Redundant systematic reviews on the same topic in surgery: a study protocol for a meta-epidemiological investigation

IntroductionWe are witnessing an explosive increase in redundant and overlapping publications of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on the same topic, which often present conflicting results and interpretations, in the current medical literature. They represent wasted efforts on the part of investigators and peer reviewers and may confuse and possibly mislead clinicians and policymakers. Here, we present a protocol for a meta-epidemiological investigation to describe how often there are overlapping SRs/MAs on the same topic, to assess the quality of these multiple publications, and to investigate the causes of discrepant results between multiple SRs/MAs in the field of major surgery.Methods and analysisWe will use MEDLINE/PubMed to identify all SRs/MAs of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2015 regarding major surgical interventions. After identifying the ‘benchmark’ SRs/MAs published in 2015, a process of screening in MEDLINE will be carried out to identify the previous SRs/MAs of RCTs on the same topic that were published within 5 years of the ‘benchmark’ SRs/MAs. We will tabulate the number of previous SRs/MAs on the same topic of RCTs, and then describe their variations in numbers of RCTs included, sample sizes, effect size estimates and other characteristics. We will also assess the differences in quality of each SR/MA using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) score. Finally, we will investigate the potential reasons to explain the discrepant results between multiple SRs/MAs.Ethics and disseminationNo formal ethical approval and informed consent are required because this study will not collect primary individual data. The intended audiences of the findings include clinicians, healthcare researchers and policymakers. We will publish our findings as a scientific report in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberIn PROSPERO CRD42017059077, March 2017.

Download Full-text

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

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051417 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Health outcomes associated with Zika virus infection in humans: a systematic review of systematic reviews

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032275 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (11) ◽

pp. e032275 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Raphael Ximenes ◽

Lauren C Ramsay ◽

Rafael Neves Miranda ◽

Shaun K Morris ◽

Kellie Murphy ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Health Outcomes ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Zika Virus ◽

Policy Decision ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Registration Number ◽

New Research ◽

Meta Analyses

ObjectiveWith the emergence of Zika virus (ZIKV) disease in Central and South America in the mid-2010s and recognition of the teratogenic effects of congenital exposure to ZIKV, there has been a substantial increase in new research published on ZIKV. Our objective is to synthesise the literature on health outcomes associated with ZIKV infection in humans.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review (SR) of SRs following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and LILACS (Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde) databases from inception to 22 July 2019, and included SRs that reported ZIKV-associated health outcomes. Three independent reviewers selected eligible studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of included SRs using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) tool. Conflicts were resolved by consensus or consultation with a third reviewer.ResultsThe search yielded 1382 unique articles, of which 21 SRs met our inclusion criteria. The 21 SRs ranged from descriptive to quantitative data synthesis, including four meta-analyses. The most commonly reported ZIKV-associated manifestations and health outcomes were microcephaly, congenital abnormalities, brain abnormalities, neonatal death and Guillain-Barré syndrome. The included reviews were highly heterogeneous. The overall quality of the SRs was critically low with all studies having more than one critical weakness.ConclusionThe evolving nature of the literature on ZIKV-associated health outcomes, together with the critically low quality of existing SRs, demonstrates the need for high-quality SRs to guide patient care and inform policy decision making.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018091087.

Download Full-text

Does pain influence force steadiness? A protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042525 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

pp. e042525

Author(s):

Michail Arvanitidis ◽

Deborah Falla ◽

Andy Sanderson ◽

Eduardo Martinez-Valdes

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Force Steadiness ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Ethical Approval ◽

Registration Number ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionPerforming contractions with minimum force fluctuations is essential for everyday life as reduced force steadiness impacts on the precision of voluntary movements and functional ability. Several studies have investigated the effect of experimental or clinical musculoskeletal pain on force steadiness but with conflicting findings. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the current literature to determine whether pain, whether it be clinical or experimental, influences force steadiness.Methods and analysisThis protocol for a systematic review was informed and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Key databases will be searched from inception to 31 August 2020, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, ZETOC and Web of Science. Grey literature and key journals will be also reviewed. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa tool, and the quality of the cumulative evidence assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. If homogeneity exists between groups of studies, meta-analysis will be conducted. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis approach and a vote-counting method will be used, while the results will be presented as net increases or decreases of force steadiness.Ethics and disseminationThe findings will be presented at conferences and the review will be also submitted for publication in a refereed journal. No ethical approval was required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020196479

Download Full-text

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

Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine ◽

10.1136/rapm-2021-102981 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of aliskiren combination therapy: a protocol for an umbrella review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043807 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

pp. e043807

Author(s):

