8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Lactogenic hormones in relation to maternal metabolic health in pregnancy and postpartum: protocol for a systematic review

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Maternal metabolic disease states (such as gestational and pregestational diabetes and maternal obesity) are reaching epidemic proportions worldwide and are associated with adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. Despite this, their aetiology remains incompletely understood. Lactogenic hormones, namely, human placental lactogen (hPL) and prolactin (PRL), play often overlooked roles in maternal metabolism and glucose homeostasis during pregnancy and (in the case of PRL) postpartum, and have clinical potential from a diagnostic and therapeutic perspective. This paper presents a protocol for a systematic review which will synthesise the available scientific evidence linking these two hormones to maternal and fetal metabolic conditions/outcomes.

          Methods and analysis

          MEDLINE (via OVID), CINAHL and Embase will be systematically searched for all original observational and interventional research articles, published prior to 8 July 2021, linking hPL and/or PRL levels (in pregnancy and/or up to 12 months postpartum) to key maternal metabolic conditions/outcomes (including pre-existing and gestational diabetes, markers of glucose/insulin metabolism, postpartum glucose status, weight change, obesity and polycystic ovary syndrome). Relevant fetal outcomes (birth weight and placental mass, macrosomia and growth restriction) will also be included. Two reviewers will assess articles for eligibility according to prespecified selection criteria, followed by full-text review, quality appraisal and data extraction. Where possible, meta-analysis will be performed; otherwise, a narrative synthesis of findings will be presented.

          Ethics and dissemination

          Formal ethical approval is not required as no primary data will be collected. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conference meetings, and will be used to inform future research directions.

          PROSPERO registration number

          CRD42021262771.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

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

          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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

            Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions

              Background Supporting 21st century health care and the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) requires ubiquitous access to clinical information and to knowledge-based resources to answer clinical questions. Many questions go unanswered, however, due to lack of skills in formulating questions, crafting effective search strategies, and accessing databases to identify best levels of evidence. Methods This randomized trial was designed as a pilot study to measure the relevancy of search results using three different interfaces for the PubMed search system. Two of the search interfaces utilized a specific framework called PICO, which was designed to focus clinical questions and to prompt for publication type or type of question asked. The third interface was the standard PubMed interface readily available on the Web. Study subjects were recruited from interns and residents on an inpatient general medicine rotation at an academic medical center in the US. Thirty-one subjects were randomized to one of the three interfaces, given 3 clinical questions, and asked to search PubMed for a set of relevant articles that would provide an answer for each question. The success of the search results was determined by a precision score, which compared the number of relevant or gold standard articles retrieved in a result set to the total number of articles retrieved in that set. Results Participants using the PICO templates (Protocol A or Protocol B) had higher precision scores for each question than the participants who used Protocol C, the standard PubMed Web interface. (Question 1: A = 35%, B = 28%, C = 20%; Question 2: A = 5%, B = 6%, C = 4%; Question 3: A = 1%, B = 0%, C = 0%) 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the precision for each question using a lower boundary of zero. However, the 95% confidence limits were overlapping, suggesting no statistical difference between the groups. Conclusion Due to the small number of searches for each arm, this pilot study could not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the search protocols. However there was a trend towards higher precision that needs to be investigated in a larger study to determine if PICO can improve the relevancy of search results.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2022
                18 February 2022
                : 12
                : 2
                : e055257
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation , Monash University , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [2 ]departmentDepartment of Diabetes , Monash Health , Clayton, Victoria, Australia
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Helena J Teede; Helena.Teede@ 123456monash.edu
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1492-483X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3942-5543
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7356-4523
                Article
                bmjopen-2021-055257
                10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055257
                8860010
                35190436
                9391523a-fc0f-4f8c-9e1c-15e84f6c5670
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 08 July 2021
                : 28 January 2022
                Categories
                Diabetes and Endocrinology
                1506
                1843
                Protocol
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                diabetes & endocrinology,diabetes in pregnancy,maternal medicine
                Medicine
                diabetes & endocrinology, diabetes in pregnancy, maternal medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article