scholarly journals The Effect of a Combined Gluten- and Casein-Free Diet on Children and Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 470
Author(s):  
Amélie Keller ◽  
Marie Louise Rimestad ◽  
Jeanett Friis Rohde ◽  
Birgitte Holm Petersen ◽  
Christoffer Bruun Korfitsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Quality Of Evidence

There has been a growing interest in the gastrointestinal system and its significance for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), including the significance of adopting a gluten-free and casein-free (GFCF) diet. The objective was to investigate beneficial and safety of a GFCF diet among children with a diagnosis of ASD. We performed a systematic literature search in Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and the Cochrane Library up to January 2020 for existing systematic reviews and individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies were included if they investigated a GFCF diet compared to a regular diet in children aged 3 to 17 years diagnosed with ASD, with or without comorbidities. The quality of the identified existing reviews was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). The risk of bias in RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and overall quality of evidence was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). We identified six relevant RCTs, which included 143 participants. The results from a random effect model showed no effect of a GFCF diet on clinician-reported autism core symptoms (standardized mean difference (SMD) −0.31 (95% Cl. −0.89, 0.27)), parent-reported functional level (mean difference (MD) 0.61 (95% Cl −5.92, 7.14)) or behavioral difficulties (MD 0.80 (95% Cl −6.56, 10.16)). On the contrary, a GFCF diet might trigger gastrointestinal adverse effects (relative risk (RR) 2.33 (95% Cl 0.69, 7.90)). The quality of evidence ranged from low to very low due to serious risk of bias, serious risk of inconsistency, and serious risk of imprecision. Clinical implications of the present findings may be careful consideration of introducing a GFCF diet to children with ASD. However, the limitations of the current literature hinder the possibility of drawing any solid conclusion, and more high-quality RCTs are needed. The protocol is registered at the Danish Health Authority website.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and Safety of Acupuncture for Migraine: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Xi Li ◽  
Xi-li Xiao ◽  
Dong-Ling Zhong ◽  
Liao-Jun Luo ◽  
Han Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Western Medicine ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Quality Of Evidence

Background. Migraine is a common neurological disease, which burdens individuals and society all over the world. Acupuncture, an important method in Traditional Chinese Medicine, is widely used in clinical practice as a treatment for migraine. Several systematic reviews (SRs) have investigated the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for migraine. Objective. To summarize and critically assess the quality of relevant SRs and present an objective and comprehensive evidence on the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for migraine. Data Sources. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biological Medicine (CBM), China Science and Technology Journal (SCTJ), and WanFang database (WF) were searched from inception to December 2019 and grey literatures were manually searched. Selection Criteria. SRs which meet the criteria were independently selected by 2 reviewers according to a predetermined protocol. Data Extraction. Characteristics of included SRs were independently extracted by 2 reviewers following a predefined data extraction form. Review Appraisal. The methodological quality, risk of bias, and reporting quality of included SRs were assessed, respectively, by a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool, and the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis-Acupuncture (PRISMA-A) statement. The quality of outcomes was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results. A total of 15 SRs were included. All the SRs were published between 2011–2019. Based on AMSTAR 2, 14 out of 15 SRs were rated critically low quality and 1 was rated low quality. According to ROBIS tool, 9 SRs (60%) were low risk of bias. With the PRISMA-A checklist, we found 11 out of 15 SRs were found adequately reported over 70%. With the GRADE tool, we found high quality of evidence indicated that the effective rate of acupuncture was superior to western medicine in treatment of migraine. Besides, acupuncture reduced more headache days and the times of using painkiller and was more effective in reducing the frequency and degree of headache than western medicine and sham acupuncture. Limitations. There might be some missing information. The accuracy of the conclusions may be decreased reduced since we were unable to synthesis all the evidence. Conclusions. Based on high quality of evidence, we concluded that acupuncture may be an effective and safe therapy for migraine. However, the quality of SRs in acupuncture for migraine still needs more improvement.

scholarly journals Effect of High-intensity Interval Training on patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tan Jun ◽  
Jin-Hui Tian ◽  
Fei Yu ◽  
Xing Wang ◽  
lan Zheng
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
High Intensity ◽  
Interval Training ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Intensity Interval Training ◽  
High Intensity Interval

