| 1. |
- Liljas, Ann E. M., et al.
(författare)
-
Risk factors for infection in older adults who receive home healthcare and/or home help : A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Medicine. - 0025-7974 .- 1536-5964. ; 101:45
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The shift towards home-based care has resulted in increased provision of home healthcare and home help to older adults. Infections acquired in older adults while receiving home care have increased too, resulting in unplanned yet avoidable hospitalizations. In recent years, several studies have reported an array of factors associated with risk of infection; however, no previous systematic review has compiled such evidence, which is important to better protect older adults. Therefore, we have outlined the work of a systematic review that aims to identify risk factors for infection in older adults receiving home healthcare and/or home help.Methods: Searches for relevant studies will be conducted in five databases [MEDLINE, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database), Web of Science Core Collection, Cinahl (Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature) and Sociological Abstracts]. All types of studies will be included. Exposures considered refer to medical, individual, social/behavioral and environmental risk factors for infection (outcome). Two researchers will independently go through the records generated. Eligible studies will be assessed for risk of biases using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and an overall interpretation of the biases will be provided. If the data allow, a meta-analysis will be conducted. It is possible that both quantitative and qualitative studies will be identified and eligible. Therefore, for the analysis, the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual for mixed methods systematic reviews will be used as it allows for two or more single method reviews (e.g., one quantitative and one qualitative) to be conducted separately and then combined in a joint overarching synthesis.Results: The findings of the planned systematic review are of interest to healthcare professionals, caregivers, older adults and their families, and policy- and decisions makers in the health and social care sectors as the review will provide evidence-based data on multiple factors that influence the risk of infection among older adults receiving care in their homes.Conclusion: The results could guide future policy on effective infection control in the home care sector.
|
|
| 2. |
- Zhou, Hongwei, et al.
(författare)
-
The efficacy of accommodative versus monofocal intraocular lenses for cataract patients A systematic review and meta-analysis
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Medicine. - 0025-7974 .- 1536-5964. ; 97:40
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether accommodative intraocular lenses (AC-IOLs) are superior for cataract patients compared with monofocal IOLs (MF-IOLs). Methods: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched through in August 2018 for AC-IOLs versus MF-IOLs in cataract patients. Studies were pooled under either fixed-effects model or random-effects model to calculate the relative risk (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), or standard mean difference (SMD) and their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Distance-corrected near visual acuity (DCNVA) was chosen as the primary outcome. The secondary outcomes were corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA), pilocarpine-induced IOL shift, contrast sensitivity, and spectacle independence. Results: Seventeen studies, involving a total of 1764 eyes, were included. Our results revealed that AC-IOLs improved DCNVA (SMD=-1.84,95% CI=-2.56 to -1.11) and were associated with significantly greater anterior lens shift than MF-IOLs (WMD=-0.30, 95% CI=-0.37 to -0.23). Furthermore, spectacle independence was significantly better with AC-IOLs than with MF-IOLs (RR=3.07, 95% CI=1.06-8.89). However, there was no significant difference in CDVA and contrast sensitivity between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Our study confirmed that AC-IOLs can provide cataract patients with DCNVA and result in more high levels of spectacle independence than MF-IOLs. Further studies with larger data set and well-designed models are required to validate our findings.
|
|
