scholarly journals Adherence to the PRISMA statement and risk of bias assessment in Systematic Reviews in rehabilitation journals: a protocol for a meta-research study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiziano Innocenti ◽  
Daniel Feller ◽  
Silvia Giagio ◽  
Stefano Salvioli ◽  
Silvia Minnucci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Random Sample ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Graphical Representation ◽  
Journal Citation Report ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Journal Ranking ◽  
Publication Date ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Prisma Statement

ABSTRACTObjectiveThe aim of this study will be to assess the adherence to the reporting quality standards set forth in the PRISMA Statement checklist of a random sample of systematic reviews (SRs) published in rehabilitation journals, and to assess the association between this adherence and the risk of bias of these SRs.Methods and AnalysisA cross-sectional analysis is planned on a random sample of 200 SRs published between 2011and 2020 in the 68 journals indexed under “rehabilitation” category in InCites Journal Citation Report.Randomization will be stratified by publication date and journal ranking (quartile range; Q1-2 and Q3-4) to include an equal number of studies from 2011 to 2015 (Q1-Q2=50 and Q3-Q4=50) and from 2016 to 2020 (Q1-Q2=50 and Q3-Q4=50). SRs (with or without meta-analysis) published between 2011 and 2020 as full-text scientific articles in the 68 rehabilitation journals will be included. Narrative reviews, mixed-methods reviews, meta-ethnography reviews, umbrella reviews, scoping reviews, editorials, letters and news reports will be excluded. The primary analysis will address the completeness of the reporting for each study and the relationship between PRISMA adherence and risk of bias. This will be a descriptive analysis through descriptive statistics and graphical representation.Ethics and DisseminationSeveral studies have shown the positive influence of reporting guidelines on the completeness of research reporting but no one investigated the use and the appropriateness of reporting guidelines in physical therapy research. Therefore, this study will add relevant knowledge that may contribute to improve further the reporting of rehabilitation research. The results of this research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at relevant (inter)national scientific events.

scholarly journals Adherence to the CONSORT statement and risk of bias assessment in Randomized Controlled Trials in rehabilitation journals: a protocol for a meta-research study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiziano Innocenti ◽  
Silvia Giagio ◽  
Stefano Salvioli ◽  
Daniel Feller ◽  
Silvia Minnucci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Journal Citation Report ◽  
Consort Statement ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Publication Date ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Consort Statement

ABSTRACTObjectiveThe aim of this study will be to assess the adherence to the reporting quality standards set forth in the CONSORT Statement checklist of a random sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in rehabilitation journals, and to assess the association between this adherence and the risk of bias of these RCTs.Methods and AnalysisA cross-sectional analysis is planned on a random sample of 200 RCTs published between 2011and 2020 in the 68 journals indexed under “rehabilitation” category in InCites Journal Citation Report.Randomization will be stratified by publication date and journal ranking (quartile range; Q1-2 and Q3-4) to include an equal number of studies from 2011 to 2015 (Q1-Q2=50 and Q3-Q4=50) and from 2016 to 2020 (Q1-Q2=50 and Q3-Q4=50). RCT with parallel group design will be included. Observational or cohort studies, interim analyses, economic analyses of RCTs, RCT protocols, quasi-experimental design post-trial follow-up studies, subgroup and secondary analyses of previously reported RCTs, RCT with cross-over design, pilot feasibility RCTs, n-of-1 trials, cluster trials, editorials, letters and news reports will be excluded. The primary analysis will address the completeness of the reporting for each study and the relationship between CONSORT adherence and risk of bias. This will be a descriptive analysis through descriptive statistics and graphical representation.Ethics and DisseminationSeveral studies have shown the positive influence of reporting guidelines on the completeness of research reporting but no one investigated the use and the appropriateness of reporting guidelines in physical therapy research. Therefore, this study will add relevant knowledge that may contribute to improve further the reporting of rehabilitation research. The results of this research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at relevant (inter)national scientific events.

scholarly journals Risk of bias tools in systematic reviews of health interventions: an analysis of PROSPERO-registered protocols

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly Farrah ◽  
Kelsey Young ◽  
Matthew C. Tunis ◽  
Linlu Zhao
Keyword(s):  
Random Sample ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Keyword Search ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Tool Selection ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale ◽  
Education And Awareness

