Improving the Quality of Reports of Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: The QUOROM Statement

2000 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 597-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Moher ◽  
D.J. Cook ◽  
S. Eastwood ◽  
I. Olkin ◽  
D. Rennie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reports ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement

The Lancet ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 354 (9193) ◽  
pp. 1896-1900 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Moher ◽  
Deborah J Cook ◽  
Susan Eastwood ◽  
Ingram Olkin ◽  
Drummond Rennie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reports ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement

2000 ◽  
Vol 87 (11) ◽  
pp. 1448-1454 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Moher ◽  
Deborah J. Cook ◽  
Susan Eastwood ◽  
Ingram Olkin ◽  
Drummond Rennie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reports ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) versus sham ECT for depression: do study limitations invalidate the evidence (and mean we should stop using ECT)?

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 285-291
Author(s):  
Ian M. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Electroconvulsive Therapy ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Memory Loss ◽  
Placebo Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Therapeutic Benefits ◽  
Permanent Memory ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

SUMMARYElectroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for depression is a controversial treatment with highly polarised views about the balance between therapeutic benefits and adverse effects. Studies investigating whether ECT is more effective than a placebo treatment started in the 1950s, with the most important randomised controlled trials carried out about four decades ago in which ECT was compared with sham ECT (SECT) involving anaesthesia but no electrically induced seizure. Subsequently the data have been pooled in a number of meta-analyses which have found that ECT is an effective treatment. However, a recent review of the quality of the SECT-controlled studies, and the meta-analyses based on them, concludes that their quality is too poor to allow assessment of the efficacy of ECT and that, given its risks (permanent memory loss and death), the use of ECT should be suspended. This commentary critically discusses the methodology of this review and its conclusions.

scholarly journals Systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing mortality in restrictive and liberal haemoglobin thresholds for red cell transfusion: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e029828 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin M Trentino ◽  
Shannon L Farmer ◽  
Frank M Sanfilippo ◽  
Michael F Leahy ◽  
James Isbister ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Cell ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Red Blood Cell ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Red Blood Cell Transfusion ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionThere has been a significant increase in the number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials investigating thresholds for red blood cell transfusion. To systematically collate, appraise and synthesise the results of these systematic reviews and meta-analyses, we will conduct an overview of systematic reviews.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews. We will search five databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed (for prepublication, in process and non-Medline records) and Google Scholar. We will consider systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of haemoglobin thresholds for red blood cell transfusion on mortality. Two authors will independently screen titles and abstracts retrieved in the literature search and select studies meeting the eligibility criteria for full-text review. We will extract data onto a predefined form designed to summarise the key characteristics of each review. We will assess the methodological quality of included reviews and the quality of evidence in included reviews.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethics approval is not required for this overview as we will only analyse published literature. The findings of this study will be presented at relevant conferences and submitted for peer-review publication. The results are likely to be used by clinicians, policy makers and developers of clinical guidelines and will inform suggestions for future systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019120503.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of levetiracetam in children with epilepsy: protocol for an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. e029811 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Gan ◽  
Dan Ma ◽  
Tao Xiong
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Paediatric Epilepsy

IntroductionEpilepsy causes serious suffering in children and is associated with high morbidity and increased mortality. It impairs children’s quality of life and places a heavy burden on healthcare resources. Levetiracetam has been used to prevent and treat paediatric epilepsy for years. To date, a number of systematic reviews have been performed to assess the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam in a variety of clinical settings. Conflicting outcomes have been reported for the same clinical issues. Our objective is to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature for clinicians and policymakers via an umbrella review that assesses the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam in children with epilepsy.Methods and analysisWe will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute’s guidelines for umbrella reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. The following seven databases will be searched from 1990 to February 2019: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, JBISRIR, EPPI, Epistemonikos and PROSPERO. We will provide evidence from existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials regarding the use of levetiracetam in children with epilepsy. The intervention of interest is levetiracetam monotherapy and add-on therapies for prevention or treatment purposes. Studies will be individually selected and assessed by two reviewers. The primary outcomes of interest are epilepsy control, the efficacy of prophylaxis for provoked seizures and the mortality rate of children with epilepsy who received levetiracetam treatment. The secondary outcomes are adverse events and withdrawal rates due to adverse effects. The methodological quality of all reviews will be individually assessed by two reviewers using the ‘A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews’ instrument. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment will be applied to evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. A narrative description of an analysis of the systematic reviews will be tabulated to address objective and specific questions. Information from each review will be detailed in a table including the population, number of studies, total number of participants, year range of the trials, study designs of the primary trials, countries and settings of the trials, heterogeneity of results and assessment tools. Recommendations regarding each outcome of levetiracetam will be categorised based on a protocol.Ethics and disseminationThis umbrella review will inform clinical and policy decisions regarding the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam for preventing and treating paediatric epilepsy. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. Ethical approval is not required for this study.

Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review

2006 ◽  
Vol 185 (5) ◽  
pp. 263-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy C Plint ◽  
David Moher ◽  
Andra Morrison ◽  
Kenneth Schulz ◽  
Douglas G Altman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reports ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review

BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. n736
Author(s):  
Huan Wang ◽  
Yancong Chen ◽  
Yali Lin ◽  
Julius Abesig ◽  
Irene XY Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Individual Participant ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Objective To assess the methodological quality of individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis and to identify areas for improvement. Design Systematic review. Data sources Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Systematic reviews with IPD meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials on intervention effects published in English. Results 323 IPD meta-analyses covering 21 clinical areas and published between 1991 and 2019 were included: 270 (84%) were non-Cochrane reviews and 269 (84%) were published in journals with a high impact factor (top quarter). The IPD meta-analyses showed low compliance in using a satisfactory technique to assess the risk of bias of the included randomised controlled trials (43%, 95% confidence interval 38% to 48%), accounting for risk of bias when interpreting results (40%, 34% to 45%), providing a list of excluded studies with justifications (32%, 27% to 37%), establishing an a priori protocol (31%, 26% to 36%), prespecifying methods for assessing both the overall effects (44%, 39% to 50%) and the participant-intervention interactions (31%, 26% to 36%), assessing and considering the potential of publication bias (31%, 26% to 36%), and conducting a comprehensive literature search (19%, 15% to 23%). Up to 126 (39%) IPD meta-analyses failed to obtain IPD from 90% or more of eligible participants or trials, among which only 60 (48%) provided reasons and 21 (17%) undertook certain strategies to account for the unavailable IPD. Conclusions The methodological quality of IPD meta-analyses is unsatisfactory. Future IPD meta-analyses need to establish an a priori protocol with prespecified data syntheses plan, comprehensively search the literature, critically appraise included randomised controlled trials with appropriate technique, account for risk of bias during data analyses and interpretation, and account for unavailable IPD.

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Head Lice ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document