scholarly journals Quality of Systematic Reviews of the Foods with Function Claims in Japan: Comparative Before- and After-Evaluation of Verification Reports by the Consumer Affairs Agency

Nutrients ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 1583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamioka ◽  
Tsutani ◽  
Origasa ◽  
Yoshizaki ◽  
Kitayuguchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Health Claims ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Product Effectiveness

Background: In Japan, a new type of foods with health claims, called Foods with Function Claims (FFC), was introduced in April 2015 in order to make more products available that are clearly labeled with certain health functions. Regarding substantiating product effectiveness, scientific evidence for the proposed function claims must be explained by systematic reviews (SRs), but the quality of SRs was not clear. The objectives of this review were to assess the quality of SRs based on the FFC registered on the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) website in Japan, and to determine whether the CAA’s verification report in 2016 was associated with improvement in the quality of SRs. Methods: We evaluated the reporting quality of each SR by the AMSTAR checklist on methodological quality. We searched the database from 1 April to 31 October 2015 as the before-SR and from 1 July 2017 to 31 January 2018 as the after-SR. Results: Among the 104 SRs reviewed, 96 final products were included: 51 (53.1%) were supplements, 42 (43.8%) were processed foods without supplements, and 3 (3.1%) were fresh foods. Of the 104 SRs, 92 (88.5%) were qualitative reviews (i.e., without meta-analysis) and 12 (11.5%) performed a meta-analysis. The average quality score of before-SRs and after-SRs was 6.2 ± 1.8 and 5.0 ± 1.9, respectively, a statistically significant decrease (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Overall, the methodology and reporting quality of after-SRs based on the FFC were poorer than those of before-SRs. In particular, there were very poor descriptions and/or implementations of study selection and data extraction, search strategy, evaluation methods for risk of bias, assessment of publication bias, and formulating conclusions based on methodological rigor and scientific quality of the included studies.

scholarly journals Inconsistencies are common between non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their protocols registered in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) but were seldom explained

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaiyan Hu ◽  
Ting Zhang ◽  
Weiyi Zhang ◽  
Qi Zhou ◽  
Mengyao Jiang New ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Fundamental Solutions ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Or Methodology ◽  
Retrospective Comparative Study ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Protocols of systematic reviews allow for planning and documentation of review methods and thus improve the transparency of the reviews process. However, pre-registration of a protocol is not enough, the author also need to follow it. PROSPERO is an open-access online database for the registration of non-Cochrane systematic reviews. The purpose of this study is to compare published non-Cochrane reviews with their pre-registered protocols on PROSPERO to determine what changes, if any, have been made, and how likely these changes are to impact the quality of systematic review. Methods: This is a retrospective comparative study. We searched for protocols on PROSPERO platform that were registered in 2018 and then selected the protocols that full text have been published as of January 1st 2019. Published full texts were identified through the protocol's final publication citation. Two authors independently compared and identified changes between protocols and systematic reviews and then evaluated the impact (improve, reduce, or unclear) of these changes on the reporting or methodology quality of reviews. Descriptive statistics of percentage (%) and frequency (n) were conducted. Results: We identified 39 pairs, all of which exhibited changes. “Search strategy”(92%, n=36), “data extraction”(90%, n=35), “data synthesis”(77%, n=30), “outcome”(64%, n=24), and “subgroup analysis”(64%, n=24) all showed significant changes. All changes to only one review were considered to improve the reporting or methodology quality, and the remaining 97% of reviews (n=38) contained changes that were considered to reduce the methodology or reporting quality or that had an unclear impact on systematic reviews. Conclusions: Changes between the non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their protocols recorded on PROSPERO were widespread. Some of the changes reduced the methodology or reporting quality of systematic reviews or had an unclear impact. Measures should be taken to further improve the transparency of the non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Adding a new item in updated “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) and “Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology” (MOOSE) to guide reporting and explaining the changes, as well as advising peer reviewers (and editors) to check the reviews against the protocols are two suggested fundamental solutions.

