PASS: A checklist for assessing the quality of systematic reviews of prevalence studies

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Walker ◽  
Harriet Hobbs ◽  
Nicholas Magill ◽  
Maike van Niekerk ◽  
Michael Sharpe
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Prevalence Studies

scholarly journals How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Celina Borges Migliavaca ◽  
Cinara Stein ◽  
Verônica Colpani ◽  
Timothy Hugh Barker ◽  
Zachary Munn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Prediction Interval ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Prevalence Data ◽  
Prevalence Studies ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Funding Information

Abstract Background: There is a notable lack of methodological and reporting guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data. This information void has the potential to result in reviews that are inconsistent and inadequate to inform healthcare policy and decision making. The aim of this meta-epidemiological study is to describe the methodology of recently published prevalence systematic reviews.Methods: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from February 2017 to February 2018 for systematic reviews of prevalence studies. We included systematic reviews assessing the prevalence of any clinical condition using patients as the unit of measurement and we summarized data related to reporting of and methodology of the reviews.Results: A total of 235 systematic reviews of prevalence were analyzed. The median number of authors was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7), the median number of databases searched was 4 (3-6) and the median of studies included in each review was 24 (IQR 15-41.5). Search strategies were presented for 68% of reviews. Forty five percent of reviews received external funding, and 24% did not provide funding information. Twenty three percent of included reviews had published or registered the systematic review protocol. Reporting guidelines were used in 72% of reviews. The quality of included studies was assessed in 80% of reviews. Nine reviews assessed the overall quality of evidence (4 using GRADE). Meta-analysis was conducted in 65% of reviews; 1% used Bayesian methods. Random effect meta-analysis was used in 94% of reviews; among them, 75% did not report the variance estimator used. Among the reviews with meta-analysis, 70% did not report how data was transformed; 59% percent conducted subgroup analysis, 38% conducted meta-regression and 2% estimated prediction interval; I2 was estimated in 95% of analysis. Publication bias was examined in 48%. The most common software used was STATA (55%).Conclusions: Our results indicate that there are significant inconsistencies regarding how these reviews are conducted. Many of these differences arose in the assessment of methodological quality and the formal synthesis of comparable data. This variability indicates the need for clearer reporting standards and consensus on methodological guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data.

scholarly journals How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Celina Borges Migliavaca ◽  
Cinara Stein ◽  
Verônica Colpani ◽  
Timothy Hugh Barker ◽  
Zachary Munn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Prediction Interval ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Prevalence Data ◽  
Prevalence Studies ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Funding Information

Abstract Background: There is a notable lack of methodological and reporting guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data. This information void has the potential to result in reviews that are inconsistent and inadequate to inform healthcare policy and decision making. The aim of this meta-epidemiological study is to describe the methodology of recently published prevalence systematic reviews. Methods: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from February 2017 to February 2018 for systematic reviews of prevalence studies. We included systematic reviews assessing the prevalence of any clinical condition using patients as the unit of measurement and we summarized data related to reporting of and methodology of the reviews. Results: A total of 235 systematic reviews of prevalence were analyzed. The median number of authors was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7), the median number of databases searched was 4 (3-6) and the median of studies included in each review was 24 (IQR 15-41.5). Search strategies were presented for 68% of reviews. Forty five percent of reviews received external funding, and 24% did not provide funding information. Twenty three percent of included reviews had published or registered the systematic review protocol. Reporting guidelines were used in 72% of reviews. The quality of included studies was assessed in 80% of reviews. Twelve reviews assessed the overall quality of evidence (50% of them using GRADE). Meta-analysis was conducted in 65% of reviews; 1% used Bayesian methods. Random effect meta-analysis was used in 94% of reviews; among them, 75% did not report the variance estimator used. Among the reviews with meta-analysis, 70% did not report how data was transformed; 59% percent conducted subgroup analysis, 38% conducted meta-regression and 2% estimated prediction interval; I 2 was estimated in 95% of analysis. Publication bias was examined in 48%. The most common software used was STATA (55%). Conclusions: Our results indicate that there are significant inconsistencies regarding how these reviews are conducted. Many of these differences arose in the assessment of methodological quality and the formal synthesis of comparable data. This variability indicates the need for clearer reporting standards and consensus on methodological guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data.

