Titel Deelnemers "Korte inhoud" "Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicine for pain management : a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and a systematic review of randomised controlled trials" "Emma Fisher, Christopher Eccleston, Louisa Degenhardt, David P. Finn, Nanna B. Finnerup, Ian Gilron, Simon Haroutounian, Elliot Krane, Andrew S. C. Rice, Michael Rowbotham, Mark Wallace, R. Andrew Moore" "Pain is an experience that affects many people worldwide and is associated with higher mortality and lower quality of life. Cannabinoid, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) are thought to reduce pain, but a proliferation of different products has led to variability in trials, creating a challenge when determining the assessment of efficacy in systematic reviews. We will conduct 2 systematic reviews commissioned by the International Association for the Study of Pain Task Force on the use of cannabinoids, cannabis, and CBMs for pain management: first, an overview review of systematic reviews to summarise the evidence base and second, a systematic review of randomised controlled trials of cannabinoids, cannabis, and CBMs. In these reviews we will determine the harm and benefit of CBM from the current literature and will interpret the findings in light of the quality of evidence and reviews included. We will search online databases and registries in any language for systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials. We will include studies that evaluate any cannabinoid or CBM vs any control for people with acute and chronic pain. Our primary outcomes for both reviews are the number of participants achieving (1) a 30% and (2) 50% reduction in pain intensity, (3) moderate improvement, and (4) substantial improvement. A number of secondary outcome measures will also be included. We will assess risk of bias and quality of evidence. We will analyse data using fixed and random effect models, with separate comparators for cannabis and CBMs. Prospero ID (CRD42019124710; CRD42019124714)." "Clinical Handover and Handoff in Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews" "Melissa DESMEDT, Dorien ULENAERS, Joep GROSEMANS, Johan HELLINGS, Jochen BERGS" "Purpose The purpose of this systematic review is to appraise and summarize existing literature on clinical handover. Data sources We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Study selection Included articles were reviewed independently by the review team. Data extraction The review team extracted data under the following headers: author(s), year of publication, journal, scope, search strategy, number of studies included, type of studies included, study quality assessment, used definition of handover, healthcare setting, outcomes measured, findings and finally some comments or remarks. Results of data synthesis First, research indicates that poor handover is associated with multiple potential hazards such as lack of availability of required equipment for patients, information omissions, diagnosis errors, treatment errors, disposition errors and treatment delays. Second, our systematic review indicates that no single tool arises as best for any particular specialty or use to evaluate the handover process. Third, there is little evidence delineating what constitutes best handoff practices. Most efforts facilitated the coordination of care and communication between healthcare professionals using electronic tools or a standardized form. Fourth, our review indicates that the principal teaching methods are role-playing and simulation, which may result in better knowledge transfer to the work environment, better health and patients’ well-being. Conclusions This review emphasizes the importance of staff education (including simulation-based and team training), non-technical skills and the implementation process of clinical handover in healthcare settings." "Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in Thyroidectomy: A Systematic Review" "Alvaro Sanabria, Luiz P Kowalski, Iain Nixon, Peter Angelos, Ashok Shaha, Randall P Owen, Carlos Suarez, Alessandra Rinaldo, Alfio Ferlito, International Head and Neck Scientific Group, Petra Amrosch, Simon Andreasen, Peter Angelos, Leif Back, Leon Barnes, Jonathan J Beitler, Manuel Bernal-Sprekelsen, Justin A Bishop, Carsten C Boedeker, Paolo Bossi, Boudewijn JM Braakhuis, Carol R Bradford, Patrick J Bradley, Ruud H Brakenhoff, Margaret S Brandwein-Gensler, Jose Cabecadas, Antonio Cardesa, Bhishamjit S Chera, Francisco J Civantos, Andres Coca-Pelaz, June Corry, H Hakan Coskun, Anil D'Cruz, Remco de Bree, Kenneth O Devaney, Avraham Eisbruch, Alfio Ferlito, Juan C Fernandez-Miranda, Ewa Florek, Benedikt J Folz, Arlene A Forastiere, Eric M Genden, Douglas R Gnepp, Orlando Guntinas-Lichius, Missak Haigentz, Gyorgy B Halmos, Marc Hamoir, Ehab Y Hanna, Dana M Hartl, Henrik Hellquist, Michael L Hinni, Jennifer L Hunt, Kate Hutcheson, Avi Khafif, Yoon Woo Koh, Luiz P Kowalski, Johannes A Langendijk, Anne WM Lee, James S Lewis, Valerie J Lund, Antti A Makitie, Anthony A Mancuso, Jesus E Medina, William M Mendenhall, Takashi Nakagawa, Ken-ichi Nibu, Iain J Nixon, Kerry D Olsen, Bert W O'Malley, Randall P Owen, Vinidh Paleri, Guy J