QUALITY-ASSESSED REVIEWS OF HEALTH CARE INTERVENTIONS AND THE DATABASE OF ABSTRACTS OF REVIEWS OF EFFECTIVENESS (DARE)

1999 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 671-678 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Petticrew ◽  
Fujian Song ◽  
Paul Wilson ◽  
Kath Wright
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Drug Company ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Valuable Source ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Health Care Interventions ◽  
Online Resource ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objectives: Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) (http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/) at the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination provides a unique international resource of structured summaries of quality-assessed reviews of health care interventions. These reviews have been identified from searches of electronic databases and by hand-searching journals. This paper describes and summarizes the DARE database, including the topic areas covered and the review methods used.Methods: The first 480 structured abstracts on the DARE database were summarized. Data were extracted from each database field and coded for analysis.Results: Most of the systematic reviews investigated the effectiveness of treatments: 54% investigated the effectiveness of medical therapies, and 10% assessed surgical interventions. Around two-thirds used meta-analytic methods to combine primary studies. The quality of the reviews was variable, with just over half of the reviews (52%, n = 251) having systematically assessed the validity of the included primary studies. Narrative reviews were more likely than meta-analyses to reach negative conclusions (42% vs. 25%, p = .0001). The 21 reviews that reported drug company funding were more likely to reach positive conclusions (81% vs. 66%, p = .15).Conclusion: The DARE database is a valuable source of quality-assessed systematic reviews, and is free and easily accessible. It provides a valuable online resource to help in filtering out poorer quality reviews when assessing the effectiveness of health technologies.

scholarly journals The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. e1000100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Liberati ◽  
Douglas G. Altman ◽  
Jennifer Tetzlaff ◽  
Cynthia Mulrow ◽  
Peter C. Gøtzsche ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Care Interventions ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals Systematiske oversikter og epidemiologisk forskning

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Inger Natvig Norderhaug
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
English Summary ◽  
International Consensus ◽  
Health Care Interventions ◽  
Study Protocols ◽  
Causes Of Disease ◽  
Meta Analyses

<p>En god helsetjeneste forutsetter god kunnskap som grunnlag for de valg som gjøres. Systematiske oversikter som sammenfatter tilgjengelig forskningsbasert kunnskap er en viktig del av beslutningsgrunnlaget, enten det er snakk om effektene av tiltak, hvorfor sykdom oppstår, diagnostikk, prognose, eller hvordan sykdom oppleves for dem som rammes.</p><p>Systematiske oversikter er blitt en vel anerkjent kilde for kunnskap om effekt av helsetiltak, med bred internasjonal enighet om metodene som bør benyttes ved utvikling av slike oversikter. Når det gjelder systematiske oversikter for å sammenfatte resultater fra epidemiologisk forskning på årsaksspørsmål er erfaringene langt mindre.</p><p>Samtidig som systematiske oversikter over epidemiologiske studier i større grad bør inngå i beslutningsprosesser, er det et betydelig behov for metodeutvikling. Dette gjelder særlig kriterier for vurdering av kvalitet på epidemiologiske studier, metoder for sammenfatning av resultater i metaanalyser og kriterier for å gradere tillit til de endelige estimatene. Publikasjonsskjevheter er en utfordring for all forskning, og det er behov for initiativ for å sikre bedre rapportering av funn fra epidemiologiske studier, blant annet publisering av studieprotokoller.</p><p>Norderhaug IN. <strong>Systematic reviews of epidemiological research</strong>. <em>Nor J Epidemiol</em> 2013; <strong>23</strong> (2): 125-130.</p><p><strong>ENGLISH SUMMARY</strong></p><p>In health care, good knowledge is key to sound decision making. Good management of knowledge can be achieved through systematic reviews for various questions including the effects of health care interventions, causes of disease, how to best diagnose diseases, prognosis, as well as people’s experiences from living with disease.</p><p>Systematic reviews are well recognized and valued resources to inform decisions regarding health care interventions. Furthermore there is broad international consensus on methods for conducting systematic reviews on the effects of health care interventions. Although the need for systematic reviews is recognized also for epidemiological questions, such as the causes of disease, the level of experience in this area is far less than for systematic reviews on the effects of interventions.</p><p>Thus, alongside the need for better integration of systematic reviews in epidemiology into health care decision making processes, methodological developments are needed, particularly on how to assess the quality of epidemiological studies, methods for combining the results in meta-analyses, and criteria for grading our confidence in the final estimates.</p><p>Publication bias is a problem in all research, and initiatives are needed to improve planning and reporting of epidemiological studies, such as publication of study protocols.</p>

