-
Mashup Score: 6
Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for differen
Source: link.springer.comCategories: General Medicine News, Hem/OncsTweet
-
Mashup Score: 6
Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for differen
Source: link.springer.comCategories: General Medicine News, Hem/OncsTweet
-
Mashup Score: 1
Clinical Rheumatology – To describe patients’ use of opioids in the year preceding and year following new diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or rheumatoid…
Source: link.springer.comCategories: General Medicine News, RheumatologyTweet
-
Mashup Score: 102
Current Hypertension Reports – To define resistant hypertension (RHT), review its pathophysiology and disease burden, identify barriers to effective hypertension management, and to highlight…
Source: link.springer.comCategories: General Medicine News, CardiologistsTweet
-
Mashup Score: 8
Background Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at risk of developing interstitial lung disease (ILD), which is associated with high mortality. Screening tools based on risk factors are needed to decide which patients with RA should be screened for ILD using high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT). The ANCHOR-RA study is a multi-national cross-sectional study that will develop a multivariable model for prediction of RA-ILD, which can be used to inform screening for RA-ILD in clinical practice. Methods Investigators will enrol consecutive patients with RA who have ≥ 2 of the following risk factors for RA-ILD: male; current or previous smoker; age ≥ 60 years at RA diagnosis; high-positive rheumatoid factor and/or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (titre > 3 x upper limit of normal); presence or history of certain extra-articular manifestations of RA (vasculitis, Felty’s syndrome, secondary Sjögren’s syndrome, cutaneous rheumatoid nodules, serositis, and/or scleritis/uveitis); h
Source: link.springer.comCategories: General Medicine News, RheumatologyTweet
-
Mashup Score: 4Superficial meningioma with bone involvement: surgical strategies and clinical outcomes - 11 day(s) ago
Journal of Neuro-Oncology – Meningiomas with bone involvement account for 4.5–17% of all intracranial meningiomas. Little is known about whether these meningiomas (WHO grade I) behave…
Source: link.springer.comCategories: General Medicine News, Onc News and JournalsTweet
-
Mashup Score: 12The Safety and Efficacy of Concurrent Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy during Minimally Invasive Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: A Systematic Review - 11 day(s) ago
Obesity Surgery – We conducted a systematic review to examine perioperative outcomes for adults undergoing minimally invasive Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) with and without concurrent…
Source: link.springer.comCategories: General Medicine News, General HCPsTweet
-
Mashup Score: 0How Do Psychedelics Reduce Fear of Death? - 11 day(s) ago
Neuroethics – Increasing evidence suggests that psychedelic experiences, undergone in controlled conditions, can have various durable psychological benefits. One such benefit is reductions in fear…
Source: link.springer.comCategories: General Medicine News, Hem/OncsTweet
-
Mashup Score: 33Therapeutic control of the circulation - 11 day(s) ago
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing – By regarding the circulation from the perspective of the venous return, continuous therapeutic control of the mean arterial blood pressure, cardiac…
Source: link.springer.comCategories: General Medicine News, Hem/OncsTweet
-
Mashup Score: 6
Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for differen
Source: link.springer.comCategories: General Medicine News, Hem/OncsTweet
Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach https://t.co/XHZdqB3Qkv via @ZacMunn et al https://t.co/ibXxyWFqZi