Search

Few studies have investigated the co-administration of music and ketamine, which could lead to different therapeutic outcomes than administration of ketamine alone. This scoping review will describe the existing literature on the joint use of ketamine and music in humans and seeks to determine how ketamine and music may interact. Five databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycNet, Scopus, Web of Science: Core) and Google Scholar will be searched; articles of interest will be limited to the English language but not to any publication year. Two reviewers will independently screen each record using Covidence, a screening and data extraction tool, and resolve disagreements via consensus. All studies in English that address the effects of co-administration of ketamine (any dose or administration route) and music in healthy volunteers or patients (any age group for any treatment) will be included. Articles about recreational use of ketamine will be excluded. Two reviewers will extract the identified data items using Covidence. This scoping review will be the first on the topic of music and ketamine and will help researchers who wish to design future studies investigating ketamine and music.

A scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of a particular topic by synthesizing the breadth of evidence currently available. It has become an increasingly common approach to summarize the literature since its inception in 2005, and detailed approaches have since been developed to provide methodological and reporting guidance. Scoping reviews are intended to provide readers with key concepts and definitions, important insights regarding the topic of interest, knowledge gaps in the field, and a summary of how research has been conducted. They may serve as a precursor to systematic reviews conducted on larger, more homogeneous bodies of evidence, which often include more specific research questions, methodological appraisals, risk of bias assessments, and meta-analyses. This Scoping Review Protocol Guidance is intended to serve as an educational tool for those developing or reviewing scoping review protocols including novice, intermediate, and experienced researchers and clinicians. This document provides information for each core protocol component (see color-coded headings) consisting of overarching goals, core requirements, helpful tips, and published protocol examples. Please note these examples may not include all recommendations provided herein. When writing your protocol, this guidance is intended to be used in tandem with the Scoping Review Protocol Template, which includes headings and subheadings to insert relevant protocol information. Please refer to our bibliography for the list of resources used to create these documents.

Rationale: By 2044, 50% of the United States will be of minority status [1]. Given the changing US population, it is important to reconsider traditional ways of understanding diversity. Diversity in research allows for the examination of drivers of health disparities as evidenced by prior research finding differences in health outcomes dependent on patient race [2]. However, most scholars now agree that markers such as race and ethnicity are imperfect measures of variation as there is more genetic heterogeneity between people of the same race than those of different races [3]. Due to the known impact of social determinants on health disparities, these may serve as better tools to use in research analysis for understanding diversity and differences in health outcomes [4]. In this systematic review, we will discuss the current practice for using race in pediatric clinical trial research and provide a review of the use of social determinants of health in pediatric clinical trial research. Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to assess if there is reporting of social determinants of health in pediatric dermatology clinical trial research (specifically income, location, education, healthcare, and social support) and the conditions and setting this reporting occurs.

This scoping review seeks to highlight how health innovations researched, developed, and implemented in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) can be adapted and adopted to address similar challenges in high-income country (HIC) settings utilizing various scientific methods. By understanding the range of research and programs already conducted under reciprocal innovation , we hope by conducting this review to identify knowledge gaps in the evidence base and determine which methods work best to encourage health researchers and funders to conduct and support reciprocal innovations in the future.

In SCT individuals (population) with adverse health outcomes (context), what is known about sex and gender differences (concepts)?

Background: Wearable actigraphy monitors have seen rapid growth in both clinical and physical activity (PA) research. For research studies that utilize human participants, these portable devices provide a means to objectively quantify symptom burden and therapy effectiveness. The highly detailed data gathered from actigraphy devices allows researchers to identify even the subtlest changes in rest, sleep, and activity patterns that occur with other therapeutics. Compared to participant self-report, the data collection automation by a passive activity monitor improves the quality and reliability of the data. However, there is no consensus in how the data from these monitors are processed, different actigraphy brands and models used, and inconsistent reporting making comparisons difficult. There are several actigraphy data processing methods, but no consensus on definitions for PA values or cleaning guidelines to facilitate comparison across studies. PA research could be advanced with globally acceptable standardization in the processing of PA data. We will conduct a scoping review to identify common cleaning and pre-processing techniques of raw PA counts collected from commercially available actigraphy devices. Methods: We will use the Joanna Briggs Institute’s methodology to guide the conduct of this review and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews checklist for reporting. A librarian will search PubMed (NLM), Scopus (Elsevier), and Web of Science: Core Collection (Clarivate Analytics) using keywords and controlled vocabulary. The reference lists of included articles and consultation with experts will be used to identify additional records. Two authors will first screen the titles and abstracts and then full-text using Covidence. Studies describing the cleaning or preparation of PA data collected from actigraphy monitors for human movement will be included. Two authors will independently extract from each included article the type of PA analyzed, criteria and descriptions used to categorize PA, accelerometry data collection methods, actigraphy cleaning method, actigraphy algorithms, and PA variables. Results will be presented through a descriptive numerical summary of studies, PRISMA flow diagram, and tables showing the cleaning methods and algorithms used and PA variables. Discussion: The findings of this scoping review will identify common actigraphy data cleaning procedures to fill the existing gap in PA research.

This scoping review will explore the effects of race in the self-reporting of psychoneurophysical (PNP) symptoms in adult patients with four chronic diseases (cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, cancers, and diabetes. The PNP symptoms of interest include depressive symptoms, fatigue, anxiety, pain, cognitive impairment, sleep impairment, mood impairment, irritability, and shortness of breath.