scholarly journals Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in nutrition research

2019 ◽  
Vol 122 (11) ◽  
pp. 1279-1294 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Kelley ◽  
Kristi S. Kelley
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Technical Information ◽  
Major Elements ◽  
Future Research ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Nutrition Research ◽  
Production And Consumption ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractThere exists an ever-increasing number of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, in the field of nutrition. Concomitant with this increase is the increased use of such to guide future research as well as both practice and policy-based decisions. Given this increased production and consumption, a need exists to educate both producers and consumers of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, on how to conduct and evaluate high-quality reviews of this nature in nutrition. The purpose of this paper is to try and address this gap. In the present manuscript, the different types of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analyses, are described as well as the description of the major elements, including methodology and interpretation, with a focus on nutrition. It is hoped that this non-technical information will be helpful to producers, reviewers and consumers of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, in the field of nutrition.

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.

A Stepwise Approach to Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Endovascular Interventions

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 805-817
Author(s):  
George A. Antoniou ◽  
Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai ◽  
Francesco Versaci ◽  
Stavros A. Antoniou
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Specific Topic ◽  
Stepwise Approach ◽  
Endovascular Interventions ◽  
Statistical Precision ◽  
Meta Analyses

The accrual of clinical studies poses important challenges to researchers and practitioners, especially in the field of endovascular therapy, where patient, lesion, technique, and device subtleties abound. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses may prove particularly fruitful in such settings by increasing statistical precision and bolstering external validity if the evidence base on a specific topic is consistent or by highlighting important discrepancies in the opposite scenario. However, mastering the correct approach to systematic review and meta-analysis is challenging for careful readers or for those interested in conducting such an evidence synthesis exercise. The present article highlights a stepwise approach to systematic reviews and meta-analyses, focusing on endovascular interventions, which will prove useful to anyone reading or wishing to synthesize the evidence base on endovascular topics to optimize decision making or shape future research efforts.

scholarly journals The differential efficacy of systemic therapy: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niels Braus ◽  
Rebecca von Oepen ◽  
Nina Immel ◽  
Johanna Wichmann ◽  
Christian Frankman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
System Functioning ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Systemic therapy is a widespread evidence-based psychotherapy approach. Its main goal revolves around the concept of viewing mental symptoms within the context of social systems (e.g., families, couples). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have confirmed that systemic therapy significantly reduces symptom severity of DSM- or ICD-diagnosed patients. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the differential efficacy of systemic therapy, taking into account moderators (e.g., allegiance, adherence) and outcomes (system functioning) not considered in previous meta-analytical investigations.Methods: To conduct a comprehensive literature search, we will optimize search strategies from previous systematic reviews on systemic therapy. The search strategy presented in this protocol has improved the precision and sensitivity by using an iterative validation and optimization process. We will conduct the literature search in multiple electronic databases (PsycInfo, Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)). We will include all randomized controlled trials that report quantitative outcomes for symptom change and/or system functioning. For the calculations, we will conduct a Bayesian meta-analysis for the outcomes based on a random-effects model, a Bayesian meta-regression for the moderators, and Bayesian subgroup analysis for disorder-specific differences.Discussion: Understanding the differential efficacy of systemic therapy is essential for the conceptualization, performance, and analysis of future research and therapeutic practice. This meta-analysis faces potential limitations associated with the definition of systemic therapy, as well as methodological problems in systemic therapy research.

scholarly journals An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Acupuncture for Post-Acute Stroke Dysphagia

Geriatrics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zi-Yu Tian ◽  
Xing Liao ◽  
Ying Gao ◽  
Shi-Bing Liang ◽  
Chong-Yang Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Stroke ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Acupuncture Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) on acupuncture treatment for post-acute stroke dysphagia have been published. Conflicting results from different SRs necessitated an overview to summarize and assess the quality of this evidence to determine whether acupuncture is effective for this condition. The aim was to evaluate methodological quality and summarizing the evidence for important outcomes. Methods: Seven databases were searched for SRs and/or meta-analysis of RCTs and quasi-RCTs on acupuncture for post-acute stroke dysphagia. Two authors independently identified SRs and meta-analyses, collected data to assess the quality of included SRs and meta analyses according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). Results: Searches yielded 382 SRs, 31 were included. The quality of 22 SRs was critically low, five SRs were low, and four Cochrane SRs were moderate when evaluated by AMSTAR2. A total of 17 SRs reported 85.2–96.3% of PRISMA items. Five SRs included explanatory RCTs, 16 SRs included pragmatic RCTs, and 10 SRs included both. Conclusion: Currently, evidence on the effectiveness of acupuncture on post-acute stroke dysphagia is of a low quality. The type of study appeared to have no direct influence on the result, but the primary outcome measures showed a relationship with the quality of SRs. High quality trials with large sample sizes should be the focus of future research.

