scholarly journals Reporting quality in abstracts of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (11) ◽  
pp. e012867 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle B Rice ◽  
Lorie A Kloda ◽  
Ian Shrier ◽  
Brett D Thombs
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Depression Screening ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals (Protocol) Preferred Reporting Items for Resistance Exercise Studies (PRIRES): An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews, Guidelines, and Position Stands for Item Extraction

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ting-Yu Lin ◽  
Ting-Yu Chueh ◽  
Tsung-Min Hung
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Exercise ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Letters To The Editor ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Sports Science ◽  
Animal Research Ethics ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract BackgroundThe issues of replication and scientific transparency have been raised in exercise and sports science research. A potential means to address the replication crisis and enhance research reliability is to improve reporting quality and transparency. This study aims to formulate a reporting checklist as a supplement to the existing reporting guidelines, specifically for resistance exercise studies.MethodsSystematic reviews/meta-analyses, guidelines, and position stands related to resistance exercise since inception will be searched in PubMed and Scopus. Only studies published in English will be included. Two authors will independently screen titles/abstracts and then full-text articles against the inclusion criteria. Basic data will be extracted by the same two authors independently. The same two authors will independently extract items from systematic reviews, guidelines, and position stands that could potentially influence training efficiency, physiological/psychological functions, other health-related variables, or replication. Summaries of the findings and items extracted from the included systematic reviews/meta-analyses and included position stands or guidelines will be presented as tables. Using items adapted from the existing checklist Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT), a preferred reporting checklist for resistance exercise studies will be formulated. The protocol for this study was developed according to the reporting checklist for umbrella reviews published by Onishi and Furukawa in 2016.DiscussionThe proposed study is expected to build a reporting checklist with a high level of evidence, which can improve the reporting quality of future resistance exercise studies.Ethics and disseminationApproval from a human/animal research ethics committee is not required. The findings of the proposed study will be disseminated through conference presentations, our lab’s website in plain language, and, if possible, letters to the editor in peer-reviewed journals related to sport and exercise science.RegistrationThis study is registered with the EQUATOR Network under the title “Preferred Reporting Items for Resistance Exercise Studies (PRIRES).” PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021235259.

scholarly journals An Overview of Meta-Analyses of Danhong Injection for Unstable Angina

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoxia Zhang ◽  
Hui Wang ◽  
Yanxu Chang ◽  
Yuefei Wang ◽  
Xiang Lei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Unstable Angina ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conventional Medicine ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Danhong Injection ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective. To systematically collect evidence and evaluate the effects of Danhong injection (DHI) for unstable angina (UA).Methods. A comprehensive search was conducted in seven electronic databases up to January 2015. The methodological and reporting quality of included studies was assessed by using AMSTAR and PRISMA.Result. Five articles were included. The conclusions suggest that DHI plus conventional medicine treatment was effective for UA pectoris treatment, could alleviate symptoms of angina and ameliorate electrocardiograms. Flaws of the original studies and systematic reviews weaken the strength of evidence. Limitations of the methodology quality include performing an incomprehensive literature search, lacking detailed characteristics, ignoring clinical heterogeneity, and not assessing publication bias and other forms of bias. The flaws of reporting systematic reviews included the following: not providing a structured summary, no standardized search strategy. For the pooled findings, researchers took statistical heterogeneity into consideration, but clinical and methodology heterogeneity were ignored.Conclusion. DHI plus conventional medicine treatment generally appears to be effective for UA treatment. However, the evidence is not hard enough due to methodological flaws in original clinical trials and systematic reviews. Furthermore, rigorous designed randomized controlled trials are also needed. The methodology and reporting quality of systematic reviews should be improved.

scholarly journals Quality of the Evidence Supporting the Role of Acupuncture for Stable Angina Pectoris: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min Shen ◽  
Jinke Huang ◽  
Tao Qiu
Keyword(s):  
Angina Pectoris ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Stable Angina ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Stable Angina Pectoris ◽  
Quality Reporting ◽  
Evidence Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: To systematically appraise and synthesize evidence, we conducted an overview of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on acupuncture for stable angina pectoris (SAP).Methods: Eight databases were searched for SRs/MAs of acupuncture on SAP. The methodological quality, reporting quality, and evidence quality were evaluated by Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system, respectively.Results: A total of seven published SRs/MAs met the inclusion criteria. According to the evaluation results of AMSTAR-2, two studies were considered as of moderate quality; the remaining five were considered as of very low quality. According to the evaluation results of the PRISMA checklist, only one study reported the checklist in its entirety, while others had reporting deficiencies. According to GRADE, a total of 18 outcome indicators extracted from the included studies were evaluated. The evidence quality was very low in three, low in three, moderate in eight, and high in four.Conclusion: Acupuncture may be beneficial for SAP from the currently published evidence. However, this conclusion must be interpreted cautiously due to the generally low methodological quality, reporting quality, and evidence quality of the included studies. More rigorous, more standardized and comprehensive SRs/MAs are needed to provide strong evidence for convincing conclusions.

