Advanced Search

Completed Systematic Reviews




Diet-Related Fibers and Human Health Outcomes, Version 2 (Retired)


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 919 Studies, 1 Key Question, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Dec 30, 2016 05:11PM
Description: The objectives of this database are to: 1. Systematically compile and provide access to primary, English-language, peer-reviewed science linking dietary fiber intake in humans to one or more of 9 potential health benefits 2. Provide researchers with a tool to understand how different fibers are characterized in studies 3. Facilitate researchers in identifying gaps in the current research 4. Create a database to serve as a starting foundation of primary human literature for conducting evidence-based reviews and meta-analyses 5. Efficiently assist researchers in identifying fibers of interest This database should serve as a foundation for future work. Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, detailed in the user manual, were applied in determining database eligibility; thus, this database is not intended to serve as a sole source for identifying all possible fiber literature for the purposes of conducting a meta-analysis or systematic review. This database contains Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) data to help users formulate and narrow the focus of their research question. It is expected that secondary searches will be conducted to augment this database.
Contributor(s): Nicola McKeown (PI), Mei Chung (Co-I), Kara Livingston (Project & Data Manager), Caleigh Sawicki, Danielle Haslam, Deena Wang, Caitlin Blakeley, Yinan Jia, Nicole Baruch, Micaela Karlsen, Carrie Brown
Funding Source: Please see user manual.
Methodology Description: International Life Sciences Institute – North America branch (ILSI-NA)

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content

Medication-Assisted Treatment Models of Care for Opioid Use Disorder in Primary Care Settings [Entered Retrospectively]


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 32 Studies, 1 Key Question, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Dec 21, 2016 02:04PM
Description: The purpose of this Technical Brief is to summarize the evidence available on MAT models of care in primary care settings.
Contributor(s): Roger Chou, M.D. P. Todd Korthuis, M.D., M.P.H. Melissa Weimer, D.O., M.C.R. Christina Bougatsos, M.P.H. Ian Blazina, M.P.H. Bernadette Zakher, M.B.B.S. Sara Grusing, B.S. Beth Devine, Ph.D., Pharm.D., M.B.A. Dennis McCarty, Ph.D.
DOI: DOI pending.
Funding Source: Prepared by The Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Oregon Health & Science University for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20857 www.ahrq.gov Contract: 290-2015-00009-I.
Methodology Description: We searched, reviewed, and summarized the available literature on MAT for OUD in primary care settings. A research librarian created search strategies for the following databases: Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, SocINDEX, and CINAHL. Search dates began in 1995 through mid-June 2016. We applied predefined screening criteria to identify the most relevant and authoritative evidence on MAT models of care in primary care settings. We focused on the following sources of evidence: (1) high-quality Cochrane systematic reviews of MAT; (2) randomized trials and cohort studies on the effectiveness of MAT models of care in primary care settings; (3) randomized trials evaluating the effectiveness of newer pharmacological therapies for MAT that could impact implementation or future models of care; and (4) randomized trials on the effectiveness of more intensive versus less intensive psychological interventions with MAT in primary care settings.

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content

Retinal Prostheses in the Medicare Population[Entered Retrospectively].


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 40 Studies, 8 Key Questions, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Nov 28, 2016 05:45PM
Description: To determine the safety, efficacy, and evidence for halting disease progression for retinal prosthesis systems (RPSs) and the outcomes that are and could be assessed in future studies of these devices.
Contributor(s): Fontanarosa J, Treadwell J, Samson DJ, VanderBeek BL, Schoelles, K.
DOI: DOI pending.
Funding Source: AHRQ
Methodology Description: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library, PubMed (unprocessed records only), and gray literature sources, including conference proceedings from specialty societies, for studies of RPS devices published from January 1, 2000, through April 25, 2016.We performed redundant title and abstract screening with one reviewer’s selection required for full-text article retrieval. Dual independent review was performed on all full-text articles, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Data extraction was performed by a single reviewer and was fully verified by a second reviewer. Extracted data included study design, psychometric properties assessment methods based on the COSMIN checklist, patient blinding to experimental condition, outcome assessor blinding to experimental condition, experimental condition randomly presented, number of outcome assessors, country/site, number of patients enrolled, patient inclusion criteria, patient exclusion criteria, RPS treatment details, prior treatment, concurrent treatment, study duration, diagnosis, age at diagnosis, age at implantation, eye implanted, time from implantation to study participation, sex, race, visual acuity at time of implantation, outcomes, and outcome definitions. We assessed risk of bias of individual studies for the outcomes of interest, and graded the overall strength of evidence using Evidence-based Practice Centers guidance.