scholarly journals The hallmarks of childhood abuse and neglect: A systematic review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0243639
Author(s):  
Jason Lang ◽  
Daniel M. Kerr ◽  
Papoula Petri-Romão ◽  
Tracey McKee ◽  
Helen Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Child Maltreatment ◽  
Childhood Abuse ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Future Research ◽  
High Quality ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Medium Quality ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background Studies on the impacts of child maltreatment (CM) have been conducted in diverse areas. Mechanistic understanding of the complex interplay between factors is lacking. Hallmarking is an approach which identifies common factors across studies and highlights the most robust findings. Objectives In a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, we addressed the following questions: 1) What are the hallmarks associated with exposure to CM across the bio-ecological spectrum? 2) What is the strength of evidence to support each hallmark? 3) What are the gaps that future research should address? Methods A comprehensive literature search was carried out to find relevant systematic reviews or meta-analyses. 269 articles were read in full and 178 articles, encompassing more than 6000 original papers, were included in the final synthesis. All reviews were independently rated for quality by at least 2 reviewers using AMSTAR-2. Results Of 178 review articles, 6 were rated as high quality (all meta-analyses) and 46 were rated as medium quality. Most were from high income countries. Conclusions Based on the most commonly reported high-quality research findings we propose that the hallmarks of exposure to child maltreatment are: Increased risk of psychopathology; Increased risk of obesity; Increased risk of high- risk sexual behaviours, Increased risk of smoking; and Increased risk of child maltreatment in children with disabilities. Research gaps include a lack of focus on complexity and resilience. Little can be concluded about directions of causality or mechanisms. Adequately powered prospective studies are required to move the field forward.

scholarly journals Methods used to select results to include in meta-analyses of nutrition research: a meta-research study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raju Kanukula ◽  
Joanne E McKenzie ◽  
Lisa Bero ◽  
Zhaoli Dai ◽  
Sally McDonald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Random Sample ◽  
Decision Rule ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Study ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Nutrition Research ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objectives: To investigate the extent of multiplicity of results in study reports of nutrition research, and the methods specified in systematic reviews to select results for inclusion in meta-analyses. Methods: MEDLINE and Epistemonikos were searched (January 2018 - June 2019) to identify systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes. A random sample of these reviews was selected, and for the first presented ('index') meta-analysis, rules used to select effect estimates to include in this meta-analysis were extracted from the reviews and their protocols. All effect estimates from the primary studies that were eligible for inclusion in the index meta-analyses were extracted. Results: Forty-two systematic reviews were included, 14 of which had a protocol. In 29% of review protocols and 69% of reviews, at least one decision rule to select effect estimates when multiple were available was specified. In 69% (204/325) of studies included in the index meta-analyses, there was at least one type of multiplicity of results. Conclusions: Authors of systematic reviews of nutrition research should anticipate encountering multiplicity of results in the included primary studies. Specification of methods to handle multiplicity when designing reviews is therefore recommended.

scholarly journals AMSTAR 2 Appraisal of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in the Field of Heart Failure from High-impact Journals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
LIN LI ◽  
IRIAGBONSE ROTIMI ASEMOTA ◽  
BOLUN LIU ◽  
JAVIER GOMEZ-VALENZIA ◽  
LIFENG LIN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Compliance Rate ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Critical Appraisal Tool ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: The MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 is a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of interventions. We aimed to perform the first AMSTAR 2-based quality assessment of heart failure-related studies. Methods: Eleven high-impact journals were searched from 2009 to 2019. The included studies were assessed on the basis of 16 domains. Seven domains were deemed critical for high-quality studies. On the basis of the performance in these 16 domains with different weights, overall ratings were generated and the quality was determined to be “high,” “moderate,” “low,” or “critically low.” Results: Eighty-one heart failure-related SRs with MAs were included. Overall, 79 studies were of “critically low quality” and two were of “low quality.” These findings were attributed to insufficiency in the following critical domains: a priori protocols (compliance rate, 5%), complete list of exclusions with justification (5%), risk of bias assessment (69%), meta-analysis methodology (78%), and investigation of publication bias (60%).Conclusions: The low ratings for these potential high-quality heart failure-related SRs and MAs challenge the discrimination capacity of AMSTAR 2. In addition to identifying certain areas of insufficiency, these findings indicate the need to justify or modify AMSTAR 2’s rating rules.