scholarly journals Survey of the Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation

2013 ◽  
Vol 93 (11) ◽  
pp. 1456-1466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Gianola ◽  
Monica Gasparini ◽  
Michela Agostini ◽  
Greta Castellini ◽  
Davide Corbetta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Functional Limitations ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Item Data ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly important for informing clinical practice; however, little is known about the reporting characteristics and the quality of the SRs relevant to the practice of rehabilitation health professionals. Objective The purpose of this study was to examine the reporting quality of a representative sample of published SRs on rehabilitation, focusing on the descriptive, reporting, and bias-related characteristics. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted by searching MEDLINE for aggregative and configurative SRs indexed in 2011 that focused on rehabilitation as restorative of functional limitations. Two reviewers independently screened and selected the SRs and extracted data using a 38-item data collection form derived from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The data were analyzed descriptively. Results Eighty-eight SRs published in 59 journals were sampled. The median compliance with the PRISMA items was 17 (63%) out of 27 items (interquartile ratio=13–22 [48%–82%]). Two thirds of the SRs (n=66) focused on interventions for which efficacy is best addressed through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, and almost all of these SRs included RCTs (63/66 [95%]). More than two thirds of the SRs assessed the quality of primary studies (74/88 [84%]). Twenty-eight reviews (28/88 [32%]) meta-analyzed the results for at least one outcome. One half of the SRs reported positive statistically significant findings (46%), whereas a detrimental result was present only in one review. Conclusions This sample of SRs in the rehabilitation field showed heterogeneous characteristics and a moderate quality of reporting. Poor control of potential source of bias might be improved if more widely agreed-upon evidence-based reporting guidelines will be actively endorsed and adhered to by authors and journals.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Covering Treatments for Achilles Tendon Ruptures

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 247301142110006
Author(s):  
Marvin Carr ◽  
David Dye ◽  
Wade Arthur ◽  
Ryan Ottwell ◽  
Byron Detweiler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Achilles Tendon ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Tendon Repair ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Approximately 18 in every 100 000 people have experienced a ruptured Achilles tendon. Despite the prevalence of this condition, treatment options remain contested. Hypothesis/purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of spin—reporting practices that may exaggerate benefit or minimize harm—in abstracts of systematic reviews related to Achilles tendon repair. We also evaluated whether particular study characteristics were associated with spin. Study design: Cross-sectional. Methods: We developed a search strategy for Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase for systematic reviews focused on Achilles tendon treatment. Following title and abstract screening of these search returns, these reviews were evaluated for spin (according to a previously developed classification scheme) and received AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews–2) appraisals by 2 investigators in a masked, duplicate manner. Study characteristics for each review were also extracted in duplicate. Results: Our systematic search returned 251 articles of which 43 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were eligible for data extraction. We found that 65.1% of included studies contained spin (28/43). Spin type 3 was the most common type, occurring in 53.5% (23/43) of abstracts. Spin types 5, 6, 1, and 4 occurred in 16.3% (7/43), 9.3% (4/43), 7% (3/43), and 5.3% (1/43), respectively. Spin types 2, 7, 8, and 9 did not occur. AMSTAR-2 appraised 32.6% (14/43) of the studies as “moderate” quality, 32.6% (14/43) as “low” quality, and 34.9% (15/43) as “critically low” quality. No systematic reviews were rated as “high” quality. There was no significant association between the presence of spin and the following study characteristics: intervention type, article discussing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) adherence, journal recommending PRISMA adherence, funding sources, journal 5-year impact factor, year the review was received for publication, or AMSTAR-2 critical appraisals. Conclusion: Spin was present in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses—covering Achilles tendon tear treatment. Steps should be taken to improve the reporting quality of abstracts on Achilles tendon treatment as well as other common orthopedic conditions. Clinical relevance: In order to avoid negative patient outcomes, articles should be free of spin within the abstract.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document