Endorsement of Standard Reporting Guidelines by PubMed Indexed Indian Medical Journals (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alhad Mulkalwar ◽  
Purva Gaidhane
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Accurate Evaluation ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Indian Medical ◽  
Quality Of Research

UNSTRUCTURED Reporting guidelines have become very important tools in medical research. These guidelines improve the completeness, accuracy and transparency of reporting the crucial aspects of research studies. This aids not only in accurate evaluation of the methodological quality of research and validity of the results, but also improves the quality of evidence synthesized from published data for application in practice.It’s important for the publishers to incorporate these guidelines in their ‘Instructions to Authors’ on the journal website. We documented the extent of endorsement of the five commonly used standard guidelines CONSORT, QUOROM, MOOSE, PRISMA, STROBE and CARE by fifty PubMed indexed Indian Medical journal

scholarly journals An Overview of Systematic Reviews of Chinese Herbal Medicine for Alzheimer’s Disease

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nanyang Liu ◽  
Tingting Zhang ◽  
Jiahui Sun ◽  
Jiuxiu Yao ◽  
Lina Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Alzheimer’S Disease ◽  
Alzheimer's Disease ◽  
Herbal Medicine ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Chinese Herbal Medicine ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Chinese Herbal

Background: Multiple systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Here, we aim to perform an overview to assess the methodological quality and quality of evidence of the SRs to provide convincing data on the treatment of AD with CHM.Method: Six electronic databases including Chinese and English were searched, until April 31, 2021. Two researchers independently screen documents and extract data according to the predesigned rules. A Measure Tool to Assessment System Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to investigate the methodological quality, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to determine the quality of evidence for outcomes.Results: Twelve qualified SRs including 163 randomized controlled trials were reviewed. The methodological quality of the included SRs was considered extremely low assessed through AMSTAR-2. Compared with western medicines (WM) alone, CHM as an adjuvant treatment has shown significant effects in improving Mini-mental State Examination, Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive, and Clinical Dementia Rating scores. The same is true for CHM alone. Regarding the effect on Activities Daily Living, neither the single CHM nor the combination with WM has an obvious effect. For the total effective rate, both single CHM and the combination with WM shown significant effects. Nine SRs suggested that CHM as adjuvant therapy or single-use had fewer adverse events than WM. Additionally, the quality of evidence for the main outcome was reviewed as low or extremely low according to GRADE profiler data.Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that CHM may be beneficial in improving the cognitive function of AD patients. However, we should be cautious about the evidence due to methodological flaws and low quality. High-quality RCTs are further needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of CHM for AD.

scholarly journals Methodological quality of public health guideline recommendations on vitamin D and calcium : a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e031840 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaoli Dai ◽  
Cynthia M Kroeger ◽  
Sally McDonald ◽  
Matthew J Page ◽  
Joanne E McKenzie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Vitamin D ◽  
Bone Health ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Dietary Guidelines ◽  
Published Data

IntroductionCurrent recommendations for vitamin D and calcium in dietary guidelines and bone health guidelines vary significantly among countries and professional organisations. It is unknown whether the methods used to develop these recommendations followed a rigourous process and how the differences in methods used may affect the recommended intakes of vitamin D and calcium. The objectives of this study are (1) collate and compare recommendations for vitamin D and calcium across guidelines, (2) appraise methodological quality of the guideline recommendations and (3) identify methodological factors that may affect the recommended intakes for vitamin D and calcium. This study will make a significant contribution to enhancing the methodological rigour in public health guidelines for vitamin D and calcium recommendations.Methods and analysesWe will conduct a systematic review to evaluate vitamin D and calcium recommendations for osteoporosis prevention in generally healthy middle-aged and older adults. Methodological assessment will be performed for each guideline against those outlined in the 2014 WHO handbook for guideline development. A systematic search strategy will be applied to locate food-based dietary guidelines and bone health guidelines indexed in various electronic databases, guideline repositories and grey literature from 1 January 2009 to 28 February 2019. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise the data on intake recommendation and on proportion of guidelines consistent with the WHO criteria. Logistic regression, if feasible, will be used to assess the relationships between the methodological factors and the recommendation intakes.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as we will only extract published data or information from the published guidelines. Results of this review will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019126452

scholarly journals Comparison of methodological quality of positive versus negative comparative studies published in Indian medical journals: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
pp. e007853 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaykaran Charan ◽  
Mayur Chaudhari ◽  
Ryan Jackson ◽  
Rahul Mhaskar ◽  
Tea Reljic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Indian Medical

scholarly journals Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes iN oncologY (EPIPHANY): a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e025054 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Deliu ◽  
Francesco Cottone ◽  
Gary S Collins ◽  
Amélie Anota ◽  
Fabio Efficace
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Prognostic Models ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Data Extraction Form

