Peer Review Of Electronic Search Strategies Research Articles

Efficacy and safety of regenerative cell therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension in animal models: a preclinical systematic review protocol.

BackgroundPulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a rare disease (15 cases per million) that is characterized by widespread loss of the pulmonary microcirculation and elevated pulmonary vascular resistance leading to pathological right ventricular remodeling and ultimately right heart failure. Regenerative cell therapies (i.e., therapies involving cells with stem or progenitor-like properties) could potentially restore the effective lung microcirculation and provide a curative therapy for PAH. Preclinical evidence suggests that regenerative cell therapy using endothelial progenitor cells or mesenchymal stem cells may be beneficial in the treatment of PAH. These findings have led to the completion of a small number of human clinical trials, albeit with modest effect compared to animal studies. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy and safety of regenerative cell therapies in preclinical models of PAH as well as assess study quality to inform future clinical studies.MethodsWe will include preclinical studies of PAH in which a regenerative cell type was administered and outcomes compared to a disease control. The primary outcome will be pulmonary hemodynamics as assessed by measurement of right ventricular systolic pressure and/or mean pulmonary arterial pressure. Secondary outcomes will include mortality, survival, right ventricular remodeling, pulmonary vascular resistance, cardiac output, cardiac index, pulmonary acceleration time, tricuspid annular systolic excursion, and right ventricular wall thickness. Electronic searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases will be constructed and reviewed by the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) process. Search results will be screened independently in duplicate. Data from eligible studies will be extracted, pooled, and analyzed using random effects models. Risk of bias will be assessed using the SYstematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk of bias tool, and individual study reporting will be assessed according to an itemized checklist based on the Animal Research: Reporting of In vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines.DiscussionThis systematic review will examine the efficacy and safety of regenerative cell therapy in preclinical models of PAH. As well, the literature will be assessed for study quality and risk of bias. The results will guide the design of future clinical trials and preclinical animal studies.Systematic review registrationCAMARADES (http://www.dcn.ed.ac.uk/camarades/SyRF/Protocols.htm).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0265-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement

ObjectiveTo develop an evidence-based guideline for Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) for systematic reviews (SRs), health technology assessments, and other evidence syntheses. Study Design and SettingAn SR, Web-based survey of experts, and consensus development forum were undertaken to identify checklists that evaluated or validated electronic literature search strategies and to determine which of their elements related to search quality or errors. ResultsSystematic review: No new search elements were identified for addition to the existing (2008–2010) PRESS 2015 Evidence-Based Checklist, and there was no evidence refuting any of its elements. Results suggested that structured PRESS could identify search errors and improve the selection of search terms. Web-based survey of experts: Most respondents felt that peer review should be undertaken after the MEDLINE search had been prepared but before it had been translated to other databases. Consensus development forum: Of the seven original PRESS elements, six were retained: translation of the research question; Boolean and proximity operators; subject headings; text word search; spelling, syntax and line numbers; and limits and filters. The seventh (skilled translation of the search strategy to additional databases) was removed, as there was consensus that this should be left to the discretion of searchers. An updated PRESS 2015 Guideline Statement was developed, which includes the following four documents: PRESS 2015 Evidence-Based Checklist, PRESS 2015 Recommendations for Librarian Practice, PRESS 2015 Implementation Strategies, and PRESS 2015 Guideline Assessment Form. ConclusionThe PRESS 2015 Guideline Statement should help to guide and improve the peer review of electronic literature search strategies.

Patient safety incidents – what to do after the event

Background: Following a patient safety incident, patients and families need disclosure and reconciliation, practitioners need debriefing, and the organization needs to implement changes to prevent further errors. In order to substantiate the Canadian Incident Analysis Framework, the Canadian Patient Safety Institute (CPSI) invited Queen's Joanna Briggs Collaboration (QJBC) to work collaboratively with them to provide a synthesis of the current literature on the frameworks, models or tools that address patient safety incident management. Objective: To perform a mapping review of the international literature focused on frameworks, models or tools for patient safety incident management across the continuum of care. Methods: We followed Joanna Briggs Institute method of synthesis. A 3-step approach was used to search the peer-review literature: 1) initial search of MEDLINE and CINAHL; 2) detailed search across all databases using all keywords and index terms; 3) hand search the reference lists of includedpapersto locate additional studies. Targeted databases included: CINAHL; Medline; EMBASE; PsycINFO; AMED; Cochrane; Web of Science, Ageline; GlobalHealth; and Social Sciences Abstracts. Search strategies were tested for sensitivity and specificity by QJBC Library Scientist using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) methodology developed by Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Results: The search located 4,413 citations that provided 21 papers. Publication dates spanned 1999–2012 and included 10 theoretical papers, seven descriptive studies, three reviews, and one qualitative study. Thirteen models, four frameworks and four tools were identified. Discussion: A range of approaches were described including psychological and cognitive frameworks, statistical models, and human factors approaches. Only one model had been formally evaluated and implemented in several settings. Conclusion: To advance our knowledge in this area existing models, frameworks and tools need to be evaluated and implemented. Further research would be beneficial.

Efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stromal cells in preclinical models of acute lung injury: a systematic review protocol.

BackgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in humans is caused by an unchecked proinflammatory response that results in diffuse and severe lung injury, and it is associated with a mortality rate of 35 to 45%. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs; ‘adult stem cells’) could represent a promising new therapy for this syndrome, since preclinical evidence suggests that MSCs may ameliorate lung injury. Prior to a human clinical trial, our aim is to conduct a systematic review to compare the efficacy and safety of MSC therapy versus controls in preclinical models of acute lung injury that mimic some aspects of the human ARDS.Methods/DesignWe will include comparative preclinical studies (randomized and non-randomized) of acute lung injury in which MSCs were administered and outcomes compared to animals given a vehicle control. The primary outcome will be death. Secondary outcomes will include the four key features of preclinical acute lung injury as defined by the American Thoracic Society consensus conference (histologic evidence of lung injury, altered alveolar capillary barrier, lung inflammatory response, and physiological dysfunction) and pathogen clearance for acute lung injury models that are caused by infection. Electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, BIOSIS Previews, and Web of Science will be constructed and reviewed by the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) process. Search results will be screened independently and in duplicate. Data from eligible studies will be extracted, pooled, and analyzed using random effects models. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and individual study reporting will be assessed according to the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines.DiscussionThe results of this systematic review will comprehensively summarize the safety and efficacy of MSC therapy in preclinical models of acute lung injury. Our results will help translational scientists and clinical trialists to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to perform a human clinical trial. These results may also guide future acute lung injury preclinical and clinical research.