Sentences with phrase «systematic review studies»

In a systematic review studies in which yoga was used to relieve the pain of arthritis, 6 of 9 studies reported positive physiological and psychological outcomes.

It's important to remember that, as this is a systematic review study, it provides large - scale average values rather than specific diet strategies.

The very recent Campbell systematic review study adds more answers to the question: How much does the teacher qualification impact the quality of the early childhood education and care (ECEC) environment?

Any protocol amendments will be documented by the lead author in the systematic review study protocol.

Not exact matches

Dalton et al. (1998)(reviewing 31 studies of board leadership structure and finding «little evidence of systematic governance structure / financial performance relationships») and Rhoades et al. (2001)(meta - analysis of 22 independent samples across 5,271 companies indicates that independent leadership structure has a significant impact on performance, but this impact varies with context).

According to this meta - study (a fancy name for a literature review), there seems to be a systematic tendency to downplay the economic costs of climate change policies:

Imagine that a systematic review of the sociology literature found that, in 247 of 273 relevant studies, increasing religiosity was connected with increasing crime or delinquency.

Juergen Moltmann, «The Adventure of Theological Ideas,» as cited in M. Douglas Meeks, «Juergen Moltmann's Systematic Contributions to Theology:» Religious Studies Review, Vol.

Impact of food labelling systems on food choices and eating behaviours: a systematic review and meta - analysis of randomized studies

A recent systematic review and meta - analysis reported no significant association between the consumption of saturated fatty acids (SFAs) and the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD)(1), but the study failed to specify the replacement macronutrient for saturated fat.

In a systematic review and meta - analysis of 28 prospective observational studies, representing 1,109,272 participants, every additional cup of caffeinated and decaffeinated Kona consumed in a day was associated with a 9 % (95 % CI 6 %, 11 %) and 6 % (95 % CI 2 %, 9 %) lowered type 2 diabetes, respectively.

Nonnutritive sweeteners and cardiometabolic health: a systematic review and meta - analysis of randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies, CMAJ, vol.

Colorectal cancer and nonfermented milk, solid cheese, and fermented milk consumption: a systematic review and meta - analysis of prospective studies.

In an ideal world, systematic reviews provide access to all the available evidence on specific exposure — disease associations, but publication bias related to authors» conflicts of interest may affect the reliability of the conclusions of such studies.

This systematic review and meta - analysis found substantial heterogeneity among studies of non-fermented and fermented milk consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

In a systematic review and meta - analysis of 28 prospective observational studies, representing 1,109,272 participants, every additional cup of caffeinated and decaffeinated kona consumed in a day was associated with a 9 % (95 % CI 6 %, 11 %) and 6 % (95 % CI 2 %, 9 %) lower risk of type 2 diabetes, respectively.

Nutrition and oxidative stress: a systematic review of human studies.

Dietary sugars and body weight: systematic review and meta - analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies

There are no meta - analyses of RCTs of milk / milk product consumption and fracture outcomes or incidence of osteoporosis; however, there are meta - analyses and systematic reviews of calcium supplementation and fracture and meta - analyses of prospective studies of dairy intake and fracture (29, 30).

We conducted a systematic review of studies examining the association of industry sponsorship with the statistical significance of results, effect sizes, and conclusions of nutrition research.

With absolutely no indication about the quality of the studies (and methods used) in each individual study, readers have no way of assessing the quality of the larger systematic review.

Infant sleeping position and the sudden infant death syndrome: systematic review of observational studies and historical review of recommendations from 1940 to 2002.

Fransen (2015) makes a few intriguing points: The Midwives Alliance of North American (MANA) identifies a systematic review written within the official «journal» of Lamaze International as one «best available studies on planned home birth and maternal fetal outcomes.»

According to a systematic review, a small body of research suggests that treatment may be associated with mother - reported improvements in breastfeeding, but the studies are small, short - term, and rely on inconsistent methodology.

This was a systematic review of cohort and case - control studies that compared rates of any adverse pregnancy outcome (such as miscarriages, preterm delivery, intrauterine growth restriction, major congenital malformations and long - term developmental outcomes) between women who experienced NVP and women who did not.

Forty - three primary studies on infant health outcomes, 43 primary studies on maternal health outcomes, and 29 systematic reviews or meta - analyses that covered approximately 400 individual studies were included in this review.

REVIEW METHODS: We included systematic reviews / meta - analyses, randomized and non-randomized comparative trials, prospective cohort, and case - control studies on the effects of breastfeeding and relevant outcomes published in the English language.

