A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews of nursing published in the Cochrane Library and paper-based journals

BACKGROUND Digital biomarkers are defined as objective, quantifiable physiological and behavioral data that are collected and measured by means of digital devices such as portables, wearables, implantables or digestibles. For their widespread adoption in publicly financed healthcare systems, it is important to understand how their benefits translate into improved patient outcomes, which is essential for demonstrating their value. OBJECTIVE To assess the quality and strength of evidence of the impact of digital biomarkers on clinical outcomes compared to interventions without digital biomarkers, reported in systematic reviews. METHODS A comprehensive search for 2019-2020 will be conducted in the PubMed and the Cochrane Library using keywords related to digital biomarkers and a filter for systematic reviews. Original full-text English publications of systematic reviews comparing clinical outcomes of interventions with and without digital biomarkers via meta-analysis will be included. The AMSTAR-2 tool will be used to assess the methodological quality of reviews. To assess the quality of evidence, we will evaluate systematic reviews using the GRADE tool. To detect the possible presence of reporting bias, we will record whether the protocol of the systematic reviews was published before the start of the study. A qualitative summary of results by digital biomarker technology and outcome will be provided. RESULTS This protocol was submitted before data collection. The next steps in this review will be initiated after the protocol is accepted for publication. CONCLUSIONS Our study will provide a comprehensive summary of the highest level of evidence available on digital biomarker interventions. Our results will help identify clinical areas where the use of digital biomarkers leads to favorable clinical outcomes. In addition, our findings will highlight areas of evidence gaps where the clinical benefits of digital biomarkers have not yet been demonstrated.

Download Full-text

Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in articles hand and wrist pathology: a review

Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery ◽

10.34239/ajops.v2n2.141 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 2 (2) ◽

pp. 50-57

Author(s):

Amanda Yang Shen ◽

Robert S Ware ◽

Tom J O'Donohoe ◽

Jason Wasiak

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

English Language ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Annual Basis ◽

Cochrane Reviews ◽

Abstract Reporting

Background: An increasing number of systematic reviews are published on an annual basis. Although perusal of the full text of articles is preferable, abstracts are sometimes relied upon to guide clinical decisions. Despite this, the abstracts of systematic reviews have historically been poorly reported. We evaluated the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts within hand and wrist pathology literature. Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2017 for systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology using the 12-item PRISMA-A checklist to assess abstract reporting quality. Results: A total of 114 abstracts were included. Most related to fracture (38%) or arthritis (17%) management. Forty-seven systematic reviews (41%) included meta-analysis. Mean PRISMA-A score was 3.6/12 with Cochrane reviews having the highest mean score and hand-specific journals having the lowest. Abstracts longer than 300 words (mean difference [MD]: 1.43, 95% CI [0.74, 2.13]; p <0.001) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (MD: 0.64, 95% CI [0.05, 1.22]; p = 0.034) were associated with higher scores. Unstructured abstracts were associated with lower scores (MD: –0.65, 95% CI [–1.28, –0.02]; p = 0.044). A limitation of this study is the possible exclusion of relevant studies that were not published in the English language. Conclusion: Abstracts of systematic reviews pertaining to hand and wrist pathology have been suboptimally reported as assessed by the PRISMA-A checklist. Improvements in reporting quality could be achieved by endorsement of PRISMA-A guidelines by authors and journals, and reducing constraints on abstract length.

Download Full-text

Compound Danshen (Salvia miltiorrhiza) Dripping Pill for Coronary Heart Disease: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

The American Journal of Chinese Medicine ◽

10.1142/s0192415x15500020 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 43 (01) ◽

pp. 25-43 ◽

Cited By ~ 49

Author(s):

Jing Luo ◽

Weijiang Song ◽

Guoyan Yang ◽

Hao Xu ◽

Keji Chen

Keyword(s):

Coronary Heart Disease ◽

Heart Disease ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Salvia Miltiorrhiza ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Overview Of Systematic Reviews ◽