Petruzzelli, Mark Prince, Miquel Quer, John A Ridge, Alessandra Rinaldo, K Thomas Robbins, Juan P Rodrigo, Nabil F Saba, Alvaro Sanabria, Jatin P Shah, Ashok R Shaha, Carl E Silver, Ricard Simo, Alena Skalova, Robert Smee, Carl H Snyderman, Goran Stenman, Primoz Strojan, Carlos Suarez, Krzysztof Szyfter, Robert P Takes, Asterios Triantafyllou, Vincent Vander Poorten, Jan B Vermorken, William H Westra, Stefan M Willems, Michelle D Williams, Gregory T Wolf, Mark Zafereo, Peter Zbaren" "Importance: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered the best evidence for clinical decision making. Many reviews of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) in thyroidectomy have conflicting results, owing in large part to methodological quality. Objective: To assess the methodological quality and the causes of heterogeneous results of systematic reviews that compare routine IONM vs visual identification of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) in patients undergoing thyroidectomy. Data Sources: A systematic search was performed of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Library, LILACS (Literatura Latino Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde), Web of Science, and Google from January 1, 1968, through June 30, 2018. Data were analyzed from July 17 to November 30, 2018. Study Selection: Studies that mentioned performance of a systematic review/meta-analysis during the search period. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data including study characteristics, type of patients, numbers of nerves at risk, and temporary and definitive RLN paralysis by group were extracted. Data about methodological characteristics, type of statistical analysis and summary estimator, endorsement of systematic review/meta-analysis guidelines, heterogeneity, publication bias, funding, conflict of interest, and statistical analysis were also recorded. The methodological quality was measured with the AMSTAR2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) tool by 2 independent evaluators. Main Outcomes and Measures: Methodological quality. Results: The search identified 13 systematic reviews that included patients who underwent open or minimally invasive thyroidectomy, second operations, and a mixture of low- and high-risk procedures. The mean compliance with the AMSTAR2 overall criteria was 53% (range, 11%-83%); with critical criteria, 71% (range, 50%-94%). The percentage of nerves at risk from RCTs was 4.8%. The mean (SD) crude rate of definitive RLN paralysis was 0.81% (0.22%; median, 0.75% [range, 0.53%-1.30%]) in the monitoring group and 1.14% (0.56%; median, 0.96% [range, 0.57%-2.56%]) in the control group. Conclusions and Relevance: A substantial number of systematic reviews of IONM in thyroidectomy have conflicting results, but their mean methodological quality is critically low. Design of a systematic review should comply with methodological standards and recommendations to offer relevant and practical information for decision making." "Artificial Intelligence in Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews" "Sandra Nuyts" "INTRODUCTION: Several studies have emphasized the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) and its subfields, such as machine learning (ML), as emerging and feasible approaches to optimize patient care in oncology. As a result, clinicians and decision-makers are faced with a plethora of reviews regarding the state of the art of applications of AI for head and neck cancer (HNC) management. This article provides an analysis of systematic reviews on the current status, and of the limitations of the application of AI/ML as adjunctive decision-making tools in HNC management. METHODS: Electronic databases (PubMed, Medline via Ovid, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched from inception until November 30, 2022. The study selection, searching and screening processes, inclusion, and exclusion criteria followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A risk of bias assessment was conducted using a tailored and modified version of the Assessment of Systematic Review (AMSTAR-2) tool and quality assessment using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) guidelines. RESULTS: Of the 137 search hits retrieved, 17 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. This analysis of systematic reviews revealed that the application of AI/ML as a decision aid in HNC management can be thematized as follows: (1) detection of precancerous and cancerous lesions within histopathologic slides; (2) prediction of the histopathologic nature of a given lesion from various sources of medical imaging; (3) prognostication; (4) extraction of pathological findings from imaging; and (5) different applications in radiation oncology. In addition, the challenges in implementation of AI/ML models for clinical evaluations include the lack of standardized methodological guidelines for the collection of clinical images, development of these models, reporting of their performance, external validation procedures, and regulatory frameworks. CONCLUSION: At present, there is a paucity of evidence to suggest the adoption of these models in clinical practice due to the aforementioned