scholarly journals Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examine preventive antibiotic uses and management practices designed to prevent disease in livestock

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-318
Author(s):  
Rachael Vriezen ◽  
Jan M. Sargeant ◽  
Ellen Vriezen ◽  
Charlotte B. Winder ◽  
Annette M. O'Connor
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractTo implement effective stewardship in food animal production, it is essential that producers and veterinarians are aware of preventive interventions to reduce illness in livestock. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MA) provide transparent, replicable, and quality-assessed overviews. At present, it is unknown how many SR/MA evaluate preventive antibiotic use or management practices aimed at reducing disease risk in animal agriculture. Further, the quality of existing reviews is unknown. Our aim was to identify reviews investigating these topics and to provide an assessment of their quality. Thirty-eight relevant reviews were identified. Quality assessment was based on the AMSTAR 2 framework for the critical appraisal of systematic reviews. The quality of most of the reviews captured was classified as critically low (84.2%, n = 32/38), and only a small percentage of the evaluated reviews did not contain critical weaknesses (7.9%, n = 3/38). Particularly, a small number of reviews reported the development of an a priori protocol (15.8%, n = 6/38), and few reviews stated that key review steps were conducted in duplicate (study selection/screening: 26.3%, n = 10/38; data extraction: 15.8%, n = 6/38). The development of high-quality reviews summarizing evidence on approaches to antibiotic reduction is essential, and thus greater adherence to quality conduct guidelines for synthesis research is crucial.

scholarly journals How are meta-analyses being conducted and reported in dentistry?

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. e211701
Author(s):  
Leticia Tainá de Oliveira Lemes ◽  
Lara Dotto ◽  
Bernardo Antonio Agostini ◽  
Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira ◽  
Rafael Sarkis-Onofre
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
English Language ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Great Part ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Meta Analyses

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate how meta-analyses are conducted and reported in dentistry. Methods: We conducted a search to identify dentistry-related Systematic Reviews (SRs) indexed in PubMed in 2017 (from January 01 until December 31) and published in the English language. We included only SRs reporting at least one meta-analysis. The study selection followed the 4-phase flow set forth in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA), and it was independently conducted by two researchers. Data extraction was performed by one of three reviewers, and data related to conducting and reporting of the meta-analysis were collected. Descriptive data analysis was performed summarizing frequencies for categorical items or median and interquartile range for continuous data. Results: We included 214 SRs with meta-analyses. Most of the studies reported in the title that a meta-analysis was conducted. We identified three critical flaws in the included studies: Ninety (90) meta-analyses (43.1%) did not specify the primary outcome; most of the meta-analyses reported that a measure of statistical heterogeneity was used to justify the use of a fixed-effect or random-effects meta-analysis model (n=114, 58.5%); and a great part did not assess publication bias (n=106, 49.5%). Conclusion: We identified deficiencies in the reporting and conduct of meta-analysis in dentistry, suggesting that there is room for improvement. Educational approaches are necessary to improve the quality of such analyses and to avoid biased and imprecise results.

scholarly journals Development and Validation of a Nutrition-Specific Set of Tools to Assess the Quality of Nutrition Studies

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. 1377-1377
Author(s):  
Karima Benkhedda ◽  
Stephen Brooks ◽  
Linda Greene-Finestone ◽  
Shannon Kelly ◽  
Amanda MacFarlane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Quality Appraisal ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Perfect Agreement ◽  
Development And Validation

