DOCSLIB.ORG

Databases Selection in a Systematic Review of the Association Between Anthropometric Measurements and Dental Caries Among Children in Asia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Databases Selection in a Systematic Review of the Association Between Anthropometric Measurements and Dental Caries Among Children in Asia children Review Databases Selection in a Systematic Review of the Association between Anthropometric Measurements and Dental Caries among Children in Asia Rokiah Mamikutty 1,2, Ameera Syafiqah Aly 1,2 and Jamaludin Marhazlinda 1,* 1 Department of Community Oral Health and Clinical Prevention, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia; [email protected] (R.M.); [email protected] (A.S.A.) 2 Oral Health Programme, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Level 5, Block E10, Parcel E, Precinct 1, Federal Government Administrative Centre, Putrajaya 62590, Malaysia * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +60-3-7967-4805 Abstract: A comprehensive search for primary studies using a sufficient number and relevant databases is critical to minimise bias and increase the validity of a systematic review. We examined the frequency and choices of databases commonly used to provide an efficient search of primary studies for a systematic review of anthropometric measurements and dental caries among children in Asia. Twelve previous systematic reviews on a similar topic were retrieved from six databases. The frequency and choice of databases used by reviewers were determined from the methods sections. We also identified the lists of other databases usually searched in other reviews. Eligibility criteria for final databases selection were the database’s scope, the topic of interest, design of the study, type of article, and the accessibility of the databases. Of the 77 databases identified, previous reviews on this topic used 21 databases, ranging from 2 to 12 databases in each review. Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and PubMed were employed most frequently. Twenty-six databases were eligible and selected for the present review. Twelve were regional databases to provide comprehensive coverage Citation: Mamikutty, R.; Aly, A.S.; of primary studies. A systematic approach in selecting appropriate databases for searching primary Marhazlinda, J. Databases Selection in studies is paramount to reduce errors, ensure coverage, and increase the validity of systematic a Systematic Review of the reviews’ conclusions. Association between Anthropometric Measurements and Dental Caries Keywords: databases; Asia; dental caries; anthropometric measurements; systematic review among Children in Asia. Children 2021, 8, 565. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/children8070565 1. Introduction Received: 4 June 2021 Searching primary studies is deemed as one of the critical steps in performing system- Accepted: 28 June 2021 Published: 30 June 2021 atic review and meta-analysis. Failure to comprehensively search for primary studies for a systematic review may incur biased results. Importantly, databases are the primary source Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral for searching potential studies; thus, the choice of databases may affect search quality [1]. with regard to jurisdictional claims in Hence, systematic planning in selecting appropriate databases is mandatory. published maps and institutional affil- Several databases are available for searching primary studies, and the number is iations. growing. These electronic databases can be divided into the bibliographic database, subject-specific database, regional database, grey literature database, clinical trial registries, and web search [2]. Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Tri- als (CENTRAL) are essential bibliographic databases. Medline covers 25 million references that indexes with Medical Subject Heading (MeSH). While EMBASE includes important Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. biomedicine references from 90 countries, it covers all Medline records and more, available This article is an open access article via subscription. Each database has its purpose; for instance, CENTRAL is an important distributed under the terms and source for randomized trials. The subject-specific database CINAHL (nursing and allied conditions of the Creative Commons health) is a desired database for nursing-related topics, and the ProQuest Dissertations and Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Theses Database searches for theses and dissertations related to the review. creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ There are various opinions about the number of databases deemed sufficient for 4.0/). searching primary studies in a systematic review. Vassar et al. (2017) recommended using Children 2021, 8, 565. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8070565 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/children Children 2021, 8, 565 2 of 14 at least two databases for a review [1]. Referring to the commonly used databases such as EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, Bramer et al. (2017) suggested that a systematic review requires four databases to ensure adequate coverage of the review topic [3]. Likewise, Higgins et al. (2019) pointed out that searching multiple databases may provide more excellent coverage than searching a single database [2]. Moreover, the overlapping of search results is less, and it also minimized selection bias. Selecting databases should also consider the review topic [4,5]. In some instances, the reviewer might need to identify and search for additional databases [2,6]. For exam- ple, the present review includes primary studies done in Asian countries. Consequently, regional databases that focus on the literature produced in the Asian regions need to be considered. More than a few regional or local databases of Asian countries are available, for example, IndMED, KoreaMed, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. These databases provide useful information, especially regarding studies published in Asian