. The recently adopted eHealth Strategy for Botswana recognises interoperability as an issue and mHealth as a potential solution for some healthcare needs, but does not address linking the two. Aim This study reviewed published reviews of eHealth interoperability frameworks for linking mHealth solutions with eRecords, and assessed their relevance to informing interoperability efforts with respect to Botswana’s eHealth Strategy. Methods A structured literature review and analysis of published reviews of eHealth interoperability frameworks was performed to determine if any are relevant to linking mHealth with eRecords. The Botswanan eHealth Strategy was reviewed. Results Four articles presented and reviewed eHealth interoperability frameworks that support linking of mHealth interventions to eRecords and associated implementation strategies. While the frameworks were developed for specific circumstances and therefore were based upon varying assumptions and perspectives, they entailed aspects that are relevant and could be drawn upon when developing an mHealth interoperability framework for Botswana. Common emerging themes of infrastructure, interoperability standards, data security and usability were identified and discussed; all of which are important in the developing world context such as in Botswana. The Botswana eHealth Strategy recognises interoperability, mHealth, and eRecords as distinct issues, but not linking of mHealth solutions with eRecords. Conclusions Delivery of healthcare is shifting from hospital-based to patient-centered primary healthcare and community-based settings, using mHealth interventions. The impact of mHealth solutions can be improved if data generated from them are converted into digital information ready for transmission and incorporation into eRecord systems. The Botswana eHealth Strategy stresses the need to have interoperable eRecords, but mHealth solutions must not be left out. Literature insight about mHealth interoperability with eRecords can inform implementation strategies for Botswana and elsewhere.

scholarly journals Managing overlap of primary study results across systematic reviews: practical considerations for authors of overviews of reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole Lunny ◽  
Dawid Pieper ◽  
Pierre Thabet ◽  
Salmaan Kanji
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Overlapping Data ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Yield Trends

Abstract Background Overviews often identify and synthesise a large number of systematic reviews on the same topic, which is likely to lead to overlap (i.e. duplication) in primary studies across the reviews. Using a primary study result multiple times in the same analysis overstates its sample size and number of events, falsely leading to greater precision in the analysis. This paper aims to: (a) describe types of overlapping data that arise from the same primary studies reported across multiple reviews, (b) describe methods to identify and explain overlap of primary study data, and (c) present six case studies illustrating different approaches to manage overlap. Methods We first updated the search in PubMed for methods from the MOoR framework relating to overlap of primary studies. One author screened the studies titles and abstracts, and any full-text articles retrieved, extracted methods data relating to overlap of primary studies and mapped it to the overlap methods from the MOoR framework. We also describe six case studies as examples of overviews that use specific overlap methods across the steps in the conduct of an overview. For each case study, we discuss potential methodological implications in terms of limitations, efficiency, usability, and resource use. Results Nine methods studies were found and mapped to the methods identified by the MOoR framework to address overlap. Overlap methods were mapped across four steps in the conduct of an overview – the eligibility criteria step, the data extraction step, the assessment of risk of bias step, and the synthesis step. Our overview case studies used multiple methods to reduce overlap at different steps in the conduct of an overview. Conclusions Our study underlines that there is currently no standard methodological approach to deal with overlap in primary studies across reviews. The level of complexity when dealing with overlap can vary depending on the yield, trends and patterns of the included literature and the scope of the overview question. Choosing a method might be dependent on the number of included reviews and their primary studies. Gaps in evaluation of methods to address overlap were found and further investigation in this area is needed.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017868
Author(s):  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
Sheyu Li ◽  
Wan-Jie Gu ◽  
Hao Chen ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Coronary Revascularisation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Collection Form ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.

scholarly journals Relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and outcomes in joint arthroplasty: protocol for a suite of systematic reviews and dose–response meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e022797 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiang-Dong Wu ◽  
Meng-Meng Liu ◽  
Ya-Ying Sun ◽  
Zhi-Hu Zhao ◽  
Quan Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Joint Arthroplasty ◽  
Surgeon Volume ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Records Management ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionJoint arthroplasty is a particularly complex orthopaedic surgical procedure performed on joints, including the hip, knee, shoulder, ankle, elbow, wrist and even digit joints. Increasing evidence from volume–outcomes research supports the finding that patients undergoing joint arthroplasty in high-volume hospitals or by high-volume surgeons achieve better outcomes, and minimum case load requirements have been established in some areas. However, the relationships between hospital/surgeon volume and outcomes in patients undergoing arthroplasty are not fully understood. Furthermore, whether elective arthroplasty should be restricted to high-volume hospitals or surgeons remains in dispute, and little is known regarding where the thresholds should be set for different types of joint arthroplasties.Methods and analysesThis is a protocol for a suite of systematic reviews and dose–response meta-analyses, which will be amended and updated in conjunction with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. Electronic databases, including PubMed and Embase, will be searched for observational studies examining the relationship between the hospital or surgeon volume and clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing primary or revision of joint arthroplasty. We will use records management software for study selection and a predefined standardised file for data extraction and management. Quality will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed using Stata statistical software. Once the volume–outcome relationships are established, we will examine the potential non-linear relationships between hospital/surgeon volume and outcomes and detect whether thresholds or turning points exist.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required, because these studies are based on aggregated published data. The results of this suite of systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017056639.