Abstract Objectives To develop and validate a set of 3 quality assessment instruments (QAls) for evaluating the quality of nutrition studies, for each of the commonly used study designs: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs), (2) prospective cohort, and (3) case-control studies. Methods The QAI development and validation process included 8 steps: 1) identify and evaluate existing general QAls for adaptation with nutrition-specific quality appraisal items; 2) scan the literature to identify nutrition-specific quality appraisal issues; 3) generate nutrition-specific items to be added to each of the general QAIs, adapt existing guidance for general items for nutrition applications and develop guidance for added nutrition items; 4) review, by two experts in clinical and population nutrition, of the modified general QAIs with added nutrition-specific items and guidance; 5) assess reliability and validity of the QAI for each study design; 6) improve the usability and feasibility, of the QAIs by considering feedback from the validation exercise to refine the wording of the guidance; 7) develop a worksheet to help evaluate, a priori, topic-specific methodology to address risk of bias; and  8) validate the final QAIs using five peer-reviewed studies identified from published systematic reviews with reported quality assessment. Agreement and reliability were determined for each QAI. Results Results of the validation show good to perfect agreement among evaluators for the overall study rating and across domains. When compared to the study quality assessment reported in the systematic review, nutrition- specific items had the greatest impact on study ratings, generally resulting in a downgrade of the overall rating. Conclusions A set of nutrition-specific QAls were developed to assess the quality and robustness of nutrition studies. These tools incorporate general quality issues of study design and conduct, as well as address recognised nutrition study-specific issues. They will improve consistency in how nutrition studies are assessed particularly in nutrition-related systematic reviews. This will contribute to the overall quality of assessment of diet and Funding Sources This work was supported by Health Canada.

scholarly journals A Critical Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Acupuncture for Poststroke Insomnia

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Jinke Huang ◽  
Manli Wu ◽  
Simin Liang ◽  
Xiaohui Qin ◽  
Min Shen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Acupuncture Treatment ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Evidence Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Quality Evidence

Objectives. Acupuncture has increasingly been used for insomnia relief after stroke. We aimed to evaluate the methodological quality and summarize the evidence regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture for poststroke insomnia (PSI) from systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs). Methods. Eight databases were searched from inception through August 23, 2020. SRs/MAs on acupuncture treatment for PSI were included. Methodological quality assessment was performed using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), and evidence quality assessment was performed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results. Six SRs/MAs on acupuncture treatment for PSI were included. The AMSTAR-2 showed that the methodological quality of all included SRs/MAs was rated as critically low. According to the evaluation results of GRADE, 38.9% (7/18) of outcomes were rated as very low-quality evidence, 22.2% (4/18) were low-quality evidence, and 8.9% (7/18) were moderate-quality evidence. Descriptive analysis results showed that acupuncture was an effective treatment modality for PSI. Conclusions. All included reviews indicated that acupuncture was more effective than the control group for the treatment of PSI, but the credibility of the results is limited owing to the generally low methodological and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs. More high-quality evidence is needed to determine whether acupuncture is more effective than other treatments.

scholarly journals Methods used to meta-analyse results from interrupted time series studies: A methodological systematic review protocol

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 110
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Korevaar ◽  
Amalia Karahalios ◽  
Andrew B. Forbes ◽  
Simon L. Turner ◽  
Steve McDonald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Time Series ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Interrupted Time Series ◽  
Analysis Methods ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Systematic reviews are used to inform healthcare decision making. In reviews that aim to examine the effects of organisational, policy change or public health interventions, or exposures, evidence from interrupted time series (ITS) studies may be included. A core component of many systematic reviews is meta-analysis, which is the statistical synthesis of results across studies. There is currently a lack of guidance informing the choice of meta-analysis methods for combining results from ITS studies, and there have been no studies examining the meta-analysis methods used in practice. This study therefore aims to describe current meta-analysis methods used in a cohort of reviews of ITS studies. Methods: We will identify the 100 most recent reviews (published between 1 January 2000 and 11 October 2019) that include meta-analyses of ITS studies from a search of eight electronic databases covering several disciplines (public health, psychology, education, economics). Study selection will be undertaken independently by two authors. Data extraction will be undertaken by one author, and for a random sample of the reviews, two authors. From eligible reviews we will extract details at the review level including discipline, type of interruption and any tools used to assess the risk of bias / methodological quality of included ITS studies; at the meta-analytic level we will extract type of outcome, effect measure(s), meta-analytic methods, and any methods used to re-analyse the individual ITS studies. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise the data. Conclusions: This review will describe the methods used to meta-analyse results from ITS studies. Results from this review will inform future methods research examining how different meta-analysis methods perform, and ultimately, the development of guidance.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Atopic Dermatitis Treatments and Interventions

Dermatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Vanessa Lin ◽  
Raahi Patel ◽  
Alexis Wirtz ◽  
Deepika Mannem ◽  
Ryan Ottwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atopic Dermatitis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Included Study ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analyses

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Spin – the misrepresentation of a study’s results – has been identified in abstracts of studies focused on a variety of disorders from multiple fields of medicine. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> This study’s primary objective was to evaluate the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on the treatment of atopic dermatitis for the nine most severe forms of spin. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We systematically searched Embase and MEDLINE for systematic reviews of atopic dermatitis therapies. Screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion. Each included study was evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin and other study characteristics. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Our searches retrieved 2,456 studies, of which 113 were included for data extraction. Spin was found in 74.3% of our included studies (84/113). Spin type 6 occurred most frequently (68/113, 60.2%). Spin types 1, 2, and 9 were not identified. All industry-funded systematic reviews contained spin in their abstract. The presence of spin was not associated with any specific study characteristics, including the methodological quality of the study. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Severe forms of spin were found in the majority of abstracts for systematic reviews of atopic dermatitis treatments. Steps should be taken to prevent spin to improve the quality of reporting in abstracts.

Quality of meta-analyses of non-opioid, pharmacological, perioperative interventions for chronic postsurgical pain: a systematic review

2022 ◽  
pp. rapm-2021-102981
Author(s):  
Rachel H McGregor ◽  
Freda M Warner ◽  
Lukas D Linde ◽  
Jacquelyn J Cragg ◽  
Jill A Osborn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Critical Element ◽  
Postsurgical Pain ◽  
Chronic Postsurgical Pain ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundIn an attempt to aggregate observations from clinical trials, several meta-analyses have been published examining the effectiveness of systemic, non-opioid, pharmacological interventions to reduce the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain.ObjectiveTo inform the design and reporting of future studies, the purpose of our study was to examine the quality of these meta-analyses.Evidence reviewWe conducted an electronic literature search in Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Published meta-analyses, from the years 2010 to 2020, examining the effect of perioperative, systemic, non-opioid pharmacological treatments on the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain in adult patients were identified. Data extraction focused on methodological details. Meta-analysis quality was assessed using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) critical appraisal tool.FindingsOur search yielded 17 published studies conducting 58 meta-analyses for gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin), ketamine, lidocaine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and mexiletine. According to AMSTAR 2, 88.2% of studies (or 15/17) were low or critically low in quality. The most common critical element missing was an analysis of publication bias. Trends indicated an improvement in quality over time and association with journal impact factor.ConclusionsWith few individual trials adequately powered to detect treatment effects, meta-analyses play a crucial role in informing the perioperative management of chronic postsurgical pain. In light of this inherent value and despite a number of attempts, high-quality meta-analyses are still needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021230941.

Ultrasound in the Assessment of Interstitial Lung Disease in Systemic Sclerosis: A Systematic Literature Review by the OMERACT Ultrasound Group

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (7) ◽  
pp. 991-1000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marwin Gutierrez ◽  
Carina Soto-Fajardo ◽  
Carlos Pineda ◽  
Alfonso Alfaro-Rodriguez ◽  
Lene Terslev ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Sclerosis ◽  
Interstitial Lung Disease ◽  
Lung Disease ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Detailed Search ◽  
Based Medicine

Objective.To provide an overview of the role of lung ultrasound (LUS) in the assessment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in systemic sclerosis (SSc) and to discuss the state of validation supporting its clinical relevance and application in daily clinical practice.Methods.Original articles published between January 1997 and October 2017 were included. To identify all available studies, a detailed search pertaining to the topic of review was conducted according to guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A systematic search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE. The quality assessment of retrieved articles was performed according to the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies–2 tool.Results.From 300 papers identified, 12 were included for the analysis. LUS passed the filter of face, content validity, and feasibility. However, there is insufficient evidence to support criterion validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change.Conclusion.Despite a great deal of work supporting the potential role of LUS for the assessment of ILD-SSc, much remains to be done before validating its use as an outcome measure in ILD-SSc.

