Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies on pelvic floor three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound: a systematic review

Abstract Background Therapeutic exercise is recommended as a core treatment for hip osteoarthritis (HOA). Whilst it is widely accepted that exercise can improve pain and disability, optimal type and dose of exercise are yet to be agreed upon. This may, in part, be attributed to the wide variation and inadequate reporting of interventions within the literature. This study evaluates the quality of intervention reporting among trials of therapeutic exercise in HOA. Methods Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were sourced in a systematic review, completed in August 2020. Two raters independently used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) and Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) to evaluate intervention reporting. Correlations between quality assessment scores and CERT and TIDieR scores evaluated the relationship between internal validity and external applicability. The year of publication was compared to the quality of reporting scores. Results Fourteen RCTs were included in the analysis. On average, studies were awarded 9.43 ± 1.95 out of 12 points for the TIDieR checklist (range 4–12) and 13.57 ± 4.01 out of 19 points for the CERT (range 5–19). Pearson’s correlation coefficient suggested that the quality of reporting had improved over time and that there was a fair, positive relationship between internal validity and external applicability. Discussion Whilst the quality of intervention reporting is improving, many RCTs of therapeutic exercise in HOA lack the detail necessary to allow accurate evaluation and replication. Researchers are encouraged to utilise the standardised reporting guidelines to increase the translation of effective interventions into clinical practice.

Download Full-text

Reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of investigations on adherence to STARD

Evidence-Based Medicine ◽

10.1136/eb-2013-101637 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 19 (2) ◽

pp. 47-54 ◽

Cited By ~ 59

Author(s):

Daniël A Korevaar ◽

W Annefloor van Enst ◽

René Spijker ◽

Patrick M M Bossuyt ◽

Lotty Hooft

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Diagnostic Accuracy ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Reporting Quality

Download Full-text

Rapid diagnostic test for antenatal syphilis screening in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018132 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (2) ◽

pp. e018132 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Carmen Phang Romero Casas ◽

Marrissa Martyn-St James ◽

Jean Hamilton ◽

Daniel S Marinho ◽

Rodolfo Castro ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

High Risk ◽

Diagnostic Accuracy ◽

Pregnant Women ◽

Sensitivity And Specificity ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Antenatal Clinics

ObjectivesTo undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the test performance including sensitivity and specificity of rapid immunochromatographic syphilis (ICS) point-of-care (POC) tests at antenatal clinics compared with reference standard tests (non-treponemal (TP) and TP tests) for active syphilis in pregnant women.MethodsFive electronic databases were searched (PubMed, EMBASE, CRD, Cochrane Library and LILACS) to March 2016 for diagnostic accuracy studies of ICS test and standard reference tests for syphilis in pregnant women. Methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies). A bivariate meta-analysis was undertaken to generate pooled estimates of diagnostic parameters. Results were presented using a coupled forest plot of sensitivity and specificity and a scatter plot.ResultsThe methodological quality of the five included studies with regards to risk of bias and applicability concern judgements was either low or unclear. One study was judged as high risk of bias for patient selection due to exclusion of pregnant women with a previous history of syphilis, and one study was judged at high risk of bias for study flow and timing as not all patients were included in the analysis. Five studies contributed to the meta-analysis, providing a pooled sensitivity and specificity for ICS of 0.85 (95% CrI: 0.73 to 0.92) and 0.98 (95% CrI: 0.95 to 0.99), respectively.ConclusionsThis review and meta-analysis observed that rapid ICS POC tests have a high sensitivity and specificity when performed in pregnant women at antenatal clinics. However, the methodological quality of the existing evidence base should be taken into consideration when interpreting these results.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016036335.

Download Full-text

Comparative efficacy of antimicrobial treatments in dairy cows at dry-off to prevent new intramammary infections during the dry period or clinical mastitis during early lactation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Animal Health Research Reviews ◽

10.1017/s1466252319000239 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 20 (2) ◽

pp. 199-216 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

C. B. Winder ◽

J. M. Sargeant ◽

D. Hu ◽

C. Wang ◽

D. F. Kelton ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Dairy Cows ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Clinical Mastitis ◽

Comparative Efficacy ◽

Dry Period ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Intramammary Infections ◽

Antimicrobial Treatments

AbstractA systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to assess the relative efficacy of antimicrobial therapy given to dairy cows at dry-off. Eligible studies were controlled trials assessing the use of antimicrobials compared to no treatment or an alternative treatment, and assessed one or more of the following outcomes: incidence of intramammary infection (IMI) at calving, incidence of IMI during the first 30 days in milk (DIM), or incidence of clinical mastitis during the first 30 DIM. Databases and conference proceedings were searched for relevant articles. The potential for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 algorithm. From 3480 initially identified records, 45 trials had data extracted for one or more outcomes. Network meta-analysis was conducted for IMI at calving. The use of cephalosporins, cloxacillin, or penicillin with aminoglycoside significantly reduced the risk of new IMI at calving compared to non-treated controls (cephalosporins, RR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.23–0.65; cloxacillin, RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38–0.79; penicillin with aminoglycoside, RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.26–0.72). Synthesis revealed challenges with a comparability of outcomes, replication of interventions, definitions of outcomes, and quality of reporting. The use of reporting guidelines, replication among interventions, and standardization of outcome definitions would increase the utility of primary research in this area.

