Background: Neurogenic bladder (NGB) is a chronic and disabling condition with a high prevalence rate, which can cause economic burden on patients and their families and reduce the quality of life of patients. Researchers have carried out a large number of clinical trials on the effectiveness and safety of different interventions for the treatment of NGB. The published clinical trials of NGB generally suffered from inconsistent and irregular reporting of outcome indicators. To facilitate future research studies of NGB, a core outcome set (COS) is required, which helps translate the results into high-quality evidence. Methods and analysis: This mixed-method project has four phases instrument: in phase 1, a scoping review of the literature to identify outcomes that have been reported in clinical trials and systematic reviews of clinical trials of interventions for NCB; in phase 2, a qualitative component using interviews to obtain the views of NGB patients, families, and their caregivers; in phase 3, Delphi survey among stakeholders to prioritize the core outcomes; and in phase 4, a face-to-face consensus meeting to discuss and agree on the final NBG COS. Conclusions: We will develop a COS that should be reported in future clinical trials of NGB.

Introduction: End of life (EOL) care in the Emergency Department (ED) requires focused, person-centred care to meet the needs of this vulnerable cohort of patients. Methods: An integrative review of the literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was conducted. Studies were included if they were primary research relating to patients in the ED at the EOL, and/or evaluated EOL care pathways in the ED. Databases OVID Emcare, OVID Medline, and Scopus were searched from 1966-September 2021; followed by screening and appraisal. Articles were compared and data grouped into categories. Results: Eleven research articles were included generating three categories for EOL care in ED. 1) tools/criteria to identify patients who may require EOL care in ED; 2) processes for providing EOL care, and 3) implementation methods/frameworks to support the uptake of EOL care processes. Conclusion: There were some commonalities in the criteria used to identify patients who may be at their EOL and the interventions implemented thereafter. There was no standardised process for screening for or treating EOL care needs in the ED. Further research is required to determine the impact that EOL care pathways have on patient and health service outcomes to inform strategies for future policy development.

Background: Sjogren's syndrome (SS) is a chronic autoimmune rheumatic disease with an incidence of 0.03 to 0.3%. In recent years, there are an increasing number of randomized controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for SS. However, there are generally some problems in these published clinical trials: lack of reporting primary or long-term outcomes and the heterogeneous in different clinical trials' outcome. Our study aims to determine the priority outcomes and standard TCM syndromes for all stakeholders and reach agreement on the COS and syndromes to be measured and reported in all future TCM trials in patients with SS. Methods and analysis: A phase-wise refinement approach will be used, consisting of three phases, yet complementary, sub-work phases, whereby each phase will inform the next coming phases. The following are the three phases: (I-a) identifying of a long initial list of outcomes through systematic literature review and semi-structured qualitative interviews and (I-b) identifying an initial list of TCM syndromes through (1) systematic literature review, (2) referencing ancient Chinese medical books, and (3) retrospective studies of medical records; (II) prioritization of outcomes using Delphi survey with different stakeholders, such as health professionals and patients; and (III) through consensus meetings with patients and professionals to agree on the final COS and TCM syndromes. Discussion: We summarized the actions of COS into three points: direct action, indirect action, and final action. After the final COSs is completed, we will publish this research in a journal to promote communication.

The author should give careful consideration to the study eligibility criteria of systematic reviews (SRs) and follow it after review protocol development to reduce the possibility of manipulation of inclusion. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence of differences in study eligibility criteria between non-Cochrane SRs and their pre-registered protocols on PROSPERO, and determined what changes were involved as well as whether those changes were explained. We searched the protocols registered on PROSPERO platform in the year of 2018 and then selected these protocols which full-text have been published up to June 9, 2020. A random sample (n = 100) was included. Published full-texts were identified through the protocol's final publication citation. The following five key components of study eligibility criteria were compared: participants, intervention(s)/exposure(s), comparator(s), types of study design, and outcome(s). A total of 90% of included SRs exhibited differences in study eligibility criteria, and 59/90 altered in no less than two key components. Only one SR reported and explained the rationale for changes to the individual key component (the definition of exposure). The "Outcome(s)" exhibited the greatest variation, with changes in 61% of the SRs. The "Comparator(s)/control" exhibited the smallest variation, with changes in 20% of the SRs. Differences in study eligibility criteria between the non-Cochrane SRs and their protocols registered on PROSPERO were widespread but were seldom explained. Authors themselves, PROSPERO platform, as well as peer-review journals and their peer-reviewers should play a role in further improving transparency.