Cancer-related fatigue: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of mind–body intervention

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Huda Anshasi ◽  
Muayyad Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Publication Type ◽  
Gray Literature ◽  
Cancer Related Fatigue ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of mind–body interventions (MBIs) for the management of cancer-related fatigue. Methods A comprehensive search on multiple databases was conducted to identify relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses published from January 2008 to December 2019. Two authors independently selected reviews, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of included reviews using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Results Sixteen reviews published between 2010 and 2018 were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the 16 included systematic reviews was moderate (score 4–7) to high (score ≥ 8) on the 11-point AMSTAR scale. The most common methodological weaknesses were the lack of a list of excluded studies (n = 15, 93.8%) and a priori protocol (n = 2,87.5%). Furthermore, most of the systematic reviews did not search the gray literature for eligible studies (n = 13, 81.3%). Significance of the study This study has revealed the need for high methodological quality systematic reviews on the MBIs for the management of cancer-related fatigue. Thus, further research should focus on methodologically strong systematic reviews by providing a priori design, not limiting the publication type, and providing an excluded primary studies list. Additionally, the researchers should conduct systematic reviews according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline.

scholarly journals A Methodological and Reporting Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses about Chinese Medical Treatment for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Zipan Lyu ◽  
Zhongyu Huang ◽  
Fengbin Liu ◽  
Zhengkun Hou
Keyword(s):  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Selection Methods ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Protocol Registration ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective. To access the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) about Chinese medical treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Methods. The PubMed, Wanfang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), Chinese Biomedical (CBM), Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to June 2020. Two researchers independently screened the literature considering the eligibility criteria. Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the included reports. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to evaluate the level of evidence in each report. Results. Thirty-three SRs/MAs met the inclusion criteria. The OQAQ results showed that defects in the methodological quality of 17/32 reports were major, with scores of 3 points. Analyzing a single item as the object, search strategies (item 2), and risk of bias in individual studies (item 4) was considered poor. The AMSTAR 2 results showed that 25.4% of the items were not reported, and 7.8% of the items were only partially reported. The overall assessment of AMSTAR 2 showed the majority of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were of low/very low (31/33, 93.9%) methodological quality, with a lack of protocol registration and excluded study list. The PRISMA results showed that 19.9% of items were not reported, and 15.2% of items were only partially reported, due to a lack of protocol registration and study selection methods. The methodological and reporting quality of the included studies was generally poor. Evidence evaluation with GRADE showed that most (31/33) of the included studies had low or very low levels of evidence. Conclusion. The methodological and reporting quality of SRs/MAs about Chinese medical treatment for GERD is generally poor. The main problems included incomplete search strategies, risk of bias in individual studies, the lack of protocol registration and excluded study list, and incorrect study selection methods.

scholarly journals Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: A systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Linh Tran ◽  
Dao Ngoc Hien Tam ◽  
Abdelrahman Elshafay ◽  
Thao Dang ◽  
Kenji Hirayama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
In Vitro Studies ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Increasing Trend ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Critical Aspects

Abstract Background Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are commonly conducted to evaluate and summarize medical literature. This is especially useful in assessing in vitro studies for consistency. Our study aims to systematically review all available quality assessment (QA) tools employed on in vitro SRs/MAs. Method A search on four databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Virtual Health Library and Web of Science, was conducted from 2006 to 2020. The available SRs/MAs of in vitro studies were evaluated. DARE tool was applied to assess the risk of bias of included articles. Our protocol was developed and uploaded to ResearchGate in June 2016. Results Our findings reported an increasing trend in publication of in vitro SRs/MAs from 2007 to 2020. Among the 244 included SRs/MAs, 126 articles (51.6%) had conducted the QA procedure. Overall, 51 QA tools were identified; 26 of them (51%) were developed by the authors specifically, whereas 25 (49%) were pre-constructed tools. SRs/MAs in dentistry frequently had their own QA tool developed by the authors, while SRs/MAs in other topics applied various QA tools. Many pre-structured tools in these in vitro SRs/MAs were modified from QA tools of in vivo or clinical trials, therefore, they had various criteria. Conclusion Many different QA tools currently exist in the literature; however, none cover all critical aspects of in vitro SRs/MAs. There is a need for a comprehensive guideline to ensure the quality of SR/MA due to their precise nature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document