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Published in Indexed Portuguese Medical Journals: Time Trends and Critical Appraisal.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luísa Prada ◽  
Ana Prada ◽  
Miguel Antunes ◽  
Ricardo Fernandes ◽  
João Costa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Electronic Search ◽  
Potential Impact

Abstract Introduction:Over the last years, the number of systematic reviews published is steadily increasing due to the global interest in this type of evidence synthesis. However, little is known about the characteristics of this research published in Portuguese medical journals. This study aims to evaluate the publication trends and overall quality of these systematic reviews.Material and Methods:Systematic reviews were identified through an electronic search up to August 2020, targeting Portuguese Medical journals indexed in MEDLINE. Systematic reviews selection and data extraction were done independently by three authors. The overall quality critical appraisal using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR II) was independently assessed by three authors. Disagreements were solved by consensus.Results:Seventy systematic reviews published in 5 Portuguese medical journals were included. Most (n=57; 81,4%) were systematic reviews without meta-analysis. Until 2010, the number of systematic reviews per year increased. Since then, the number of reviews published has not remained stable and no less than 3 SRs were published per year. According to the systematic reviews’ typology, most have been predominantly conducted to assess the effectiveness of health interventions (n=28; 40,0%). General and Internal Medicine (n=26; 37,1%) was the most addressed field. Most systematic reviews (n=45; 64,3%) were rated as being of “critically low-quality”.Conclusions:There were consistent flaws in the methodological quality report of the systematic reviews included, particularly in establishing a prior protocol and not assessing the potential impact of the risk of bias on the results.Through the years, the number of systematic reviews published increased, yet their quality is suboptimal. There is a need to improve the reporting of systematic reviews in Portuguese medical journals, which can be achieved by better adherence to quality checklists/tools.Systematic review registration: INPLASY202090105

scholarly journals Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in articles hand and wrist pathology: a review

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 50-57
Author(s):  
Amanda Yang Shen ◽  
Robert S Ware ◽  
Tom J O'Donohoe ◽  
Jason Wasiak
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
English Language ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Annual Basis ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Abstract Reporting

Background: An increasing number of systematic reviews are published on an annual basis. Although perusal of the full text of articles is preferable, abstracts are sometimes relied upon to guide clinical decisions. Despite this, the abstracts of systematic reviews have historically been poorly reported. We evaluated the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts within hand and wrist pathology literature. Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2017 for systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology using the 12-item PRISMA-A checklist to assess abstract reporting quality. Results: A total of 114 abstracts were included. Most related to fracture (38%) or arthritis (17%) management. Forty-seven systematic reviews (41%) included meta-analysis. Mean PRISMA-A score was 3.6/12 with Cochrane reviews having the highest mean score and hand-specific journals having the lowest. Abstracts longer than 300 words (mean difference [MD]: 1.43, 95% CI [0.74, 2.13]; p <0.001) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (MD: 0.64, 95% CI [0.05, 1.22]; p = 0.034) were associated with higher scores. Unstructured abstracts were associated with lower scores (MD: –0.65, 95% CI [–1.28, –0.02]; p = 0.044). A limitation of this study is the possible exclusion of relevant studies that were not published in the English language. Conclusion: Abstracts of systematic reviews pertaining to hand and wrist pathology have been suboptimally reported as assessed by the PRISMA-A checklist. Improvements in reporting quality could be achieved by endorsement of PRISMA-A guidelines by authors and journals, and reducing constraints on abstract length.

scholarly journals Impact of STARD on reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies in a top Indian Medical Journal: A retrospective survey

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajashree Yellur ◽  
Shabbeer Hassan
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Interrupted Time Series ◽  
Diagnostic Studies ◽  
Indian Medical ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Underlying Trend

Improper reporting of diagnostic studies leads to an incorrect assessment of their clinical performance. STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) checklist was launched in 2003 with the intention of improving reporting quality in diagnostic accuracy studies. The main aim of this study was to check the extent to which published diagnostic accuracy studies follow the 28-item STARD checklist. We conducted a literature survey of diagnostic studies published in Indian Journal of Medical Research (IJMR) between the years 1995-2013 for the evaluating their reporting quality by checking their adherence to STARD. Relevant studies (N=76) were retrieved from IJMR website and data extraction was performed by two authors simultaneously. A simple pre-post analysis found that there was no overall change in the reporting quality before and after STARD was released. Though some STARD items like description of participant sampling (χ2 = 5.712, p = 0.0169), clinical applicability of study findings (χ2 = 9.704, p = 0.0018) had a significant increase in post-STARD period. To take into account any underlying trend we conducted an interrupted time-series was done. We found a significant increase in the reporting quality after publication of STARD (β3 = 0.215 ± 0.068, p = 0.034). The overall reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies have improved since the introduction of STARD, however, error/defects in many sections remain as before.