Jiantong Shen ◽

Wenming Feng ◽

Yike Wang ◽

Qiyuan Zhao ◽

Billong Laura Flavorta ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Combination Therapy ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Umbrella Review ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Ethical Approval ◽

Registration Number ◽

Third Person ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

The Impact

IntroductionEfficacy of aliskiren combination therapy with other antihypertensive has been evaluated in the treatment of patients with hypertension in recent systematic reviews. However, most previous reviews only focused on one single health outcome or one setting, none of them made a full summary that assessed the impact of aliskiren combination treatment comprehensively. As such, this umbrella review based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses is aimed to synthesise the evidences on efficacy, safety and tolerability of aliskiren-based therapy for hypertension and related comorbid patients.Methods and analysisA comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI published from inception to August 2020 will be conducted. The selected articles are systematic reviews which evaluated efficacy, safety and tolerability of aliskiren combination therapy. Two reviewers will screen eligible articles, extract data and evaluate quality independently. Any disputes will be resolved by discussion or the arbitration of a third person. The quality of reporting evidence will be assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews V.2 tool tool. We will take a mixed-methods approach to synthesising the review literatures, reporting summary of findings tables and iteratively mapping the results.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for the study, as we would only collect data from available published materials. This umbrella review will be also submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication after completion.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020192131.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017868 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 7 (9) ◽

pp. e017868

Author(s):

Joey S.W. Kwong ◽

Sheyu Li ◽

Wan-Jie Gu ◽

Hao Chen ◽

Chao Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Adverse Outcomes ◽

Coronary Revascularisation ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Registration Number ◽

Collection Form ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of perioperative immunonutrition in visceral surgery: an umbrella review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053851 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (9) ◽

pp. e053851

Author(s):

Karem Slim ◽

Flora Badon ◽

Charles-Hervé Vacheron ◽

Chadli Dziri ◽

Thomas Marquillier

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Surgical Site Infections ◽

Visceral Surgery ◽

Hospital Length Of Stay ◽

Bibliographic Databases ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Published Data ◽

Umbrella Review ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionImmunonutrition (IN) is generally used before major visceral surgery with the intent to reduce postoperative complications, especially infectious ones. However, the conclusions of published meta-analyses are conflicting. The purpose of this review is to synthesise the data of published systematic reviews on the effectiveness of IN.Methods and analysisThis protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols guidelines. This is an umbrella review of systematic reviews comparing IN (delivered orally 5–7 days preoperatively) with normal diet or isocaloric isonitrogenous feeding before visceral surgery performed on any of several viscera (colorectum, stomach, pancreas, liver, oesophagus). We search the systematic reviews included in the main bibliographic databases. To assess the efficacy of IN, several outcomes will be considered: the main outcome is infectious complications (surgical site infections, pulmonary infections or urinary infections) and secondary outcomes are overall morbidity, hospital length of stay and mortality. Identified reviews will be screened by two independent assessors. The methodological quality of relevant included reviews will be assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. The data extracted from included reviews will be synthesised using the r-Metafor package considering separate groups according to the viscus of interest. Publication bias will be evaluated, and subgroup analyses will be performed according to the quality of studies and preoperative nutritional status.Ethics and disseminationAn umbrella review based on published data from systematic reviews needs no ethical approval. Furthermore, no patient will be involved in the review. Once terminated, the review will be submitted for publication in an open access journal to ensure wide dissemination of the findings.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021255177.

Download Full-text

Effects of five types of selenium supplementation for treatment of Kashin-Beck disease in children: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017883 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (3) ◽

pp. e017883 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Dongmei Xie ◽

Yulin Liao ◽

Jirong Yue ◽

Chao Zhang ◽

Yanyan Wang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Sodium Selenite ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Selenium Supplementation ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Registration Number ◽

Selenium Supplements ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Beck Disease

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of five kinds of selenium supplementation for the treatment of patients with Kashin-Beck disease, and rank these selenium supplementations based on their performance.DesignWe searched for all publications between 1 January 1966 and 31 March 2017 using seven electronic databases. GRADE system to network meta-analyses (NMAs) was applied to rate the quality of the evidence. We conducted a random effects model NMA in STATA 12.1 to determine comparative effectiveness of each intervention. Rankings were obtained by using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values and mean ranks.ResultsA total of 15 randomised controlled trials involving 2931 patients were included. After assessment of the overall quality of the evidence, we downgraded our primary outcomes from high to low or very low quality. NMAs showed that all five kinds of selenium supplementation had higher metaphysis X-ray improvement which were superior to placebo. Ranking on efficacy indicated that selenium salt was ranked the highest, followed by sodium selenite + vitamin E, selenium enriched yeast, sodium selenite and then sodium selenite + vitamin C.ConclusionsBased on the results of NMA, all five types of selenium supplements are more effective than placebo and so that selenium supplementation is of help in repairing metaphyseal lesions. Since the overall quality of the evidence was low or very low, the SUCRA values may be misleading and should be considered jointly with the The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) confidence in the estimates for each comparison. The quality of the evidence is insufficient to draw a conclusion about what method of selenium supplementation is most effective.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016051874.

