scholarly journals Reported Outcomes in Published Systematic Reviews of Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment: Protocol for a Systematic Overview (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Dragioti ◽  
Huan-Ji Dong ◽  
Britt Larsson ◽  
Björn Gerdle
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Pain Treatment ◽  
Treatment Protocol ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Systematic Overview ◽  
Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment ◽  
Meta Analyses

BACKGROUND Interdisciplinary pain treatment (IPT) is a complex intervention; its outcomes are very diverse, as are the methodologies for handling those outcomes. This diversity may hamper evidence-based decision making. Presently, there is no gold standard recommendation of how to select reported outcomes in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses to explicitly demonstrate the effectiveness of IPT. OBJECTIVE In this systematic overview, we aim to evaluate the reported outcome domains and measurements across published systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to identify any methods, considerations, and discussion regarding the handling of the chosen outcome domains and measurements. METHODS This article describes the protocol for a systematic overview of the outcomes reported in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized control trials for the effectiveness of IPT versus any control. To this end, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos databases from inception to December 2019. Two independent investigators screened the titles, the abstracts of the identified records, and the full texts of the potentially eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses, performed data extraction according to predefined forms, and rated the quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be rated with AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2. Data will be analyzed descriptively and stratified by AMSTAR 2. RESULTS We introduced the rationale and design of a systematic overview to summarize and map the chosen IPT outcome domains and the methods of handling these outcomes reported in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. As of December 2019, we collected 5229 systematic reviews, of which 147 (2.81%) were examined in-depth for eligibility. Topline results are anticipated by September 2020. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study will be published as soon as they are available. Our results will fill a gap in the related literature and will be used to inform the development of a set of recommendations that can be applied in systematic reviews and hopefully serve as a gold standard. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/17795

scholarly journals Reported Outcomes in Published Systematic Reviews of Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment: Protocol for a Systematic Overview

10.2196/17795 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. e17795 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Dragioti ◽  
Huan-Ji Dong ◽  
Britt Larsson ◽  
Björn Gerdle
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Pain Treatment ◽  
Treatment Protocol ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Systematic Overview ◽  
Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background Interdisciplinary pain treatment (IPT) is a complex intervention; its outcomes are very diverse, as are the methodologies for handling those outcomes. This diversity may hamper evidence-based decision making. Presently, there is no gold standard recommendation of how to select reported outcomes in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses to explicitly demonstrate the effectiveness of IPT. Objective In this systematic overview, we aim to evaluate the reported outcome domains and measurements across published systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to identify any methods, considerations, and discussion regarding the handling of the chosen outcome domains and measurements. Methods This article describes the protocol for a systematic overview of the outcomes reported in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized control trials for the effectiveness of IPT versus any control. To this end, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos databases from inception to December 2019. Two independent investigators screened the titles, the abstracts of the identified records, and the full texts of the potentially eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses, performed data extraction according to predefined forms, and rated the quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be rated with AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2. Data will be analyzed descriptively and stratified by AMSTAR 2. Results We introduced the rationale and design of a systematic overview to summarize and map the chosen IPT outcome domains and the methods of handling these outcomes reported in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. As of December 2019, we collected 5229 systematic reviews, of which 147 (2.81%) were examined in-depth for eligibility. Topline results are anticipated by September 2020. Conclusions The results of this study will be published as soon as they are available. Our results will fill a gap in the related literature and will be used to inform the development of a set of recommendations that can be applied in systematic reviews and hopefully serve as a gold standard. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/17795