regions. However, regional databases may have some limitations. Saokaew et al. (2015) no- ticed that some databases from Japan and Thailand had limited accessibility [7]. In the view of the scarcity of resources, accessibility issues in some databases may limit a researcher to include the databases for searching for primary studies. On the other hand, even though selecting multiple databases provides better cover- age, time and resources could serve as the reviewers’ limitations [2]. Using numerous databases is very time-consuming. Furthermore, the syntax of search strategies is database- specific [3]. The number of retrieved articles will be enormous; therefore, screening and excluding the irrelevant studies may jeopardize the time required to complete a systematic review [4]. Hence, a balanced decision is needed. Accordingly, to achieve a balanced decision, the selection of databases should be made systematically and understanding the purpose of additional databases is required. Little evidence was found to guide such a pro- cess, especially concerning the number of electronic databases and the choice of databases should be searched [8]. Specific criteria were discussed, which consisted of, (i) the inclu- sion of the core databases such as Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar [2,3], (ii) the inclusion of additional databases guided by the review topic [4], and (iii) the inclusion of regional databases due appropriate [2]. The reviewer should also consider the resources and accessibility of the databases in the final selection of databases. The present review investigated the association between anthropometric measurements and dental caries in children in Asia. Thus, this paper aimed to identify commonly used and most relevant databases to provide an efficient search of primary studies for this review. 2. Materials and Methods The researcher performed a search for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of an- thropometric measurements and dental caries in children from the following six databases: Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and Google Scholar. The search was performed from the inception of the databases to 30 June 2020. The search strategies built by the information specialist for the present review on ‘Anthropometric measurements and dental caries among children in Asia’ was adapted. The six databases we used and the search strategies for PubMed in Table1 is an example for adaption. Due to the ability to explode narrower terms, PubMed was chosen as a primary database to build the search strategy, and was then adapted to the other five databases. After that, two trained and calibrated researchers (Kappa score for title and abstract screening = 0.96, p < 0.05; full-text screening = 0.85, p < 0.05) independently screened the retrieved review articles at two levels, the title and abstract, and the full text of the remaining systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Of the selected systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the first researcher extracted data on the databases reported in each study’s method section, number and category of databases used, and number of articles retrieved in each database. Upon completion of this process, the data extracted was validated by the second researcher. Besides, the researcher also identified and listed all the commonly used databases for Children 2021, 8, 565 3 of 14 systematic review studies [9], including the databases suggested by articles, books, website, and courses. Table 1. PubMed, with its ability to explode narrower terms, built the search strategies of the three following concepts ‘children’, ‘anthropometric measurements’, and ‘caries’, then adapted it to other five databases. Search Strategy for PubMed Results “child” [MeSH Terms] OR “child” [All Fields] OR “children” [All Fields] OR “child s” [All Fields] OR “children s” [All Fields] OR “childrens” [All Fields]
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Grey Literature in Library and Information Studies
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2010 Grey Literature in Library and Information Studies Dominic J. Farace GreyNet International Joachim Schöpfel University of Lille Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, Scholarly Communication Commons, and the Scholarly Publishing Commons Farace, Dominic J. and Schöpfel, Joachim, "Grey Literature in Library and Information Studies" (2010). Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.. 162. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/162 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Grey Literature in Library and Information Studies Edited by Dominic J. Farace and Joachim Schöpfel De Gruyter Saur An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libra- ries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access. More information about the initiative can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libra- ries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access. More information about the initiative can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org ISBN 978-3-11-021808-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-021809-1 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-021806-2 ISSN 0179-0986 e-ISSN 0179-3256 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License, as of February 23, 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effective Health Care Research Consortium (EHCRC) Publication
