MK0683 Signifies On Its Own, Desires An Arctic Holiday Retreat

We also calculated a summary score of all the items; the maximum score was 7. Total scores between 1 and 3 points were categorised as weak quality, those between 4 and 5 points were good, and those between 6 and 7 points were excellent quality. Results Inclusion and exclusion The electronic literature search resulted in the identification of 4709 unique citations (Oxygenase Figure 1). Based on the title review, 4620 citations were excluded; this left 89 articles for abstract review. During the abstract review, another 36 citations were excluded; this left 53 articles for full-text review. After the full-text review, 8 articles remained and their reference lists were hand searched for relevant studies. The hand search identified three additional citations. However, all were excluded at full text review. Reasons for article exclusions were because: (1) a RTW programme that incorporated work-focused problem-solving skills was not evaluated (n=34), (2) the study population was not relevant (n=7), (3) it was a literature review (n=2), and (4) a RTW outcome was not assessed (n=5). Figure?1 Flowchart of literature search results and inclusions/exclusions. RTW, return-to-work Bias risk assessment The eight articles represented a total of six studies. In terms of potential bias avoidance, our assessment identified two of the six studies as excellent, two as good and two as weak. Figure?2 shows the areas of potential bias of these studies. All the studies were randomised controlled trials in which the researchers were blinded with respect to the assignment (see online supplementary file 2: risk assessment of bias checklist). Thus, all had low risk of bias related to sequence generation, allocation concealment, and outcome assessment. However, for three studies, there were less details regarding the characteristics of the sample that either dropped out or had missing data compared with the final sample population. For the studies that did not have a protocol (n=3), it was also difficult to discern whether there was selective outcome reporting. Four of the studies did not indicate whether there was a check for intervention adherence during the study. Finally, for two of the studies, the described recruitment strategies seemed to rely on provider referrals; this would have exposed the selection of the study population to selection bias by the provider. Figure?2 Summary of risk assessment of bias. Overview of the studies There were six studies (eight published articles) that met the inclusion criteria. Except for one from Norway, five studies were from the Netherlands (table 1). Table?1 Descriptions of RTW intervention studies Description of the study populations and participants The included studies recruited participants from a number of sources.