Potential Benefits ◽

The Cochrane Library

Compound Danshen dripping pill (CDDP) is commonly used to treat coronary heart disease (CHD) in China. However, clinical practice has not been informed by evidence from relevant systematic reviews (SRs). This overview aims at summarizing evidence from SRs on CDDP for the treatment of CHD. We included SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on CDDP in treating CHD until March 2014 by searching the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and four Chinese databases. Data were extracted according to a pre-designed form. We assessed the quality of SRs according to AMSTAR and graded the quality of evidence in the included SRs using the GRADE approach. All data analyses were descriptive. About 13 SRs involving a total of 34,071 participants with angina or acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were included. Few SRs assessed endpoints (5/13, 38.5%) and quality of life (QOL) (4/13, 30.8%). Most of the SRs suggested that CDDP had potential benefits for patients with CHD, such as improving symptoms and electrocardiogram (ECG) results, with few adverse reactions, while benefits in endpoints were unproved. Moreover, the overall quality of evidence in the SRs was poor, ranging from "very low" to "moderate", and most of the included SRs were of "low" (3/13, 23.1%) or "moderate" (9/13, 69.2%) quality with many serious flaws. Current SRs suggested potential benefits of CDDP for the treatment of CHD. However, high-quality evidence is warranted to support the application of CDDP in treating CHD.

Download Full-text

Interventions for Treating Tennis Elbow: An Overview of Systematic Reviews in the Past Ten Years

10.21203/rs.3.rs-38935/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Xue Wang ◽

Jun Xiong ◽

Jun Yang ◽

Ting Yuan

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Comparative Studies ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Tennis Elbow ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Research Process ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Different Types

Abstract purpose: Tennis elbow is a common orthopedic disease, and there are many ways to treat it. This overview aimed to summarize the evidence of different treatments for tennis elbows, so as to provide the best guidance for clinical treatment.Methods: Use computer to search CNKI, WanFang database, WeiPu database, CBM database, PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase from the time of establishment to May 31, 2019.Te Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and latest Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively.Results: A total of 37 references were included. Methodological quality and reporting quality were unsatisfactory. Methodological quality was generally low and many key items were not reported. Some research reports are of high quality, but there is no trial registration and protocol written in advance, which may lead to some bias in the research process. The most frequent problems included non-registration of study protocol, absence of a list of excluded studies, and unclear acknowledgment of conflicts of interests. The different types of interventions included have been shown to relieve pain, improve quality of life, and restore elbow function, but there has been a lack of comparative studies.Conclusion: The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis studies were sub-optimal, which demands further improvement. Comparative studies of different types of interventions are needed to determine unclear.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42015017071

Download Full-text

Similarities, reliability and gaps in assessing the quality of conduct of systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS: systematic survey of nutrition reviews

BMC Medical Research Methodology ◽

10.1186/s12874-021-01457-w ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Mateusz J. Swierz ◽

Dawid Storman ◽

Joanna Zajac ◽

Magdalena Koperny ◽

Paulina Weglarz ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Nutritional Intervention ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Systematic Survey ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

The Cochrane Library

Abstract Background AMSTAR-2 (‘A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2’) and ROBIS (‘Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews’) are independent instruments used to assess the quality of conduct of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs). The degree of overlap in methodological constructs together with the reliability and any methodological gaps have not been systematically assessed and summarized in the field of nutrition. Methods We performed a systematic survey of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for SR/MAs published between January 2010 and November 2018 that examined the effects of any nutritional intervention/exposure for cancer prevention. We followed a systematic review approach including two independent reviewers at each step of the process. For AMSTAR-2 (16 items) and ROBIS (21 items), we assessed the similarities, the inter-rater reliability (IRR) and any methodological limitations of the instruments. Our protocol for the survey was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019121116). Results We found 4 similar domain constructs based on 11 comparisons from a total of 12 AMSTAR-2 and 14 ROBIS items. Ten comparisons were considered fully overlapping. Based on Gwet’s agreement coefficients, six comparisons provided almost perfect (> 0.8), three substantial (> 0.6), and one a moderate level of agreement (> 0.4). While there is considerable overlap in constructs, AMSTAR-2 uniquely addresses explaining the selection of study designs for inclusion, reporting on excluded studies with justification, sources of funding of primary studies, and reviewers’ conflict of interest. By contrast, ROBIS uniquely addresses appropriateness and restrictions within eligibility criteria, reducing risk of error in risk of bias (RoB) assessments, completeness of data extracted for analyses, the inclusion of all necessary studies for analyses, and adherence to predefined analysis plan. Conclusions Among the questions on AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS, 70.3% (26/37 items) address the same or similar methodological constructs. While the IRR of these constructs was moderate to perfect, there are unique methodological constructs that each instrument independently addresses. Notably, both instruments do not address the reporting of absolute estimates of effect or the overall certainty of the evidence, items that are crucial for users’ wishing to interpret the importance of SR/MA results.