    Consortium Publication Policy, 20 February 2013 The Effective Health Care Research Consortium (EHCRC) Publication policy The Effective Health Care Research Consortium (the Consortium) has extensive experience in medical publishing, research ethics, and principles of research integrity. Using this experience, and helped by a specialist in the field, we have drawn up this policy document to help promote capacity development in research integrity. 1 This policy applies to all supported Consortium activities. In addition, we encourage partners to use this to prompt their own departments and institutions to develop similar explicit policies. 1. Scope This policy relates to academic publications in peer-reviewed journals including systematic reviews published on The Cochrane Library. This includes authors working with the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group (CIDG), all Consortium supported Cochrane authors, and all Consortium supported research publications. The policy applies to all outputs from the programme and associated grants (for example, self-published material, reports, newsletters, and blogs). 2. General principles Work supported by the Consortium will be published in a timely and responsible manner. All reports and publications will endeavour to present findings in a responsible, objective and accurate manner and without undue delays. Those who have made a significant contribution to the research will be recognised appropriately by authorship or acknowledgement. 3. Registration of systematic reviews and clinical trials All systematic reviews initiated by the consortium that are not registered as Cochrane Reviews will be prospectively registered on a suitable register (such as PROSPERO). We expect anyone receiving Consortium funds as support to their work (as money, or in kind, such as payment of travel) will, should they be involved in a clinical trial, ensure this trial is registered prospectively (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Cochrane Collaboration Conversation with Givewell
    Meeting between Cochrane Collaboration representatives and GiveWell at the U.S. Cochrane Center, May 8, 2012. From the Cochrane Collaboration: Kay Dickersin Director of the U.S. Cochrane Center and the Eyes and Vision Review Group, U.S. Satellite Lorne Becker Director of the Cochrane Collaboration Trading Company and Cochrane Innovations Jeremy Grimshaw Co-Chair, Cochrane Steering Group, Director of the Canadian Cochrane Center, and Coordinating Editor of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Roger Soll Coordinating Editor of the Neonatal Review Group and Member of the Executive Board of the Review Group Coordinating Editors Lisa Bero Director, U.S. Cochrane Center (San Francisco Branch) and Cochrane World Health Organization delegate George Rutherford Coordinating Editor, HIV/AIDS Review Group From GiveWell: Holden Karnofsky and Stephanie Wykstra These notes reflect answers that Cochrane representatives gave during our conversation. Cochrane Collaboration’s aims: • Cochrane Collaboration’s primary aim is to produce high quality systematic reviews of existing health-related research. The organization also trains researchers to do systematic reviews, develops better methods for analyzing and comparing studies in its systematic reviews and educates researchers in the use of these methods, and advocates for evidence-based decision- making within the World Health Organization (WHO), governments, professional associations, consumers and other groups. Structure of the organization: • The Cochrane Collaboration uses a multilevel level organizational and governance structure, comprising a group of “entities” that are organized around functions related to conducting and disseminating systematic reviews of the evidence. Each Cochrane organization (or “entity”) provides its own governance structure and is responsible for raising its own funding.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of NIHR Investment in Cochrane Report
    Evaluation of NIHR investment in Cochrane infrastructure and systematic reviews Committee members: Professor Jos Kleijnen (Chair), Dr Phil Alderson, Dr Jane Aubin, Professor John Cairns, Ms Sally Crowe, and Professor Paul Garner Report writer: Kate Misso 10 February 2017 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................ 5 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................... 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 10 1. The global landscape of systematic reviews ............................................................................. 10 2. The performance of NIHR funded Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) ....................................... 11 3. Cochrane’s impact on key clinical and policy issues in the NHS ............................................... 13 4. The economic impact of systematic reviews ............................................................................ 14 5. Current and planned developments in Cochrane and stakeholders’ views ............................. 14 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7: Searching for Studies
    © Copyright The Cochrane Collaboration 2008 This Chapter is Draft Version 0.4 This Chapter is undergoing review, editing and formatting, and will not constitute the final agreed formal instructions for Cochrane Reviewers until this process is complete. However, the editors believe that this version is close enough to completion for it to be helpful and not to be seriously misleading, although reviewers should note that further sections, clarifications and some changes may still be added. It will be superseded by Version 1.0 in due course. Please cite this version as de Vet HCW, Eisinga A, Riphagen II, Aertgeerts B, Pewsner D. Chapter 7: Searching for Studies. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 0.4 [updated September 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Copyright statement added by Tess Moore 30th September 2008 This statement was added by Jon Deeks on 25th September 2008. This chapter was last edited by Anne Eisinga on 15th August 2008. 7 Searching for studies 7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 General issues 7.1.1.1 Role of the Trials Search Co-ordinator 7.1.1.2 Minimizing bias 7.1.1.3 Copyright legislation and database licensing agreements 7.1.2 Summary points 7.2 Sources to search 7.2.1 Bibliographic databases 7.2.1.1 Bibliographic databases – general introduction 7.2.1.2 Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies 7.2.1.3 MEDLINE and EMBASE 7.2.1.4 National and regional databases Box 7.2.a: Examples of regional electronic bibliographic databases 7.2.1.5 Subject-specific databases Box
    [Show full text]