Abstract Background Systematic reviews of health interventions are increasingly incorporating evidence outside of randomized controlled trials (RCT). While non-randomized study (NRS) types may be more prone to bias compared to RCT, the tools used to evaluate risk of bias (RoB) in NRS are less straightforward and no gold standard tool exists. The objective of this study was to evaluate the planned use of RoB tools in systematic reviews of health interventions, specifically for reviews that planned to incorporate evidence from RCT and/or NRS. Methods We evaluated a random sample of non-Cochrane protocols for systematic reviews of interventions registered in PROSPERO between January 1 and October 12, 2018. For each protocol, we extracted data on the types of studies to be included (RCT and/or NRS) as well as the name and number of RoB tools planned to be used according to study design. We then conducted a longitudinal analysis of the most commonly reported tools in the random sample. Using keywords and name variants for each tool, we searched PROSPERO records by year since the inception of the database (2011 to December 7, 2018), restricting the keyword search to the “Risk of bias (quality) assessment” field. Results In total, 471 randomly sampled PROSPERO protocols from 2018 were included in the analysis. About two-thirds (63%) of these planned to include NRS, while 37% restricted study design to RCT or quasi-RCT. Over half of the protocols that planned to include NRS listed only a single RoB tool, most frequently the Cochrane RoB Tool. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and ROBINS-I were the most commonly reported tools for NRS (39% and 33% respectively) for systematic reviews that planned to use multiple RoB tools. Looking at trends over time, the planned use of the Cochrane RoB Tool and ROBINS-I seems to be increasing. Conclusions While RoB tool selection for RCT was consistent, with the Cochrane RoB Tool being the most frequently reported in PROSPERO protocols, RoB tools for NRS varied widely. Results suggest a need for more education and awareness on the appropriate use of RoB tools for NRS. Given the heterogeneity of study designs comprising NRS, multiple RoB tools tailored to specific designs may be required.

scholarly journals A new method for testing reproducibility in systematic reviews was developed, but needs more testing

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawid Pieper ◽  
Simone Heß ◽  
Clovis Mariano Faggion
Keyword(s):  
Random Sample ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
New Method ◽  
Literature Searches ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
The Future ◽  
Number Of Citations

Abstract Background To develop and test an approach to test reproducibility of SRs. Methods Case study. We have developed an approach to test reproducibility retrospectively while focusing on the whole conduct of an SR instead of single steps of it. We replicated the literature searches and drew a 25% random sample followed by study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias (ROB) assessments performed by two reviewers independently. These results were compared narratively with the original review. Results We were not able to fully reproduce the original search resulting in minor differences in the number of citations retrieved. The biggest disagreements were found in study selection. The most difficult section to be reproduced was the RoB assessment due to the lack of reporting clear criteria to support the judgement of RoB ratings, although agreement was still found to be satisfactory. Conclusion Our approach as well as other approaches needs to undergo testing and comparison in the future as the area of testing for reproducibility of SRs is still in its infancy.

scholarly journals Education and training to support physiotherapists working in dementia care: a scoping review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 27
Author(s):  
Trish O'Sullivan ◽  
Tony Foley ◽  
Joseph G. McVeigh ◽  
Suzanne Timmons
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Education And Training ◽  
Dementia Care ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Publication Date ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction Tool ◽  
And Training

Background: The care of people with dementia is of global concern. Physiotherapeutic intervention can be of benefit to patients with dementia. Physiotherapists can play a role in assessment, falls prevention, pain management and gait re-education. Dementia care forms a significant part of the workload of a physiotherapist. However, there is a paucity of evidence on what constitutes effective education and training for physiotherapists working in dementia care. Objective: This scoping review aims to explore and map the evidence on education and training for physiotherapists working in dementia care. Inclusion criteria: Studies that explore dementia training and/or education for physiotherapists or for multidisciplinary teams, in which physiotherapists have been included. Studies that explore student physiotherapy training will also be considered. Systematic reviews, qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods studies, case studies and observational studies will be included. Methods: This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. Databases to be searched as part of this review include: Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, SocINDEX, CINAHL and, PsycINFO, with no limitation on publication date. Google Scholar and Open-Grey will be searched for grey literature, limited to the first 100 searches.  Titles and abstracts will be screened for inclusion and identified full texts reviewed independently by two reviewers. Data will be extracted using a draft data extraction tool based on the JBI data extraction tool. A chronological narrative synthesis of the data will outline how the results relate to the aims and objective of this scoping review.

