Overview of Systematic Reviews: Yoga as a Therapeutic Intervention for Adults with Acute and Chronic Health Conditions Key Steps in Conducting Systematic Reviews for Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines: Methodology of the European Association of Urology. Review article: Methodology for the ‘rapid review’ series on musculoskeletal injuries in the emergency department Interventions aimed at increasing research use in nursing: a systematic review Management of Depression in Patients With Cancer: A Clinical Practice Guideline. Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report A checklist to evaluate a report of a nonpharmacological trial (CLEAR NPT) was developed using consensus. Assessing the complexity of interventions within systematic reviews: development, content and use of a new tool (iCAT_SR) PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies Guidelines for randomized clinical trial protocol content: a systematic review Dietary and physical activity strategies to prevent type 2 diabetes in South Asian adults: protocol for a systematic review
Objectives . Overview the quality , direction , and characteristics of yoga interventions for treatment of acute and chronic health conditions in adult population s. Methods . We search ed for systematic review s in 10 online data bases , bibliographic references , and h and - search es in  yoga-related  journals . Included review s satisfy Oxman criteria and specify yoga as a primary intervention in one or more r and omized controlled trials for treatment in adults . The AMSTAR tool and GRADE approach evaluated the method ological quality of review s and quality of evidence . Results . We identified 2202 titles , of which 41 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 26 systematic review s satisfied inclusion criteria . Thirteen systematic review s include quantitative data and six papers include meta- analysis . The quality of evidence is generally low . Sixteen different types of health conditions are included . Eleven review s show tendency towards positive effects of yoga intervention , 15 review s report unclear results , and no , review s report adverse effects of yoga . Yoga appears most effective for reducing symptoms in anxiety , depression , and pain . Conclusion . Although the quality of systematic review s is high , the quality of supporting evidence is low . Significant heterogeneity and variability in reporting interventions by type of yoga , setting s , and population characteristics limit the generalizability of results CONTEXT The findings of systematic review s ( SRs ) and meta-analyses ( MAs ) are used for clinical decision making . The European Association of Urology has committed increasing re sources into the development of high quality clinical guidelines based on such SRs and MAs . OBJECTIVE In this paper , we have summarised the process of conducting SRs for underpinning clinical practice guidelines under the auspices of the European Association of Urology Guidelines Office . EVIDENCE ACQUISITION The process involves explicit methods and the findings should be reproducible . When conducting a SR , the essential first step is to formulate a clear and answerable research question . An extensive literature search lays the foundation for evidence synthesis . Data are extracted independently by two review ers and any disagreements are resolved by discussion or arbitration by a third review er . EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS In SRs , data for particular outcomes in individual r and omised controlled trials may be combined statistically in a meta- analysis to increase power when the studies are similar enough . Biases in studies included in a SR/MA can lead to either an over estimation or an under estimation of true intervention effect size , result ing in heterogeneity in outcome between studies . A number of different tools are available such as Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool for r and omised controlled trials . In circumstances where there is too much heterogeneity , or when a review has included nonr and omised comparative studies , it is more appropriate to conduct a narrative synthesis . The GRADE tool for assessing quality of evidence strives to be a structured and transparent system , which can be applied to all evidence , regardless of quality . A SR not only identifies , evaluates , and summarises the best available evidence , but also the gaps to be targeted by future studies . CONCLUSIONS SRs and MAs are integral in developing sound clinical practice guidelines and recommendations . PATIENT SUMMARY Clinical practice guidelines should be evidence based , and systematic review s and meta-analyses are essential in their production . We have discussed the key steps of conducting systematic review s and meta-analyses in this paper Musculoskeletal injuries are a common presentation to the ED , with significant costs involved in the management of these injuries , variances in care within the ED and associated morbidity . A series of rapid review papers were completed to guide best practice for the assessment and management of common musculoskeletal injuries presenting to the ED . This paper presents the methodology used across the rapid review s. PubMed , CINAHL , EMBASE , TRIP and the grey literature , including relevant organisational websites , were search ed in 2015 . The search was repeated consistently for each topic area ( injuries