Prevalence of hallux valgus in the general population : a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Hallux valgus (HV) is a foot deformity commonly seen in medical practice, often accompanied by significant functional disability and foot pain. Despite frequent mention in a diverse body of literature, a precise estimate of the prevalence of HV is difficult to ascertain. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate prevalence of HV in the overall population and evaluate the influence of age and gender. METHODS: Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and CINAHL) and reference lists of included papers were searched to June 2009 for papers on HV prevalence without language restriction. MeSH terms and keywords were used relating to HV or bunions, prevalence and various synonyms. Included studies were surveys reporting original data for prevalence of HV or bunions in healthy populations of any age group. Surveys reporting prevalence data grouped with other foot deformities and in specific disease groups (e.g. rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes) were excluded. Two independent investigators quality rated all included papers on the Epidemiological Appraisal Instrument. Data on raw prevalence, population studied and methodology were extracted. Prevalence proportions and the standard error were calculated, and meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 78 papers reporting results of 76 surveys (total 496,957 participants) were included and grouped by study population for meta-analysis. Pooled prevalence estimates for HV were 23% in adults aged 18-65 years (CI: 16.3 to 29.6) and 35.7% in elderly people aged over 65 years (CI: 29.5 to 42.0). Prevalence increased with age and was higher in females [30% (CI: 22 to 38)] compared to males [13% (CI: 9 to 17)]. Potential sources of bias were sampling method, study quality and method of HV diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding the wide variation in estimates, it is evident that HV is prevalent; more so in females and with increasing age. Methodological quality issues need to be addressed in interpreting reports in the literature and in future research.

Quality-of-life among head and neck cancer survivors at one year after treatment – A systematic review

Abstract Background: The importance of quality-of-life (QoL) research has been recognised over the past two decades in patients with head and neck (H&N) cancer. The aims of this systematic review are to evaluate the QoL status of H&N cancer survivors one year after treatment and to identify the determinants affecting their QoL. Methods: Pubmed, Medline, Scopus, Sciencedirect and CINAHL (2000–2011) were searched for relevant studies, and two of the present authors assessed their methodological quality. The characteristics and main findings of the studies were extracted and reported. Results: Thirty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria, and the methodological quality of the majority was moderate to high. While patients of the group in question recover their global QoL by 12 months after treatment, a number of outstanding issues persist – deterioration in physical functioning, fatigue, xerostomia and sticky saliva. Age, cancer site, stage of disease, social support, smoking, feeding tube placement and alcohol consumption are the significant determinants of QoL at 12 months, while gender has little or no influence. Conclusions: Regular assessments should be carried out to monitor physical functioning,degree of fatigue, xerostomia and sticky saliva. Further research is required to develop appropriate and effective interventions to deal with these issues, and thus to promote the patients’ QoL.

Re-examining the evidence in radiation dermatitis management literature : an overview and a critical appraisal of systematic reviews

Purpose: To provide an overview and a critical appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs) of published interventions for the prevention/management of radiation dermatitis. Methods and Materials: We searched Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. We also manually searched through individual reference lists of potentially eligible articles and a number of key journals in the topic area. Two authors screened all potential articles and included eligible SRs. Two authors critically appraised and extracted key findings from the included reviews using AMSTAR (the measurement tool for “assessment of multiple systematic reviews”). Results: Of 1837 potential titles, 6 SRs were included. A number of interventions have been reported to be potentially beneficial for managing radiation dermatitis. Interventions evaluated in these reviews included skin care advice, steroidal/nonsteroidal topical agents, systemic therapies, modes of radiation delivery, and dressings. However, all the included SRs reported that there is insufficient evidence supporting any single effective intervention. The methodological quality of the included studies varied, and methodological shortfalls in these reviews might create biases to the overall results or recommendations for clinical practice. Conclusions: An up-to-date high-quality SR in the prevention/management of radiation dermatitis is needed to guide practice and direction for future research. We recommend that clinicians or guideline developers critically evaluate the information of SRs in their decision making.

Two decades of exceptional achievements : does the evidence support nurses to favour Cochrane systematic reviews over other systematic reviews?

Systematic reviews (SRs) are increasingly recognised as the standard approach in summarising health research and influence clinical nursing practice and health care decisions (Coster and Norman, 2009, Grimshaw and Russell, 1993 and Griffiths and Norman, 2005). High quality SRs should have a clearly stated set of objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies; an explicit reproducible methodology; a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies that would meet the eligibility criteria; an assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies; the assessment of risk of bias; and a systematic presentation and synthesis of the characteristics of findings of the included study (Higgins and Green, 2011). Although SRs are highly regarded and are expected to be rigorous, just as other research, their quality may vary (Choi et al., 2001 and Hoving et al., 2001)...

Nutritional support in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of nutritional support in the management of malnutrition in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is controversial. Previous meta-analyses, based on only cross-sectional analysis at the end of intervention trials, found no evidence of improved outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to conduct a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to clarify the efficacy of nutritional support in improving intake, anthropometric measures, and grip strength in stable COPD. DESIGN: Literature databases were searched to identify RCTs comparing nutritional support with controls in stable COPD. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs (n = 439) of nutritional support [dietary advice (1 RCT), oral nutritional supplements (ONS; 11 RCTs), and enteral tube feeding (1 RCT)] with a control comparison were identified. An analysis of the changes induced by nutritional support and those obtained only at the end of the intervention showed significantly greater increases in mean total protein and energy intakes with nutritional support of 14.8 g and 236 kcal daily. Meta-analyses also showed greater mean (±SE) improvements in favor of nutritional support for body weight (1.94 ± 0.26 kg, P < 0.001; 11 studies, n = 308) and grip strength (5.3%, P < 0.050; 4 studies, n = 156), which was not shown by ANOVA at the end of the intervention, largely because of bias associated with baseline imbalance between groups. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that nutritional support, mainly in the form of ONS, improves total intake, anthropometric measures, and grip strength in COPD. These results contrast with the results of previous analyses that were based on only cross-sectional measures at the end of intervention trials.