scholarly journals Similarities, reliability and gaps in assessing the quality of conduct of systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS: systematic survey of nutrition reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mateusz J. Swierz ◽  
Dawid Storman ◽  
Joanna Zajac ◽  
Magdalena Koperny ◽  
Paulina Weglarz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Nutritional Intervention ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Systematic Survey ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Abstract Background AMSTAR-2 (‘A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2’) and ROBIS (‘Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews’) are independent instruments used to assess the quality of conduct of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs). The degree of overlap in methodological constructs together with the reliability and any methodological gaps have not been systematically assessed and summarized in the field of nutrition. Methods We performed a systematic survey of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for SR/MAs published between January 2010 and November 2018 that examined the effects of any nutritional intervention/exposure for cancer prevention. We followed a systematic review approach including two independent reviewers at each step of the process. For AMSTAR-2 (16 items) and ROBIS (21 items), we assessed the similarities, the inter-rater reliability (IRR) and any methodological limitations of the instruments. Our protocol for the survey was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019121116). Results We found 4 similar domain constructs based on 11 comparisons from a total of 12 AMSTAR-2 and 14 ROBIS items. Ten comparisons were considered fully overlapping. Based on Gwet’s agreement coefficients, six comparisons provided almost perfect (> 0.8), three substantial (> 0.6), and one a moderate level of agreement (> 0.4). While there is considerable overlap in constructs, AMSTAR-2 uniquely addresses explaining the selection of study designs for inclusion, reporting on excluded studies with justification, sources of funding of primary studies, and reviewers’ conflict of interest. By contrast, ROBIS uniquely addresses appropriateness and restrictions within eligibility criteria, reducing risk of error in risk of bias (RoB) assessments, completeness of data extracted for analyses, the inclusion of all necessary studies for analyses, and adherence to predefined analysis plan. Conclusions Among the questions on AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS, 70.3% (26/37 items) address the same or similar methodological constructs. While the IRR of these constructs was moderate to perfect, there are unique methodological constructs that each instrument independently addresses. Notably, both instruments do not address the reporting of absolute estimates of effect or the overall certainty of the evidence, items that are crucial for users’ wishing to interpret the importance of SR/MA results.

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 Evaluating the Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses About Breast Augmentation Using AMSTAR

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morgan Yuan ◽  
Jeremy Wu ◽  
Ryan E Austin ◽  
Frank Lista ◽  
Jamil Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Breast Augmentation ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Number Of Citations

Abstract Background Breast augmentation is one of the most commonly performed cosmetic surgeries worldwide. Therefore, it is imperative to have evidence with high methodological quality to guide clinical decision making. Objectives To evaluate the methodological quality of the systematic reviews (SRs) focused on breast augmentation. Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews was performed. SRs that have a particular focus on breast augmentation and were published in the top 15 plastic and reconstructive surgery journals were included. Quality assessment was performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Study characteristics were extracted including journal and impact factor, year of publication, country affiliation of corresponding author, reporting adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, number of citations, and number of studies included. Results Among the 22 studies included for analysis, the mean AMSTAR score was moderate (5.55), with no SR achieving good quality (AMSTAR score ≥9). There were no significant associations between AMSTAR score and journal impact factor, number of citations, year of publication, or number of included studies. Studies that reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines on average scored higher on the AMSTAR tool (p=0.03). Conclusions The methodological quality of reviews about breast augmentation was found to be moderate, with no significant increase in studies or quality over time. Adherence to PRISMA guidelines and increased appraisal of SRs about breast augmentation using methodological assessment tools would further strengthen methodological quality and confidence in study findings.

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Published in High-Impact Otolaryngology Journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 163 (5) ◽  
pp. 892-905
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Martinez-Monedero ◽  
Arman Danielian ◽  
Varun Angajala ◽  
Jennifer E. Dinalo ◽  
Eric J. Kezirian
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Abstract Screening

Objective To assess the methodological quality of intervention-focused systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) published in high-impact otolaryngology journals. Data Sources Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Review Methods A comprehensive search was performed for SR and MA citations from 2012 to 2017 in the 10 highest impact factor otolaryngology journals. Abstracts were screened to identify published manuscripts in which the authors indicated clearly that they were performing an SR or MA. Applying a modified typology of reviews, 4 reviewers characterized the review type as SR, MA, or another review type. A simplified version of the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2) tool was used to assess the reporting and methodological quality of the SRs and MAs that were focused on interventions. Results Search and abstract screening generated 499 manuscripts that identified themselves as performing an SR or MA. A substantial number (85/499, 17%) were review types other than SRs or MAs, including 34 (7%) that were literature reviews. In total, 236 SRs and MAs focused on interventions. Over 50% of these SRs and MAs had weaknesses in at least 3 of the 16 items in the AMSTAR 2, and over 40% had weaknesses in at least 2 of the 7 critical domains. Ninety-nine percent of SRs and MAs provided critically low confidence in the results of the reviews. Conclusion Intervention-focused SRs and MAs published in high-impact otolaryngology journals have important methodological limitations that diminish confidence in the results of these reviews.