A systematic review of some of the long - term effects of breastfeeding showed that there may be a link between breastfeeding and later - in - life healthy blood pressure, lowered chance of obesity and diabetes, and some studies showed a decreased risk of high cholesterol.

However, intervention studies — both primary studies and systematic reviews — rarely assess impacts on socioeconomic inequalities, and thus little is known about which interventions are effective and cost - effective for reducing those inequalities.2 — 4

The HomVEE systematic review of evidence found that there are studies of HFA and NFP that included measures of substantiated reports of child abuse and neglect.

Olsen & Clausen: The first study listed, by Olsen and Clausen, was from 2012 and was published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Additionally, a systematic review of PPI studies in treatment of reflux determines that they provide no more benefit than placebos.7

Leslie & Romano: The second study listed was a systematic review of nonhospital birth studies by Leslie and Romano, published in the Journal of Perinatal Education in 2007.

Where systematic reviews or meta - analyses are available, allowing analysis of findings from a number of well - selected studies, these obviously provide a stronger evidence base on which it is possible to base arguments with greater conviction.

Where indirect links have been noted, systematic reviews linking the intervention directly to one or more targets are not currently available; i.e. the studies included in the review (s) do not assess the effect of the intervention on the outcomes that are directly relevant to the targets.

A systematic review of current scientific evidence on the optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding identified and summarized studies comparing exclusive breastfeeding for 4 to 6 months, versus 6 months.

40 % reduction in the number of children under - 5 who are stunted Direct evidence for a link between exclusive breastfeeding and stunting is not currently available at the systematic review level, though a 2015 systematic review and meta - analysis of intervention studies assessing the effect of breastfeeding promotion interventions on child growth found no significant effect on length or height z scores.

A systematic review of 22 studies [40] found women who had continuous support in labour (either from a nurse, midwife, doula, childbirth educator, family member, partner, or stranger) were more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth, a shorter birth, and to be satisfied with their birth.

Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for each study using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).

Two review authors (H Whitford, T Dowswell, H West, or S Wallis) independently assessed risk of bias for each study using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).

In a systematic review of school - based interventions aimed at modifying knowledge, attitudes, social norms and intentions to breastfeed, researchers concluded that «Overall, these studies demonstrated positive effects on perceptions and attitudes toward breastfeeding and increased behavioral intention of breastfeeding later in life.

According to a recent review of studies in the Cochrance Database of Systematic Reviews, developmental care has been shown to» [improve] short - term growth and feeding outcomes, [decrease] respiratory support, [decrease] length and cost of hospital stay, and [improve] neuro - developmental outcomes to 24 months corrected age.»

A third meta - analysis was published in 2007 by Ip et al. 31 The researchers combined socioeconomic status — adjusted ORs of only 3 studies that were determined by the systematic review conducted by Guise et al32 and published in 2005 to be of good or fair quality: the UK Childhood Cancer Study, 23 Shu et al, 20 and Dockerty et al. 19 Based on their analyses, they concluded that breastfeeding for more than 6 months was associated with a 20 % lower risk for ALL (OR, 0.8; 95 % CI, 0.71 - 0.91).

Two weeks before the Systematic Review was published, the Lucas study — which aimed to test a hypothesis that «duration of breast feeding is related to changes in vascular function relevant to the development of cardiovascular disease» — was published in the BMJ alongside 2 press releases and a leader article.

Socioeconomic status and adiposity in childhood: a systematic review of cross-sectional studies 1990 — 2005

In addition, there was no effect on breastfeeding duration when the pacifier was introduced at 1 month of age.280 A more recent systematic review found that the highest level of evidence (ie, from clinical trials) does not support an adverse relationship between pacifier use and breastfeeding duration or exclusivity.281 The association between shortened duration of breastfeeding and pacifier use in observational studies likely reflects a number of complex factors such as breastfeeding difficulties or intent to wean.281 A large multicenter, randomized controlled trial of 1021 mothers who were highly motivated to breastfeed were assigned to 2 groups: mothers advised to offer a pacifier after 15 days and mothers advised not to offer a pacifier.

The authors conducted a systematic review of published studies from which estimates of a mean difference (standard error) in blood pressure between breastfed and bottle - fed subjects could be derived.

We also compared the Index to the Cochrane tool for assessing Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS - I)[38], which is widely used to assess research quality in systematic reviews [59].

Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for each study using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (the Handbook)(Higgins 2011).

The final stage of developing the ResQu Index was to use it in a systematic review to assess the quality of studies (published between 2000 and 2016) on the maternal and perinatal outcomes of different places of birth, for women with healthy, low - risk pregnancies in high - income countries.