Conectar
Many systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) have reported the potential advantages and risks of ICU diary psychotherapy in patients and relatives, but the results remain uncertain and their quality has not yet been adequately assessed. We summarise existing SRs/MAs and assess their quality and level of evidence.
This overview of SRs was conducted in accordance with the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews statement.
We conducted a detailed and comprehensive search of eight Chinese and English electronic databases from inception until March 2025. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA 2020), and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were used to assess methodological quality, reporting quality and evidence quality for inclusion in SRs/MAs, respectively.
Fifteen published SRs/MAs met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The results of the AMSTAR 2 assessment showed that the methodological quality of the included studies was critically low. In the PRISMA 2020 assessment, the response rate of “Yes” for items 7, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 27 was less than 50%. The GRADE assessment showed that no results were high-quality evidence, 2 results were moderate-quality evidence, 26 results were low-quality evidence and 45 results were very low-quality evidence.
ICU diaries can improve patients' psychological outcomes and quality of life, and whether there are advantages for their relatives needs to be further explored. However, the methodological quality of the studies was low and the risk of migration was high, reducing its reliability. Therefore, these conclusions should be treated with caution. High-quality studies with large sample sizes are needed to provide stronger and more scientific evidence.
Our paper presents an overview of systematic reviews, and therefore, such specific details may not be relevant to our study.
PROSPERO: CRD42023448359
To classify the unmet integrated care needs of older adults with multimorbidity and to explore the factors associated with different categories of unmet integrated care needs among the target population.
A cross-sectional survey using the statistical method of latent profile analysis.
From July 2022 to March 2023, 397 older adults with multimorbidity, aged 60 years or older, were recruited from one primary healthcare setting and from four secondary and tertiary hospitals to participate in face-to-face questionnaire surveys. The questionnaire used in this study to assess unmet integrated care needs among older adults with multimorbidity was self-designed through a series of steps, including a scoping review, expert consultation and cognitive interviews. Latent profile analysis was applied to uncover distinct profiles of unmet integrated care needs, and multinomial logistic regression was employed to explore whether the profiles were further distinguished by participants' sociodemographic and health-related covariates. The data were analysed using IBM SPSS v.29.0 and Mplus v.8.0.
The optimal solution was a four-profile model, characterised by high unmet integration needs, high unmet system integration needs, low unmet system integration needs and low unmet integration needs, respectively. Multinomial logistic regression results indicated that profile differences were associated with place of residence, number of coresidents and the presence or absence of complex multimorbidity.
The integrated care needs of older adults with multimorbidity have not yet been fully met. Classifying and characterising unmet integrated care needs profiles is a crucial step in the rational allocation of integrated care resources.
This study was reported based on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for cross-sectional studies.
All participants were older adults with multimorbidity, and they were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time.
Laparoscopic-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy (LARVH) and abdominal radical hysterectomy (ARH) have been widely applied to treat cervical carcinoma. But LARVH and ARH have not been fully investigated in treating cervical carcinoma after injury associated with injury. This research is intended to provide an up-to-date basis for comparing LARVH with ARH in early stage cervical carcinoma. Comparison between LARVH and ARH in cervical carcinoma was carried out through a combination of related research. Eligible articles from databases such as PubMed and Embase were screened using an established search strategy. This report covered the results of LARVH versus ARH in cervical carcinoma. The average difference and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for the combination of consecutive variables. The combination of categorical variables was performed with the odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval. Through the identification of 1137 publications, eight of them were chosen to be analysed. Among them, 363 were treated with LARVH and 326 were treated with ARH. Eight trials showed that LARVH was associated with a reduced risk of postoperative wound infection than ARH (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.1–0.55, p = 0.0009). Five trials showed that there was no difference in the risk of postoperative bleeding after surgery (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.42–3.29, p = 0.76). We also did not differ significantly in the duration of the surgery (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, −6.58 to 10.15, p = 0.68). So, the two surgical methods differ significantly only in the risk of postoperative wound infection.
FreshRSS 