IntroductionWhile there is mounting evidence of the independent prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer, it is known that the conduct of these studies may hold a number of methodological challenges. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of published studies in this research area, in order to identify methodological and statistical issues deserving special attention and to also possibly provide evidence-based recommendations.Methods and analysisAn electronic search strategy will be performed in PubMed to identify studies developing or validating a prognostic model which includes PROs as predictors. Two reviewers will independently be involved in data collection using a predefined and standardised data extraction form including information related to study characteristics, PROs measures used and multivariable prognostic models. Studies selection will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with data extraction form using fields from the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist for multivariable models. Methodological quality assessment will also be performed and will be based on prespecified domains of the CHARMS checklist. As a substantial heterogeneity of included studies is expected, a narrative evidence synthesis will also be provided.Ethics and disseminationGiven that this systematic review will use only published data, ethical permissions will not be required. Findings from this review will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at major international conferences. We anticipate that this review will contribute to identify key areas of improvement for conducting and reporting prognostic factor analyses with PROs in oncology and will lay the groundwork for developing future evidence-based recommendations in this area of research.Prospero registration numberCRD42018099160.

scholarly journals Prevalence of postural deviations in the spine in schoolchildren: a systematic review with meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Paula Kasten ◽  
Bruna Nichele da Rosa ◽  
Emanuelle Francine Detogni Schmit ◽  
Matias Noll ◽  
Claudia Tarragô Candotti
Keyword(s):  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Positive Events ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Strength Of Evidence ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Thoracic And Lumbar Spine

Objective: To estimate the prevalence of spine postural deviations in Brazilian schoolchildren. Method: Searches were conducted in databases EMBASE, LILACS, PubMed, SCOPUS, SciELO, Science Direct, and Web of Science, as well as manual searches to identify studies that evaluated the prevalence of spine postural deviations in Brazilian schoolchildren. Two independent reviewers realized the study selection, evaluated the methodological quality and the risk of bias and extracted data. The homogeneity between the studies was evaluated and the quality of evidence level using the GRADE system. Results: 29 studies were included, of which extracted the frequency of positive events to changes in cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, as well as the frequency of scoliosis between schoolchildren. Even performing the meta-analysis separated by subgroups according to the spine region, the heterogeneity level it was up to 90%, it is not possible to perform the meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of spine postural deviations in Brazilian schoolchildren. Conclusion: There is low strength of evidence to establish a consensus about the values of the prevalence of spine postural deviations in Brazilian schoolchildren.

scholarly journals Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Part II

2014 ◽  
Vol 133 (3) ◽  
pp. 206-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valter Silva ◽  
Antonio Jose Grande ◽  
Alan Pedrosa Viegas de Carvalho ◽  
Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco ◽  
Rachel Riera
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews ◽  
New Type ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
General Profile

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Overviews of Systematic Reviews (OoRs) are a new type of study in which multiple evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) is compiled into an accessible and useful document. The aim here was to describe the state of the art and critically assess Cochrane OoRs that have been published.DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study conducted at a research center.METHODS: The OoRs identified through the filter developed in Part I of this study were evaluated in five domains: methodological quality; quality of evidence; implications for practice; general profile of OoRs; and length of work.RESULTS: All 13 OoRs included had high methodological quality. Some OoRs did not present sufficient data to judge the quality of evidence; using sensitivity analysis, the quality of evidence of the OoRs increased. Regarding implications for practice, 64% of the interventions were judged as beneficial or harmful, while 36% of them showed insufficient evidence for judgment. It is expected (with 95% confidence interval) that one OoR will include 9,462 to 64,469 patients, 9 to 29 systematic reviews and 80 to 344 primary studies, and assess 6 to 21 interventions; and that 50 to 92% of OoRs will produce meta-analysis. The OoRs generated 2 to 26 meta-analyses over a period of 18 to 31 months.CONCLUSION: The OoRs presented high methodological quality; the quality of evidence tended to be moderate/high; most interventions were judged to be beneficial/harmful; the mean length of work was 24 months. The OoR profile adds power to decision-making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document