scholarly journals An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses on Acupuncture for Post-Acute Stroke Dysphagia

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zi-Yu Tian ◽  
Xing Liao ◽  
Ying Gao ◽  
Shi-Bing Liang ◽  
Chong-Yang Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Stroke ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Quality Type

Background: Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) on acupuncture treatment for post-acute stroke dysphagia have been published. Due to conflicting results an overview of SRs to summarize and assess the quality of this evidence to determine whether acupuncture is effective for this disease was conducted. Methods: Seven databases were searched for SRs and/or Meta-analysis of RCTs and quasi-RCTs on acupuncture for post-acute stroke dysphagia. Two authors independently identified SRs and meta-analyses, collected data to assess the quality of included SRs and meta analyses according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). Results: 31 SRs were identified. Quality of 22 SRs was critically low, 5 SRs were low, and 4 Cochrane SRs were moderate when evaluated by AMSTAR2. 17 SRs reported 85.2-96.3% items of PRISMA. Five SRs included explanatory RCTs, 16 SRs included pragmatic RCTs, and 10 SRs included both. Conclusion: Currently evidence on the effectiveness of acupuncture on post-acute stroke dysphagia is low quality. Type of study appeared to have no direct influence on the result, but the primary outcome measures showed a relationship with the quality of SRs. High quality trials with large sample sizes should be the focus of future research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019134163

scholarly journals Conducting proportional meta-analysis in different types of systematic reviews: a guide for synthesisers of evidence

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Hugh Barker ◽  
Celina Borges Migliavaca ◽  
Cinara Stein ◽  
Verônica Colpani ◽  
Maicon Falavigna ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Worked Examples ◽  
Main Body ◽  
Single Group ◽  
Group Data ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Common Technique ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Common Intervention

Abstract Background Single group data present unique challenges for synthesises of evidence. Proportional meta-analysis is becoming an increasingly common technique employed for the synthesis of single group data. Proportional meta-analysis shares many similarities with the conduct and reporting of comparative, or pairwise, meta-analysis. While robust and comprehensive methods exist detailing how researchers can conduct a meta-analysis that compares two (or more) groups against a common intervention, there is a scarcity of methodological guidance available to assist synthesisers of evidence in the conduct, interpretation, and importance of proportional meta-analysis in systematic reviews. Main body This paper presents an overview targeted to synthesisers of evidence and systematic review authors that details the methods, importance, and interpretation of a proportional meta-analysis. We provide worked examples of how proportional meta-analyses have been conducted in research syntheses previously and consider the methods, statistical considerations, and presentation of this technique. Conclusion This overview is designed to serve as practical guidance for synthesisers of evidence in the conduct of proportional meta-analyses.

scholarly journals The REPRISE Project: Protocol for an Evaluation of Reproducibility and Replicability in Syntheses of Evidence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J Page ◽  
David Moher ◽  
Fiona M Fidler ◽  
Julian PT Higgins ◽  
Sue E Brennan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Review Study ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Data Analytic ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting ◽  
Selection Of

Abstract Background: Investigations of transparency, reproducibility and replicability in science have been directed largely at individual studies. It is just as critical to explore these issues in syntheses of studies, such as systematic reviews, given their influence on decision making and future research. We aim to explore various aspects relating to the transparency, reproducibility and replicability of several components of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the effects of health, social, behavioural and educational interventions.Methods: The REPRISE (REProducibility and Replicability In Syntheses of Evidence) project consists of four studies. We will evaluate the completeness of reporting and sharing of review data, analytic code and other materials in a random sample of 300 systematic reviews of interventions published in 2020 (Study 1). We will survey authors of systematic reviews to explore their views on sharing review data, analytic code and other materials and their understanding of and opinions about replication of systematic reviews (Study 2). We will then evaluate the extent of variation in results when we (a) independently reproduce meta-analyses using the same computational steps and analytic code (if available) as used in the original review (Study 3), and (b) crowdsource teams of systematic reviewers to independently replicate a subset of methods (searches for studies, selection of studies for inclusion, collection of outcome data, and synthesis of results) in a sample of the original reviews; 30 reviews will be replicated by one team each and two reviews will be replicated by 15 teams (Study 4). Discussion: The REPRISE project takes a systematic approach to determine how reliable systematic reviews of interventions are. We anticipate that results of the REPRISE project will inform strategies to improve the conduct and reporting of future systematic reviews.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document