The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations

2015 ◽  
Vol 162 (11) ◽  
pp. 777 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Hutton ◽  
Georgia Salanti ◽  
Deborah M. Caldwell ◽  
Anna Chaimani ◽  
Christopher H. Schmid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Care Interventions ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration

2009 ◽  
Vol 62 (10) ◽  
pp. e1-e34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Liberati ◽  
Douglas G. Altman ◽  
Jennifer Tetzlaff ◽  
Cynthia Mulrow ◽  
Peter C. Gøtzsche ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Care Interventions ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals Redundant systematic reviews on the same topic in surgery: a study protocol for a meta-epidemiological investigation

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. e017411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morihiro Katsura ◽  
Akira Kuriyama ◽  
Masafumi Tada ◽  
Kazumichi Yamamoto ◽  
Toshi A Furukawa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Major Surgery ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Epidemiological Investigation ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionWe are witnessing an explosive increase in redundant and overlapping publications of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on the same topic, which often present conflicting results and interpretations, in the current medical literature. They represent wasted efforts on the part of investigators and peer reviewers and may confuse and possibly mislead clinicians and policymakers. Here, we present a protocol for a meta-epidemiological investigation to describe how often there are overlapping SRs/MAs on the same topic, to assess the quality of these multiple publications, and to investigate the causes of discrepant results between multiple SRs/MAs in the field of major surgery.Methods and analysisWe will use MEDLINE/PubMed to identify all SRs/MAs of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2015 regarding major surgical interventions. After identifying the ‘benchmark’ SRs/MAs published in 2015, a process of screening in MEDLINE will be carried out to identify the previous SRs/MAs of RCTs on the same topic that were published within 5 years of the ‘benchmark’ SRs/MAs. We will tabulate the number of previous SRs/MAs on the same topic of RCTs, and then describe their variations in numbers of RCTs included, sample sizes, effect size estimates and other characteristics. We will also assess the differences in quality of each SR/MA using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) score. Finally, we will investigate the potential reasons to explain the discrepant results between multiple SRs/MAs.Ethics and disseminationNo formal ethical approval and informed consent are required because this study will not collect primary individual data. The intended audiences of the findings include clinicians, healthcare researchers and policymakers. We will publish our findings as a scientific report in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberIn PROSPERO CRD42017059077, March 2017.

scholarly journals Concordance between systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproduction: an overview

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariano Mascarenhas ◽  
Theodoros Kalampokas ◽  
Sesh Kamal Sunkara ◽  
Mohan S Kamath
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Reproduction ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Selective Reporting ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Are systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on interventions in ART concordant in their conclusions? SUMMARY ANSWER The majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period in the field of assisted reproduction on the same topic had discordant conclusions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have now replaced individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at the top of the evidence pyramid. There has been a proliferation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, many of which suffer from methodological issues and provide varying conclusions. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION We assessed nine interventions in women undergoing ART with at least three systematic reviews each, published from January 2015 to December 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The systematic reviews which included RCTs were considered eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was extent of concordance between systematic reviews on the same topic. Secondary outcomes included assessment of quality of systematic reviews, differences in included studies in meta-analyses covering the same search period, selective reporting and reporting the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Concordant results and conclusions were found in only one topic, with reviews in the remaining eight topics displaying partial discordance. The AMSTAR grading for the majority of the non-Cochrane reviews was critically low whilst it was categorized as high for all of the Cochrane reviews. For three of the nine topics, none of the included systematic reviews assessed the quality of evidence. We were unable to assess selective reporting as most of the reviews did not have a pre-specified published protocol. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We were limited by the high proportion of reviews lacking a pre-specified protocol, which made it impossible to assess for selective reporting. Furthermore, many reviews did not specify primary and secondary outcomes which made it difficult to assess reporting bias. All the authors of this review were Cochrane review authors which may introduce some assessment bias. The categorization of the review’s conclusions as beneficial, harmful or neutral was subjective, depending on the tone and wording of the conclusion section of the review. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on the same topic in the field of assisted reproduction revealed discordant conclusions and suffered from serious methodological issues, hindering the process of informed healthcare decision-making. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) All the authors are Cochrane authors. M.S.K. is an editorial board member of Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. No grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors was obtained.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document