A systematic review and quality of reporting checklist for repeatability and reproducibility of radiomic features

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

The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies in diabetic retinopathy screening: a systematic review

Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology ◽

10.1111/j.1442-9071.2008.01826.x ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 36 (6) ◽

pp. 537-542 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Atif Zafar ◽

Ghulam Ishaq Khan ◽

MA Rehman Siddiqui

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Diabetic Retinopathy ◽

Diagnostic Accuracy ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Diabetic Retinopathy Screening ◽

Retinopathy Screening

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

Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in diabetes in Iran; a systematic review

Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders ◽

10.1186/s40200-016-0258-2 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Faeze Gohari ◽

Hamid Reza Baradaran ◽

Morteza Tabatabaee ◽

Shabnam Anijidani ◽

Fatemeh Mohammadpour Touserkani ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Randomized Controlled

Download Full-text

Quick and dirty? A systematic review of the use of rapid ethnographies in healthcare organisation and delivery

BMJ Quality & Safety ◽

10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007226 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 27 (4) ◽

pp. 321-330 ◽

Cited By ~ 32

Author(s):

Cecilia Vindrola-Padros ◽

Bruno Vindrola-Padros

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Service Use ◽

Field Research ◽

Poor Quality ◽

Healthcare Sector ◽

Healthcare Organisation ◽

Policy And Practice ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Meta Analyses

BackgroundThe ability to capture the complexities of healthcare practices and the quick turnaround of findings make rapid ethnographies appealing to the healthcare sector, where changing organisational climates and priorities require actionable findings at strategic time points. Despite methodological advancement, there continue to be challenges in the implementation of rapid ethnographies concerning sampling, the interpretation of findings and management of field research. The purpose of this review was to explore the benefits and challenges of using rapid ethnographies to inform healthcare organisation and delivery and identify areas that require improvement.MethodsThis was a systematic review of the literature using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess the quality of the articles. We developed the search strategy using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Settingframework and searched for peer-reviewed articles in MEDLINE, CINAHL PLUS, Web of Science and ProQuest Central. We included articles that reported findings from rapid ethnographies in healthcare contexts or addressing issues related to health service use.Results26 articles were included in the review. We found an increase in the use of rapid ethnographies in the last 2‰years. We found variability in terminology and developed a typology to clarify conceptual differences. The studies generated findings that could be used to inform policy and practice. The main limitations of the studies were: the poor quality of reporting of study designs, mainly data analysis methods, and lack of reflexivity.ConclusionsRapid ethnographies have the potential to generate findings that can inform changes in healthcare practices in a timely manner, but greater attention needs to be paid to the reflexive interpretation of findings and the description of research methods.Trial registration numberCRD42017065874.

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce the risk of healthcare-acquired infections in middle-income countries: A systematic review

Journal of Infection Prevention ◽

10.1177/1757177419852662 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 20 (6) ◽

pp. 266-273

Author(s):

Pushpa Udayangani Gamalathge ◽

Sanjeewa Kularatna ◽

Hannah E Carter ◽

Sameera Senanayake ◽

Nicholous Graves

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Developed Countries ◽

Healthcare Systems ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Middle Income ◽

Middle Income Countries ◽

Use Of Resources ◽

The Cost

Background: Hospital-acquired infections (HAI) contribute to prolonged hospital stays and account for a substantial economic burden to healthcare systems. Middle-income countries (MICs) experience a greater burden of HAI than developed countries. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce HAI is required to inform decision-making in these settings. Aim: To synthesise the evidence on cost-effectiveness as related to HAI interventions in MICs and to assess the quality of this evidence. Methods: A systematic review of published literature on the cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce the incidence of HAI in MICs between 2000 and 2018 was conducted. Results: Six studies met the pre-determined inclusion criteria. The studies were from three countries: Thailand; India; and Vietnam. The evidence suggests that interventions to reduce HAI are cost-effective and, in most cases, cost-saving to healthcare systems. The quality of the reporting varied across studies. Conclusions: The implementation of HAI prevention interventions appears to be a high value use of resources in MICs. There is a need for further cost-effectiveness analyses in a wider range of MICs in order to confirm these findings. Improved standardisation and quality of reporting is required.

Download Full-text