Page 30 - Bladder Dysfunction in the Context of the Bladder-Brain Connection - Ilse Groenendijk.pdf

28
Chapter 2
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study registration
This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42016047488 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/).
Literature search
A systematic search of all relevant publications was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library. A search was conducted including all publications until March 2019, S1 File contains the used search terms. Manual reference checks of accepted papers in recent reviews and included papers were performed as supplement to the electronic search.
Eligibility criteria
All original publications on neuroimaging of lower urinary tract control in humans were eligible for full-text retrieval.
The use of a comprehensive search strategy resulted in a highly heterogeneous body of data which included a variety of neuroimaging techniques, populations, settings and protocols. In order to optimally utilize this extensive literature search, it was decided to split the extracted studies into smaller components addressing more concise research questions to get more precise answers. The current review focused on the assessment of LUT motor control using PET and fMRI.
Hence, inclusion criteria were studies using fMRI or PET when performing micturi- tion or pelvic floor muscle contractions that described the coordinates (in stereotactic space i.e. Talaraich (TAL) or MNI) of active clusters found during the performed task. Duplicates, abstracts only, conference proceedings, non-English text publications, non- human research and reviews were excluded.
Selection of studies
Titles and abstracts were screened in Endnote (EndNote X9; Thomson Reuters, Phila- delphia, PA, USA) by U.M. and B.B. and discrepancies were resolved by I.G. The selected articles were full text screened for eligibility by J.G. and I.G. using a standardized screen- ing form, and discrepancies were discussed and resolved by a third reviewer (B.B.).
Data extraction
The data were independently extracted from the included full-text publications by two reviewers (J.G. and I.G.) using a standardized form. Any discrepancies were discussed and resolved by the third reviewer (B.B.). Data extracted were: general descriptive in-