Search

Codjo Djignefa Djade,1– 3,* Caroline Diorio,1,2,* Danielle Laurin,2– 4,* Septime Pepin Hector Hessou,1 Alfred Kodjo Toi,2 Amédé Gogovor,2 Aboubacar Sidibe,1 Giraud Ekanmian,2 Teegwendé Valérie Porgo,5 Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun,1 Clermont E Dionne1– 3,6,* 1Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec City, QC, Canada; 2Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Québec City, QC, Canada; 3Centre d’Excellence sur le Vieillissement de Québec (CEVQ), VITAM – Research Center on Sustainable Health, Québec City, QC, Canada; 4Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, Québec City, QC, Canada; 5World Bank Group, Health, Nutrition, and Population Global Practice, Washington (DC), USA; 6Department of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec City, QC, Canada*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Clermont E Dionne, Centre de recherche du CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement, 1050, chemin Ste-Foy, Québec, QC, G1S 4L8, Canada, Tel +1(418) 682-7511 ext. 84675, Fax +1(418) 682-7949, Email clermont.dionne@crchudequebec.ulaval.caBackground: Musculoskeletal pain (MSP) is the leading contributor to disability, limiting mobility and dexterity. As research on the determinants of MSP is evolving, biomarkers can probably play a significant role in understanding its causes and improving its clinical management. This scoping review aimed to provide an overview of the associations between biomarkers and MSP.Methods: This study followed Arksey and O’Malley and PRISMA-ScR recommendations. Keywords related to biomarkers, association, and MSP were searched on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases from inception to September 28th, 2023. Data were systematically retrieved from the retained articles. A narrative synthesis approach – but no quality assessment – was used to map the core themes of biological markers of MSP that emerged from this work.Results: In total, 81 out of 25,165 identified articles were included in this scoping review. These studies were heterogeneous in many aspects. Overall, vitamin D deficiency, dyslipidemia (or hypercholesterolemia), and cytokines (high levels) were the most studied biomarkers with regards to MSP and were most often reported to be associated with non-specific MSP. Cadmium, calcium, C-reactive protein, collagen, creatinine, hormones, omega-3 fatty acids, sodium, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and vitamin C were also reported to be associated with MSP syndromes, but the evidence on these associations was sketchier. No conclusions could be drawn as to age and sex.Conclusions: Our findings suggest that some biomarkers are associated with specific MSP syndromes, while others would be associated with non-specific syndromes. Among all candidate markers, the evidence seems to be more consistent for vitamin D, cytokines and lipids (total cholesterol, triglycerides, low- and high-density lipoproteins). High-quality studies, stratified by age and sex, are needed to advance our understanding on biomarkers of MSP.Keywords: musculoskeletal pain, biomarkers, scoping review

Background: Quality reporting contributes to effective translation of health research in practice and policy. As an initial step in the development of a reporting guideline for scaling, the Standards for reporting stUdies of sCaling evidenCEd-informED interventions (SUCCEED), we performed a systematic review to identify relevant guidelines and compile a list of potential items., Methods: We conducted a systematic review according to Cochrane method guidelines. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, from their respective inceptions. We also searched websites of relevant organizations and Google. We included any document that provided instructions or recommendations, e.g., reporting guideline, checklist, guidance, framework, standard; could inform the design or reporting of scaling interventions; and related to the health sector. We extracted characteristics of the included guidelines and assessed their methodological quality using a 3-item internal validity assessment tool. We extracted all items from the guidelines and classified them according to the main sections of reporting guidelines (title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and other information). We performed a narrative synthesis based on descriptive statistics., Results: Of 7704 records screened (published between 1999 and 2019), we included 39 guidelines, from which data were extracted from 57 reports. Of the 39 guidelines, 17 were for designing scaling interventions and 22 for reporting implementation interventions. At least one female author was listed in 31 guidelines, and 21 first authors were female. None of the authors belonged to the patient stakeholder group. Only one guideline clearly identified a patient as having participated in the consensus process. More than half the guidelines (56%) had been developed using an evidence-based process. In total, 750 items were extracted from the 39 guidelines and distributed into the 7 main sections., Conclusion: Relevant items identified could inform the development of a reporting guideline for scaling studies of evidence-based health interventions. This and our assessment of guidelines could contribute to better