Abstract BackgroundType 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) is a serious disease. The intervention of High Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) on T2DM is widely concerned but controversial, which also exists in the current Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analysis (SRs/MAs). The objective of this study is to evaluate the methodology, evidence and reporting quality of SRs/MAs of the effects of HIIT on patients with T2DM. MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, SinoMed and VIP were searched. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systemic Reviews 2 （AMSTAR2）, Risk of Bias in Systematic Review（ROBIS）,Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation（GRADE）were used to evaluate the included studies.ResultsSix SRs/MAs studies were included, with 79 outcomes from 21 original studies. Methodological quality of AMSTAR2 evaluation was extremely low. ROBIS evaluation showed high risk of bias. There are 39 outcomes of 3 included SRs/MAs used GRADE, of which 29 items are low, 8 items are very low, and 2 items are intermediate quality. Low quality and very low quality evidence bodies account for 95% of the total.ConclusionsSRs/MAs on the effect of HIIT intervention on patients with T2DM included a small number of original studies and the overlapping feature is obvious, outcomes are diverse and overlapping, and there is a lack of key and ending outcomes; From original study, outcomes to system reviews, quality of evaluation is low. Evidence from a large samples, long periods, better protocols, and reflecting ending outcomes and critical outcomes are needed to promote the application of HIIT in T2DM.

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.

scholarly journals A Protocol for the Use of Case Reports/Studies and Case Series in Systematic Reviews for Clinical Toxicology

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aboubakari Nambiema ◽  
Grace Sembajwe ◽  
Juleen Lam ◽  
Tracey Woodruff ◽  
Daniele Mandrioli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Clinical Toxicology ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Quality Of Evidence

Introduction: Systematic reviews are routinely used to synthesize current science and evaluate the evidential strength and quality of resulting recommendations. For specific events, such as rare acute poisonings or preliminary reports of new drugs, we posit that case reports/studies and case series (human subjects research with no control group) may provide important evidence for systematic reviews. Our aim, therefore, is to present a protocol that uses rigorous selection criteria, to distinguish high quality case reports/studies and case series for inclusion in systematic reviews.Methods: This protocol will adapt the existing Navigation Guide methodology for specific inclusion of case studies. The usual procedure for systematic reviews will be followed. Case reports/studies and case series will be specified in the search strategy and included in separate sections. Data from these sources will be extracted and where possible, quantitatively synthesized. Criteria for integrating cases reports/studies and case series into the overall body of evidence are that these studies will need to be well-documented, scientifically rigorous, and follow ethical practices. The instructions and standards for evaluating risk of bias will be based on the Navigation Guide. The risk of bias, quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations will be assessed by two independent review teams that are blinded to each other.Conclusion: This is a protocol specified for systematic reviews that use case reports/studies and case series to evaluate the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in disciplines like clinical toxicology, where case reports/studies are the norm.

P14.71 An assessment of the reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii51-ii52
Author(s):  
A M George ◽  
S Gupta ◽  
S M Keshwara ◽  
M A Mustafa ◽  
C S Gillespie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neurofibromatosis Type ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract BACKGROUND Systematic reviews and meta-analyses constitute the highest level of research evidence and for a disease with limited clinical trial activity, are often relied upon to help inform clinical practice. This review of reviews evaluates both the reporting & methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS Potentially eligible meningioma reviews published between 1st January 1990 and 31st December 2020 were identified from eight electronic databases. Inclusion required the study to meet the Cochrane guideline definition of a systematic review or meta-analysis. Reviews concerning neurofibromatosis type 2, spinal and pediatric meningiomas were excluded. The reporting and methodological quality of articles were assessed against the following modified guidelines: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) guidelines. RESULTS 117 systematic reviews were identified, 57 of which included meta-analysis (48.7%). The number of meningioma systematic reviews published each year has increased with 63 studies (53.9%) published between 01/2018 and 12/2020. A median of 17 studies (IQR 9–29) were included per review. Impact factor of journals publishing a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis was similar (median 2.3 vs 1.8, P=0.397). The mean PRISMA scores for systematic reviews with a meta-analysis was 21.11 (SD 4.1, 78% adherence) and without was 13.89 (SD 3.4, 63% adherence). Twenty-nine systematic reviews with meta-analysis (51%) and 11 without meta-analysis (18%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA recommendations. Methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR2 revealed one study (0.9%) as high quality whilst 111 (94.8%) studies were graded as critically low. One hundred and two articles (87.2%) did not utilize a comprehensive search strategy as defined by the AMSTAR2 tool. Ninety-nine studies (84.6%) obtained a high level of concern for potential bias as per the ROBIS assessment. One hundred and eight articles (92.3%) failed to present information that a protocol had been established prior to study commencement and 76 articles (65.0%) did not conduct a risk of bias assessment. Across the three tools, domains relating to the establishment of a protocol prior to review commencement and conducting appropriate risk of bias assessments were frequently low scoring. CONCLUSION Overall reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews was sub-optimal. Established critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should be utilized a priori to assist in producing high-quality systematic reviews.