Download Full-text

Methodological quality and reporting of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology

Journal of Hand Surgery (European Volume) ◽

10.1177/1753193417712660 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 42 (8) ◽

pp. 852-856 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

J. Wasiak ◽

A. Y. Shen ◽

R. Ware ◽

T. J. O’Donohoe ◽

C. M. Faggion

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Methodological Assessment ◽

Meta Analyses

The objective of this study was to assess methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2016 for relevant studies. Reporting quality was evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and methodological quality using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews, the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used to identify features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 91 studies were included in the analysis. Most reviews inadequately reported PRISMA items regarding study protocol, search strategy and bias and AMSTAR items regarding protocol, publication bias and funding. Systematic reviews published in a plastics journal, or which included more authors, were associated with higher AMSTAR scores. A large proportion of systematic reviews within hand and wrist pathology literature score poorly with validated methodological assessment tools, which may affect the reliability of their conclusions. Level of evidence: I

Download Full-text

Associating the risk of three urinary cancers with obesity and overweight: an overview with evidence mapping of systematic reviews

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-021-01606-8 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Jiyuan Shi ◽

Liang Zhao ◽

Ya Gao ◽

Mingming Niu ◽

Meili Yan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Overweight And Obesity ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Obesity And Overweight ◽

Incidence And Mortality ◽

Prostate Cancers ◽

The Relationship

Abstract Background The relationship between cancer with overweight and obesity has been extensively reported. However, the association between urinary cancers with these risk factors remains unclear, with existing reports showing conflicting findings. The current review, therefore, sought to clarify the latter association by assessing the methodological and reporting quality of existing systematic reviews on the subject. Methods We first screened PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant literature and subjected the resulting articles to meta-analysis. We adopted the AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA checklists for assessing methodological and reporting quality, respectively, then performed meta-analyses to determine the relationship between incidence and mortality of three types of urinary cancers with obesity and overweight. Indirect comparisons were also done across subgroups. Results All systematic reviews (SRs) were of critically low methodological quality. Seventeen SRs had minimal reporting flaws, and 11 SRs had minor reporting flaws. We found an association between obesity with an incidence of kidney (RR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.47–1.92), bladder (RR = 1.1, 95% CI 1.07–1.13), and prostate (RR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.91, 1.13) cancers. Similarly, overweight was associated with the incidence of the three types of cancer, recording RR values of 1.37 (95% CI 1.26–1.48), 1.07 (95% CI 1.03–1.1), and 1 (95% CI 0.93, 1.07) for kidney, bladder, and prostate cancers, respectively. With regard to the dose analysis, the RR of BMI (per 5 kg/m2 increase) was associated with kidney (RR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.2–1.28), bladder (RR = 1.03, 95% CI 1.02–1.05), and prostate (RR = 1.02, 95% CI 1.01, 1.03) cancers. Conclusions This comprehensive quantitative analysis provides an affirmation that overweight and obesity are strong risk factors for kidney cancer, owing to a strong association between them. Conversely, a weak association between overweight and obesity with bladder and prostate cancers confirms their status as mild risk factors for the 2 types of cancer. But due to the low quality of included SRs, the results need to be interpreted with caution. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019119459

Download Full-text

Traditional Chinese Medicine Injection for Angina Pectoris: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

The American Journal of Chinese Medicine ◽

10.1142/s0192415x14500037 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 42 (01) ◽

pp. 37-59 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Jing Luo ◽

Qinghua Shang ◽

Mei Han ◽

Keji Chen ◽

Hao Xu

Keyword(s):

