Navigating through the vast expanse of literature regarding the diagnosis of sleep apnea can be a

daunting task. The process of conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis requires meticulous
attention to detail, a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, and advanced analytical
skills. From identifying relevant studies to synthesizing data and drawing meaningful conclusions,
every step demands precision and expertise.

One of the greatest challenges in writing a literature review on sleep apnea diagnosis lies in the sheer
volume and diversity of available research. With numerous studies published across various journals,
it can be overwhelming to sift through the vast array of information, assess the quality of each study,
and extract relevant data for analysis. Furthermore, the complexity of the topic, encompassing
diverse diagnostic techniques and methodologies, adds another layer of difficulty to the process.

Moreover, ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the findings is paramount. Validating the
credibility of the studies included in the review, addressing potential biases, and interpreting the
results with precision require a thorough understanding of research methodology and statistical
analysis.

Given the challenges associated with writing a literature review on sleep apnea diagnosis, seeking
professional assistance can be invaluable. ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ offers a dedicated team of experts
with extensive experience in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. With their expertise
and attention to detail, they can navigate the complexities of the literature, synthesize data
effectively, and deliver high-quality reviews tailored to your specific requirements.

By entrusting your literature review needs to ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔, you can alleviate the burden of
this challenging task and ensure the production of a comprehensive and meticulously crafted review.
With their commitment to excellence and professionalism, ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ is your trusted
partner in navigating the intricate landscape of sleep apnea diagnosis literature.
If an article isn’t available online or through your library, you may need to contact the authors to ask
for a copy. An analysis of yield from the previous edition, in relation to databases searched, terms,
and languages can make searches more specific and efficient. In PubMed you can use the systematic
review subset to limit to a broad group of papers that is enriched for systematic reviews. The
graphical output of meta-analysis is a forest plot which provides information on individual studies
and the pooled effect. We caught up with some of the winners to discover the impact of their work
and find out more about their experiences. However, this is an important time period in the trajectory
of cancer patients, since an increased symptom burden including sleep disturbance may have
prognostic consequences. The most commonly referred to type of evidence synthesis. Following full
text, agreement was 93.3% (Cohen’s Kappa 0.82). Full-text conflicts were mainly concerned with
which primary exclusion criterion to apply. Prospective longitudinal studies investigating fluctuations
in sleep across the course of treatment and its relationship with prognostics are warranted. A survey
of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment. This tool can help you decide what kind of review is
right for your question. Two methods provide similar signals for the need to update systematic
reviews. If different studies measured outcomes in different ways (for example, using different
scales for measuring depression in primary care) it is necessary to standardise the measurements on a
common scale to allow their inclusion in meta-analysis. For example, the effect of a disease on
several populations across the world, by comparing other modest research studies completed in
specific countries or continents. Abstracts of systematic reviews are very important, as some readers
cannot access the full paper, such that abstracts may be the only option for gleaning research results.
Adhesively bonded versus non-bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries. Example criteria
include a range of years, geographical region, technology type, or functional unit definition. This is a
common approach in medical research where several papers might report the results of trials of a
particular treatment, for instance. Reprints and permissions About this article Cite this article. Bai,
S., Dang, W., Hong, W. et al. The prevalence of hepatitis B in Chinese general population from 2018
to 2022: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Review Decision Tree - Cornell University For more
information, check out Cornell's review methodology decision tree. LitR-Ex.com - Eight literature
review methodologies Learn more about 8 different review types (incl. LibGuides: Systematic
Reviews: Types of Systematic Reviews Meta-analysis is a statistical method that can be applied
during a systematic review to extract and combine the results from multiple studies. They provide
readers with a series of headings, generally about the purpose, methods, results, and conclusions of
the report, and have been adopted by many journals and conferences. A systematic review published
in the Lancet examined the effects of artemisinin based combination treatments compared with
monotherapy for treating malaria and showed clear benefit. 21 Assessment: this established the
treatment globally and is no longer a current question and no update is required. This feedback was
all considered and carefully addressed by the writing committee. The largest study sample size
included in this review included 21,177 participants and the smallest included 836 participants.
Registering your protocol means submitting it to a database such as PROSPERO or
ClinicalTrials.gov. Step 3: Search for all relevant studies Searching for relevant studies is the most
time-consuming step of a systematic review. However, the prevalence of HBV in rural areas and
eastern regions was still higher than the national average. By formally assessing the conflicting study
results, it is possible to eventually reach new hypotheses and explore the reasons for controversy.
Definition of update The PUGs panel defined an update of a systematic review as a new edition of a
published systematic review with changes that can include new data, new methods, or new analyses
to the previous edition. Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence
synthesis This article from JBI Evidence Synthesis provides a thorough definition of what scoping
reviews are and what they are for.
Article types Author guidelines Editor guidelines Publishing fees Submission checklist Contact
editorial office. Our editors are PhD or PhD candidates, who are native-English speakers. Although
they are new publications, updates will generally include content from the published version. A
diagram illustrating how the three approaches complemented each other is shown in online
supplemental appendix 1. Systematic review and meta-analysis are two terms that you might see
used interchangeably. Next, two researchers (MH and LJ) independently reviewed full-text and
judged eligibility of the tools. Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis A systematic review may
