scholarly journals The Quality of Methodological and Reporting in Network Meta-Analysis of Acupuncture and Moxibustion: A Cross-Sectional Survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Ting Yuan ◽  
Jun Xiong ◽  
Xue Wang ◽  
Jun Yang ◽  
Yunfeng Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Quality Evaluation ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Acupuncture And Moxibustion ◽  
Jadad Scale

Background. Acupuncture had long been a primary treatment in the healthcare system of China. In recent years, there were more and more network meta-analyses (NMAs) in the field of acupuncture and moxibustion, but the quality evaluation of NMAs was rare. Objectives. The goal of this study was to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of NMAs and summarize the effects of different treatments of acupuncture and moxibustion. Methods. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database (CNKI), WanFang Database (WF), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) were searched from inception to January 2020 without any language restriction. In addition, the unpublished studies and the references of initially included literature were also retrieved manually. We included all relevant NMAs treated with acupuncture and moxibustion; other therapies such as traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine may also be included, but at least three types fall under the category of acupuncture in each NMA. Outcome indicators were not limited. We selected AMSTAR2 and PRISMA-NMA to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of eligible studies, respectively. Results. In total, 29 NMAs were included finally, including 12 Chinese references and 17 English references. All eligible studies were published from May 2013 to August 2019. The number of interventions was between 4 and 22. The number of clinical trials included ranged from 10 to 121, with a total of 1098 clinical trials. The NMAs were involved in up to 23 diseases, knee osteoarthritis and primary dysmenorrhea covered with 3 NMAs separately, others focusing on chronic functional constipation, lumbar disc herniation, chronic fatigue syndrome, and the like. The Jadad scale and RoB scale were used as the bias risk assessment tools. Among them, 7 articles adopted the Jadad scale, 22 articles adopted the RoB scale (1 article adopted both the Jadad scale and RoB scale), and only 1 article did not mention the risk assessment tool. The AMSTAR2 methodological evaluation showed that the highest score was 13.5 points and the lowest was 4, with an average of 8.64 and a median of 9.5. According to the quality criteria, only one of them was in high quality, twenty-four were in medium quality, and four were in low quality. The PRISMA-NMA reporting quality evaluation showed that the highest score was 29 points and the lowest was 13.5, with an average of 23.62 and a median of 24.5; severe flaws also existed in some items, especially in “Structured summary,” “Protocol and registration,” “Search,” “Data collection process,” “Data items,” “Additional analyses,” “Risk of bias across studies,” and “Results of additional analyses.” Conclusion. The number of NMAs in the field of acupuncture and moxibustion was still in the initial stage. Overall, their methodology and reports were of moderate quality. However, severe flaws also existed in some items. Because the eligible NMAs were limited, the conclusion needed further research to confirm its authenticity and reliability.

Methodological quality and reporting of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (8) ◽  
pp. 852-856 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Wasiak ◽  
A. Y. Shen ◽  
R. Ware ◽  
T. J. O’Donohoe ◽  
C. M. Faggion
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Methodological Assessment ◽  
Meta Analyses

The objective of this study was to assess methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2016 for relevant studies. Reporting quality was evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and methodological quality using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews, the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used to identify features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 91 studies were included in the analysis. Most reviews inadequately reported PRISMA items regarding study protocol, search strategy and bias and AMSTAR items regarding protocol, publication bias and funding. Systematic reviews published in a plastics journal, or which included more authors, were associated with higher AMSTAR scores. A large proportion of systematic reviews within hand and wrist pathology literature score poorly with validated methodological assessment tools, which may affect the reliability of their conclusions. Level of evidence: I

scholarly journals Unsatisfied Reporting Quality of Clinical Trials Evaluating Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen Chen ◽  
Yixin Zhou ◽  
Xuanye Zhang ◽  
Yuhong Wang ◽  
Li-na He ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Onset Time ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Quality Score ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Oncology Trial ◽  
Immune Oncology ◽  
Toxicity Score