Chinese Medicine ◽

Angina Pectoris ◽

Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Positive Effects ◽

Potential Benefits

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) injection is widely used to treat angina pectoris in China. This overview aims to systematically summarize the general characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) on TCM injection in treating angina, and assess the methodological and reporting quality of these reviews. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and four Chinese databases from inception until March 2013. Data were extracted according to a preset form. The AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists were used to explore the methodological quality and reporting characteristics of included reviews, respectively. All data analyses were descriptive. 46 SRs involving over 57,463 participants with angina reviewing 23 kinds of TCM injections were included. The main outcomes evaluated in the reviews were symptoms (43/46, 93.5%), surrogate outcomes (42/46, 91.3%) and adverse events (41/46, 87.0%). Few reviews evaluated endpoints (7/46, 15.2%) and quality of life (1/46, 2.2%). One third of the reviews (16/46, 34.8%) drew definitely positive conclusions while the others (30/46, 65.2%) suggested potential benefits mainly in symptoms, electrocardiogram and adverse events. With many serious flaws such as lack of a protocol and inappropriate data synthesis, the overall methodological and reporting quality of the reviews was limited. While many SRs of TCM injection on the treatment of angina suggested potential benefits or definitely positive effects, stakeholders should not accept the findings of these reviews uncritically due to the limited methodological and reporting quality. Future SRs should be appropriately conducted and reported according to international standards such as AMSTAR and PRISMA, rather than published in large numbers.

Download Full-text

Interventions to improve the well-being of family caregivers of patients on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis: a systematic review

PeerJ ◽

10.7717/peerj.11713 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 ◽

pp. e11713

Author(s):

Ana Carolina Hovadick ◽

Viviane Rodrigues Jardim ◽

Constança Paúl ◽

Adriana Pagano ◽

Ilka Reis ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Peritoneal Dialysis ◽

Family Caregivers ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Well Being ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

The Family ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

The Cochrane Library

Background The family caregivers of patients on hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) typically experience higher burden than the general population because of the nature of tasks these caregivers need to carry out as a part of homecare. This fact influences both the caregivers’ quality of life and the quality of their care toward the patient. Thus, this study aimed to review the effectiveness and limitations of interventions in improving the well-being of family caregivers of patients on HD and PD. Methodology A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (version 5.1.0). The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, MEDLINE, VHL Regional Portal, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched queried for randomized controlled trials that developed interventions aimed at improving the well-being of family caregivers of patients undergoing HD and/or PD from 2009 to 2020. The study protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration no. CRD42020151161). Results Six studies met the inclusion criteria, all of which addressed caregivers of patients undergoing HD. All interventions reported in the included studies were carried out in group sessions, which addressed topics such as patient assistance and care, treatment complications, coping strategies, caregiver self-care practices, problem solving, and self-efficacy. The studies found significant improvement in the caregiver’s well-being. Conclusions Group session interventions are effective in improving the well-being of family caregivers of patients undergoing HD. In regard to PD, there is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for caregivers of patients with this treatment.

Download Full-text

Reporting of the methodological quality of search strategies in orthodontic quantitative systematic reviews

European Journal of Orthodontics ◽

10.1093/ejo/cjaa078 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Danah AlMubarak ◽

Nikolaos Pandis ◽

Martyn T Cobourne ◽

Jadbinder Seehra

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Search Strategy ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Search Strategies ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Cochrane Reviews

Summary Background This study aimed to assess the reporting of the methodological quality of search strategies undertaken in orthodontic quantitative systematic reviews (SRs) and hence their reproducibility. Materials and methods A search of a single electronic database (Medline via PubMed) was undertaken to identify interventional orthodontic SRs with meta-analysis published within a 10-year period. The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews was also sourced. Full articles were reviewed by two assessors against the eligibility criteria. The reporting quality of each search strategy was assessed using a previously validated checklist with a score of 1 or 2 given for each of the eight items. Cumulative totals were calculated. Guided by previous research, the authors agreed the following cut-offs to categorize the overall level of quality: 8–10 (poor), 10–12 (fair), and greater than 13 (good). Results A total of 127 SRs were analysed. The overall median quality score for the reporting of the search strategy was 14 [interquartile range (IQR): 13–15]. Cochrane SRs and those originating in Europe received higher aggregate scores, whereas no difference was evident based on Prospero registration. The continent of the corresponding author predicated the overall score. Non-Cochrane reviews achieved lower overall scores compared to Cochrane reviews (−1.0, 95% confidence interval: −1.65, −0.34, P = 0.003). The most frequently searched database was EMBASE (N = 93) and the median number of authors was 5 (IQR 4–6). Authors of 26.8% of SRs searched the grey literature. Language restrictions were applied to the search strategies of 88 (69.3%) SRs. Conclusions The reporting quality of search strategies undertaken in orthodontic SRs is at a good level but differences between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews currently exist. The reporting of searching of the grey literature and application of no language restrictions can be improved.

Download Full-text