Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered one of the most reliable types of studies in evidence-based medicine. SRs rely on a comprehensive and systematic data gathering, including the search of academic literature databases. This study aimed to investigate which combination of databases would result in the highest overall recall rate of references when conducting SRs of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, we aimed to investigate the current use of databases and other sources for data collection. Methods: Twenty-six SRs (published between 2010 and 2020) of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus, located through PubMed, met the inclusion criteria. References of the SRs were systematically hand searched in the six academic literature databases CINAHL, MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus and the academic search engine Google Scholar. Recall rates were calculated using the total number of included references retrieved by the database or database combination divided by the total number of included references, given in percentage. Results: The SRs searched five databases on average (range two to nine). MEDLINE/PubMed was the most commonly searched database (100% of SRs). In addition to academic databases, 18 of the 26 (69%) SRs hand searched the reference lists of included articles. This technique resulted in a median (IQR) of 2.5 (one to six) more references being included per SR than by database searches alone. 27 (5.4%) references were found only in one of six databases (when Google Scholar was excluded), with CINAHL retrieving the highest number of unique references (n = 15). The combinations of MEDLINE/PubMed and CINAHL (96.4%) and MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase (98.8%) yielded the highest overall recall rates, with Google Scholar excluded. Conclusions: We found that the combinations of MEDLINE/PubMed and CINAHL and MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase yielded the highest overall recall rates of references included in SRs of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus. However, other combinations of databases yielded corresponding recall rates and are expected to perform comparably. Google Scholar can be a useful supplement to traditional scientific databases to ensure an optimal and comprehensive retrieval of relevant references.

Background. Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic skin condition where nonadherence often results in lack of disease control. Objective. We wanted to determine whether the combination of an electronic memory button and a supportive application (app) would affect the Quality of Life and subjective and objective severity measures among AD patients over one month following the patient’s normal schedules of treatment. Methods. A randomized, investigator-blinded, prospective observational feasibility study for one month where patients diagnosed with AD were randomized based on POEM severity score and divided into 3 groups. The 3 groups were (1) the control group with two consultations, (2) in addition to group 1, patients also received electronic memory buttons to click every time they used their topical products, and (3) in addition to group 2, patients also received an app to track their treatment schedules. At both consultations, patients were evaluated using SCORAD, EASI, POEM, and DLQI. Results. 96 patients were enrolled and randomized, of which 83 patients completed the study. EASI and SCORAD scores were lower in all groups at 2^nd consultation (p<0.05); however, these were highly significant for group 3 (p<0.005), and for EASI between groups 2 and 3 (p<0.05). The POEM score decreased significantly in group 3 (p=0.024), and no difference was found in DLQI between visits. Conclusion. A reduction in severity following objective assessments of the AD was observed for all groups and was highly significant for patients offered a memory button and the corresponding app. Furthermore, patients reported a significant subjective beneficial effect if they used the memory button and app. This indicates that digital solutions may have a benefit in clinical practice and may reduce nonadherence and increase the wellbeing of the patients.

Background: Lanthanum carbonate is a phosphate binder used in advanced kidney disease. Its radiopaque appearance has been described in many case studies and case series. Misinterpretation of this phenomenon leads to unnecessary diagnostic tests and procedures. The objectives of this study were to summarize the literature on lanthanum carbonate opacities and present a visual overview. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. We included all types of studies, including case reports/studies, describing radiological findings of lanthanum carbonate opacities in patients with chronic kidney disease. No filter for time was set. Results: A total of 36 articles were eligible for data extraction, and 33 articles were included in the narrative synthesis. Lanthanum carbonate opacities were most commonly reported in the intestines (26 studies, 73%), stomach (8 studies, 21%), and the aerodigestive tract (2 studies, 6%). The opacities in the intestine were most frequently described as multiple, scattered radiopaque densities, compared with the aerodigestive tract, where the opacities were described as a single, round foreign body. Suspicion of contrast medium or foreign bodies was the most common differential diagnosis. LC opacities in patients with CKD are commonly misinterpreted as foreign bodies or suspect contrast media. Conclusions: CKD patients treated with LC may have opacities throughout the digestive tract that can vary in appearance. Stopping LC treatment or changing to an alternative phosphate binder prior to planned image studies can avoid diagnostic confusion. If this is not an option, knowledge of the presentation of LC opacities is important.

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered one of the most reliable study types. Through a systematic and thorough literature search, researchers aim to collect all research relevant to their purpose. The selection of databases can be challenging and depend on the topic of interest. The Cochrane Handbook suggests searching at least the following three databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. However, this is not always sufficient for reviews on the musculoskeletal field in general. This study aimed to examine the frequency and choice of databases used by researchers in SRs of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Secondly, to analyze the RCTs included in the SRs to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient literature searches for SRs of SMT. Methods: SRs investigating the effect of SMT on any patient-reported outcome measure were identified through searches in PubMed and Epistemonikos (all entries till date of search February 25, 2022). For each SR, databases searched and included RCTs were collected. RCTs were searched individually in nine databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Web of Science, Index to Chiropractic Literature, PEDro, and AMED). Coverage rates were calculated using the number of retrieved RCTs by the database or combinations of databases divided by the total number of RCTs. Results: Eighty-five SRs published met the inclusion criteria, and 442 unique RCTs were retrieved. The most frequently searched database was MEDLINE/PubMed. Cochrane Library had the highest overall coverage rate and contained the third most unique RCTs. While a 100% retrieval was not possible, as 18 RCTs could not be retrieved in any of the nine databases, the combination of Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and PEDro retrieved all possible RCTs with a combined coverage rate of 95.9%. Conclusions: For SRs on SMT, we recommend using the combination suggested by the Cochrane Handbook of Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and in addition, PEDro and Index to Chiropractic Literature. Google Scholar might be used additionally as a tool for searching gray literature and quality assurance.

Introduction Increases in the use of telehealth in palliative care (telepalliative care) prior to, and during, the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in a proliferation of studies on the topic. While knowledge is building on how providers and recipients adapt to telepalliative care, no reviews have, as of yet, examined telepalliative care from a patient and family perspective. Therefore, the aim of this integrative review is to explore patients and families’ perspectives on telepalliative. Methods and analysis An integrative review will be performed inspired by the methodology of Remmington and Toronto from March 2022 to December 2022. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL will be searched for primary peer-reviewed studies that describe telepalliative care from patient and families’ perspectives. Limiters will be used for age; 18 years+, time; 10 years, and language; English and Danish. Hand searches of authors of included articles and reference lists of included articles will be performed. Two reviewers will independently screen and appraise selected articles using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Conflicts will be resolved through discussions with a third reviewer. Data will be extracted independently by two reviewers into a data matrix with predefined headings and analysed using thematic analysis. Findings will be reported thematically, summarised into a thematic synthesis and discussed in relation to relevant literature. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required for this review. Results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant international conference. Reporting of this protocol was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol checklist and prospectively reported to PROSPERO (CRD42022301206).