Study Selection. Formatted: Right: 0.63 cm The initial search from all four databases identified 2707 articles. Six additional studies were identified via manual searching and increased the total number of potentially eligible studies to 2713. Removal of duplicate records reduced the number of potentially relevant studies to 2023. The resulting studies were evaluated according to the inclusion criteria described in section 2.3 above. This process was completed in four phases (see Figure 1 for a pictorial summary of the study selection process). Phase 1 involved a preliminary screening of titles to exclude studies those that had no apparent relevance to the aims of the current review (e.g. they had no reference to TBI and/or awareness). Phase 2 involved screening the abstracts of all studies identified as potentially relevant following Phase 1. Phase 3 involved full text screening of the remaining studies. Studies were excluded with reference to the described eligibility criteria. Phase 4 involved comparing summarised key information from each of the remaining studies against the eligibility criteria and resulted in 34 studies deemed eligible for review.
Study Selection. The candidate screened all titles and abstracts in the electronic databases. The abstracts of potentially eligible articles were saved in Endnote. Bibliographic references from these articles were systematically searched. Eligible records then had a full text screening by two reviewers and were promoted to the next stage of the process by categorising as ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘maybe’. The next stage was to have a consensus meeting and to call in expert opinions as to whether any ‘maybe’ records should be included in the review.
Study Selection. An independent reviewer (ZL) performed the systematic electronic searches in all the databases. ZL also identified and removed the duplicate studies. The independent reviewer then carried out the screening of the titles/abstracts and identifying the full text articles. One author [JMacD] randomly reviewed 50% of the articles and discussed the disagreement with the first author to determine the final article eligibility.
Study Selection. Those papers that were identified through the peer-reviewed literature database search, a report generated including title and abstract for each paper. These papers were assessed by external reviewers and me. Papers that were deemed eligible and relevant were included for full-text review stage. At this stage, external reviewer and I screened full-text papers to make final decision whether included papers met the inclusion criteria.
Study Selection. The methodology followed in this study combined quantitative and qualitative systematic review of studies from the Sub-Saharan Africa countries. Integration of the two types of studies can identify ways to improve interventions and their implementation (Xxxxxx et al., 2004). The lead author first reviewed the articles based on a title, abstract, and content. Duplicates were removed and the remaining articles were reviewed by the two Senior Authors who independently screened the remaining articles using the agreed inclusion criteria outlined above and read through the content in all the articles. Following this process of review, the results were shared and the final studies to include were agreed on. The independent reviews were conducted as a way to reduce bias. The studies were further reviewed for quality focusing on the population and outcome, which was adherence to treatment, and for qualitative studies, the findings were aligned with the perspectives of the adolescents and young women living with HIV/AIDS. Data extraction Each article meeting the inclusion criteria was entered into an Excel form, which outlined the study design, population, and outcome or results. The first author collected information on general study information. In cases where the title and abstract passed the first screening phase, and the full article could not be accessed, the study was dropped. Ethical considerations The study did not involve human subjects it only involved the review of documents and studies from different countries. As such, it did not require ethical review or submission to Emory’s Institutional Review Board. Chapter 3: Results Description of studies The literature search yielded 950 articles of which 234 articles were duplicates, 370 articles were removed because they did not meet the criteria of being published between 2000 and 2015 or they were not done in the Sub-Saharan Africa. 314 articles were removed after the title and abstract review because they were not targeting adolescents living with HIV and AIDS and or the content did not match the objectives of the study. The full-text articles for the remaining 32 were assessed for eligibility, and 23 articles were ineligible as they did not focus on any one of the four objectives of the study. A snowballing method was used to identify additional articles which yielded one article. Ten studies met the set criteria and were published between years 2010 and 2015 (Figure1). Characteristics of the ten studi...
Study Selection. We selected systematic reviews describing the effectiveness of 80 surgery, corticosteroid injections, physical therapy and/or watchful waiting in patients with 81 various shoulder disorders. We searched for the traditional diagnostic labels (e.g. full- and 82 partial thickness tears, tendinopathy, calcification of the rotator cuff, bursitis, SLAP lesions) 83 as well as their collective synonyms (e.g. rotator cuff disorders, subacromial pain, 84 impingement syndrome). In the absence of systematic reviews for one or more traditional 85 diagnostic labels other types of research were included. 87 2.2.3. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analysis. Two of the authors (MTG, RO) 88 independently extracted data and the conclusions from these articles. Systematic reviews 89 were assessed on their Risk of Bias by two authors (MTG, RO) using the AMSTAR 2 (Xxxx 90 et al., 2017). The AMSTAR 2 consists of 16 items and results in an overall rating of 91 confidence in the results of the review (high, moderate, low or critically low) (Xxxx et al.,
Study Selection. 34.1 Studies will be discussed and evaluated at either a face-to-face meeting or teleconference of Members.
Study Selection. An independent reviewer (ZL) performed the systematic electronic searches in all the databases. ZL also identified and removed the duplicate studies. The independent reviewer then carried out the screening of the titles/abstracts and identifying the full text articles. One author [JMacD] randomly reviewed 50% of the articles and discussed the disagreement with the first author to determine the final article eligibility. Acceptable Xxxxx Solutions We included studies that applied the Xxxxx model to evaluate the structural validity of NDI. The score transformation algorithm was obtained if the revised version achieved an acceptable level of model fit identified by the eligibility criteria. According to assumptions of the Xxxxx theory, we defined the acceptable fit of the Xxxxx model as follows:
Study Selection. As described in the PRISMA flow diagram (see Figure 1), studies at the title and abstract screening phase were included if they had a reference to psychopathology in the postpartum period as well as a reference to disability of any type or a physical health condition that could be disabling. This included studies with measures of functional impairment and physical health- related quality of life. Studies were excluded if they were not peer-reviewed articles, if they did not collect original data, or if they did not sample human subjects. At the full text review, studies were included if they had a measure of postpartum depression (e.g., a self-report questionnaire, a clinical diagnosis, or a diagnostic interview), as well as an indicator of physical disability status (e.g., a self-report questionnaire assessing physical disability-related impairment or symptomology, or a diagnosis of a chronic physical health conditions that often results in disability), and case studies were excluded. During the sequential screening process (title/abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction screening process), potential articles were selected by one reviewer. A second reviewer independently double-coded a randomly- selected 20% of the articles in the title/abstract screening for fidelity, resulting in a proportionate agreement rate of 96.8% between the reviewers, indicating high inter-rater reliability. Data Extraction Relevant and available data from all included studies was extracted, including general information about the study, methods, participants, measures, demographic characteristics, and statistical outcomes. General information extracted included the lead author, the contact information for the corresponding author, the publication year, and the country the study was conducted in. For methodological information, we extracted information about the sampling direction, namely whether a study used a sample of people with physical disabilities and measuring postpartum depression, or vice versa, or presented both variables continuously. Additionally, participant information extracted included the population sampled, the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the total number of participants. For the measures, the measure type, specific measure, and information about the measure such as translations were extracted, as well as if they used a cutoff and if so, what it was. For demographic information, we extracted and coded the maternal characteristics of age, ...
Study Selection. Electronic searches conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials yielded 435 potential studies in the literature search, of which 108 were duplicate articles. After screening by title and abstract, we excluded 244 studies because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Full-text screening of the remaining 83 resulted in 64 exclusions for not meeting the eligibility criteria. Another eight studies were excluded during the data extraction because of either no HbA1c measures or non-diabetic population. Therefore, 11 studies were included in the final analyses (Figure 1).