scholarly journals Reporting of the Role of the Expert Searcher in Cochrane Reviews

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Zhang ◽  
Margaret Sampson ◽  
Jessie McGowan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Statistical Decision ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Statistical Decisions ◽  
Search Quality

Introduction - This study applied the principles of evidence based information practice to clarify the role of information specialists and librarians in the preparation of Cochrane systematic reviews and to determine whether information specialists impact the quality of searching in Cochrane systematic reviews. Objectives - This research project sought to determine how the contribution of the person responsible for searching in the preparation of Cochrane systematic reviews was reported; whether the contribution was recognized through authorship or acknowledgement; the qualifications of the searcher; and the association between the type of contributorship and characteristics of the search strategy, assessability, and the presence of certain types of errors. Methods - Data sources: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, The Cochrane Library 3 (2002). Inclusion criteria: The study included systematic reviews that met the following criteria: one or more sections of the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy were utilised, primary studies were either randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs, and included and excluded studies were clearly identified. Data extraction: Two librarians assessed the searches for errors, establishing consensus on discordant ratings. Results - Of the 169 reviews screened for this project, 105 met all eligibility criteria. Authors fulfilled the searching role in 41.9% of reviews studied, acknowledged persons or groups in 13.3%, a combination in 9.5%, and the role was not reported in 35.2% of reviews. For the 78 reviews in which meta-analyses were performed, the positions of those responsible for statistical decisions were examined for comparative purposes. The statistical role was performed by an author in 47.4% of cases and unreported in the same number of cases. Insufficient analyzable data was obtained regarding professional qualifications (3/105 for searching, 2/78 for statistical decisions). Search quality was assessed for 66 searches across 74 reviews. In general, it was more possible to assess the search quality when the searcher role was reported. An association was found between the reporting of searcher role and the presence of a consequential error. There was no association between the number of consequential errors and how the contribution of the searcher was reported. Conclusions - Qualifications of the persons responsible for searching and statistical decision-making were poorly reported in Cochrane reviews, but more complete role reporting is associated with greater assessability of searches and fewer substantive errors in search strategies.

scholarly journals Programme frequency, type, time and duration do not explain the effects of balance exercise in older adults: a systematic review with a meta-regression analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (16) ◽  
pp. 996-1002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie K Farlie ◽  
Lauren Robins ◽  
Romi Haas ◽  
Jennifer L Keating ◽  
Elizabeth Molloy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Centre Of Mass ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Exercise Interventions ◽  
Balance Exercise ◽  
Control Centre ◽  
Meta Analyses

ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to examine the effects of different balance exercise interventions compared with non-balance exercise controls on balance task performance in older adults.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched until July 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised trials of balance exercise interventions for older adults were identified for extraction of eligible randomised trials. Eligibility criteria for inclusion of randomised trials in meta-analyses were comparison of a balance exercise intervention with a control group that did not perform balance exercises, report of at least one end-intervention balance outcome measurement that was consistent with the five subgroups of balance exercise identified, and full-text article available in English.ResultsNinety-five trials were included in meta-analyses and 80 in meta-regressions. For four balance exercise types (control centre of mass, multidimensional, mobility and reaching), significant effects for balance exercise interventions were found in meta-analyses (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.31–0.50), however with considerable heterogeneity in observed effects (I2: 50.4%–80.6%). Risk of bias assessments (Physiotherapy Evidence Database score and funnel plots) did not explain heterogeneity. One significant relationship identified in the meta-regressions of SMD and balance exercise frequency, time and duration explained 2.1% of variance for the control centre of mass subgroup.ConclusionLimitations to this study included the variability in design of balance interventions, incomplete reporting of data and statistical heterogeneity. The design of balance exercise programmes provides inadequate explanation of the observed benefits of these interventions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document