Oriental Herbal Medicine for Neurological Disorders in Children: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (08) ◽  
pp. 1701-1726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boram Lee ◽  
Chan-Young Kwon ◽  
Gyu Tae Chang
Keyword(s):  
Cerebral Palsy ◽  
Herbal Medicine ◽  
Antiepileptic Drugs ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Neurological Disorders ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Alternative Therapy ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Quality Of Evidence

Oriental herbal medicine (OHM) has been widely used in pediatric neurological disorders and has attracted attention as a safe and effective treatment. We aim to summarize and evaluate the evidence for OHM in pediatric neurological disorders for evidence-based decision-making. Without language restrictions, up-to-date research data were obtained from nine electronic databases. Systematic reviews (SRs) assessing the efficacy of OHM for pediatric neurological disorders were included. The methodological quality of each review was assessed using the AMSTAR instrument. The quality of evidence for the main findings was evaluated using the GRADE approach. Sixteen SRs comprising 169 randomized controlled trials with 19,542 participants were included. In epilepsy (six SRs, [Formula: see text]), OHM as an adjunctive or alternative therapy to antiepileptic drugs showed higher clinical symptom improvements than did antiepileptic drugs alone. The Activities of Daily Living scale score was significantly higher in children with cerebral palsy (one SR, [Formula: see text]) when OHM was added to rehabilitation. There were inconsistent results for tic disorder (four SRs, [Formula: see text]) and enuresis (two SRs, [Formula: see text]) and unclear results for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (two SRs, [Formula: see text]) and autism spectrum disorder (one SR, [Formula: see text]). Eleven SRs reported adverse events, but no fatal adverse reaction was reported. The methodological quality of the included reviews was medium-to-high. The overall quality of evidence ranged from “very low” to “moderate.” In conclusion, the efficacy of OHM is promising for some pediatric neurological disorders such as epilepsy and cerebral palsy. However, more high-quality evidence is needed to make clinical recommendations on OHM use.

Compound Danshen (Salvia miltiorrhiza) Dripping Pill for Coronary Heart Disease: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (01) ◽  
pp. 25-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Luo ◽  
Weijiang Song ◽  
Guoyan Yang ◽  
Hao Xu ◽  
Keji Chen
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Heart Disease ◽  
Heart Disease ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Salvia Miltiorrhiza ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Compound Danshen dripping pill (CDDP) is commonly used to treat coronary heart disease (CHD) in China. However, clinical practice has not been informed by evidence from relevant systematic reviews (SRs). This overview aims at summarizing evidence from SRs on CDDP for the treatment of CHD. We included SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on CDDP in treating CHD until March 2014 by searching the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and four Chinese databases. Data were extracted according to a pre-designed form. We assessed the quality of SRs according to AMSTAR and graded the quality of evidence in the included SRs using the GRADE approach. All data analyses were descriptive. About 13 SRs involving a total of 34,071 participants with angina or acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were included. Few SRs assessed endpoints (5/13, 38.5%) and quality of life (QOL) (4/13, 30.8%). Most of the SRs suggested that CDDP had potential benefits for patients with CHD, such as improving symptoms and electrocardiogram (ECG) results, with few adverse reactions, while benefits in endpoints were unproved. Moreover, the overall quality of evidence in the SRs was poor, ranging from "very low" to "moderate", and most of the included SRs were of "low" (3/13, 23.1%) or "moderate" (9/13, 69.2%) quality with many serious flaws. Current SRs suggested potential benefits of CDDP for the treatment of CHD. However, high-quality evidence is warranted to support the application of CDDP in treating CHD.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and Feasibility of Internet-Based Interventions for Grief After Bereavement: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