scholarly journals How Are Systematic Reviews of Prevalence Conducted? A Methodological Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Celina Borges Migliavaca ◽  
Cinara Stein ◽  
Verônica Colpani ◽  
Timothy Hugh Barker ◽  
Zachary Munn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Prediction Interval ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Prevalence Data ◽  
Prevalence Studies ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Funding Information

Abstract Background There is a notable lack of methodological and reporting guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data. This information void has the potential to result in reviews that are inconsistent and inadequate to inform healthcare policy and decision making. The aim of this meta-epidemiological study is to describe the methodology of recently published prevalence systematic reviews.Methods We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from February 2017 to February 2018 for systematic reviews of prevalence studies. We included systematic reviews assessing the prevalence of any clinical condition using patients as the unit of measurement and we summarized data related to reporting of and methodology of the reviews.Results A total of 235 systematic reviews of prevalence were analyzed. The median number of authors was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7), the median number of databases searched was 4 (3-6) and the median of studies included in each review was 24 (IQR 15-41.5). Search strategies were presented for 68% of reviews. Forty five percent of reviews received external funding, and 24% did not provide funding information. Twenty three percent of included reviews had published or registered the systematic review protocol. Reporting guidelines were used in 72% of reviews. The quality of included studies was assessed in 80% of reviews. Only 12 reviews assessed the overall quality of evidence (50% of them using GRADE). Meta-analysis was conducted in 65% of reviews; only 1% used Bayesian methods. Random effect meta-analysis was used in 94% of reviews; among them, 75% did not report the variance estimator used. Among the reviews with meta-analysis, 70% did not report how data was transformed; 59% percent conducted subgroup analysis, 38% conducted meta-regression and 2% estimated prediction interval; I2 was estimated in 95% of analysis. Publication bias was examined in 48%. The most common software used was STATA (55%).Conclusions Our results indicate that there are significant inconsistencies regarding how these reviews are conducted. Many of these differences arose in the assessment of methodological quality and the formal synthesis of comparable data. This variability indicates the need for clearer reporting standards and consensus on methodological guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data.

Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in Pulmonary Embolism: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (23) ◽  
pp. 2686-2691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ioannis Doundoulakis ◽  
Christina Antza ◽  
Haralambos Karvounis ◽  
George Giannakoulas
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Embolism ◽  
Vitamin K ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Vitamin K Antagonist ◽  
Language Restriction ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews

Background: Anticoagulation in patients with pulmonary embolism. Objective: To identify how non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are associated with multiple outcomes in patients with pulmonary embolism. Methods: We performed a systematic search of systematic reviews via multiple electronic databases from inception to August 19th, 2019, without language restriction. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews using the ROBIS tool. Results: We found twelve systematic reviews. Eleven SRs collected their data from randomized clinical trials and one from observational studies. All the included studies were published between 2014 and 2019 in English. The methodological quality of the 12 systematic reviews was low to high. None of the systematic reviews, which are included in our overview of systematic reviews, has evaluated the overall quality of evidence outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Conclusion: This is the first effort to summarize evidence about non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in an overview of systematic reviews focusing exclusively on patients with pulmonary embolism. The evidence suggests that the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants seem to be more effective and safer than a dualdrug approach with LMWH- VKA.

