Chantelle Garritty

Bio: Chantelle Garritty is an academic researcher from Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. The author has contributed to research in topics: Systematic review & Health care. The author has an hindex of 28, co-authored 63 publications receiving 7936 citations. Previous affiliations of Chantelle Garritty include University of Ottawa & Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Abstract: Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

Effectiveness and safety of vitamin D in relation to bone health.

Abstract: Objectives To review and synthesize the literature in the following areas: the association of specific circulating 25(OH)D concentrations with bone health outcomes in children, women of reproductive age, postmenopausal women and elderly men; the effect of dietary intakes (foods fortified with vitamin D and/or vitamin D supplementation) and sun exposure on serum 25(OH)D; the effect of vitamin D on bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture or fall risk; and the identification of potential harms of vitamin D above current reference intakes. Data sources MEDLINE(R) (1966-June Week 3 2006); Embase (2002-2006 Week 25); CINAHL (1982-June Week 4, 2006); AMED (1985 to June 2006); Biological Abstracts (1990-February 2005); and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2nd Quarter 2006). Review methods Two independent reviewers completed a multi-level process of screening the literature to identify eligible studies (title and abstract, followed by full text review, and categorization of study design per key question). To minimize bias, study design was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) wherever possible. Study criteria for question one were broadened to include observational studies due to a paucity of available RCTs, and question four was restricted to systematic reviews to limit scope. Data were abstracted in duplicate and study quality assessed. Differences in opinion were resolved through consensus or adjudication. If clinically relevant and statistically feasible, meta-analyses of RCTs on vitamin D supplementation and bone health outcomes were conducted, with exploration of heterogeneity. When meta-analysis was not feasible, a qualitative systematic review of eligible studies was conducted. Results 167 studies met our eligibility criteria (112 RCTs, 19 prospective cohorts, 30 case-controls and six before-after studies). The largest body of evidence on vitamin D status and bone health was in older adults with a lack of studies in premenopausal women and infants, children and adolescents. The quality of RCTs was highest in the vitamin D efficacy trials for prevention of falls and/or fractures in older adults. There was fair evidence of an association between low circulating 25(OH)D concentrations and established rickets. However, the specific 25(OH)D concentrations associated with rickets is uncertain, given the lack of studies in populations with dietary calcium intakes similar to North American diets and the different methods used to determine 25(OH)D concentrations. There was inconsistent evidence of an association of circulating 25(OH)D with bone mineral content in infants, and fair evidence that serum 25(OH)D is inversely associated with serum PTH. In adolescents, there was fair evidence for an association between 25(OH)D levels and changes in BMD. There were very few studies in pregnant and lactating women, and insufficient evidence for an association between serum 25(OH)D and changes in BMD during lactation, and fair evidence of an inverse correlation with PTH. In older adults, there was fair evidence that serum 25(OH)D is inversely associated with falls, fair evidence for a positive association with BMD, and inconsistent evidence for an association with fractures. The imprecision of 25(OH)D assays may have contributed to the variable thresholds of 25(OH)D below which the risk of fractures, falls or bone loss was increased. There was good evidence that intakes from vitamin D-fortified foods (11 RCTs) consistently increased serum 25(OH)D in both young and older adults. Eight randomized trials of ultraviolet (UV)-B radiation (artificial and solar exposure) were small and heterogeneous with respect to determination of the exact UV-B dose and 25(OH)D assay but there was a positive effect on serum 25(OH)D concentrations. It was not possible to determine how 25(OH)D levels varied by ethnicity, sunscreen use or latitude. Seventy-four trials examined the effect of vitamin D(3) or D(2) on 25(OH)D concentrations. Most trials used vitamin D(3), and the majority enrolled older adults. In three trials, there was a greater response of serum 25(OH)D concentrations to vitamin D(3) compared to vitamin D(2), which may have been due to more rapid clearance of vitamin D(2) in addition to other mechanisms. Meta-analysis of 16 trials of vitamin D(3) was consistent with a dose-response effect on serum 25(OH)D when comparing daily doses of /= 400 IU. An exploratory analysis of the heterogeneity demonstrated a significant positive association comparable to an increase of 1 - 2 nmol/L in serum 25(OH)D for every 100 additional units of vitamin D although heterogeneity remained after adjusting for dose. Vitamin D(3) in combination with calcium results in small increases in BMD compared to placebo in older adults although quantitative synthesis was limited due to variable treatment durations and BMD sites. The evidence for fracture reduction with vitamin D supplementation was inconsistent across 15 trials. The combined results of trials using vitamin D(3) (700 - 800 IU daily) with calcium (500 - 1,200 mg) was consistent with a benefit on fractures although in a subgroup analysis by setting, benefit was primarily in elderly institutionalized women (fair evidence from two trials). There was inconsistent evidence across 14 RCTs of a benefit on fall risk. However, a subgroup analysis showed a benefit of vitamin D in postmenopausal women, and in trials that used vitamin D(3) plus calcium. In addition, there was a reduction in fall risk with vitamin D when six trials that adequately ascertained falls were combined. Limitations of the fall and fracture trials included poor compliance with vitamin D supplementation, incomplete assessment of vitamin D status and large losses to follow-up. We did not find any systematic reviews that addressed the question on the level of sunlight exposure that is sufficient to maintain serum 25(OH)D concentrations but minimizes risk of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer. There is little evidence from existing trials that vitamin D above current reference intakes is harmful. In most trials, reports of hypercalcemia and hypercalciuria were not associated with clinically relevant events. The Women's Health Initiative study did report a small increase in kidney stones in postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years whose daily vitamin D(3) intake was 400 IU (the reference intake for 50 to 70 years, and below the reference intake for > 70 years) combined with 1000 mg calcium. The increase in renal stones corresponded to 5.7 events per 10,000 person-years of exposure. The women in this trial had higher calcium intakes than is seen in most post-menopausal women. Conclusions The results highlight the need for additional high quality studies in infants, children, premenopausal women, and diverse racial or ethnic groups. There was fair evidence from studies of an association between circulating 25(OH)D concentrations with some bone health outcomes (established rickets, PTH, falls, BMD). However, the evidence for an association was inconsistent for other outcomes (e.g., BMC in infants and fractures in adults). It was difficult to define specific thresholds of circulating 25(OH)D for optimal bone health due to the imprecision of different 25(OH)D assays. Standard reference preparations are needed so that serum 25(OH)D can be accurately and reliably measured, and validated. In most trials, the effects of vitamin D and calcium could not be separated. Vitamin D(3) (>700 IU/day) with calcium supplementation compared to placebo has a small beneficial effect on BMD, and reduces the risk of fractures and falls although benefit may be confined to specific subgroups. Vitamin D intake above current dietary reference intakes was not reported to be associated with an increased risk of adverse events. However, most trials of higher doses of vitamin D were not adequately designed to assess long-term harms.

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Abstract: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

Abstract: Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

Abstract: Background and Purpose—The authors present an overview of the current evidence and management recommendations for evaluation and treatment of adults with acute ischemic stroke. The intended audienc...

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

Abstract: Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.