ORCID Profile
0000-0002-0844-4365
Current Organisation
Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 10-04-2020
DOI: 10.1101/2020.04.06.20055962
Abstract: Vitamin D has been widely promoted for bone health through supplementation and fortification of the general population. However, there is growing evidence that does not support these strategies. Our aim is to review the quality and recommendations on vitamin D nutritional and clinical practice guidelines and explore predictive factors for their direction and strength. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL databases for vitamin D guidelines for the last 10 years. We aim to perform descriptive analysis, a quality appraisal using AGREE II scores (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation) and a bivariate analysis evaluating the association recommendations and AGREE II domains’ scores and pre-specified characteristics. This is a systematic review protocol and therefore formal ethical approval is not required, as no primary, identifiable, personal data will be collected. Patients or the public were not involved in the design of our research. However, the findings from this review will be shared with key stakeholders, including patient groups, clinicians and guideline developers. We intend to publish our results in a suitable, peer-reviewed journal.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 09-2018
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2018-025470
Abstract: To investigate men’s values and preferences regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer. Systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and grey literature up to 2 September 2017. Primary studies of men’s values and preferences regarding the benefits and harms of PSA screening. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with a modified version of a risk of bias tool for values and preferences studies, the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument V.3 and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. We identified 4172 unique citations, of which 11 studies proved eligible. Five studies investigated PSA screening using a direct choice study design, whereas six used decisions aids displaying patient-important outcomes. The direct choice studies used different methodologies and varied considerably in the reporting of outcomes. Two studies suggested that men were willing to forego screening with a small benefit in prostate cancer mortality if it would decrease the likelihood of unnecessary treatment or biopsies. In contrast, one study reported that men were willing to accept a substantial overdiagnosis to reduce their risk of prostate cancer mortality. Among the six studies involving decision aids, willingness to undergo screening varied substantially from 37% when displaying a hypothetical reduction in mortality of 10 per 1000 men, to 44% when displaying a reduction in mortality of 7 per 1000. We found no studies that specifically investigated whether values and preferences differed among men with family history, of African descent or with lower socioeconomic levels. The variability of men’s values and preferences reflect that the decision to screen is highly preference sensitive. Our review highlights the need for shared decision making in men considering prostate cancer screening. CRD42018095585.
Publisher: Hindawi Limited
Date: 15-09-2021
DOI: 10.1111/IJCP.14805
Location: United States of America
No related grants have been discovered for Carlos Canelo.