Effectiveness of mobile applications on healthy lifestyles aimed at diabetic patients: review of systematic reviews. (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Jesús Represas Carrera Sr ◽  
Ángel Alfredo Martínez Ques Sr ◽  
Ana Clavería Fontán Sr
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Mobile Applications ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Healthy Lifestyles ◽  
Major Public Health Problem

BACKGROUND Diabetes mellitus is currently a major public health problem worldwide. It is traditionally approached in a clinical inpatient relationship between the patient and the healthcare professional. However, the rise of new technologies, particularly mobile applications, is revolutionizing the traditional healthcare model through the introduction of telehealthcare. OBJECTIVE (1) To assess the effects of mobile applications for improving healthy lifestyles on the quality of life and metabolic control of diabetes mellitus in adult patients. (2) To describe the characteristics of the mobile applications used, identify the healthy lifestyles they target, and describe any adverse effects their use may have. METHODS Review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, following the guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration and the Joanna Briggs Institute. We included studies that used any mobile application aimed at helping patients improve self-management of diabetes mellitus by focusing on healthy lifestyles. Studies needed to include a control group receiving regular care without the use of mobile devices. In May 2018, a search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Cochrane, LILACS, PsychINFO, Cinahl and Science Direct, updated in May 2019. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Amstar-2 tool. RESULTS Seven systematic reviews of 798 articles were initially selected for analysis. The interventions had a duration of between 1 and 12 months. Mobile applications focused singly or simultaneously on different lifestyles aspects (diet, physical exercise, motivation, blood glucose levels, etc.). There are significant changes in HbA1c values, body weight and BMI, although in others, such as lipid profile, quality of life, or blood pressure, there is no clear improvement. CONCLUSIONS There is clear evidence that the use of mobile applications improves glycemic control in diabetic patients in the short term. There is a lack of evidence in its long-term benefits. It is thus necessary to carry out further studies to learn about the long-term effectiveness of mobile applications aimed at promoting the healthy lifestyles of diabetic patients. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO Register: CRD42019133685

scholarly journals A Mapping Literature Review of Medical Cannabis Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Evidence in Approved Conditions in the USA from 2016 to 2019

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Sebastian Jugl ◽  
Aimalohi Okpeku ◽  
Brianna Costales ◽  
Earl J. Morris ◽  
Golnoosh Alipour-Haris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
The Body ◽  
Medical Cannabis ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Chronic Noncancer Pain ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Improved Outcomes ◽  
Noncancer Pain ◽  
Study Setting

In 2017, a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) report comprehensively evaluated the body of evidence regarding cannabis health effects through the year 2016. The objectives of this study are to identify and map the most recently (2016–2019) published literature across approved conditions for medical cannabis and to evaluate the quality of identified recent systematic reviews, published following the NASEM report. Following the literature search from 5 databases and consultation with experts, 11 conditions were identified for evidence compilation and evaluation: amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, autism, cancer, chronic noncancer pain, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy, glaucoma, human immunodeficiency virus/AIDS, multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson’s disease, and posttraumatic stress disorder. A total of 198 studies were included after screening for condition-specific relevance and after imposing the following exclusion criteria: preclinical focus, non-English language, abstracts only, editorials/commentary, case studies/series, and non-U.S. study setting. Data extracted from studies included: study design type, outcome definition, intervention definition, sample size, study setting, and reported effect size. Few completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. Studies classified as systematic reviews were graded using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 tool to evaluate the quality of evidence. Few high-quality systematic reviews were available for most conditions, with the exceptions of MS (9 of 9 graded moderate/high quality; evidence for 2/9 indicating cannabis improved outcomes; evidence for 7/9 indicating cannabis inconclusive), epilepsy (3 of 4 graded moderate/high quality; 3 indicating cannabis improved outcomes; 1 indicating cannabis inconclusive), and chronic noncancer pain (12 of 13 graded moderate/high quality; evidence for 7/13 indicating cannabis improved outcomes; evidence from 6/7 indicating cannabis inconclusive). Among RCTs, we identified few studies of substantial rigor and quality to contribute to the evidence base. However, there are some conditions for which significant evidence suggests that select dosage forms and routes of administration likely have favorable risk-benefit ratios (i.e., epilepsy and chronic noncancer pain). The body of evidence for medical cannabis requires more rigorous evaluation before consideration as a treatment option for many conditions, and evidence necessary to inform policy and treatment guidelines is currently insufficient for many conditions.

scholarly journals Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e044472
Author(s):  
Saar Hommes ◽  
Ruben Vromans ◽  
Felix Clouth ◽  
Xander Verbeek ◽  
Ignace de Hingh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Patient Decision