Introduction: The aim of this scoping review is to systematically search the literature to identify the nature and or level of trust between the patient, the users of health services (eg, clients seeking health promotion and preventive healthcare services) and the individual healthcare providers (doctors, nurses and physiotherapists/ occupational therapists), across public and private healthcare sectors, at all levels of care from primary through secondary to tertiary care. It also aims to identify the factors that influence trust between patients, users of health services (clients) and providers of healthcare at all levels of care from primary care to tertiary care, and across all health sectors (public and private). The study will also identify the tools used to measure trust in the healthcare provider. Methods and analysis: The scoping review will be conducted based on the methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology, and Levac et al 's methodological enhancement. An experienced information specialist (HM) searched the following databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. The search terms were both keywords in the title and/or abstract and subject headings (eg, MeSH, EMTREE) as appropriate. Search results were downloaded, imported and stored into a 'Refworks' folder specifically created for reference management. The preliminary search was conducted between 7 December 2017 and 14 December 2017. Quantitative methods using content analysis will be used to categorise study findings on factors associated with trust between patients, clients and healthcare providers. The collection of studies will be also examined for heterogeneity. Qualitative analysis on peer reviewed articles of qualitative interviews and focus group discussion will be conducted; it allows clear identification of themes arising from the data, facilitating prioritisation, higher order abstraction and theory development. A consultation exercise with stakeholders may be incorporated as a knowledge translation component of the scoping study methodology. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval will be obtained for the research project from the Institutional Review Board. The International Medical University will use the findings of this scoping review research to improve the understanding of trust in healthcare, in its endeavour to improve health services delivery in its healthcare clinics and hospitals, and in its teaching and learning curriculum. The findings will also help faculty make evidence based decisions to focus resources and research as well as help to advance the science in this area. Dissemination of the results of the scoping review will be made through peer-reviewed publications, research reports and presentations at conferences and seminars.

Background: Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in the world. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy has been demonstrated by published individual patient data meta-analysis and Cochrane systematic review. However, there is no consensus on which is the optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimens. Present network meta-analysis aims to compare the differences of effect between all available adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in improving overall survival and disease-free survival, and to rate the certainty of evidence from present network meta-analysis. Methods: We will conduct this systematic review and network meta-analysis using Bayesian method and according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. We will search PubMed, EMBASE.com, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Biological Medical Database (CBM), and ClinicalTrials.gov () to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adjuvant chemotherapy to surgery alone. We will assess the risk of bias of individual RCTs using a modified version of Cochrane tool. We will also use the advance of GRADE to rate the certainty of network meta-analysis. Data analysis will be performed with R-3.4.1 and WinBUGS software. Results: The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Discussion: To the best of our knowledge, this systematic review and network meta-analysis will firstly use both direct and indirect evidence to compare the differences of all available adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for resected gastric cancer patients. This is a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis, so the ethical approval and patient consent are not required.

Background: Canada's diverse society and statutory commitment to multiculturalism means that the synthesis of knowledge related to the health care experiences of immigrants is essential to realize the health potential for future Canadians. Although concerns about the maternity experiences of immigrants in Canada are relatively new, recent national guidelines explicitly call for tailoring of services to user needs. We are therefore assessing the experiences of immigrant women in Canada accessing maternity-care services. We are focusing on: 1) accessibility and acceptability (as an important dimension of access) to maternity-care services as perceived and experienced by immigrant women, and 2) the birth and postnatal outcomes of these women. Methods: The aim of this study is to use a narrative synthesis, incorporating both a systematic review using narrative synthesis of reports of empirical research (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method designs), and a literature review of non-empirically based reports, both of which include 'grey' literature. The study aims to provide stakeholders with perspectives on maternity-care services as experienced by immigrant women. To achieve this, we are using integrated knowledge translation, partnering with key stakeholders to ensure topic relevancy and to tailor recommendations for effective translation into future policy and practice/programming. Two search phases and a three-stage selection process are being conducted (database search retrieved 1487 hits excluding duplicates) to provide evidence to contribute jointly to both the narrative synthesis and the non-empirical literature review. The narrative synthesis will be informed by the previous framework published in 2006 by Popay et al., using identified tools for each of its four elements. The non-empirical literature review will build upon the narrative-synthesis findings and/or identify omissions or gaps in the empirical research literature. The integrated knowledge translation plan will ensure that key messages are delivered in an audience-specific manner to optimize their effect on policy and practice change throughout the health service, and the public health, immigration and community sectors. Discussion: Narrative-synthesis methods of systematic review facilitate understanding and acknowledgement of the broader influences of theoretical and contextual variables, such as race, gender, socioeconomic status, and geographical location. They also enable understanding of the shaping of differences between reported outcomes and study designs related to childbearing populations, and the development and implementation of maternity services and health interventions across diverse settings.