scholarly journals Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew James Page ◽  
Joanne McKenzie ◽  
Patrick Bossuyt ◽  
Isabelle Boutron ◽  
Tammy Hoffmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, published in 2009, aimed to help systematic reviewers prepare a transparent report of their review. Advances in systematic review methodology and terminology over the last decade necessitated an update to the guideline. A detailed description of the updating process may provide a useful roadmap for others embarking on a similar initiative.Objectives: To (i) describe the processes used to update the PRISMA 2009 statement for reporting systematic reviews, (ii) present results of a survey conducted to inform the update, (iii) summarise decisions made at the PRISMA update meeting, and (iv) describe and justify changes made to the guideline.Methods: We reviewed 60 documents with reporting guidance for systematic reviews to generate suggested modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement. We invited 220 systematic review methodologists and journal editors to complete a survey about the suggested modifications. The results of these projects were discussed at a 21-member in-person meeting. Following the meeting, we drafted the PRISMA 2020 statement and refined it based on feedback from co-authors and a convenience sample of 15 systematic reviewers. Results: The review of 60 documents with reporting guidance for systematic reviews resulted in a bank of 221 unique reporting items and revealed that all topics addressed by the PRISMA 2009 statement could be modified or supplemented with additional guidance. Of the 110 respondents to the survey, more than 66% recommended keeping six of the 27 PRISMA 2009 checklist items as they were and modifying 15 of the checklist items using wording suggested by us; there was no consensus on what to do with the remaining six items. Attendees at the in-person meeting supported the revised wording for several items but suggested rewording for most items to enhance clarity, and further refinements were made over six drafts of the guideline. Conclusions: The PRISMA 2020 statement consists of updated reporting guidance for systematic reviews and reflects advances over the last decade in methods to identify, select, appraise and synthesise studies. We hope that providing this detailed description of the development process will enhance the acceptance and uptake of the guideline and assist those developing and updating future reporting guidelines.

scholarly journals Characteristics of systematic reviews published in dentistry by Brazilian corresponding authors

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 69
Author(s):  
Rafael Sarkis-Onofre ◽  
Tatiana Pereira-Cenci ◽  
Rafaela Bassani ◽  
Matthew J. Page ◽  
Andrea C. Tricco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Oral Surgery ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Screening Method ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Trial Registry ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Grade Assessment ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the reporting and conduct characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) published in dentistry by Brazilian corresponding authors and compare reporting characteristics of Brazilian SRs with the rest of the world. METHODS: A search in PubMed was performed to identify SRs published in dentistry in 2017 assessing different aspects of oral heath irrespective of the design of included studies. From this dataset, a subgroup analysis was performed considering only SRs published by Brazilian corresponding authors. Study screening was performed by two researchers independently, while for data extraction, one of three reviewers extracted details related to reporting and conduct of SRs. The completeness of reporting of 24 characteristics, included in the PRISMA Statement of the SRs classified as treatment/therapeutic, was evaluated comparing Brazilian SR to SRs from all other countries. RESULTS: We included 117 SRs with Brazilian corresponding authors. The majority focused on dental treatments (39.3%), with oral surgery (n=19, 16.2%) as the most commonly published. Included SRs presented varying reporting/conduct characteristics. Items such as use of reporting guidelines and screening method used were well reported. However, most SRs did not assess the risk of publication bias and did not use the GRADE assessment. Four (of 24) reporting characteristics of Brazilian SRs compared to SRs from the rest of world were reported statistically significantly more frequently: mention of a SR protocol, trial registry searched, screening method reported, and assessment of risk of bias/quality of studies. CONCLUSION: Reporting and conduct characteristics of Brazilian SRs are highly variable. 

A Critical Overview of Systematic Reviews of Chemotherapy for Advanced and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer using both AMSTAR2 and ROBIS as Quality Assessment Tools

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amit Dang ◽  
Surendar Chidirala ◽  
Prashanth Veeranki ◽  
BN Vallish
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Critical Overview

