Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study

Abstract Background: While well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs) can provide best evidence on the potential effectiveness of acupuncture, limitations on methodological rigour of SRs may impact trustworthiness of their conclusions. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on acupuncture effectiveness.Methods: CDSR, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for SRs on acupuncture. AMSTAR2 was applied for assessing methodological quality. Associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality ratings were examined. Results: A total of 106 SRs were appraised. Only one (0.9%) SR was of high overall methodological quality, zero (0%) was of moderate-quality, six (5.7%) and 99 (93.4%) were of low-quality and critically low-quality respectively. Among appraised SRs, only ten (9.4%) provided an a priori protocol, four (3.8%) conducted a comprehensive literature search, five (4.7%) provided a list of excluded study, and six (5.7%) performed meta-analysis appropriately. Cochrane reviews, update reviews, reviews with corresponding authors from the America, and reviews that searched non-English databases had relatively higher overall quality. Conclusions: Methodological quality of SRs on acupuncture is unsatisfactory. Future reviewers should improve critical areas of publishing protocols, performing comprehensive search, providing a list of excluded studies with justifications for exclusion, and conducting meta-analysis appropriately.

Download Full-text

Searching for unpublished data for Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study

BMJ ◽

10.1136/bmj.f2231 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 346 (apr23 1) ◽

pp. f2231-f2231 ◽

Cited By ~ 23

Author(s):

J. B. Schroll ◽

L. Bero ◽

P. C. Gotzsche

Keyword(s):

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Cochrane Reviews

Download Full-text

Dealing with substantial heterogeneity in Cochrane reviews. Cross-sectional study

BMC Medical Research Methodology ◽

10.1186/1471-2288-11-22 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 63

Author(s):

Jeppe B Schroll ◽

Rasmus Moustgaard ◽

Peter C Gøtzsche

Keyword(s):

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Cochrane Reviews ◽

Substantial Heterogeneity

Download Full-text

Methodological quality of systematic reviews on interventions for osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study

Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal Disease ◽

10.1177/1759720x20959967 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

pp. 1759720X2095996

Author(s):

Irene XY Wu ◽

Huan Wang ◽

Lin Zhu ◽

Yancong Chen ◽

Charlene HL Wong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Random Sequence ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Healthcare Providers ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Cochrane Reviews

Background: Healthcare providers need reliable evidence for supporting the adoption of new interventions, of which the source of evidence often originates from systematic reviews (SRs). However, little assessment on the rigor of SRs related to osteoarthritis interventions has been conducted. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality and predictors among SRs on osteoarthritis interventions. Methods: Four electronic databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO) were searched, from 1 January 2008 to 10 October 2019. An SR was eligible if it focused on osteoarthritis interventions, and we performed at least one meta-analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the validated AMSTAR 2 instrument. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to assess predictors of methodological quality. Results: In total, 167 SRs were included. The most SRs were non-Cochrane reviews (88.6%), and 54.5% investigated non-pharmacological interventions. Only seven (4.2%) had high methodological quality. Respectively, eight (4.8%), 25 (15.0%), and 127 (76.0%) SRs had moderate, low, and critically low quality. Main methodological weaknesses were as follows: only 16.8% registered protocol a priori, 4.2% searched literature comprehensively, 25.7% included lists of excluded studies with justifications, and 30.5% assessed risk of bias appropriately by considering allocation concealment, blinding of patients and assessors, random sequence generation and selective reported outcomes. Cochrane reviews [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 251.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 35.5–1782.6], being updates of previous SRs (AOR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1–13.7), and SRs published after 2017 (AOR 7.7, 95% CI 2.8–21.5) were positively related to higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite signs of improvement in recent years, most of the SRs on osteoarthritis interventions have critically low methodological quality, especially among non-Cochrane reviews. Future SRs should be improved by conducting comprehensive literature search, justifying excluded studies, publishing a protocol, and assessing the risk of bias of included studies appropriately.

Download Full-text

Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035633 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (5) ◽

pp. e035633

Author(s):

Kimberly Turner ◽

Andrea Carboni-Jiménez ◽

Carla Benea ◽

Katharine Elder ◽

Brooke Levis ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Multivariable Analysis ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Funding Sources ◽

Cochrane Reviews ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

ObjectiveTo (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author–industry financial ties and author–industry employment from included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses; (2) examine characteristics of meta-analyses independently associated with reporting funding sources of included RCTs; and (3) compare reporting among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses to Cochrane reviews published in 2010.DesignReview of consecutive sample of recently published meta-analyses.Data sourcesMEDLINE database via PubMed searched on 19 October 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting articlesWe selected the 250 most recent meta-analyses listed in PubMed that included a documented search of at least one database, statistically combined results from ≥2 RCTs and evaluated the effects of a drug or class of drugs.Results90 of 107 (84%) Cochrane meta-analyses reported funding sources for some or all included trials compared with 21 of 143 (15%) non-Cochrane meta-analyses, a difference of 69% (95% CI 59% to 77%). Percent reporting was also higher for Cochrane meta-analyses compared with non-Cochrane meta-analyses for trial author–industry financial ties (44% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 33% to 52%) and employment (17% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 9% to 24%). In multivariable analysis, compared with Cochrane meta-analyses, the odds ratio (OR) for reporting trial funding was ≤0.11 for all other journal category and impact factor combinations. Compared with Cochrane reviews from 2010, reporting of funding sources of included RCTs among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses improved by 54% (95% CI 42% to 63%), and reporting of trial author–industry financial ties and employment improved by 37% (95% CI 26% to 47%) and 10% (95% CI 2% to 19%).ConclusionsReporting of trial funding sources, trial author–industry financial ties and trial author–industry employment in Cochrane meta-analyses has improved since 2010 and is higher than in non-Cochrane meta-analyses.

Download Full-text

Patients' understanding of words used to describe lumps: a cross-sectional study

The Journal of Laryngology & Otology ◽

10.1017/s0022215105006481 ◽

2005 ◽

pp. 1

Author(s):

Neil K Chadha ◽

Costa Repanos

Keyword(s):

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional

Download Full-text

Does a Graduate Course in Fluency Disorders Make a Difference?

Perspectives on Fluency and Fluency Disorders ◽

10.1044/ffd20.1.10 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

pp. 10-14 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Evelyn R. Klein ◽

Barbara J. Amster

Keyword(s):

Undergraduate Students ◽

Graduate Programs ◽

The United States ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Graduate Course ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Fluency Disorders ◽

Introductory Course ◽

Communicative Disorders

Abstract A study by Yaruss and Quesal (2002), based on responses from 134 of 239 ASHA accredited graduate programs, indicated that approximately 25% of graduate programs in the United States allow students to earn their degree without having coursework in fluency disorders and 66% of programs allow students to graduate without clinical experience treating people who stutter (PWS). It is not surprising that many clinicians report discomfort in treating PWS. This cross-sectional study compares differences in beliefs about the cause of stuttering between freshman undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory course in communicative disorders and graduate students enrolled and in the final weeks of a graduate course in fluency disorders.

Download Full-text