Treating schizophrenia: the quality of evidence behind treatment recommendations and how it can improve

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 138-142
Author(s):  
Greg Aran ◽  
Chandler Hicks ◽  
Alexander Demand ◽  
Austin L Johnson ◽  
Jason Beaman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Treatment Recommendations ◽  
Post Hoc Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Post Hoc

ObjectiveTo assess the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews that comprise the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Schizophrenia and to determine the extent to which results from Cochrane systematic reviews published after guideline development would alter or confirm current recommendations.ParticipantsSystematic reviews that underpinned recommendations in the APA guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews.Main outcomeThree independent reviewers scored all systematic reviews referenced in the guideline for quality and reporting using AMSTAR and PRISMA checklist, respectively. Items in both tools were individually graded and compared to identify consistently low-performing areas within the systematic reviews. Post hoc analysis of the Cochrane systematic reviews since the latest revision of APA’s guidelines were performed to determine whether their findings were congruent with recent recommendations.ResultsThe mean score of the 57 reviews on the PRISMA checklist was 70%. The mean AMSTAR score was 6.8, correlating with a moderate quality score. Post hoc analysis revealed that 171 Cochrane reviews had been published since the APA guideline release. Only half of the reviews of pharmacological interventions confirmed current recommendations.Conclusions and relevanceThe methodological quality of the systematic reviews included in the APA guideline was deficient in key areas. Our study brings to light the importance of using high-quality evidence in the development of clinical practice guidelines. An updated APA guideline (last updated in 2009) is necessary to provide the highest quality treatment recommendations for clinicians in the management of schizophrenia.Trial registration numberUMIN-CTR, UMIN000023099.

scholarly journals A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics

2012 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Padhraig S. Fleming ◽  
Jadbinder Seehra ◽  
Argy Polychronopoulou ◽  
Zbys Fedorowicz ◽  
Nikolaos Pandis
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Univariable Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Percentage Score ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Number Of Authors

AbstractObjectives:To assess the reporting quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SR) in orthodontics and to compare the reporting quality (PRISMA score) with methodological quality (AMSTAR criteria).Materials and Methods:Systematic reviews (n  =  109) published between January 2000 and July 2011 in five leading orthodontic journals were identified and included. The quality of reporting of the included reviews was assessed by two authors in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Each article was assigned a cumulative grade based on fulfillment of the applicable criteria, and an overall percentage score was assigned. Descriptive statistics and simple and multiple linear regression analyses were undertaken.Results:The mean overall PRISMA score was 64.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%–65%). The quality of reporting was considerably better in reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (P < .001) than in non-Cochrane reviews. Both multivariable and univariable analysis indicated that journal of publication and number of authors was significantly associated with the PRISMA score. The association between AMSTAR score and modified PRISMA score was also found to be highly statistically significant.Conclusion:Compliance of orthodontic SRs published in orthodontic journals with PRISMA guidelines was deficient in several areas. The quality of reporting assessed using PRISMA guidelines was significantly better in orthodontic SRs published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

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

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.

scholarly journals Inconsistencies are common between non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their protocols registered in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) but were seldom explained

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaiyan Hu ◽  
Ting Zhang ◽  
Weiyi Zhang ◽  
Qi Zhou ◽  
Mengyao Jiang New ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Fundamental Solutions ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Or Methodology ◽  
Retrospective Comparative Study ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Protocols of systematic reviews allow for planning and documentation of review methods and thus improve the transparency of the reviews process. However, pre-registration of a protocol is not enough, the author also need to follow it. PROSPERO is an open-access online database for the registration of non-Cochrane systematic reviews. The purpose of this study is to compare published non-Cochrane reviews with their pre-registered protocols on PROSPERO to determine what changes, if any, have been made, and how likely these changes are to impact the quality of systematic review. Methods: This is a retrospective comparative study. We searched for protocols on PROSPERO platform that were registered in 2018 and then selected the protocols that full text have been published as of January 1st 2019. Published full texts were identified through the protocol's final publication citation. Two authors independently compared and identified changes between protocols and systematic reviews and then evaluated the impact (improve, reduce, or unclear) of these changes on the reporting or methodology quality of reviews. Descriptive statistics of percentage (%) and frequency (n) were conducted. Results: We identified 39 pairs, all of which exhibited changes. “Search strategy”(92%, n=36), “data extraction”(90%, n=35), “data synthesis”(77%, n=30), “outcome”(64%, n=24), and “subgroup analysis”(64%, n=24) all showed significant changes. All changes to only one review were considered to improve the reporting or methodology quality, and the remaining 97% of reviews (n=38) contained changes that were considered to reduce the methodology or reporting quality or that had an unclear impact on systematic reviews. Conclusions: Changes between the non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their protocols recorded on PROSPERO were widespread. Some of the changes reduced the methodology or reporting quality of systematic reviews or had an unclear impact. Measures should be taken to further improve the transparency of the non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Adding a new item in updated “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) and “Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology” (MOOSE) to guide reporting and explaining the changes, as well as advising peer reviewers (and editors) to check the reviews against the protocols are two suggested fundamental solutions.