BackgroundMore and more immune-oncology trials have been conducted for treating various cancers, yet it is unclear what the reporting quality of immune-oncology trials is,and characteristics associated with higher reporting quality.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the reporting quality of immune-oncology trials.MethodsThe PubMed and Cochrane library were searched to identify all English publications of clinical trials assessing immunotherapy for cancer. Reporting quality of immune-oncology trials was evaluated by a quality score with 11 points derived from the Trial Reporting in Immuno-Oncology (TRIO) statement, which contained two parts: an efficacy score of 6 points and toxicity score of 5 point. Linear regression was used to identify characteristics associated with higher scores.ResultsOf the 10,169 studies screened, 298 immune-oncology trial reports were enrolled. The mean quality score, efficacy score, and toxicity score were 6.46, 3.61, and 2.85, respectively. The most common well-reported items were response evaluation criteria (96.0%) and toxicity grade (98.7%), followed by Kaplan-Meier survival analyses (80.5%). Treatment details beyond progression (12.8%) and toxicity onset time and duration (7.7%) were poorly reported. Multivariate regression revealed that higher impact factor (IF) (IF >20 vs. IF <5, p < 0.001), specific tumor type (p = 0.018 for lung, p = 0.021 for urinary system, vs. pan cancer), and a certain kind of immune checkpoint blocking agent (p < 0.001 for anti-PD-1 or multiagents, vs. anti-CTLA-4) were independent predictors of higher-quality score. Similar independent predictive characteristics were revealed for high-efficacy score. Only IF >20 had a significant high-toxicity score (p < 0.001).ConclusionImmune-oncology trial reports presented an unsatisfied quality score, especially in the reporting of treatment details beyond progression and toxicity onset time and duration. High IF journals have better reporting quality. Future improvement of trial reporting was warranted to the benefit-risk assessment of immunotherapy.

scholarly journals Quantity and Reporting Quality of Kidney Research

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markos Kyriakos Tomidis Chatzimanouil ◽  
Louise Wilkens ◽  
Hans-Joachim Anders
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Quality Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Preclinical Studies ◽  
Medical Disciplines ◽  
Leading Journals

BackgroundIn 2004, researchers reported that the number of nephrology clinical trials was low and that the reporting quality of such trials was suboptimal. Furthermore, the number or quality of preclinical kidney-related studies has not been systematically evaluated.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of randomized clinical trials published in 1966–2017 (listed in the Cochrane Library) and preclinical studies published in 1945–2017 (listed in PubMed). For reporting quality analysis, we evaluated the final main paper of 118 clinical trial reports and 135 preclinical studies published in leading journals in 1996, 2006, and 2016 on the basis of criteria from the widely used CONSORT and ARRIVE guidelines.ResultsThe annual number of reports of clinical kidney-related trials more than doubled between 2004 and 2014 along with reports in other medical disciplines. Hypertension remains the dominant focus of study, but ongoing trials also center on CKD, ESRD, and AKI. The reporting quality analysis revealed improvements, but deficits in reporting of clinical trial design, mode of randomization, and intention-to-treat analysis remain. Annual numbers of kidney-related preclinical studies remained low between 1945 and 2017 compared with other disciplines. Reporting quality analysis of preclinical studies revealed substantial reporting deficits across all leading journals, with little improvement over the last 20 years, especially for group size calculations, defining primary versus secondary outcomes, and blinded analysis.ConclusionsNephrology studies keep increasing in number but still lag behind other medical disciplines, and the quality of data reporting in kidney research can be further improved.

scholarly journals Methodology and Reporting Quality Evaluation of Acupuncture for Mild Cognitive Impairment: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
Tinghui Hou ◽  
Qianhua Zheng ◽  
Xiumei Feng ◽  
Lu Wang ◽  
Ying Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Mild Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure

Objective. Since there is no consistent evidence on the effectiveness of acupuncture in the treatment of mild cognitive impairment, this review aims to summarize and critically evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs). Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM), and Wanfang databases from the date of establishment to April 2019. Two authors independently selected the articles, collected the data, and assessed the identified and included SRs with the revised measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR 2) and preferred reporting items for SRs and meta-analyses (PRISMA). The quality of outcomes was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results. Eleven SRs were included in this overview. The items of AMSTAR 2 in most SRs were poorly reported; only 3 SRs were rated as low quality by AMSTAR 2, and the remaining were rated as very low quality. A total of 8 SRs obtained a decent rating by PRISMA. With the GRADE tool, we have not found high-quality evidence that acupuncture is effective for mild cognitive impairment (MCI), so there is no certain conclusion on the effectiveness of acupuncture treatment for MCI. Conclusion. The methodological and reporting quality of SRs on acupuncture for MCI is substandard, and the quality of evidence is poor. In future research, more efforts are needed to improve the quality of SRs in this field.

scholarly journals Does propofol ameliorate occurrence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction after general anaesthesia? A protocol of systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xi Zhao ◽  
Ze-qing Huang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cognitive Dysfunction ◽  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure

Abstract Background Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a common condition after general anesthesia (GA). Previous studies have reported that propofol can ameliorate the occurrence of such disorder. However, its results are still inconsistent. Therefore, this systematic review will assess the efficacy and safety of propofol on POCD after GA. Methods Literature sources will be sought from inception to the present in Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the administration of propofol on POCD after GA. All searches will be carried out without limitations to language and publication status. Outcomes comprise of cognitive impairments changes, impairments in short-term memory, concentration, language comprehension, social integration, quality of life, and adverse events. Cochrane risk of bias tool will be utilized to assess study quality. We will evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A narrative synthesis or a meta-analysis will be undertaken as appropriate. Discussion This study will systematically and comprehensively search literature and integrate evidence on the efficacy and safety of propofol on POCD after GA. Our findings will be of interest to clinicians and health-related policy makers. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020164096

scholarly journals Quality assessment of clinical trial registration with traditional Chinese medicine in WHO registries

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e025218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuan Zhang ◽  
Ran Tian ◽  
Zhen Yang ◽  
Chen Zhao ◽  
Liang Yao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Reporting Rate ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Data Set

ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the registration quality of clinical trials (CTs) with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and identify the common problems if any.MethodsThe ICTRP database was searched for all TCM CTs that were registered up to 31 December 2017. Registered information of each trial was collected from specific registry involved in ICTRP through hyperlink. The primary analysis was to assess the reporting quality of registered trials with TCM interventions, which is based on the minimum 20 items of WHO Trial Registration Data Set (TRDS, V.1.2.1) plus optional additional three items recommended by ICTRP, and some specific items for TCM information (including TCM intervention, diagnosis, outcome and rationale). Descriptive statistics were additionally used to analyse the baseline characteristics of TCM trial registrations.ResultsA total of 3339 records in 15 registries were examined. The number of TCM registered trials has increased rapidly after the requirement of mandatory trial registration proposed by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors on 1 July 2005, and the top two registries were Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and ClincialTrials.gov. Of 3339 trials, 61% were prospective registration and 12.8% shared resultant publications. There were 2955 interventional trials but none of them had a 100% reporting rate of the minimum 20 items and additional three items. The reporting quality of these 23 items was not optimal due to 11 of them had a lower reporting rate (<65%). For TCM details, 49.2% lacked information on description of TCM intervention(s), 85.9% did not contain TCM diagnosis criteria, 92.6% did not use TCM outcome(s) and 67.1% lacked information on TCM background and rationale.ConclusionThe registration quality of TCM CTs should be improved by prospective registration, full completion of WHO TRDS, full reporting of TCM information and results sharing. Further full set of trial registration items for TCM trials should be developed thus to standardise the content of TCM trial registration.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and Safety of Preoperative Oral Carbohydrates in Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocols for Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Li-Na Ge ◽  
Lin Wang ◽  
Feng Wang
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patients With Diabetes

To evaluate the necessity and safety of preoperative oral carbohydrates in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols for diabetes mellitus patients. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WANFANG databases for articles published through September 2018. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Literature screening, data extraction, and quality evaluation were performed independently by two investigators. Of the 6328 retrieved articles, five eligible randomized controlled trials were included. Two were from China and three were from Germany, Sweden, and Canada. Preoperative oral carbohydrates may facilitate control of preoperative blood glucose, improve postoperative insulin resistance in diabetes patients, and decrease the occurrence of adverse reactions. However, the overall quality of the included studies was low. The available evidence shows that preoperative oral carbohydrates are probably beneficial for patients with diabetes mellitus. High-quality, large randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our findings and provide quantitative results.

scholarly journals An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 153473541989002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seong Min Lee ◽  
Ho Cheol Choi ◽  
Min Kyung Hyun
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Complementary Therapies ◽  
The United States ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Cancer Type