include a meta-analysis. Whereas a meta-analysis is a quantitative, epidemiological study design used
to assess the results of articles included in a systematic-review. Guidelines for the prevention care
and treatment of persons with chronic hepatitis B infection: Mar-15: World Health Organization.
2015. Wang Y, Zhou H, Zhang L, Zhong Q, Wang Q, Shen H, et al. This is used to identify relevant
literature, often through searching subject-specific scientific databases. However, we both found the
prevalence of HBV increased with age. A Cochrane review of amalgam restorations for dental caries
22 is unlikely to be updated because the use of dental amalgam is declining, and the question is not
seen as being important by many dental specialists. The quality of any review or meta-analysis is
dependent on the individual studies upon which it is built. BMJ disclaims all liability and
responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. This modification makes the weights
(a) smaller and (b) relatively more similar to each other. Preparing for an update Refresh background,
objectives, inclusion criteria, and methods Before including new studies in the review, authors need
to revisit the background, objectives, inclusion criteria, and methods of the current review. This
paper provides detailed guidance and a checklist for prospective authors to ensure that their
protocols adequately inform both the conduct of the ensuing review and their readership. For
example, the GRADE framework was mainly designed for addressing certainty of evidence, such as
indirectness (ie, whether interventions were compared directly), and for making relevant clinical
practice recommendations. Such variability is known as heterogeneity, and is discussed in more detail
below. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network
meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Transparent and complete
reporting is an essential component of “good research”; it allows readers to judge key issues
regarding the conduct of research and its trustworthiness and is also critical to establish a study’s
replicability. Life cycle assessment of soil and groundwater remediation technologies: literature
review. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or
preparation of the manuscript. Since systematic reviews, by definition, collect information from
previous research, the pitfalls of new primary studies is avoided. Systematic review formats utilized
in other disciplines Guidelines for performing and reporting the results of systematic reviews are
utilized in areas of research including software engineering ( Staples and Niazi 2007 ), ecology (
Pullin and Stewart 2006 ), and medicine (e.g., van Tulder et al. 2003; Centre for Reviews and
Dissemination 2009 ). We recommend that, in the interest of transparency, methods be clearly
described and any new data presented as part of publication. Sterne JAC, Higgins JPT, Reeves BC;
on behalf of the development group for ROBINS-I. The BF for heterogeneity was 10 12 indicating
that the probability that the effect sizes are heterogeneous are extremely likely. Systematic Reviews
and Meta Analysis Getting Started Guides and Standards Review Protocols Databases and Sources
Randomized Controlled Trials Controlled Clinical Trials Observational Designs Tests of Diagnostic
Accuracy Software and Tools Where do I get all those articles. The question needs to be about a
topic that’s previously been studied by multiple researchers.
Thirteen papers reporting hazard ratios reflecting associations between a dichotomized predictor
variable (sleep) and prognostic outcomes were subjected to meta-analysis. In the context of current
knowledge explain how the review may add to the knowledge base of readers from a variety of
backgrounds or disciplines. Wooden building products in comparative LCA: A literature review.
Studies reporting only anxiety or other disorders were excluded. After the pilot coding, we
summarised signalling questions or criteria that were not covered by the candidate items and coded
them as new items. After updating the list of candidate items, three researchers (JW, LJ and MH)
finalised the items in four group meetings. Whereas a meta-analysis is a quantitative, epidemiological
study design used to assess the results of articles included in a systematic-review. Guidance on
Conducting a Systematic Literature Review Ranking studies based on a checklist is a common
practice for quality assessment. Additionally, we judged whether an item was described sufficiently
or briefly. Rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder is frequently the first manifestation
of an evolving synucleinopathy, and a careful history and neurologic examination are needed to
determine other early features of these disorders. Examples: 11a. “This work was supported, in part,
by the Program in Reproductive and Adult Endocrinology, NICHD, NIH, Bethesda, MD.
Limitations are also generally an excellent opportunity to highlight important questions for further
research. This paper provides detailed guidance and a checklist for prospective authors to ensure that
their protocols adequately inform both the conduct of the ensuing review and their readership. We
caught up with some of the winners to discover the impact of their work and find out more about
their experiences. Systematic reviews typically answer their research question by synthesizing all
available evidence and evaluating the quality of the evidence. Compared to the previous meta-
analysis, it appears the prevalence rates of HBV in both men and women have decreased. It is useful
to distinguish between the risk of bias (internal validity) and the applicability (external validity, or
generalisability) of the included studies to the review question. New studies can show unexpected
effects (eg, attenuation of efficacy) or provide new information about the effects seen in different
circumstances (eg, groups of patients or locations). Seroprevalence for hepatitis B infection among
children aged 8 months to 14 years in Yunnan province, 2019. Moreover, a systematic review
requires subject expertise, statistical support and a librarian to help design and run the search. Simply
save any potentially relevant citations using bibliographic software, such as Scribbr’s APA or MLA
Generator. Reduced osmolarity oral rehydration salts (ORS) formulation. Another strategy is to scan
the reference lists of relevant studies. A tool was excluded if it was designed for non-randomised
studies of exposures which were not controlled by investigators (eg, diets). Assessment of
Publication Trends of Systematic Reviews and Randomized Clinical Trials, 1995 to 2017. The
documentation provides a clear overview of scoping reviews. LCA of renewable energy for
electricity generation systems - A review. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR):
Checklist and Explanation. PRISMA-P is a 17-item checklist for elements considered essential in
protocol for a systematic review or meta-analysis. Mortality and hospitalization were defined as
outcomes. Example: For the Lawlor and Hopker () review two reviewers independently extracted
data on participant details, intervention details, trial quality, outcome measures, baseline and post
intervention results and main conclusions Discrepancies were resolved by referring to the original
papers and through discussion.