  • How to Develop a Search Strategy for an Intervention Review
    How to develop a search strategy for an intervention review Based on the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) criteria* PRESS Guide Examples 1 Translation If possible, structure the search strategy into 1. Index term(s) for Patient/Population/Problem Is the search question search concepts (groups of words) according to 2. Text word(s) for Patient/Population/Problem translated well into search relevant elements from PICOS: 3. 1 OR 2 (P) concepts? 4. Index term(s) for Intervention(s) Patient/Population/Problem 5. Text word(s) for Intervention(s) Intervention Comparator 6. 4 OR 5 (I) Outcome 7. Publication type(s) Study design (methods filter) 8. Index term(s) for Study design(s) 9. Text word(s) for Study design(s) 10. 7 OR 8 OR 9 (S) 11. 3 AND 6 AND 10 (P AND I AND S) You might want to omit the Comparator and the Outcome elements as they are not often described adequately in the title, abstract or indexing. 2 Operators See the database’s help file to find available Are there any mistakes in operators used to combine individual terms and the use of Boolean or search concepts proximity operators? AND, OR , NOT, NEXT, NEAR/n, adj/n are common operators AND between terms or concepts narrows the search OR between terms or concepts broaden the 1 2019 03 13 search Use the NOT operator with caution – you might A search for: ‘NOT-out’ terms you want to keep private health NOT public health will exclude papers that are about private health and also about public health 3 Subject headings/index Subject headings or index terms (like MeSH used Vaccination terms in MEDLINE for example) are terms that describe Guidelines as Topic Are any important subject the content of an article – what it is about Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic headings missing or have Publication type terms describe what kind of Guideline any irrelevant ones been publication the article is Randomized Controlled Trial included? Check all relevant index terms for each of the databases you will search Some index terms cover the P and also the I in 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 from Opensigle to Opengrey Changes and Continuity
    From OpenSIGLE to OpenGrey Changes and Continuity Christiane Stock and Nathalie Henrot (INIST-CNRS) First presented at the GL81 conference in New Orleans 2006 as a prototype, OpenSIGLE went life in December 2007. After three years of existence, the results are beyond all expectations. OpenSIGLE has become a reference source for grey literature, and its user community has grown constantly, especially from outside Europe. The integration of the GL conference preprints into the repository from 2008 onwards not only added research papers on the topic of grey literature to its contents, but also permitted OpenSIGLE to be accepted in the “Directory of Open Access Repositories” (OpenDOAR*). In spite of the success of OpenSIGLE it’s not wise to rest on one’s laurels. The change of name to “OpenGrey” signifies a shift in the content of the repository as well as in its physical appearance. Besides providing a new look and a more convenient technological environment, OpenGrey closes the gap between the close of the SIGLE* database and today, including recent records and links to the full text. The paper presents the new website which includes numerous facilities requested by users such as OAI-PMH*, the possibility to export records and an improved access to the document itself. OpenGrey also takes into account a changed user behaviour, where visitors arrive after searching Google or Google Scholar* and want all relevant information at a glance. The paper further explains input procedures and gives other information for the ongoing updates of the repository. Finally we call former SIGLE members and new partners to contribute to OpenGrey.
    [Show full text]
  • Searching the Cochrane Library Training Guide[Pdf]
    Searching the Cochrane Library To book your place on the course contact the library team: www.epsom-sthelier.nhs.uk/lis E: [email protected] T: 020 8296 2430 Learning objectives At the end of this session you should be able to: Identify when to use Cochrane Log on to the Cochrane Library databases from home and work Formulate a search string, using basic Boolean logic Search using Keywords and MeSH terms Use the search history function to combine search results Refine search criteria by author or title View records from each database and navigate through a review Print records from each database View graphs and tables from a review What is the Cochrane Library? The Cochrane Library is a database of reliable evidence on the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. It is regarded as the best resource available of this type. The Cochrane Library is put together by the Cochrane Collaboration, the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and other related organisations and is updated quarterly. When should you use the Cochrane Library? The Cochrane Library should be used when looking for the best evidence on the effectiveness of treatment and health promotion interventions. The best type of evidence comes from systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). It is also a source of information on the methodology of systematic reviews. It should be used when looking for information on the effectiveness of an intervention, for example: What is the effectiveness of treatment y? What is the effectiveness of treatment
    [Show full text]
  • Efficacy of Low-Level Laser Therapy for Tinnitus
    brain sciences Article Efficacy of Low-Level Laser Therapy for Tinnitus: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis Chih-Hao Chen 1, Chii-Yuan Huang 1,2, Chun-Yu Chang 3 and Yen-Fu Cheng 1,2,4,5,* 1 Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan; [email protected] (C.-H.C.); [email protected] (C.-Y.H.) 2 Faculty of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei 112, Taiwan 3 Department of Anesthesiology, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei City 231, Taiwan; [email protected] 4 Department of Medical Research, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan 5 Institute of Brain Science, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei 112, Taiwan * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +886-2-2871-2121 (ext. 1292) Received: 13 November 2020; Accepted: 30 November 2020; Published: 2 December 2020 Abstract: Study Objective: Tinnitus is a common disorder characterized by sound in the ear in the absence of external or internal stimuli. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) was discovered enhancing tissue repair via increasing the blood microcirculation and cell proliferation in 1960s. In the last two decades, LLLT delivered to the cochlea has frequently been used to reduce the severity of tinnitus. However, whether LLLT effectively attenuates the severity of tinnitus remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of low-level laser therapy on adult patients with complaints of tinnitus. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. Interventions: Low-level laser therapy (LLLT). Measurements: Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) score; improvement rates of the visual analog scale (VAS), verbal rating scale (VRS) and numeric rating scale (NRS) scores.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Literature Resources: a Guide for CNRA Employees
    Scientific Literature Resources: A Guide for CNRA Employees GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR FEBRUARY 2020 PREPARED BY Nicole Waugh, California Energy Commission Library Amy Loseth, California Geological Survey Library Jenny Woo, California Energy Commission Library CDFW Literature Access SIFT (Science Institute Focus Group) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 7 SECTION 1: ONLINE RESOURCES ..................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Citation Databases ................................................................................................................ 8 Scopus ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Google Scholar ......................................................................................................................... 8 Pubmed .................................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Databases .............................................................................................................................. 9 Biodiversity Heritage Library ................................................................................................... 9 Birds of North America ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Opensigle to Opengrey
    From OpenSIGLE to OpenGrey Changes and Continuity Christiane Stock and Nathalie Henrot (INIST-CNRS) GL12 - Prague, 7 December 2010 1 SSIIGGLLEE (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) - a European database of bibliographic records in grey literature Produced by 7-15 European member organizations 1980 2005 Content: Multidisciplinary Hosts: STN International and Silverplatter/Ovid Specific fields and information in each record: English title or keywords SIGLE classification code Availability statement GL12 - Prague, 7 December 2010 2 OpenSIGLE – « database repository » 700 000 records in open access SIGLE classification About, partners, document supply GL12 - Prague, 7 December 2010 3 High lights 2010 Average of 35 000 visits per month Included in OpenDOAR (Directory of Open Access Repositories ) November 2009 Non-European visitors : 30% Access via Google Scholar : > 30 % GL1 to GL11 conference preprints in full text now in open access GL12 - Prague, 7 December 2010 4 OpenSIGLE – Usage statistics January – October (average per month) 2009 2010 Visits 12 000 35 000 Pages viewed 35 450 88 580 Length of visit 107 sec 91 sec Number of 3.4 2.8 pages viewed GL12 - Prague, 7 December 2010 5 WhyWhy changechange ???? GL12 - Prague, 7 December 2010 6 Winds of change Some “deficiencies of the present website Technical performance at its limits Website layout low key and outdated Absence of features requested by OpenSIGLE users Re-open OpenSIGLE for new input Add records from 2005 onwards from current partners Open the database to new European partners GL12 - Prague, 7 December 2010 7 Availability GL12 - Prague, 7 December 2010 8 GL12 - Prague, 7 December 2010 9 Change and Continuity Software Exalead is the search engine used for the database, with in-house developments using php and MySql software for the user interface Persistent identifier Each record in OpenSIGLE is identified by a unique identifier, the handle.
    [Show full text]
  • Protocol Template (Protocol)
    Protocol template (Protocol) NN This is a reprint of a Cochrane protocol, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration and published in The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9 http://www.thecochranelibrary.com For Preview Only Protocol template (Protocol) Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. TABLE OF CONTENTS HEADER....................................... 1 ABSTRACT ...................................... 1 BACKGROUND .................................... 1 OBJECTIVES ..................................... 1 METHODS ...................................... 1 Figure1. ..................................... 3 REFERENCES ..................................... 5 ADDITIONALTABLES. 6 APPENDICES ..................................... 7 CONTRIBUTIONSOFAUTHORS . 21 DECLARATIONSOFINTEREST . 21 For Preview Only Protocol template (Protocol) i Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [Intervention Protocol] Protocol template NN1 1Not specified Contact address: N N, Not specified. Editorial group: Cochrane Metabolic and Endocrine Disorders Group. Publication status and date: New, published in Issue 9, 2013. Citation: N N. Protocol template. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 9. Art. No.: CDXXXXXX. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CDXXXXXX. Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ABSTRACT This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of ... How the intervention
    [Show full text]