of the foot and ankle , knee , h and and wrist , elbow , shoulder , lumbar spine and cervical spine ) . English- language primary studies , systematic review s and guidelines that were published in the last 10 years and addressed acute musculoskeletal injury management were considered for inclusion . Data extraction of each included article was conducted , followed by a quality appraisal . The extracted data from each article was synthesis ed to group similar evidence together . For each rapid review , the evidence has been organised in a way that a clinician can direct their attention to a specific component of the clinical cycle of care in the ED , such as the assessment , diagnostic tests , management and follow-up considerations from ED . The series of rapid review s are design ed to foster evidence -based practice within the ED , targeting the injuries most commonly presenting . The review s provide clinicians in EDs with rapid access to the best current evidence , which has been synthesis ed and organised to assist decision-making Background There has been considerable interest recently in developing and evaluating interventions to increase research use by clinicians . However , most work has focused on medical practice s ; and nursing is not well represented in existing systematic review s. The purpose of this article is to report findings from a systematic review of interventions aim ed at increasing research use in nursing . Objective To assess the evidence on interventions aim ed at increasing research use in nursing . Methods A systematic review of research use in nursing was conducted using data bases ( Medline , CINAHL , Healthstar , ERIC , Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials , and Psychinfo ) , grey literature , ancestry search ing ( Cochrane Data base of Systematic Review s ) , key informants , and manual search ing of journals . R and omized controlled trials and controlled before- and after- studies were included if they included nurses , if the intervention was explicitly aim ed at increasing research use or evidence -based practice , and if there was an explicit outcome to research use . Method ological quality was assessed using pre-existing tools . Data on interventions and outcomes were extracted and categorized using a pre-established taxonomy . Results Over 8,000 titles were screened . Three r and omized controlled trials and one controlled before- and after- study met the inclusion criteria . The method ological quality of included studies was generally low . Three investigators evaluated single interventions . The most common intervention was education . Investigators measured research use using a combination of surveys ( three studies ) and compliance with guidelines ( one study ) . Research er-led educational meetings were ineffective in two studies . Educational meetings led by a local opinion leader ( one study ) and the formation of multidisciplinary committees ( one study ) were both effective at increasing research use . Conclusion Little is known about how to increase research use in nursing , and the evidence to support or refute specific interventions is inconclusive . To advance the field , we recommend that investigators : ( 1 ) use theoretically informed interventions to increase research use , ( 2 ) measure research use longitudinally using theoretically informed and psychometrically sound measures of research use , as well as , measuring patient outcomes relevant to the intervention , and ( 3 ) use more robust and method ologically sound study design s to evaluate interventions . If investigators aim to establish a link between using research and improved patient outcomes they must first identify those interventions that are effective at increasing research use PURPOSE This report up date s the Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence -Based Care guideline for the management of  depression in adult patients with cancer . This guideline covers pharmacologic , psychological , and collaborative care interventions , with a focus on integrating practical management tools to assist clinicians in delivering appropriate treatments for depression in patients with cancer . METHODS Recommendations were developed by synthesizing information from extant guidelines and review s and search ing for r and omized controlled trials from the date of data base inception ( 1964 for MEDLINE and 1974 for EMBASE ) to January 2015 . Quality assessment of guidelines and systematic review s were conducted by using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II ( AGREE II ) , Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review s ( AMSTAR ) , and Cochrane Risk of Bias tools . Final recommendations were developed through a st and ardized Program in Evidence -Based Care multidisciplinary expert and knowledge user review process . RESULTS Two high- quality relevant clinical practice guidelines , eight pharmacologic trials , nine psychological trials , and eight collaborative care intervention trials composed the evidence base upon which the recommendations were developed . Eight specific recommendations were made to establish a st and ard of care for the management of depression in patients with cancer . The recommendations and practical management tools were review ed as being well organized and helpful , although systemic barriers to implementation were identified . CONCLUSION This up date d guideline supports the previous general recommendation