reporting in the science and practice of scaling., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Introduction: Antidepressant drugs are the most frequently prescribed medication for mental disorders. They are also used off-label and for non-psychiatric indications. Prescriptions of antidepressants have increased in the last decades, but no systematic review exists on the extent of their use in the community., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a systematic review to estimate the prevalence of antidepressant use in the community. We will search for studies published from 1 January 2010 in the Embase and MEDLINE databases using a combination of controlled vocabulary and keywords adjusted for each database without any language restriction. The main inclusion criterion is the presence of prevalence data of antidepressant utilization. Thus, we will include all studies with a descriptive observational design reporting the prevalence of antidepressant use in the community. Study selection (by title/abstract and full-text screening) and data extraction for included studies will be independently conducted by pairs of reviewers. We will then synthesize the data on the prevalence of antidepressant use in individuals living in the community. If possible, we will perform a meta-analysis to generate prevalence-pooled estimates. If the data allows it, we will conduct subgroup analyses by antidepressant class, age, sex, country and other sociodemographic categories. We will evaluate the risk of bias for each included study through a quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool: Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data. DistillerSR software will be used for the management of this review., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval is not required for this review as it will not directly involve human or animal subjects. The findings of our systematic review will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals, the Qualaxia Network (https://qualaxia.org), presentations at international conferences on mental health and pharmacoepidemiology, as well as general public events., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021247423., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) method is increasingly used in pharmacoepidemiologic studies to describe medication adherence trajectories over time. However, assessing the associations between these medication adherence trajectories and health-related outcomes remains challenging. The purpose of this review is to identify and systematically review the methods used to assess the association between medication adherence trajectories, estimated from the GBTM method, and health-related outcomes., Methods: We will conduct a systematic review according to the recommendations of the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 6.2. Results will be reported following PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) recommendations. We will search in the following databases: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers will independently select articles and extract data. Discrepancies at every step will be resolved through discussion, and consensus will be reached for all disagreed articles. A third reviewer will act as a referee if needed. We will produce tables to synthesize the modalities used to estimate medication adherence trajectories with GBTM. We will also synthesize the modalities used to assess the association between these medication adherence trajectories and health-related outcomes by identifying the types of health-related outcomes studied and how they are defined, the statistical models used, and how the medication adherence trajectories were used in these models, and the effect measure yield. We will also review the limitations and biases reported by the authors and their attempts to mitigate them. We will provide a narrative synthesis., Discussion: This review will provide a thorough exploration of the strategies and methods used in medication adherence research to estimate the associations between medication adherence trajectories, estimated with GBTM, and the different health-related outcomes. It will represent the first crucial steps toward optimizing these methods in adherence studies., Systematic Review Registration: Prospero CRD42021213503 ., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Despite growing recognition of the importance of sex and gender considerations in health research, they are rarely integrated into research design and reporting. We sought to assess the integration of sex, as a biological attribute, and gender, as a socially constructed identity, in published reporting guidelines., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of published reporting guidelines listed on the EQUATOR website ( www.equator-nework.org ) from inception until December 2018. We selected all reporting guidelines (original and extensions) listed in the EQUATOR library. We used EndNote Citation Software to build a database of the statements of each guideline identified as a "full bibliographic reference" and retrieved the full texts. Reviewers independently extracted the data on use of sex and gender terms from the checklist/abstract/main text of guidelines. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis., Results: A total of 407 reporting guidelines were included; they were published between 1995 and 2018. Of the 407 guidelines, 235 (57.7%) mentioned at least one of the sex- and gender-related words. In the checklist of the reporting guidelines (n = 363), "sex" and "gender" were mentioned in 50 (13.8%) and 40 (11%), respectively. Only one reporting guideline met our criteria (nonbinary, appropriate categorization, and non-interchangeability) for correct use of sex and gender concepts. Trends in the use of "sex" and "gender" in the checklists showed that the use of "sex" only started in 2003, while "gender" has been in use since 1996., Conclusions: We assessed the integration of sex and gender in reporting guidelines based on the use of sex- and gender-related words. Our findings showed a low use and integration of sex and gender concepts and their incorrect use. Authors of reporting guidelines should reduce this gap for a better use of research knowledge. Trial registration PROSPERO no. CRD42019136491., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The lack of a reporting guideline for scaling of evidence-based practices (EBPs) studies has prompted the registration of the Standards for reporting studies assessing the impact of scaling strategies of EBPs (SUCCEED) with EQUATOR Network. The development of SUCCEED will be guided by the following main steps recommended for developing health research reporting guidelines., Methods: Executive Committee. We established a committee composed of members of the core research team and of an advisory group. Systematic review. The protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework on 29 November 2019 (https://osf.io/vcwfx/). We will include reporting guidelines or other reports that may include items relevant to studies assessing the impact of scaling strategies. We will search the following electronic databases: EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, from inception. In addition, we will systematically search websites of EQUATOR and other relevant organizations. Experts in the field of reporting guidelines will also be contacted. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers. A narrative analysis will be conducted to compile a list of items for the Delphi exercise., Consensus Process: We will invite panelists with expertise in: development of relevant reporting guidelines, methodologists, content experts, patient/member of the public, implementers, journal editors, and funders. We anticipated that three rounds of web-based Delphi consensus will be needed for an acceptable degree of agreement. We will use a 9-point scale (1 = extremely irrelevant to 9 = extremely relevant). Participants' response will be categorized as irrelevant (1-3), equivocal (4-6) and relevant (7-9). For each item, the consensus is reached if at least 80% of the participants' votes fall within the same category. The list of items from the final round will be discussed at face-to-face consensus meeting. Guideline validation. Participants will be authors of scaling studies. We will collect quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (semi-structured interview) data. Descriptive analyses will be conducted on quantitative data and constant comparative techniques on qualitative data., Discussion: Essential items for reporting scaling studies will contribute to better reporting of scaling studies and facilitate the transparency and scaling of evidence-based health interventions.

Background: The national strategy against malaria in an endemic country should involve all the health stakeholders. In Benin, the private sector is rarely present in the activities of the National Malaria Control Programme (NMCP), and its surveillance system does not cover private sector outlets that are a non-negligible part of the healthcare system., Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the drug delivery practices within private pharmacies of Cotonou and Porto-Novo and the awareness of medicine providers concerning the national policy of malaria treatment., Methods: A survey was performed among pharmacy staff members responsible for dispensing medicines and providing advice to patients within pharmacies of Cotonou and Porto-Novo. Dispensing/pharmacy assistants ('dispensators') from 82 pharmacies in Cotonou and 19 in Porto-Novo were surveyed. Data entry was performed using Epidata 3.1 software and data analysis was carried out using SPSS software version 21.1. Chi square test was used to compare proportions. A significance threshold of 0.05 was defined for the p value., Results: 46% of providers did not know the artemisinin-based combination therapy recommended by the NMCP for treating uncomplicated malaria. 58.7% were not able to recognize the gravity signs of malaria. 89.8% of dispensators were used to deliver an anti-malarial upon patient request, without prior biological confirmation as requested by the NMCP policy., Conclusions: Dispensing practices within the studied pharmacies from Cotonou and Porto-Novo were not in adequacy with the NMCP guidelines for uncomplicated malaria, which is a striking weakness in the training of drug providers on key elements of the guidelines for managing malaria. The NMCP needs to help dispensator from private pharmacies sector to standardize drug delivery practices according to its guidelines.