Introduction: This article critically examines the systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) of complementary therapies for cancer patients to appraise the evidence level, and offers suggestions for future research and practice. Methods: The Cochrane Library and MEDLINE were searched from their inception to January 2018, to identify SR and MA of complementary therapies available for cancer patients. Final selected SR and MA were methodologically evaluated for their quality by applying the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) instrument. Data extraction and risk of quality assessments were performed by 2 independent reviewers. Results: A total of 104 studies were included in the analysis. The majority of the individual clinical trials included in the SR and MA were performed in China (48%) and the United States (26.9%). Breast cancer was the most studied cancer type (25%), and acupuncture was the most studied intervention (21%). Side effects of cancer such as pain, depression, and fatigue were effectively managed with complementary therapies. The methodologically problematic items included not listing the excluded studies and lack of protocol or protocol registration. Conclusions: With increasing interest in research, complementary therapies appear to be beneficial in reducing side effects and raising the quality of life of cancer patients. Complementary therapies have generally been studied for all cancers, with acupuncture being the most researched, regardless of the cancer type. Since AMSTAR2 is a stricter assessment tool than before, future studies need to consider the risk of methodological bias with caution and discuss appropriate overall quality assessment tools.

scholarly journals Opioids in Post-stroke Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damiana Scuteri ◽  
Elisa Mantovani ◽  
Stefano Tamburin ◽  
Giorgio Sandrini ◽  
Maria Tiziana Corasaniti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Analgesic Effect ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Pain Syndromes

Background: Post-stroke pain is one of the most common sequelae of stroke, which stands among the leading causes of death and adult-acquired disability worldwide. The role and clinical efficacy of opioids in post-stroke pain syndromes is still debated.Objectives: Due to the important gap in knowledge on the management of post-stroke pain, this systematic review aimed at assessing the efficacy of opioids in post-stroke pain syndromes.Methods: A literature search was conducted on databases relevant for medical scientific literature, i.e. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from databases inception until August 31st, 2020 for clinical trials assessing the effects of opioids and opioid antagonists on pain reduction and pain related symptoms in patients with post-stroke pain syndromes. Studies assessing the effects of other medications (e.g., tricyclic antidepressant, pregabalin) or non - pharmacological management strategies (e.g., neurostimulation techniques) were excluded. The selected studies have been subjected to examination of the risk of bias.Results: The literature search retrieved 83,435 results. After duplicates removal, 34,285 articles were title and abstract screened. 25 full texts were assessed and 8 articles were identified to be eligible for inclusion in the qualitative summary and narrative analysis, of which three were placebo-controlled and two were dose-response. Among placebo-controlled studies, two evaluated the analgesic effect of morphine and one assessed the effects of the opioid antagonist naloxone on patients with central post-stroke pain. With regard to dose-response studies, both were on patients with central post-stroke pain, one assessing the efficacy of levorphanol, and the other on naloxone. Seven out of eight included studies showed an overall slight analgesic effect of opioids, with less consistent effects on other pain-related symptoms (e.g., mood, quality of life). The randomized controlled trials were subjected to meta-analysis and rating of the quality of evidence for the two outcomes considered according to GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) system. The overall results are inconclusive because of the small number of studies and of patients.Conclusions: The limited number of the included studies and their heterogeneity in terms of study design do not support the efficacy of opioids in post-stroke pain and in pain-related outcomes. Large double-blind randomized clinical trials with objective assessment of pain and related symptoms are needed to further investigate this topic.

scholarly journals Manual Acupuncture for Optic Atrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fang-Yuan Zhi ◽  
Jie Liu ◽  
Xiao-Peng Ma ◽  
Jue Hong ◽  
Ji Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Optic Atrophy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Manual Acupuncture ◽  
Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Clinical Trials Registry

Objectives. This systematic review aims to critically evaluate the efficacy of manual acupuncture for optic atrophy. Eight English and Chinese databases, including Cochrane Library, EMbase, PubMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), as well as ongoing trials registered with the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, were searched to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying manual acupuncture for optic atrophy compared to medication alone. The quality of evidence was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3. Nine studies were identified and included for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed significant differences in favor of manual acupuncture or manual acupuncture plus medication compared with medication alone in the following outcome measures: visual acuity (MD = 0.18, 95% CI [0.17, 0.20], P < 0.00001), mean sensitivity of visual field (MD = 2.11, 95% CI [1.90, 2.32], P < 0.00001), the latent period of P-VEP100 (MD = -6.80, 95% CI [-8.94, -4.66], P < 0.00001), the total effectiveness (264 eyes) (OR = 3.22, 95% CI [1.88, 5.51], P<0.0001), and the total effectiveness (344 participants) (OR = 4.29, 95% CI [2.56, 7.19], P < 0.00001). Despite statistical advantages of manual acupuncture in the literature, due to serious methodological flaws in study design, it cannot be concluded that manual acupuncture is more effective than medicine alone. It is essential that a properly controlled clinical trial is designed and controls are established to exclude placebo effects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document