that patients with cancer who have depression may benefit from psychological and /or pharmacologic interventions , without evidence for the superiority of any specific treatment over another . New recommendations for a collaborative care model that incorporates a stepped care approach suggest that multidisciplinary mental health care restructuring may be required for optimal management of depression Background The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions . Methods The conclusions are based on the results of systematic review s of r and omized clinical trials ( RCTs ) , widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence -based clinical guidelines , plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories . The strength/ quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs . Results By September 2009 , 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy :  13 musculoskeletal conditions , four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions . We identified 49 recent relevant systematic review s and 16 evidence -based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic review s and guidelines .Additionally , brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological , non-invasive physical treatments . Conclusions Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for : acute , subacute , and chronic low back pain ; migraine and cervicogenic headache ; cervicogenic dizziness ;  manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions ; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain . The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration , and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain , sciatica , tension-type headache , coccydynia , temporom and ibular joint disorders , fibromyalgia , premenstrual syndrome , and pneumonia in older adults . Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation , or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet . In children , the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis , and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation . Massage is effective in adults for  chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain . The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis , fibromyalgia , myofascial pain syndrome , migraine headache , and premenstrual syndrome . In children , the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE To develop a checklist of items measuring the quality of reports of r and omized clinical trials ( RCTs ) assessing nonpharmacological treatments ( NPTs ) . STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING The Delphi consensus method was used to select and reduce the number of items in the checklist . A total of 154 individuals were invited to participate : epidemiologists and statisticians involved in the field of methodology of RCTs ( n = 55 ) , members of the Cochrane Collaboration ( n = 41 ) , and clinicians involved in planning NPT clinical trials ( n = 58 ) . Participants ranked on a 10-point Likert scale whether an item should be included in the checklist . RESULTS Fifty-five experts ( 36 % ) participated in the survey . They were experienced in systematic review s ( 68 % were involved in the Cochrane Collaboration ) and in planning RCTs ( 76 % ) . Three rounds of the Delphi method were conducted to achieve consensus . The final checklist contains 10 items and 5 subitems , with items related to the st and ardization of the intervention , care provider influence , and additional measures to minimize the potential bias from lack of blinding of participants , care providers , and outcome assessors . CONCLUSIONS This tool can be used to critically appraise the medical literature , design NPT studies , and assess the quality of trial reports included in systematic review Background Health interventions fall along a spectrum from simple to more complex . There is wide interest in methods for review ing ‘ complex interventions ’ , but few transparent approaches for assessing intervention complexity in systematic review s. Such assessment s may assist review authors in , for example , systematic ally describing interventions and developing logic models . This paper describes the development and application of the intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Review s ( iCAT_SR ) , a new tool to assess and categorise levels of intervention complexity in systematic review s. Methods We developed the iCAT_SR by adapting and extending an existing complexity assessment tool for r and omized trials . We undertook this adaptation using a consensus approach in which possible complexity dimensions were circulated for feedback to a panel of method ologists with expertise in complex interventions and systematic review s. Based on these inputs , we developed a draft version of the tool . We then invited a second round of feedback from the panel and a wider group of systematic review ers . This informed further refinement of the tool . Results The tool comprises ten dimensions : ( 1 ) the number of active components in the intervention ; ( 2 ) the number of behaviours of recipients to which the intervention is directed ; ( 3 ) the range and number of organizational levels targeted by the intervention ; ( 4 ) the degree of tailoring intended or flexibility permitted across sites or individuals in applying or implementing the intervention ; ( 5 ) the level of skill required by those delivering the