Search

IntroductionThe main treatment for sleep apnoeas and hypopnoeas syndrome (SAHS) is continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP). However, patients sometimes do not adhere to the treatment protocol. Supplementary and complementary therapies have appeared as alternatives. Some of the therapies which are especially important are those related to myofunctional (MFT) and postural therapy (PT), as all of them are non-invasive, and their application is simpler than that of CPAP. We aim to present a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis for investigating new SAHS treatments, including the protocols and frequency of use and the effects they have on patient signs, symptoms and quality of life.Methods and analysisThe literature search will be conducted using the Cochrane, Web of Science, Medline (via PubMed) and Scopus databases, from January 2020 to December 2020. All types of studies written in English and Spanish that investigate the use of alternative SAHS treatments related to MFT, or more importantly, the combination of MFT and PRT, will be selected. To evaluate their quality, the Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional will be applied. The primary factor valued in the studies will be the inclusion of MFT and PT reeducation in the treatment. Subgroup analyses will be carried out evaluating the specific type of treatments chosen and the improvements or deteriorations in the level of health and quality of life in the patients. Finally, several patient-related outcomes, namely sleep quality, quality of life and sleep Apnoeas and Hypoapnoeas Index, will be examined.Ethics and disseminationIn this case, ethical approval is not necessary. The data used in the review will be exclusively obtained from published studies, implying there are no privacy concerns. The information obtained will be relevant to understand if the new treatments applied in SAHS are effective, and if postural and MFT therapy used together can be considered an appropriate approach to treat this disease.The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

IntroductionThe recommendations of most health organisations encourage mothers to keep exclusive breast feeding during the first 6 months and combining breast feeding with complementary feeding at least during the first and second years, due to the numerous immunologic, cognitive developmental and motor skill benefits that breast feeding confers. Although the influence of breast feeding on motor development during childhood has been studied, the findings are inconsistent, and some studies have even reported no effect. This manuscript presents a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis, with the aim of reviewing the relationship between breast feeding and motor skill development in children in terms of duration, exclusivity or non-exclusivity of breast feeding.Methods and analysisThe search will be conducted using Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2019. Observational studies (cross-sectional and follow-up studies) written in English or Spanish that investigate the association between breast feeding and motor development in children will be included. This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. The Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies and The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for longitudinal studies will be used to assess the quality of included studies. The effect of breast feeding on motor skill development will be calculated as the primary outcome. Subgroup analyses will be carried out based on the characteristics of motor skill development and the population included.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required because the data used will be obtained from published studies, and there will be no concerns about privacy. The findings from this study will be relevant information regarding the association of breast feeding with motor development in children and could be used encourage to improve breastfeeding rates. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018093706.

IntroductionCancer (and survival) is known to affect the quality of life. Strategies as physical activity and exercise during and after cancer may improve health-related qualify of life (HRQOL) outcomes and are, therefore, of clinical and public health importance. To the best of our knowledge, comparative evidence of the effect of the different types of exercise on improving HRQOL in cancer patients has not been synthesised thus far. We aim to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis in order to synthesise all available evidence regarding the effect of different types of exercise interventions on HRQOL during and after cancer treatment.Methods and analysisMEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, Embase, The Cochrane Library and SPORTDiscus will be searched from inception to December 2018 for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Studies assessing physical activity and exercise interventions in cancer patients (during treatment) and survivors (after treatment) will be selected. Two independent reviewers will identify eligible studies. After quality appraisal and data extraction, we will conduct meta-analyses for outcomes of interest, including data from mental and physical dimensions of cancer-specific and/or generic HRQOL questionnaires. Risk of bias assessments will be completed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Study heterogeneity will be measured by the I2 statistic. Bayesian (and traditional approach) network meta-analysis will be performed when possible to determine the comparative effect of the different physical activity or exercise interventions.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review and network meta-analysis will synthesise evidence on the effect of different types of exercise interventions on HRQOL during and after cancer treatment. The results will be disseminated by publication in a peer-reviewed journal and through scientific conferences and symposia. Ethical approval will not be required because the data used for this work will be exclusively extracted from published studies.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019125028.

IntroductionA growing interest has emerged on the effects of exercise during gestation. Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that prenatal exercise could reduce the mothers’ risk for some disorders. Despite this, evidence regarding the risk of caesarean section, birth weight or Apgar score at delivery is still controversial. Furthermore, practitioners are reluctant to recommend exercise to pregnant women suffering from some disorders, such as hypertension, pre-eclampsia or pregnant women with obesity. Moreover, the scarcity of studies addressing the risks and benefits of exercise at higher intensity prevent practitioners from recommending it at higher dosages. Umbrella reviews represent an appropriate design to elucidate the reasons behind the contradictory findings of previous systematic reviews.MethodsThis protocol was developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols and the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Epistemonikos, Prospero register and SPORTDiscuss databases will be searched to identify systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials that examine the effect of exercise on pregnancy outcomes from inception to August 2019. Searches will be conducted from September to November 2019.Statistical analysisMethodological quality will be evaluated using the AMSTAR 2 tool. The certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations for meta-analyses will be assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The summary effect sizes will be calculated through the use of random-effects and fixed-effects models. Heterogeneity among studies will be assessed using the I2statistic, and evidence of excess significance bias and evidence of small study effects will also be evaluated.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be needed for this review protocol. The results will be disseminated to academic audiences by peer-reviewed publications. Furthermore, results will be disseminated to clinical audiences through professionals’ associations and social networks, and may influence guidelines developers in order to improve outcomes in mothers and offspring.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019123410.