Systematic reviews on leptospirosis

OBJECTIVES: To find the existing clinical evidence on interventions for leptospirosis. The objective is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of any intervention on leptospirosis through systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCE: The sources of studies used (where there were no limitations concerning language, date, or other restrictions) were: EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Database, and the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Randomized Trials register. SELECTION OF STUDIES: Type of Study: All systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials. Participants: patients with clinical and/or laboratorial diagnosis of leptospirosis, and subjects potencially exposed to leptospirosis as defined by the authors Interventions: any intervention for leptospirosis (as antibiotics or vaccines for prevention or treatment). DATA COLLECTION: The assessment will be independently made by the reviewers and cross-checked. The external validity was assessed by analysis of: studies, interventions, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Located 163 studies using the search strategy described above, at the electronic databases above. Only 2 hits were selected, which are protocols of systematic reviews of Cochrane Collaboration, and not full reviews. One of the protocols evaluates antibiotics for treatment, and the other evaluates antibiotics for prevention of leptospirosis. CONCLUSIONS: There were not complete systematic reviews on interventions for leptospirosis. Any interventions for leptospirosis, such as prevention and treatment remains unclear for guidelines and practice.

Darwiniana: essays and reviews pertaining to Darwinism. By Asa Gray ...

[1888 printing]

Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery Reviews - Seeking Your Views

This consultation pack has been prepared to provide the public, relevant interest groups and health service staff with information on the outcome of the cardiology and cardiac surgery reviews and to invite comments on the reviews and their recommendation. åÊ

Smoking and Public Health: A Review of Reviews of Interventions to Increase Smoking Cessation, Reduce Smoking Initiation and Prevent Further Uptake of Smoking - Evidence Briefing

This evidence briefing collates review-level evidence of interventions including those targeted at pregnant women and evidence for tackling health inequalities in smoking.

Smoking and Public Health: A Review of Reviews of Interventions to Increase Smoking Cessation, Reduce Smoking Initiation and Prevent Further Uptake of Smoking - Summary

The briefing identifies gaps in primary and review-level research and makes a number of recommendations, including further measures to address health inequalities.

Bamford rapid reviews

The Bamford review of mental health and learning disabilities identified the need for research to help with service and policy development in a number of areas. We worked with key stakeholders, gaining significant input from service users and carers along with professionals and researchers, to agree five top priorities. Research reviews were funded by HSC R&D Division, Public Health Agency (PHA) to set out current knowledge about policies and care services relevant to Children and Young People; Patient Outcomes; Intellectual Disability; Psychological Therapies and Primary Care.The reviews which can be accessed below will serve as accessible, high quality sources of up-to-date knowledge for commissioners, policy-makers, academics and providers of health or social care services as well as service users. We hope that the reviews will help to inform future development and delivery of Mental Health and Intellectual Disability services and so achieve the best outcomes for service users and their families. The reviews have also identified a number of important areas for further research.A Call for research proposals�to these areas is announced today. Further information on this Call can be found by clicking hereA further Rapid review in personality disorders has been commissioned in conjunction with HSCB and DHSSPS and is now available to download here.

Recommender System Based on Consumer Product Reviews

Consumer reviews, opinions and shared experiences in the use of a product is a powerful source of information about consumer preferences that can be used in recommender systems. Despite the importance and value of such information, there is no comprehensive mechanism that formalizes the opinions selection and retrieval process and the utilization of retrieved opinions due to the difficulty of extracting information from text data. In this paper, a new recommender system that is built on consumer product reviews is proposed. A prioritizing mechanism is developed for the system. The proposed approach is illustrated using the case study of a recommender system for digital cameras

Concise reviews: in vitro-produced pancreas organogenesis models in three dimensions: self-organization from few stem cells or progenitors.

Three-dimensional models of organ biogenesis have recently flourished. They promote a balance between stem/progenitor cell expansion and differentiation without the constraints of flat tissue culture vessels, allowing for autonomous self-organization of cells. Such models allow the formation of miniature organs in a dish and are emerging for the pancreas, starting from embryonic progenitors and adult cells. This review focuses on the currently available systems and how these allow new types of questions to be addressed. We discuss the expected advancements including their potential to study human pancreas development and function as well as to develop diabetes models and therapeutic cells.

Scientific value of systematic reviews: survey of editors of core clinical journals.

BACKGROUND: Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.¦METHODS: We identified the 118 journals labelled as "core clinical journals" by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals' editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.¦RESULTS: The editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as "Review" or "Feature article". Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.¦DISCUSSION: Currently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of 'original research' in the context of SRs is warranted.