intervention ; ( 6 ) the level of skill required by those receiving the intervention ; ( 7 ) the degree of interaction between intervention components ; ( 8) the degree to which the effects of the intervention are context dependent ; ( 9 ) the degree to which the effects of the interventions are changed by recipient or provider factors ; ( 10 ) and the nature of the causal pathway between intervention and outcome . Dimensions 1–6 are considered ‘ core ’ dimensions . Dimensions 7–10 are optional and may not be useful for all interventions . Conclusions The iCAT_SR tool facilitates more in-depth , systematic assessment of the complexity of interventions in systematic review s and can assist in undertaking review s and interpreting review findings . Further testing of the tool is now needed Prediction relates to estimating the probability of something currently unknown . In the context of medical research , prediction typically concerns either diagnosis ( probability of a certain condition being present but not yet detected ) or prognosis ( probability of an outcome developing in the future ) ( 13 ) . Prognosis applies not only to sick persons or those with an established diagnosis but also to , for example , pregnant women at risk for diabetes ( 4 ) . Prediction research includes predictor finding studies , prediction model studies ( development , validation , and extending or updating ) , and prediction model impact studies ( 1 ) . Predictor finding studies ( also known as risk factor or prognostic factor studies ) aim to identify which predictors ( such as age , disease stage , or biomarkers ) independently contribute to the prediction of a diagnostic or prognostic outcome ( 1 , 5 ) . Prediction model studies aim to develop , vali date , or up date ( for example , extend ) a multivariable prediction model . A prediction model uses multiple predictors in combination to estimate probabilities to inform and often guide individual care ( 2 , 6 , 7 ) . These models can predict an individual 's probability of either currently having a particular outcome or disease ( diagnostic prediction model ) or having a particular outcome in the future ( prognostic prediction model ) . Both types of model are widely used in various medical domains and setting s ( 810 ) , as evidence d by the large number of models developed in cancer ( 11 , 12 ) , neurology ( 13 , 14 ) , and cardiovascular disease ( 15 ) . Prediction models are sometimes described as  risk prediction models , predictive models , prediction indices or rules , or risk scores ( 2 , 7 ) . An example is QRISK2 for predicting cardiovascular risk ( 16 ) . Prediction model impact studies evaluate the effect of using a model to guide patient care compared with not using such a model . They use a comparative design , such as a r and omized trial , to study the model 's effect on clinical decision making , patient outcomes , or costs of care ( 1 ) . Systematic review s have a key role in evidence -based medicine and the development of clinical guidelines ( 1719 ) . They are considered to provide the most reliable form of evidence for the effects of an intervention or diagnostic test ( 20 , 21 ) . Systematic review s of prediction models are a relatively new and evolving area but are increasingly undertaken to systematic ally identify , appraise , and summarize evidence on the performance of prediction models ( 1 , 6 , 22 ) . Assessing the quality of included studies is a crucial step in any systematic review ( 20 , 21 ) . The QUIPS ( Quality In Prognosis Studies ) tool has been developed to assess risk of bias ( ROB ) in predictor finding ( prognostic factor ) studies ( 23 ) . Research ers can use the revised Cochrane ROB Tool ( ROB 2.0 ) ( 24 ) to investigate the method ological quality of prediction model impact studies that use a r and omized comparative design , or ROBINS-I ( Risk Of Bias In Nonr and omized Studies of Interventions ) for those that use a nonr and omized comparative design ( 25 ) . As more prediction model studies and systematic review s of such studies are used as evidence for clinical guidance , a tool facilitating quality assessment for individual prediction model studies is urgently needed . We present PROBAST ( Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool ) , a tool to assess the ROB and concerns regarding the applicability of diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies . PROBAST can be used to assess studies of model development and model validation , including those updating a prediction model ( Box 1 [ 26 ] ) . We refer to the accompanying explanation and elaboration document ( 27 ) , for detailed explanations of how to use PROBAST and how to judge ROB and applicability . Box 1 . Types of diagnostic and prognostic modeling studies or reports addressed by PROBAST . Adopted from the TRIPOD ( Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis ) and CHARMS ( CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Review s of prediction Modelling Studies ) guidance ( 7 , 26 ) . PROBAST = Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool . Methods : Development of PROBAST Development of PROBAST was based on a 4-stage approach for developing health research reporting guidelines : define the scope , review the evidence base , use a Web-based Delphi procedure , and refine the tool through piloting ( 28 ) . Guidelines explicitly aim ed at the development of quality assessment tools were not available at the time ( 