Download Full-text

Quality of the Evidence Supporting the Role of Oral Nutritional Supplements in the Management of Malnutrition: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Advances in Nutrition ◽

10.1093/advances/nmaa108 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Christine Baldwin ◽

Rosemary Smith ◽

Michelle Gibbs ◽

C Elizabeth Weekes ◽

Peter W Emery

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Hospital Readmissions ◽

Nutritional Supplement ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

High Quality ◽

Oral Nutritional Supplements ◽

Meta Analyses

ABSTRACT There is considerable heterogeneity across the findings of systematic reviews of oral nutritional supplement (ONS) interventions, presenting difficulties for healthcare decision-makers and patients alike. It is not known whether heterogeneity arises from differences in patient populations or relates to methodological rigor. This overview aimed to collate and compare findings from systematic reviews of ONSs compared with routine care in adult patients who were malnourished or at risk of malnutrition with any clinical condition and to examine their methodological quality. Three electronic databases were searched to July 2019, supplemented with hand-searching. Data on all outcomes were extracted and review methodological quality assessed using A MeaSurement Tool for Assessment of systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Twenty-two reviews were included, 11 in groups from mixed clinical backgrounds and 11 in specific clinical conditions. Ninety-one meta-analyses were identified for 12 different outcomes but there was discordance between results. Significant benefits of ONSs were reported in 4 of 4 analyses of energy intake, 7 of 11 analyses of body weight, 7 of 22 analyses of mortality, 10 of 17 analyses of complications (total and infectious), 1 of 3 analyses of muscle strength, 4 of 9 analyses of body composition/nutritional status, 2 of 14 analyses of length of stay, and 2 of 5 analyses of hospital readmissions. Ten reviews were high quality (AMSTAR scores 8–11), 9 moderate (AMSTAR scores 3–8), and 3 poor (AMSTAR scores 0–3). Methodological deficiencies were limitations to searches, poor reporting of heterogeneity, and failure to incorporate quality of evidence into any recommendations. Discordance between reviews was not markedly reduced when only high-quality reviews were considered. Evidence for the effects of ONS in malnourished patients or those who are at risk of malnutrition is uncertain, and discordance in results can arise from differences in clinical background of patients or the etiological basis of malnutrition.

Download Full-text

QUALITY-ASSESSED REVIEWS OF HEALTH CARE INTERVENTIONS AND THE DATABASE OF ABSTRACTS OF REVIEWS OF EFFECTIVENESS (DARE)

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care ◽

10.1017/s0266462399015469 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 15 (4) ◽

pp. 671-678 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

Mark Petticrew ◽

Fujian Song ◽

Paul Wilson ◽

Kath Wright

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Drug Company ◽

Surgical Interventions ◽

Valuable Source ◽

Health Technologies ◽

Health Care Interventions ◽

Online Resource ◽

Meta Analyses

Objectives: Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) (http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/) at the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination provides a unique international resource of structured summaries of quality-assessed reviews of health care interventions. These reviews have been identified from searches of electronic databases and by hand-searching journals. This paper describes and summarizes the DARE database, including the topic areas covered and the review methods used.Methods: The first 480 structured abstracts on the DARE database were summarized. Data were extracted from each database field and coded for analysis.Results: Most of the systematic reviews investigated the effectiveness of treatments: 54% investigated the effectiveness of medical therapies, and 10% assessed surgical interventions. Around two-thirds used meta-analytic methods to combine primary studies. The quality of the reviews was variable, with just over half of the reviews (52%, n = 251) having systematically assessed the validity of the included primary studies. Narrative reviews were more likely than meta-analyses to reach negative conclusions (42% vs. 25%, p = .0001). The 21 reviews that reported drug company funding were more likely to reach positive conclusions (81% vs. 66%, p = .15).Conclusion: The DARE database is a valuable source of quality-assessed systematic reviews, and is free and easily accessible. It provides a valuable online resource to help in filtering out poorer quality reviews when assessing the effectiveness of health technologies.

Download Full-text