10.2196/29661 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e29661
Author(s):  
Andrea E Zuelke ◽  
Melanie Luppa ◽  
Margrit Löbner ◽  
Alexander Pabst ◽  
Christine Schlapke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Posttraumatic Stress ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Complicated Grief ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Objective Quality

Background Although grief and its symptoms constitute a normal reaction to experiences of loss, some of those affected still report elevated levels of distress after an extended period, often termed complicated grief. Beneficial treatment effects of face-to-face therapies, for example, grief counseling or cognitive behavioral therapy against complicated grief, have been reported. Evaluations of internet- and mobile-based interventions targeting symptoms of grief in bereaved individuals with regard to objective quality criteria are currently lacking. Objective We aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness and feasibility of internet- and mobile-based interventions against symptoms of grief after bereavement. Methods We conducted systematic literature searches of randomized controlled trials or feasibility studies published before January 9, 2020, following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, in PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Library. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations system. We further assessed aspects of feasibility and rated quality of interventions using criteria suggested by an expert panel on mental health care (German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics). A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to assess between-group effect sizes. Results In total, 9 trials (N=1349) were included. Of these, 7 studies were analyzed meta-analytically. Significant effects were found for symptoms of grief (g=0.54, 95% CI 0.32-0.77), depression (g=0.44, 95% CI 0.20-0.68), and posttraumatic stress (g=0.82, 95% CI 0.63-1.01). Heterogeneity was moderate for grief and depression (I2=48.75% and 55.19%, respectively) and low for posttraumatic stress symptoms (I2=0%). The overall quality of evidence was graded low (grief and depression) to moderate (posttraumatic stress). User satisfaction with the interventions was high, as was the quality of the interventions assessed using objective quality criteria. Conclusions Internet- or mobile-based interventions might constitute an effective treatment approach against symptoms of grief in bereaved adults. However, the small sample sizes and limited number of studies included in the review warrant further investigation. Trial Registration International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42012002100; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=131428

scholarly journals Effectiveness and Feasibility of Internet-Based Interventions for Grief After Bereavement: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea E Zuelke ◽  
Melanie Luppa ◽  
Margrit Löbner ◽  
Alexander Pabst ◽  
Christine Schlapke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Posttraumatic Stress ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Complicated Grief ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Objective Quality

BACKGROUND Although grief and its symptoms constitute a normal reaction to experiences of loss, some of those affected still report elevated levels of distress after an extended period, often termed complicated grief. Beneficial treatment effects of face-to-face therapies, for example, grief counseling or cognitive behavioral therapy against complicated grief, have been reported. Evaluations of internet- and mobile-based interventions targeting symptoms of grief in bereaved individuals with regard to objective quality criteria are currently lacking. OBJECTIVE We aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness and feasibility of internet- and mobile-based interventions against symptoms of grief after bereavement. METHODS We conducted systematic literature searches of randomized controlled trials or feasibility studies published before January 9, 2020, following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, in PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Library. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations system. We further assessed aspects of feasibility and rated quality of interventions using criteria suggested by an expert panel on mental health care (German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics). A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to assess between-group effect sizes. RESULTS In total, 9 trials (N=1349) were included. Of these, 7 studies were analyzed meta-analytically. Significant effects were found for symptoms of grief (<i>g</i>=0.54, 95% CI 0.32-0.77), depression (<i>g</i>=0.44, 95% CI 0.20-0.68), and posttraumatic stress (<i>g</i>=0.82, 95% CI 0.63-1.01). Heterogeneity was moderate for grief and depression (<i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=48.75% and 55.19%, respectively) and low for posttraumatic stress symptoms (<i>I</i><sup>2</sup>=0%). The overall quality of evidence was graded low (grief and depression) to moderate (posttraumatic stress). User satisfaction with the interventions was high, as was the quality of the interventions assessed using objective quality criteria. CONCLUSIONS Internet- or mobile-based interventions might constitute an effective treatment approach against symptoms of grief in bereaved adults. However, the small sample sizes and limited number of studies included in the review warrant further investigation. CLINICALTRIAL International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42012002100; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=131428

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document