29 ) . Development Stage 1 : Scope and Definitions A steering group of 9 experts in prediction model studies and development of quality assessment tools agreed on key features of the desired scope of PROBAST . A panel of 38 experts with different background s further refined the scope during the Web-based Delphi procedure . PROBAST was design ed mainly to assess primary studies included in a systematic review . The group agreed that PROBAST would assess both risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability of a study evaluating a multivariable prediction model to be used for individualized diagnosis or prognosis . A domain-based structure was adopted , similar to that used in other ROB tools , such as ROB 2.0 ( 24 ) , ROBINS-I ( 25 ) , QUADAS-2 ( Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 ) ( 30 ) , and ROBIS ( 31 ) . We agreed that PROBAST should cover primary studies that develop , vali date , or up date multivariable prediction models aim ing to make individualized predictions of a diagnostic or prognostic outcome ( Box 1 ) . Studies that use multivariable modeling techniques to identify predictors ( such as risk or prognostic factors ) associated with an outcome but do not attempt to develop , vali date , or up date a model for making individualized predictions are not covered by PROBAST ( 5 ) . Therefore , PROBAST is not intended for predictor finding studies or prediction model impact studies . Studies of diagnostic and prognostic models often use different terms for predictors and outcomes ( Box 2 ) . A multivariable prediction model is defined as any combination or equation of 2 or more predictors for estimating probability or risk for an individual ( 6 , 7 , 3234 ) . Box 2 . Differences between diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies . PROBAST = Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool . Development Stage 2 : Review of Evidence We used the following 3 approaches to build an evidence base to inform the development of PROBAST : identifying relevant method ological review s in the area of prediction model research ( November 2012 to January 2013 ) , asking members of the steering group to identify relevant method ological studies ( January 2013 to March 2013 ) , and using the Delphi procedure to ask members of the wider group to identify additional evidence ( February 2012 to July 2014 ) . Identified literature was used to guide the scope and produce an initial list of signaling questions to consider for inclusion in PROBAST ( 1 , 2 , 57 , 26 , 3340 ) . We grouped signaling questions into common themes to identify possible domains . Additional literature provided as part of the Web-based surveys informed development of the explanation and elaboration document . Development Stage 3 : Web-Based Delphi Procedure We used a modified Delphi process to gain feedback and agreement on the scope , structure , and content of PROBAST . Web-based surveys were developed to gather structured feedback for each round . The 38-member Delphi group comprised method ological experts in prediction model research and development of quality assessment tools , experienced systematic review ers , commissioners , and representatives of reimbursement agencies . We included various stakeholders to ensure that the views of end users , method ological experts , and decision makers were represented . The Delphi process consisted of 7 rounds . Round 1 asked about the scope of the tool , and participants agreed to focus on prediction model studies and follow a domain-based structure . Round 2 aim ed to identify relevant domains and agree on which to include . The signaling questions for domains were refined in rounds 3 to 5 . Respondents used a 1-to-5 Likert scale to rate each proposed signaling question for inclusion . They could also suggest rephrasing , provide supporting evidence ( such as references to relevant studies ) , and suggest missing signaling questions . Round 6 refined the domains and introduced further optional guidance for using PROBAST . In the last round , participants received the agreed draft version of PROBAST and had the opportunity to provide any final feedback . Development Stage 4 : Piloting and Refining the Tool We held 6 workshops on PROBAST at consecutive annual Cochrane Colloquia ( Quebec , Canada , 2013 ; Hyderabad , India , 2014 ; Vienna , Austria , 2015 ; Seoul , South Korea , 2016 ; Cape Town , South Africa , 2017 ; and Edinburgh , United Kingdom , 2018 ) . We also held numerous consecutive workshops with MSc and PhD students ( for example , the master 's program in epidemiology at Utrecht University [ Utrecht , the Netherl and s ] and the Evidence -Based Health Care program at Oxford University [ Oxford , United Kingdom ] ) . In these workshops , we piloted the then-current version of PROBAST to gather feedback on practical issues associated with using the tool so that we could further refine and subsequently vali date it . Finally , more than 50 review groups have already piloted PROBAST versions , including the final version , in their review s. Topics included cancer , cardiology , endocrinology , pulmonology , and orthopedics . All feedback received from these initiatives was used to further inform the content and structure of PROBAST , wording of the signaling questions , and content of the guidance documents ( 27 ) . Results : The PROBAST Tool What Does PROBAST Assess ? PROBAST assesses both risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability of primary studies that developed or vali date d multivariable prediction models for diagnosis or prognosis ( Boxes 1 and 2 ) Background All r and omized clinical trials ( RCTs ) require a protocol ; however , numerous studies have highlighted protocol deficiencies . Reporting guidelines may improve the content of research reports and , if developed using robust methods , may increase the utility of reports to stakeholders . The objective of this study was to systematic ally identify and review RCT protocol guidelines , to assess their characteristics and methods of development , and to compare recommendations . Methods We conducted a systematic review of indexed literature ( MEDLINE , EMBASE and the Cochrane Methodology Register from inception to September 2010 ; reference lists ; related article features ; forward citation search ing ) and a targeted search of supplementary sources , including a survey of major trial funding agencies in six countries . Records were eligible if they described a content guideline in English or French relevant to RCT protocol s. Guidelines were excluded if they specified content for protocol s for trials of specific procedures or conditions or were intended to assess trial quality . We extracted guideline characteristics and methods . Content was mapped for a subset of guidelines that described development methods or had institutional endorsement . Results Forty guidelines published in journals , books and institutional reports were included in the review ; seven were specific to RCT protocol s. Only eight ( 20 % ) described development methods which included informal consensus methods , pilot testing and formal validation ; no guideline described all of these methods . No guideline described formal consensus methods or a systematic retrieval of empirical evidence to inform its development . The guidelines included a median of 23 concepts per guideline ( interquartile range ( IQR ) = 14 to 34 ; range = 7 to 109 ) . Among the subset of guidelines ( n = 23 ) for which content was mapped , approximately 380 concepts were explicitly addressed ( median concepts per guideline IQR = 31 ( 24,80 ) ; range = 16 to 150 ) ; most concepts were addressed in a minority of guidelines . Conclusions Existing guidelines for RCT protocol content varied substantially in their recommendations . Few reports described the methods of guideline development , limiting comparisons of guideline validity . Given the importance of protocol s to diverse stakeholders , we believe a systematic ally developed , evidence -informed guideline for clinical trial protocol s is needed Introduction Type 2 diabetes ( T2D ) is a major health concern among population s of South Asian ethnicity . Although dietary and physical activity interventions may reduce the risk of T2D , the effectiveness has been moderate among South Asians . This might ( in part ) be because this subgroup follows strategies that were originally developed for interventions among other population s. Therefore , this review aims to assess the evidence for the current dietary and physical activity strategies recommended in T2D prevention intervention studies and guidelines for South Asians . Methods and analysis Included will be all studies and guidelines on dietary and /or physical activity strategies to prevent T2D in adult South Asians . Two review ers will search online data bases from their start until the present date for published and unpublished experimental/quasiexperimental studies , with at least an abstract in English . References of identified articles and key review s will be screened for additional studies . Guidelines will be identified by search es in online data bases and websites of public organisations . Finally , expert consultations will be held to supplement any missing information . Trial quality will be assessed with the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies Data , and guidelines with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II . Data on the strategies recommended , targeting and evidence on effectiveness will be extracted by two review ers and presented in tabular and narrative forms . Recommendations will be compared with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines [ PH35 ] . Overall findings on  dietary and physical activity recommendations , as well as findings for specific subgroups ( eg , by sex ) , will be discussed . Ethics and dissemination Ethics assessment is not required . Start date : 1 January 2016 , finishing and reporting date 31 July 2016 . Results will be published in a peer- review ed scientific journal , the project report of EuroDHYAN ( www.eurodhyan.eu ) and in a PhD dissertation . Trial registration number The protocol is registered with the International Prospect i ve Register of Systematic Review s ( PROSPERO ) registration number CRD42015027067
Findings reveal a lack of reporting of intervention details , the need to report a disease-specific rationale for selection of the particular yoga style used for the intervention , and that a limited number of yoga styles have been investigated in persons with fibromyalgia
OBJECTIVE The objective of this article was to present a methodology incorporating existing guidelines and tools for systematic review s and to evaluate the Delphi survey 33 key component recommendations of yoga interventions for musculoskeletal conditions as a tool for a systematic review in fibromyalgia studies .