ObjectivesTo assess the communicative quality of colorectal cancer patient decision aids (DAs) about treatment options, the current systematic review was conducted.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesDAs (published between 2006 and 2019) were identified through academic literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) and online sources.Eligibility criteriaDAs were only included if they supported the decision-making process of patients with colon, rectal or colorectal cancer in stages I–III.Data extraction and synthesisAfter the search strategy was adapted from similar systematic reviews and checked by a colorectal cancer surgeon, two independent reviewers screened and selected the articles. After initial screening, disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. The review was conducted in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DAs were assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and Communicative Aspects (CA) checklist.ResultsIn total, 18 DAs were selected. Both the IPDAS and CA checklist revealed that there was a lot of variation in the (communicative) quality of DAs. The findings highlight that (1) personalisation of treatment information in DAs is lacking, (2) outcome probability information is mostly communicated verbally and (3) information in DAs is generally biased towards a specific treatment. Additionally, (4) DAs about colorectal cancer are lengthy and (5) many DAs are not written in plain language.ConclusionsBoth instruments (IPDAS and CA) revealed great variation in the (communicative) quality of colorectal cancer DAs. Developers of patient DAs should focus on personalisation techniques and could use both the IPDAS and CA checklist in the developmental process to ensure personalised health communication and facilitate shared decision making in clinical practice.

scholarly journals Assessing Time of Eating in Commensality Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 2941
Author(s):  
Henrik Scander ◽  
Maria Lennernäs Wiklund ◽  
Agneta Yngve
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Time Use ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Search Term ◽  
Working Population ◽  
Nutritional Health ◽  
The Family ◽  
Use Studies

Commensal meals seem to be related to a better nutritional and metabolic health as well as an improved quality of life. The aim of this paper was to examine to what extent research was performed using the search term commensality related to assessment of timing of meals. A scoping review was performed, where 10 papers were identified as specifically addressing the assessment of timing of commensality of meals. Time use studies, questionnaires, and telephone- and person-to-person interviews were used for assessing meal times in relation to commensality. Four of the studies used a method of time use registration, and six papers used interviews or questionnaires. Common meals with family members were the most common, and dinners late at night were often preferred for commensal activities among the working population. In conclusion, the family meal seemed to be the most important commensal meal. It is clear from the collected papers and from previous systematic reviews that more studies of commensal meals in general and about timing aspects in particular and in relation to nutritional health are essential to provide a solid background of knowledge regarding the importance of timing in relation to commensal meals.

scholarly journals Psychological resilience during COVID-19: a meta-review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e051417
Author(s):  
Katie Seaborn ◽  
Mark Chignell ◽  
Jacek Gwizdka
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Psychological Resilience ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Meta Review ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Protocol

IntroductionThe global COVID-19 pandemic continues to have wide-ranging implications for health, including psychological well-being. A growing corpus of research reviews has emerged on the topic of psychological resilience in the context of the pandemic. However, this body of work has not been systematically reviewed for its quality, nor with respect to findings on the effectiveness of tools and strategies for psychological resilience. To this end, a meta-review protocol is proposed with the following objectives: (1) identify review work on the topic of psychological resilience during COVID-19; (2) assess the quality of this review work using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; (3) assess the risk of bias in this work; (4) generate a narrative summary of the key points, strengths and weaknesses; (5) identify the psychological resilience strategies that have been reviewed; (6) identify how these strategies have been evaluated for their effectiveness; (7) identify what outcomes were measured and (8) summarise the findings on strategies for psychological resilience so far, providing recommendations, if possible.Methods and analysisA systematic meta-review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews for Protocols and Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review guidelines. Electronic searches of general databases, especially Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed, will be conducted. Only results from January 2020 onwards will be considered, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. Only results in English will be included. Descriptive statistics, thematic analysis and narrative summaries describing the nature of the reviewed work and evaluation of psychological resilience strategies will be carried out.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not needed for systematic review protocols. The results of the meta-review will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. The raw and summarised data will be shared in the journal or other open venues.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021235288.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document