scholarly journals The collaboration and reporting quality of social welfare systematic reviews in the Campbell Collaboration online library

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Li-li Wei ◽  
Jing Zhang ◽  
Ying Yang ◽  
Hao-Yu Cao ◽  
Ke-hu Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Network ◽  
Social Welfare ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Reporting Rate ◽  
Campbell Collaboration ◽  
The Social ◽  
Online Library

Abstract Background To analyze the collaboration and reporting quality of the systematic reviews of social welfare in the Campbell collaboration online library. Methods The Campbell collaboration online library was searched for systematic reviews of social welfare and the basic information extracted in order to assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews using a MOOSE checklist. BICOMS-2 and UCINET software were used to produce the social network, and Comprehensive Meta Analysis (Version 2) and STATA 13.0 were used to analyze the related data. Results Fifty-seven systematic reviews of social welfare were included. Twenty-eight items of the included social welfare systematic reviews were rated as complete (≥70%). There were significant differences between ≤2013 and ≥ 2014 in five items. These differences were as follows: research published by one organization or more than one organization in one item, more than three authors or less than four authors in two items, and one country or more than one country in six items. It’s completed about researches with more than one organization, three authors or more than one country. Some items were found to have a low reporting rate of studies published before 2014, by one organization, with less than four authors or one country, respectively. The social network of authors and organizations showed good collaboration. Conclusions Some items could be further improved with regard to the rate of reporting systematic reviews of social welfare in the Campbell collaboration online library. This could improve the overall quality of social welfare systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of Interventions on Early Neurodevelopment of Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilyn Aita ◽  
Gwenaëlle De Clifford-Faugère ◽  
Andréane Lavallée ◽  
Nancy Feeley ◽  
Robyn Stremler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Preterm Infants ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Quality Of Evidence

Abstract Background : As preterm infants’ neurodevelopment is shaped by NICU-related factors during their hospitalization, it is essential to evaluate which interventions are more beneficial for their neurodevelopment at this specific time. The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions initiated during NICU hospitalization on preterm infants’ early neurodevelopment during their hospitalization and up to two weeks corrected age (CA). Methods: This systematic review referred to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017047072). We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE (OVID), Cochrane Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, and Web of Science from 2002 to February 2020. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction, assessment of risks of bias and quality of evidence. Results: Findings of 12 studies involving 901 preterm infants were synthesized. We combined three studies in a meta-analysis showing that compared to standard care, NIDCAP intervention is effective in improving preterm infants’ neurobehavioral and neurological development at two weeks CA. We also combined two other studies in a meta-analysis indicating that parental participation did not significantly improve preterm infants’ neurobehavioral development during NICU hospitalization. For all other interventions (i.e., developmental care, sensory stimulation, music and physical therapy), the synthesis of results shows that compared to standard care or other types of comparators, the effectiveness was either controversial or partially effective. Conclusions: The overall quality of evidence was rated low to very low. Future studies are needed to identify interventions that are the most effective in promoting preterm infants’ neurodevelopment during NICU hospitalization or close to term age. Interventions should be appropriately designed to allow comparison with previous studies and a combination of different instruments could provide a more global assessment of preterm infants’ neurodevelopment and thus allow for comparisons across studies. Systematic Review Protocol Registration: Prospero CRD42017047072

scholarly journals A Systematic Overview of Reviews for Complementary and Alternative Therapies in the Treatment of the Fibromyalgia Syndrome

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Romy Lauche ◽  
Holger Cramer ◽  
Winfried Häuser ◽  
Gustav Dobos ◽  
Jost Langhorst
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Fibromyalgia Syndrome ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Overview Of Reviews ◽  
Systematic Overview ◽  
Complementary And Alternative