limitations. Therefore, this manuscript highlights the need for development of standardized guidelines to facilitate the adoption and implementation of these models in the daily clinical practice. In addition, adequately powered, prospective, randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to further assess the potential of AI/ML models in real-world clinical settings for the management of HNC." "Effectiveness of digital health interventions for diabetes: systematic review of systematic reviews" "Bonkana Maiga, Cheick O Bagayoko, Mohamed Ali Ag Ahmed, Abdrahamane Anne, Marie-Pierre Gagnon, Sidibe Assa Traoré, Jean François Landrier, Antoine Geissbuhler" "BackgroundThe use of digital health technologies to tackle diabetes has been particularly flourishing in recent years. Previous studies have shown to varying degrees that these technologies can have an impact on diabetes prevention and management.ObjectiveThe aim of this review is to summarize the best evidence regarding the effectiveness of digital health interventions to improve one or more diabetes indicators.MethodsWe included all types of interventions aimed at evaluating the effect of digital health on diabetes. We considered at all types of digital interventions (mobile health, teleconsultations, tele-expertise, electronic health records, decision support systems, e-learning, etc.). We included systematic reviews published in English or French over the last 29 years, from January 1991 to December 2019, that met the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the studies to assess their eligibility, and extracted relevant information according to a predetermined grid. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion and consensus between the two reviewers, or involved a third author as referee.ResultsIn total in our review of journals, we included 10 reviews. The outcomes of interest were clinical indicators of diabetes that could be influenced by digital interventions. These outcomes had to be objectively measurable indicators related to diabetes surveillance and management that are generally accepted by diabetes experts. Six of the ten reviews showed moderate to large significant reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HBA1c) levels compared to controls. Most reviews reported overall positive results and found that digital health interventions improved health care utilization, behaviours, attitudes, knowledge and skills.ConclusionBased on a large corpus of scientific evidence on digital health interventions, this overview could help identify the most effective interventions to improve diabetes indicators." "Systematic review of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions to treat behavioural disturbances in older patients with dementia : the SENATOR-OnTop series" "Iosief Abraha, Joseph M Rimland, Fabiana Mirella Trotta, Giuseppina Dell'Aquila, Alfonso Cruz-Jentoft, Mirko Petrovic, Adalsteinn Gudmundsson, Roy Soiza, Denis O'Mahony, Antonio Guaita, Antonio Cherubini" "Predictive value of laser speckle contrast analysis in systemic sclerosis : a systematic review and pilot study" "Amber Vanhaecke, Claire Debusschere, Maurizio Cutolo, Vanessa Smith, [missing] The EULAR Study Group on Microcirculation in Rheumatic Diseases" "Objectives To assess whether tools to functionally examine the microcirculation, such as laser speckle contrast analysis (LASCA), are predictive of ischaemic digital trophic lesions ([i]DTL) in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). Methods First, a systematic review (according to PRISMA) was conducted to identify studies describing a link between LASCA and SSc-related (i)DTL. In the additional pilot study, consecutive SSc patients underwent clinical and LASCA examinations (to assess the peripheral blood perfusion [PBP] of both hands) at enrolment. For one year, a monthly telephone survey was conducted to investigate (i)DTL occurrence. Logistic regression and ROC analysis were performed. Results None of the three manuscripts retained through the systematic review examined the predictive value of LASCA for future (i)DTL. In our pilot study, 7/106 (6.6%) SSc patients developed at least one iDTL during follow-up, with PBP not found to be predictive (OR = 0.995, p = .418; ROC-AUC = 0.597). Post hoc, when only patients not taking vasodilators were analysed (n = 57), all three who developed iDTL had an average PBP" "Coexistence of systemic and localized scleroderma : a systematic literature review and observational cohort study" "Sofie De Schepper, Sabrina Paolino, Lise Heeman, Hanne Callens, Jan Gutermuth, Sara Nguyen, Maurizio Cutolo" "Is laser speckle contrast analysis (LASCA) the new kid on the block in systemic sclerosis? : a systematic literature review and pilot study to evaluate reliability of LASCA to measure peripheral blood perfusion in scleroderma patients" "Maurizio Cutolo, Barbara Ruaro, Claudia Ickinger, Karin Melsens, Amelia Chiara Trombetta, Filip De Keyser" "Nailfold capillaroscopy in systemic lupus erythematosus : a systematic review and critical appraisal" "Maurizio Cutolo, Karin Melsens, Sara Wijnant, Francesca Ingegnoli, Filip De Keyser, Ulf Müller-Ladner, Valeria Riccieri, Nicola Ughi, Els Vandecasteele"