Download Full-text

Comparative efficacy of teat sealants given prepartum for prevention of intramammary infections and clinical mastitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Animal Health Research Reviews ◽

10.1017/s1466252319000276 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 20 (2) ◽

pp. 182-198 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

C. B. Winder ◽

J. M. Sargeant ◽

D. Hu ◽

C. Wang ◽

D. F. Kelton ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Clinical Mastitis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Comparative Efficacy ◽

Primary Research ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Intramammary Infections ◽

Bismuth Subnitrate

AbstractA systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to assess the relative efficacy of internal or external teat sealants given at dry-off in dairy cattle. Controlled trials were eligible if they assessed the use of internal or external teat sealants, with or without concurrent antimicrobial therapy, compared to no treatment or an alternative treatment, and measured one or more of the following outcomes: incidence of intramammary infection (IMI) at calving, IMI during the first 30 days in milk (DIM), or clinical mastitis during the first 30 DIM. Risk of bias was based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool with modified signaling questions. From 2280 initially identified records, 32 trials had data extracted for one or more outcomes. Network meta-analysis was conducted for IMI at calving. Use of an internal teat sealant (bismuth subnitrate) significantly reduced the risk of new IMI at calving compared to non-treated controls (RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.25–0.72). For comparisons between antimicrobial and teat sealant groups, concerns regarding precision were seen. Synthesis of the primary research identified important challenges related to the comparability of outcomes, replication and connection of interventions, and quality of reporting of study conduct.

Download Full-text

Systematic Review as a Research Method in Library and Information Science

Advances in Library and Information Science - Handbook of Research on Connecting Research Methods for Information Science Research ◽

10.4018/978-1-7998-1471-9.ch005 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 80-94 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Mercy Mlay Komba ◽

Edda Tandi Lwoga

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Research Method ◽

Information Science ◽

Library And Information Science ◽

Knowledge Gaps ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Research Teams ◽

Current State

The aim of this chapter is to assess the current state of application of systematic reviews (SRs) in library and information science (LIS) field and determine how information scientists can advance the SRs as a methodology. The literature shows that there is an increasing number of SRs in LIS although there are still knowledge gaps about the use of SRs as a methodology. The quality of reporting in primary studies in LIS is still poor, and hence, it becomes difficult to appraise the value of the study undertaken. In order to advance the use of SRs in LIS domain, it is important to introduce SRs in LIS education curricular, integrate SRs as part of the continuing scientist development programmes (CPD), use automated SR software to minimize workload, introduce SRs a formal role and service in the libraries, collaborate with research teams as co-authors to conduct SRs not only in the topics defined by research teams, but also in LIS topics, and create SR databases and tools in LIS.

Download Full-text

Updated Method Guidelines for Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses

The Journal of Rheumatology ◽

10.3899/jrheum.121306 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 41 (2) ◽

pp. 194-205 ◽

Cited By ~ 75

Author(s):

Elizabeth A.T. Ghogomu ◽

Lara J. Maxwell ◽

Rachelle Buchbinder ◽

Tamara Rader ◽

Jordi Pardo Pardo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Musculoskeletal Diseases ◽

Cochrane Collaboration ◽

Previous Method ◽

Systematic Review Methodology ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

For Profit ◽

Cochrane Reviews

The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 53 groups of the not-for-profit, international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. It is important that authors conducting CMSG reviews and the readers of our reviews be aware of and use updated, state-of-the-art systematic review methodology. One hundred sixty reviews have been published. Previous method guidelines for systematic reviews of interventions in the musculoskeletal field published in 2006 have been substantially updated to incorporate methodological advances that are mandatory or highly desirable in Cochrane reviews and knowledge translation advances. The methodological advances include new guidance on searching, new risk-of-bias assessment, grading the quality of the evidence, the new Summary of Findings table, and comparative effectiveness using network metaanalysis. Method guidelines specific to musculoskeletal disorders are provided by CMSG editors for various aspects of undertaking a systematic review. These method guidelines will help improve the quality of reporting and ensure high standards of conduct as well as consistency across CMSG reviews.

Download Full-text