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content

Disparities Within Serious Mental Illness Technical Brief


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 26 Studies, 4 Key Questions, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Oct 20, 2016 07:56PM
Description: Adults with serious mental illness (SMI) often experience gaps in access to needed health care compared with other populations. Such disparities may be even more pronounced between certain groups of patients with SMI, differing by race, ethnicity, gender, economic disadvantage (including housing stability) and socioeconomic status, and geographic location (chiefly, rural versus urban residence); disparities arise as well for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals and those who have difficulty communicating in English (because it is a second language).
Contributor(s): Tammeka Swinson Evans, M.O.P. Nancy Berkman, Ph.D. Carrie Brown, M.D., M.P.H. Bradley Gaynes, M.D., M.P.H. Rachel Palmieri Weber, Ph.D., M.S.P.H
DOI: DOI pending.
Funding Source: This report is based on research conducted by the RTI International–University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA290201500011I_ HSA2903
Methodology Description: We reviewed the published and gray literature and interviewed Key Informants (KIs) to address four Guiding Questions (GQs). The four refined GQs for this Technical Brief focus on the critical areas of concern in relation to disparities—access to health insurance with appropriate coverage for these SMI conditions, accurate diagnostic evaluations, receipt of necessary and appropriate therapeutic services, quality of the health services, adherence to treatment over the long term, and various outcomes of care. The principal focus for the first three GQs is a description of the interventions (GQ 1), the context in which they are implemented (GQ 2), and a description of the evidence about the effectiveness of the interventions (GQ 3); GQ 4 examines the gaps in the knowledge base and the high-priority needs for future research. We included interventions addressing diagnosis, access to and quality of treatment and support services among disparity groups of adults with SMI.

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content

Adverse Events in Women with Silicone Gel Breast Implants: A Systematic Review


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 57 Studies, 1 Key Question, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Oct 20, 2016 07:52PM
Description: Breast implants are medical devices used to reconstruct the breast following mastectomy, to augment breast size, or to correct a congenital abnormality.1 Breast implants consist of a silicone outer shell and a filler (most commonly silicone gel or saline). In the US about half of implants are silicone gel-filled implants. Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recommended the creation of a surveillance registry to monitor for potential adverse events associated with silicone gel breast implants. However, a clinical registry that can provide meaningful data on the long-term safety requires a large number of patients and rigorous patient follow-up, both of which have been difficult for breast implant companies to achieve. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS®) and the Plastic Surgery Foundation (PSF) has solicited this systematic review (SR) to summarize the state of the literature on safety outcomes in women with silicone gel breast implants for the purpose of informing the development of the registry.
Contributor(s): Ethan Balk, Gowri Raman, Esther Avendano, Amy Earley
Funding Source: The Plastic Surgery Foundation
Methodology Description: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ovid Healthstar (inception through 30 June 2015), as well as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through the first quarter of 2015). Additional citations were solicited from the Advisory Panel. The searches combined terms for silicone gel implants and outcomes of interest. Four researchers screened citations in duplicate, and discrepancies were resolved in a group conference. Reference lists of existing systematic reviews, selected narrative reviews, and included studies were screened. Retrieved full-text articles were rescreened in duplicate. We included studies of any longitudinal design comparing women with and those without breast implants. Studies included women with any history of silicone gel-filled breast implants, excluding injected silicone, silicone tissue expanders, and recalled implants produced by Poly Implant Prothèse (La Seyne-sur-Mer, France). At least one half the participants had to have silicone gel (vs. saline) implants, but to avoid inadvertently excluding eligible studies, we included studies that did not report the proportion of participants with silicone gel implants. Comparison groups included either women with no implants (including the general population), women with saline breast implants, or women undergoing other cosmetic surgery procedures. We excluded studies of only women with specific signs or symptoms (e.g., only women with joint pain) or only women seen in a specialty clinic (e.g., women evaluated by a rheumatologist), who do not represent the general population. Study Extraction and Assessment Data from each study were extracted by 1 of 4 methodologists and confirmed by at least 1 other experienced methodologist. Extracted data included study, participant, and implant characteristics, including use for reconstruction or augmentation; study country; implantation dates and duration; outcomes; analytical methods; and results. We preferentially extracted the most adjusted models comparing implants with no implants, and we captured all factors that were adjusted for. We extracted both direct comparisons of implants versus no implants and indirect comparisons, such as standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). To assess study quality, we applied an adaptation of the McMaster Quality Assessment Scale of Harms (McHarm) Tool. We also applied selected quality questions from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for quality assessment of observational and case–control studies.

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content