Background: A standard or consensus definition of a systematic review does not exist. Therefore, if there is no definition about a systematic review in secondary studies that analyse them or the definition is too broad, inappropriate studies might be included in such evidence synthesis. The aim of this study was to analyse the definition of a systematic review (SR) in health care literature, elements of the definitions that are used and to propose a starting point for an explicit and non-ambiguous SR definition. Methods: We included overviews of systematic reviews (OSRs), meta-epidemiological studies and epidemiology textbooks. We extracted the definitions of SRs, as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria that could indicate which definition of a SR the authors used. We extracted individual elements of SR definitions, categorised and quantified them. Results: Among the 535 analysed sources of information, 188 (35%) provided a definition of a SR. The most commonly used reference points for the definitions of SRs were Cochrane and the PRISMA statement. We found 188 different elements of SR definitions and divided them into 14 categories. The highest number of SR definition elements was found in categories related to searching (N = 51), analysis/synthesis (N = 23), overall methods (N = 22), quality/bias/appraisal/validity (N = 22) and aim/question (N = 13). The same five categories were also the most commonly used combination of categories in the SR definitions. Conclusion: Currently used definitions of SRs are vague and ambiguous, often using terms such as clear, explicit and systematic, without further elaboration. In this manuscript we propose a more specific definition of a systematic review, with the ultimate aim of motivating the research community to establish a clear and unambiguous definition of this type of research.

Background: Croatia has closed all educational institutions after 32 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were confirmed and switched to exclusive e-learning. Health sciences university students may have been particularly affected with this change due to a lack of practical education. It is not known how health sciences students and schools have adjusted to exclusive e-learning. This study aimed to explore attitudes and concerns of health sciences students in Croatia regarding the complete switch to e-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Eligible participants were students from 9 institutions offering university-level health sciences education in Croatia enrolled in the academic year 2019/2010, and participating in e-learning. Data were collected with a questionnaire distributed via email during April/May 2020. Results: A total of 2520 students (aged 25.7 ± 7.7 years) responded to the questionnaire (70.3% response rate). General satisfaction with exclusive e-learning was rated with average grade of 3.7 out of 5. Compared with previous education, exclusive e-learning was rated with average grade of 3.2 out of 5. Compared to classroom learning, equal or higher motivation to attend exclusive e-learning was reported by 64.4% of participants. With a longer duration of exclusive e-learning, equal or higher motivation was reported by 65.5% of participants. Less than half of the students indicated they felt deprived or concerned due to the lack of practical lessons. Most participants indicated that in the future, they would prefer to combine classic classroom and e-learning (N = 1403; 55.7%). Conclusions: Most health sciences students were satisfied with the exclusive e-learning, as well as their personal and institutional adjustment to it. Students’ feedback can help institutions to improve the exclusive e-learning experience for students in the time of the pandemic.

A regional approach can protect our patients from often unacceptable adverse effects produced by systematically applied drugs. Regional therapeutic approaches, as well as interventions at the level of the peripheral nervous system and particularly the dorsal root ganglion (DRG), represent an alternative to the systemic application of therapeutic agents. This article provides an overview of DRG anatomical peculiarities, explains why the DRG is an important therapeutic target, and how animal models of targeted drug delivery can help us in the translation of basic research into clinical practice.

Background: Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, it is highly recommended that authors publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. our aim was to assess the awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study included the authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016, and they were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. An online questionnaire was sent to each participant via e-mail after receiving their approval to join the study. We have sent 6650 emails and received 275 responses. Results: A total of 270 authors responses were complete and included in the final analysis. Our results has shown that PROSPERO was the most common database used for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance time interval in PROSPERO was less than 1 month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and according to their opinion that the other authors lack knowledge of protocol importance and mandance to be registered, was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant percenatge of respondents (37.4%) believed that people would steal their ideas from protocol databases, while only 5.3% reported that their SR/MA had been stolen. However, the majority (72.9%) of participants have agreed that protocol registries play a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agree that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory. Conclusion: About half of the participants believes that the main reason for not registering protocols, is that the other authors lack knowledge concerning obligation and importance to register the SR/MA protocols in advance. Therefore, tools should be available to mandate protocol registration of any SRs beforehand and increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers.