Tips and Tricks for a Successful Literature Review as Part of Medical Career Development

The literature review is a direct consequence of the increased volume of scientific information, becoming a necessity not only for the medical field. Such material, properly done, is of great use to any professional who wishes to keep abreast of the latest knowledge and concepts. The proposed goal is to help and guide resident doctors, doctoral students, and young researchers in understanding the concepts that are the basis of conducting a literature review and acquiring the generally accepted methodology for conducting it. The selection of information sources, accessing databases, the concept of peer-review, indexing and the impact factor are clearly presented as elements that cannot be neglected in the valorisation of scientific information sources. The structure of a literature review must consider the generally accepted format for such an article, with each chapter having its own importance. Depending on the quality and heterogeneity of the results obtained after analysing the collected data, the review can be structured narratively or systematically, the homogeneity of the results allowing the application of statistical study methods (meta-analysis). Although it seems difficult, conducting a literature review is easier and faster than developing an original study based on experimental or clinical scientific research. The literature review can be carried out in comfortable conditions, online, regardless of location and is a welcome support in the development of the professional and scientific career.

Effects of Healthcare Technologies on the Promotion of Physical Activities in Older Persons: A Systematic Review

This study aimed to explore the effects of health technologies on the promotion of health through physical activities of older persons. Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review of relevant articles published prior to 2020 was conducted from selected indices such as COCHRANE, PubMed, Science Direct, Proquest, including the use of hand search procedure. Twenty-seven articles were analyzed with significant findings influential to older people nursing: types of health technologies used for promoting physical activity; effects of technology use in promoting physical activity of older person care; and aspects that need to be considered in technology use among older persons. Characteristics of technologies were accuracy, usefulness, reliability, comfort, safety, and relevancy. Most technologies promoting physical activities for older people were wearable technologies that use artificial intelligence. Altogether, these technologies influenced overall healthcare behaviors of older persons. With healthcare technology efficiencies, proficiencies, and dependencies, technology-based healthcare have served older people well. Most technologies for older people care, such as wearables, reliably produce characteristics enhancing dependency and accuracy of bio-behavioral information influencing physical activities of older persons. Health technologies foster the values of physical activities among older persons thereby promoting healthy living.

Mortality in Patients with Bullous Pemphigoid: A Retrospective Cohort Study, Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

There is little consensus regarding mortality data in bullous pemphigoid (BP). The aim of this study was to evaluate mortality among a relatively large cohort of Israeli patients with BP and to perform a meta-analysis synthesizing existing data on 1-year mortality rates of patients with BP. This retrospective cohort study of 287 patients diagnosed with BP between 2000 and 2015 compared the mortality of patients with BP with age- and sex-matched control subjects in the general population. The results showed 1-, 5- and 10-year mortality rates of 26.9%, 56.9% and 69.5%, respectively, and a 3.4-fold higher risk of death. A systematic review and meta-analysis were then performed using a random effects model. Including the current study, 25 studies comprising 4,594 patients met the eligibility criteria. The pooled estimate of 1-year mortality rate was 23.5% (95% confidence interval 20.2-26.8; I2=81%; p < 0.001). The pooled 1-year mortality rate of European cohorts was prominently higher relative to the pooled rates of cohorts from the USA and Asia.