Background: We performed a critical overview of published systematic reviews (SRs) of chemotherapy for advanced and locally advanced pancreatic cancer, and evaluated their quality using AMSTAR2 and ROBIS tools. Materials and Methods: PubMed and Cochrane Central Library were searched for SRs on 13th June 2020. SRs with metaanalysis which included only randomized controlled trials and that had assessed chemotherapy as one of the treatment arms were included. The outcome measures, which were looked into, were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) of grade 3 or above. Two reviewers independently assessed all the SRs with both ROBIS and AMSTAR2. Results: Out of the 1,879 identified records, 26 SRs were included for the overview. Most SRs had concluded that gemcitabine-based combination regimes, prolonged OS and PFS, but increased the incidence of grade 3-4 toxicities, when compared to gemcitabine monotherapy, but survival benefits were not consistent when gemcitabine was combined with molecular targeted agents. As per ROBIS, 24/26 SRs had high risk of bias, with only 1/26 SR having low risk of bias. As per AMSTAR2, 25/26 SRs had critically low, and 1/26 SR had low, confidence in the results. The study which scored ‘low’ risk of bias in ROBIS scored ‘low confidence in results’ in AMSTAR2. The inter-rater reliability for scoring the overall confidence in the SRs with AMSTAR2 and the overall domain in ROBIS was substantial; ROBIS: kappa=0.785, SEM=0.207, p<0.001; AMSTAR2: kappa=0.649, SEM=0.323, p<0.001. Conclusion: Gemcitabine-based combination regimens can prolong OS and PFS but also worsen AEs when compared to gemcitabine monotherapy. The included SRs have an overall low methodological quality and high risk of bias as per AMSTAR2 and ROBIS respectively.

Remotely Delivered Monitoring and Management of Diabetes-Related Foot Disease: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2021 ◽  
pp. 193229682110124
Author(s):  
Aaron Drovandi ◽  
Shannon Wong ◽  
Leonard Seng ◽  
Benjamin Crowley ◽  
Chanika Alahakoon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Limb Amputation ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Or Management ◽  
Foot Disease ◽  
Poor Reporting

Background: Diabetes-related foot disease (DFD) management requires input from multiple healthcare professionals, and has worse outcomes for people living in remote localities by comparison to urban areas. Remotely delivered healthcare may reduce this disparity. This overview summarizes current evidence on the effectiveness, stakeholder perceptions, and cost-effectiveness of remotely delivered healthcare for DFD. Methods: A search of 5 databases was conducted to identify systematic reviews published between January 2000 and June 2020. Eligible reviews were those evaluating remotely delivered monitoring or management of patients at risk of or with active DFD, or clinicians managing these patients. Risk of bias was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Results: Eight reviews were eligible for inclusion, including 88 primary studies and 8509 participants, of which 36 studies involving 4357 participants evaluated remotely delivered monitoring or management of DFD. Only one review had a low risk of bias, with most reviews demonstrating limited search strategies and poor reporting of participants. Evidence on effectiveness was mixed, with meta-analyses demonstrating long-term ulcer healing and mortality were not significantly different between telehealth and standard care groups, although the lower-limb amputation rate was significantly decreased in one meta-analysis. Perceptions of telehealth by patients and clinicians were generally positive, whilst acknowledging limitations relating to access and use. Cost-effectiveness data were limited, with poor reporting preventing clear conclusions. Conclusions: Remotely delivered healthcare of DFD is well received by patients and clinicians, but its effectiveness is unclear. High quality trials are needed to evaluate the risks and benefits of remotely delivered DFD management.

scholarly journals Heart rate variability as a strain indicator for psychological stress for emergency physicians during work and alert intervention: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Beatrice Thielmann ◽  
Robert Pohl ◽  
Irina Böckelmann
Keyword(s):  
Heart Rate ◽  
Heart Rate Variability ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Emergency Physicians ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Objective Monitoring ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Health Studies

Abstract Background The workloads of emergency physicians are severe. The prevalence of burnout among emergency physicians is higher than with other physicians or compared to the general population. The analysis of heart rate variability (HRV) is a valid method for objective monitoring of workload. The aim of this paper is to systematically evaluate the literature on heart rate variability as an objective indicator for mental stress of emergency physicians. Methods A systematic literature review examining heart rate variability of emergency physicians in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement for reporting systematic reviews was performed. PubMed, Ovid, Cochrane Libary, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases were used. The methodological quality was evaluated by using a modified STARD for HRV. Results Two studies matched the inclusion criteria by using HRV between alert intervention and two other studies were considered that used HRV in other question areas. It showed an adaptation of HRV under stress. The studies were not comparable. Conclusions There is a need for occupational health studies that examine strains and stress of emergency physicians. The well-established parasympathetic mediated HRV parameters seem to be suitable parameters to objectify the stress.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document