scholarly journals Efficacy of perioperative immunonutrition in visceral surgery: an umbrella review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e053851
Author(s):  
Karem Slim ◽  
Flora Badon ◽  
Charles-Hervé Vacheron ◽  
Chadli Dziri ◽  
Thomas Marquillier
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Surgical Site Infections ◽  
Visceral Surgery ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionImmunonutrition (IN) is generally used before major visceral surgery with the intent to reduce postoperative complications, especially infectious ones. However, the conclusions of published meta-analyses are conflicting. The purpose of this review is to synthesise the data of published systematic reviews on the effectiveness of IN.Methods and analysisThis protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols guidelines. This is an umbrella review of systematic reviews comparing IN (delivered orally 5–7 days preoperatively) with normal diet or isocaloric isonitrogenous feeding before visceral surgery performed on any of several viscera (colorectum, stomach, pancreas, liver, oesophagus). We search the systematic reviews included in the main bibliographic databases. To assess the efficacy of IN, several outcomes will be considered: the main outcome is infectious complications (surgical site infections, pulmonary infections or urinary infections) and secondary outcomes are overall morbidity, hospital length of stay and mortality. Identified reviews will be screened by two independent assessors. The methodological quality of relevant included reviews will be assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. The data extracted from included reviews will be synthesised using the r-Metafor package considering separate groups according to the viscus of interest. Publication bias will be evaluated, and subgroup analyses will be performed according to the quality of studies and preoperative nutritional status.Ethics and disseminationAn umbrella review based on published data from systematic reviews needs no ethical approval. Furthermore, no patient will be involved in the review. Once terminated, the review will be submitted for publication in an open access journal to ensure wide dissemination of the findings.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021255177.

scholarly journals Quality of the Evidence Supporting the Role of Oral Nutritional Supplements in the Management of Malnutrition: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Baldwin ◽  
Rosemary Smith ◽  
Michelle Gibbs ◽  
C Elizabeth Weekes ◽  
Peter W Emery
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Hospital Readmissions ◽  
Nutritional Supplement ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Oral Nutritional Supplements ◽  
Meta Analyses

ABSTRACT There is considerable heterogeneity across the findings of systematic reviews of oral nutritional supplement (ONS) interventions, presenting difficulties for healthcare decision-makers and patients alike. It is not known whether heterogeneity arises from differences in patient populations or relates to methodological rigor. This overview aimed to collate and compare findings from systematic reviews of ONSs compared with routine care in adult patients who were malnourished or at risk of malnutrition with any clinical condition and to examine their methodological quality. Three electronic databases were searched to July 2019, supplemented with hand-searching. Data on all outcomes were extracted and review methodological quality assessed using A MeaSurement Tool for Assessment of systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Twenty-two reviews were included, 11 in groups from mixed clinical backgrounds and 11 in specific clinical conditions. Ninety-one meta-analyses were identified for 12 different outcomes but there was discordance between results. Significant benefits of ONSs were reported in 4 of 4 analyses of energy intake, 7 of 11 analyses of body weight, 7 of 22 analyses of mortality, 10 of 17 analyses of complications (total and infectious), 1 of 3 analyses of muscle strength, 4 of 9 analyses of body composition/nutritional status, 2 of 14 analyses of length of stay, and 2 of 5 analyses of hospital readmissions. Ten reviews were high quality (AMSTAR scores 8–11), 9 moderate (AMSTAR scores 3–8), and 3 poor (AMSTAR scores 0–3). Methodological deficiencies were limitations to searches, poor reporting of heterogeneity, and failure to incorporate quality of evidence into any recommendations. Discordance between reviews was not markedly reduced when only high-quality reviews were considered. Evidence for the effects of ONS in malnourished patients or those who are at risk of malnutrition is uncertain, and discordance in results can arise from differences in clinical background of patients or the etiological basis of malnutrition.

scholarly journals Mapping the Evidence on the Effectiveness of Telemedicine Interventions in Diabetes, Dyslipidemia, and Hypertension: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