scholarly journals Inconsistencies are common between non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their protocols registered in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) but were seldom explained

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaiyan Hu ◽  
Ting Zhang ◽  
Weiyi Zhang ◽  
Qi Zhou ◽  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Fundamental Solutions ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Retrospective Comparative Study ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Protocols of systematic reviews allow for planning and documentation of review methods, and thus improve the transparency of reviews process. However, pre-registered a protocol is not enough, the author also need to follow it. PROSPERO is an open-access online facility for the registration of non-Cochrane systematic reviews. The purpose of our research is to determined what changed were made between non-Cochrane reviews and their protocols in PROSPERO and how likely these changes impacted the quality of systematic review. Method: In this retrospective comparative study we electronically searched for protocols and their corresponding systematic reviews in the PROSPERO platform that were “completed and published” from January to December, 2018. Two reviewers independently identified and classified changes between the protocols and systematic reviews then evaluated the impact (improve/reduce/unclear)of these change on the reporting/methodology quality of reviews. Frequency (n), percentage (%) were used to analyze the number of changes categorically in each review and the distribution of different impact caused by these changes. Results: We identified 39 pre-registered protocols and their reviews, all of which exhibited alterations. All changes to only one review are considered to improve the reporting/methodology quality, and remaining 97% of reviews (n=38) contain changes that are categorically considered to reduce the methodology/reporting quality or that have an unclear impact on reviews. Conclusions: Differences between the non-Cochrane reviews and their protocols recorded in PROSPERO are widespread, and there have been many changes having an unclear impact on the quality of reviews. Guiding the author to report and explain the differences between protocol and reviews or even requiring authors to so at the level of journal are two fundamental solutions to further improve the transparency of the non-Cochrane reviews.

scholarly journals The methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews is low, except for Cochrane reviews: a meta-epidemiological study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuki KATAOKA ◽  
Shiho Oide ◽  
Takashi Ariie ◽  
Yasushi Tsujimoto ◽  
Toshi A. Furukawa
Keyword(s):  
Epidemiological Study ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
The Mean

Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate the methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews (SRs) indexed in medRxiv and PubMed, compared with Cochrane COVID Reviews. Study Design and Setting: This is a cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study. We searched medRxiv, PubMed, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for SRs of COVID-19. We evaluated the methodological quality using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklists. The maximum AMSTAR score is 11, and minimum is 0. Higher score means better quality. Results: We included 9 Cochrane reviews as well as randomly selected 100 non-Cochrane reviews in medRxiv and PubMed. Compared with Cochrane reviews (mean 9.33, standard deviation 1.32), the mean AMSTAR scores of the articles in medRxiv were lower (mean difference -2.85, 95%confidence intervals (CI): -0.96 to -4.74) and those in PubMed was also lower (mean difference -3.28, 95% CI: -1.40 to -5.15), with no difference between the latter two. Conclusions: It should be noted that AMSTAR is not a perfect tool of assessing quality SRs other than intervention. Readers should pay attention to the potentially low methodological quality of COVID-19 SRs in both PubMed and medRxiv but less so in Cochrane COVID reviews.

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

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.

scholarly journals Psychological resilience during COVID-19: a meta-review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e051417
Author(s):  
Katie Seaborn ◽  
Mark Chignell ◽  
Jacek Gwizdka
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Psychological Resilience ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Meta Review ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Protocol

IntroductionThe global COVID-19 pandemic continues to have wide-ranging implications for health, including psychological well-being. A growing corpus of research reviews has emerged on the topic of psychological resilience in the context of the pandemic. However, this body of work has not been systematically reviewed for its quality, nor with respect to findings on the effectiveness of tools and strategies for psychological resilience. To this end, a meta-review protocol is proposed with the following objectives: (1) identify review work on the topic of psychological resilience during COVID-19; (2) assess the quality of this review work using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; (3) assess the risk of bias in this work; (4) generate a narrative summary of the key points, strengths and weaknesses; (5) identify the psychological resilience strategies that have been reviewed; (6) identify how these strategies have been evaluated for their effectiveness; (7) identify what outcomes were measured and (8) summarise the findings on strategies for psychological resilience so far, providing recommendations, if possible.Methods and analysisA systematic meta-review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews for Protocols and Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review guidelines. Electronic searches of general databases, especially Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed, will be conducted. Only results from January 2020 onwards will be considered, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. Only results in English will be included. Descriptive statistics, thematic analysis and narrative summaries describing the nature of the reviewed work and evaluation of psychological resilience strategies will be carried out.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not needed for systematic review protocols. The results of the meta-review will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. The raw and summarised data will be shared in the journal or other open venues.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021235288.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document