Objectives.This systematic overview of reviews aimed to summarize evidence and methodological quality from systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for the fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS).Methods.The PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases were screened from their inception to Sept 2013 to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of CAM interventions for FMS. Methodological quality of reviews was rated using the AMSTAR instrument.Results.Altogether 25 systematic reviews were found; they investigated the evidence of CAM in general, exercised-based CAM therapies, manipulative therapies, Mind/Body therapies, acupuncture, hydrotherapy, phytotherapy, and homeopathy. Methodological quality of reviews ranged from lowest to highest possible quality. Consistently positive results were found for tai chi, yoga, meditation and mindfulness-based interventions, hypnosis or guided imagery, electromyogram (EMG) biofeedback, and balneotherapy/hydrotherapy. Inconsistent results concerned qigong, acupuncture, chiropractic interventions, electroencephalogram (EEG) biofeedback, and nutritional supplements. Inconclusive results were found for homeopathy and phytotherapy. Major methodological flaws included missing details on data extraction process, included or excluded studies, study details, and adaption of conclusions based on quality assessment.Conclusions.Despite a growing body of scientific evidence of CAM therapies for the management of FMS systematic reviews still show methodological flaws limiting definite conclusions about their efficacy and safety.

scholarly journals There is still room for improvement in the completeness of abstract reporting according to the PRISMA-A checklist: a cross-sectional study on systematic reviews in periodontology

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Milagros Adobes Martin ◽  
Sala Santamans Faustino ◽  
Inmaculada Llario Almiñana ◽  
Riccardo Aiuto ◽  
Roberto Rotundo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Analysis Group ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Abstract Reporting ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting

Abstract Background To evaluate the completeness of reporting abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) before and after the publication of the PRISMA-A checklist in 2013 and to assess if an association exists between abstract characteristics and the completeness of reporting. Methods A systematic search of the literature was conducted in the PubMed and Scopus databases in March 2020. The search focused on the SRs of evaluations of interventions published since 2002 in the field of periodontology. The abstracts of the selected SRs were divided into two groups before and after publication of the PRISMA-A checklist in 2013, and compliance with the 12 items reported in the checklist was evaluated by three calibrated evaluators. Results A set of 265 abstracts was included in the study. The total score before (mean score, 53.78%; 95% CI, 51.56–55.90%) and after (mean score, 56.88%; 95% CI, 55.39–58.44%) the publication of the PRISMA-A statement exhibited a statistically significant improvement (P = 0.012*). Nevertheless, only the checklist items included studies and synthesis of the results displayed a statistically significant change after guideline publication. The total PRISMA-A score was higher in the meta-analysis group and in articles authored by more than four authors. Conclusions The impact of the PRISMA-A was statistically significant, but the majority of the items did not improve after its introduction. The editors and referees of periodontal journals should promote adherence to the checklist to improve the quality of the reports and provide readers with better insight into the characteristics of published studies.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of interventions on early neurodevelopment of preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilyn Aita ◽  
Gwenaëlle De Clifford Faugère ◽  
Andréane Lavallée ◽  
Nancy Feeley ◽  
Robyn Stremler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Preterm Infants ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sensory Stimulation ◽  
Related Factors ◽  
Quality Of Evidence

Abstract Background As preterm infants’ neurodevelopment is shaped by NICU-related factors during their hospitalization, it is essential to evaluate which interventions are more beneficial for their neurodevelopment at this specific time. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions initiated during NICU hospitalization on preterm infants’ early neurodevelopment during their hospitalization and up to two weeks corrected age (CA). Methods This systematic review referred to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [PRISMA] guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017047072). We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE (OVID), Cochrane Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, and Web of Science from 2002 to February 2020 and included randomized controlled/clinical trials conducted with preterm infants born between 24 and 366/7 weeks of gestation. All types of interventions instigated during NICU hospitalization were included. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction, assessment of risks of bias and quality of evidence. Results Findings of 12 studies involving 901 preterm infants were synthesized. We combined three studies in a meta-analysis showing that compared to standard care, the NIDCAP intervention is effective in improving preterm infants’ neurobehavioral and neurological development at two weeks CA. We also combined two other studies in a meta-analysis indicating that parental participation did not significantly improve preterm infants’ neurobehavioral development during NICU hospitalization. For all other interventions (i.e., developmental care, sensory stimulation, music and physical therapy), the synthesis of results shows that compared to standard care or other types of comparators, the effectiveness was either controversial or partially effective. Conclusions The overall quality of evidence was rated low to very low. Future studies are needed to identify interventions that are the most effective in promoting preterm infants’ early neurodevelopment during NICU hospitalization or close to term age. Interventions should be appropriately designed to allow comparison with previous studies and a combination of different instruments could provide a more global assessment of preterm infants’ neurodevelopment and thus allow for comparisons across studies. Trial registration Prospero CRD42017047072.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document