10.2196/16791 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. e16791 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Timpel ◽  
Sarah Oswald ◽  
Peter E H Schwarz ◽  
Lorenz Harst
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Population Characteristics ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background Telemedicine is defined by three characteristics: (1) using information and communication technologies, (2) covering a geographical distance, and (3) involving professionals who deliver care directly to a patient or a group of patients. It is said to improve chronic care management and self-management in patients with chronic diseases. However, currently available guidelines for the care of patients with diabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidemia do not include evidence-based guidance on which components of telemedicine are most effective for which patient populations. Objective The primary aim of this study was to identify, synthesize, and critically appraise evidence on the effectiveness of telemedicine solutions and their components on clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidemia. Methods We conducted an umbrella review of high-level evidence, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. On the basis of predefined eligibility criteria, extensive automated and manual searches of the databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were conducted. Two authors independently screened the studies, extracted data, and carried out the quality assessments. Extracted data were presented according to intervention components and patient characteristics using defined thresholds of clinical relevance. Overall certainty of outcomes was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Results Overall, 3564 references were identified, of which 46 records were included after applying eligibility criteria. The majority of included studies were published after 2015. Significant and clinically relevant reduction rates for glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c; ≤−0.5%) were found in patients with diabetes. Higher reduction rates were found for recently diagnosed patients and those with higher baseline HbA1c (>8%). Telemedicine was not found to have a significant and clinically meaningful impact on blood pressure. Only reviews or meta-analyses reporting lipid outcomes in patients with diabetes were found. GRADE assessment revealed that the overall quality of the evidence was low to very low. Conclusions The results of this umbrella review indicate that telemedicine has the potential to improve clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes. Although subgroup-specific effectiveness rates favoring certain intervention and population characteristics were found, the low GRADE ratings indicate that evidence can be considered as limited. Future updates of clinical care and practice guidelines should carefully assess the methodological quality of studies and the overall certainty of subgroup-specific outcomes before recommending telemedicine interventions for certain patient populations.

scholarly journals Methodological quality of meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO: leads for enhancements: a meta-epidemiological study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e036349
Author(s):  
Victoria Leclercq ◽  
Charlotte Beaudart ◽  
Sara Ajamieh ◽  
Ezio Tirelli ◽  
Olivier Bruyère
Keyword(s):  
Epidemiological Study ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Positive Influence ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Literature Search Strategy ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Meta Analyses

ObjectivesMeta-analyses (MAs) are often used because they are lauded to provide robust evidence that synthesises information from multiple studies. However, the validity of MA conclusions relies on the procedural rigour applied by the authors. Therefore, this meta-research study aims to characterise the methodological quality and meta-analytic practices of MAs indexed in PsycINFO.DesignA meta-epidemiological study.ParticipantsWe evaluated a random sample of 206 MAs indexed in the PsycINFO database in 2016.Primary and secondary outcomesTwo authors independently extracted the methodological characteristics of all MAs and checked their quality according to the 16 items of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) tool for MA critical appraisal. Moreover, we investigated the effect of mentioning Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) on the methodological quality of MAs.ResultsAccording to AMSTAR2 criteria, 95% of the 206 MAs were rated as critically low quality. Statistical methods were appropriate and publication bias was well evaluated in 87% and 70% of the MAs, respectively. However, much improvement is needed in data collection and analysis: only 11% of MAs published a research protocol, 44% had a comprehensive literature search strategy, 37% assessed and 29% interpreted the risk of bias in the individual included studies, and 11% presented a list of excluded studies. Interestingly, the explicit mentioning of PRISMA suggested a positive influence on the methodological quality of MAs.ConclusionThe methodological quality of MAs in our sample was critically low according to the AMSTAR2 criteria. Some efforts to tremendously improve the methodological quality of MAs could increase their robustness and reliability.

scholarly journals Health outcomes associated with Zika virus infection in humans: a systematic review of systematic reviews

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e032275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphael Ximenes ◽  
Lauren C Ramsay ◽  
Rafael Neves Miranda ◽  
Shaun K Morris ◽  
Kellie Murphy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Zika Virus ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
New Research ◽  
Meta Analyses

ObjectiveWith the emergence of Zika virus (ZIKV) disease in Central and South America in the mid-2010s and recognition of the teratogenic effects of congenital exposure to ZIKV, there has been a substantial increase in new research published on ZIKV. Our objective is to synthesise the literature on health outcomes associated with ZIKV infection in humans.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review (SR) of SRs following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and LILACS (Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde) databases from inception to 22 July 2019, and included SRs that reported ZIKV-associated health outcomes. Three independent reviewers selected eligible studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of included SRs using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) tool. Conflicts were resolved by consensus or consultation with a third reviewer.ResultsThe search yielded 1382 unique articles, of which 21 SRs met our inclusion criteria. The 21 SRs ranged from descriptive to quantitative data synthesis, including four meta-analyses. The most commonly reported ZIKV-associated manifestations and health outcomes were microcephaly, congenital abnormalities, brain abnormalities, neonatal death and Guillain-Barré syndrome. The included reviews were highly heterogeneous. The overall quality of the SRs was critically low with all studies having more than one critical weakness.ConclusionThe evolving nature of the literature on ZIKV-associated health outcomes, together with the critically low quality of existing SRs, demonstrates the need for high-quality SRs to guide patient care and inform policy decision making.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018091087.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document