scholarly journals Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes iN oncologY (EPIPHANY): a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e025054 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Deliu ◽  
Francesco Cottone ◽  
Gary S Collins ◽  
Amélie Anota ◽  
Fabio Efficace
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Prognostic Models ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Data Extraction Form

IntroductionWhile there is mounting evidence of the independent prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer, it is known that the conduct of these studies may hold a number of methodological challenges. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of published studies in this research area, in order to identify methodological and statistical issues deserving special attention and to also possibly provide evidence-based recommendations.Methods and analysisAn electronic search strategy will be performed in PubMed to identify studies developing or validating a prognostic model which includes PROs as predictors. Two reviewers will independently be involved in data collection using a predefined and standardised data extraction form including information related to study characteristics, PROs measures used and multivariable prognostic models. Studies selection will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with data extraction form using fields from the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist for multivariable models. Methodological quality assessment will also be performed and will be based on prespecified domains of the CHARMS checklist. As a substantial heterogeneity of included studies is expected, a narrative evidence synthesis will also be provided.Ethics and disseminationGiven that this systematic review will use only published data, ethical permissions will not be required. Findings from this review will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at major international conferences. We anticipate that this review will contribute to identify key areas of improvement for conducting and reporting prognostic factor analyses with PROs in oncology and will lay the groundwork for developing future evidence-based recommendations in this area of research.Prospero registration numberCRD42018099160.

scholarly journals Evaluating the Quality of the Iranian Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Economic Evaluations in Healthcare from 2005 to 2015

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morteza Arab-Zozani ◽  
Zahra Heidarifard ◽  
Efat Jabarpour
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Economic Perspective ◽  
Meta Analyses

Context: The number of studies on health is increasing rapidly worldwide and in Iran. Systematic review studies, meta-analyses, and economic evaluation are of great importance in evidence-based decision making because of their standing in the evidence-based pyramid. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of Iranian systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies and economic evaluations on healthcare. Evidence Acquisition: PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to find considered studies, including systematic reviews, meta analyses and economic evaluations published from 2005 to 2015. Because of the high volume of review studies, 10% of all systematic reviews and meta-analyses were selected as a random sample. Also, all economic evaluations were included. Articles were evaluated using checklists, including PRISMA, AMSTAR and QHES with a maximum score of 27, 11 and 100, respectively. The quality score for each criterion as well as the epidemiological and descriptive characteristics of all articles was determined. Data were analyzed using SPSS V. 16 software. Results: After searching the databases, 1084 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were obtained, 10% of which were included in the study. A total of 41 economic evaluations were also included. The mean scores of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were 17.04 (5.35) and 5.42 (1.97), respectively, and 68.21 (12.44) for economic evaluations based on QHES. Only three systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles had recorded protocols and 85% of the studies included the terms “systematic review” and “meta-analysis” in their titles. Only one study had been updated. In addition, 81% of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses were published in specialized journals and 47% in Iranian journals. Financial resources and conflict of interests had been mentioned in 33% and 66% of the studies, respectively. Of the selected studies, 60% had evaluated the quality of the articles and 35% of the studies had assessed publication bias. In economic evaluations, 56% had used CEA analysis, 22% CUA analysis, 12% CBA analysis, and one study had used CMA analysis. Of these studies, 54% were model-based health economic studies and 12% were trial-based. The economic perspective was the health care system in most studies. Forty-four percent of the studies had a short time horizon of one year or less, whereas 33% had a lifetime horizon. Moreover, 68% of the studies showed sensitivity analysis and only 5 included the magnitude and direction of the bias. Conclusions: Overall, the reporting and methodological quality of the selected studies were estimated at a moderate level. Based on these results, it is recommended to adopt strategies to reduce preventable errors in studies. Having a primary plan and protocol and registering it as a systematic review can be an important factor in improving the quality of studies. Economic evaluations should also focus on issues, such as economic perspective, time horizon, available bias, and sensitivity analysis.

scholarly journals Mini-Implant-Retained Overdentures for the Rehabilitation of Completely Edentulous Maxillae: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (8) ◽  
pp. 4377
Author(s):  
Serena Vi ◽  
Damon Pham ◽  
Yu Yian Marina Du ◽  
Himanshu Arora ◽  
Santosh Kumar Tadakamadla
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Full Text Review

Purpose: Mini-dental implants (MDIs) have been used to support and retain overdentures, providing patients with a less invasive placement procedure. Although lucrative, the use of MDIs to retain a maxillary overdenture is still not an established treatment modality. This systematic review aims to answer the question: Do mini-implant-retained maxillary overdentures provide a satisfactory treatment outcome for complete edentulism? Methods: A systematic search for relevant articles was conducted to include articles published until April 2021 in the following electronic databases: CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. All empirical studies evaluating the biological, survival, or patient-reported outcomes after placing mini-implant-retained overdentures in maxilla were considered for inclusion. The risk of bias was assessed by utilizing the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist. Study screening and data extraction were conducted by three reviewers independently. Results: The electronic search retrieved 1276 titles after omitting duplicates. Twenty articles were considered for full-text review, of which six studies were included in this systematic review. The included studies evaluated a total of 173 participants with a mean age of 66.3 years. The overall mini-implant survival rate was 77.1% (95% CI: 64.7–89.5%) with a mean follow-up time of 1.79 years (range: 6 months to 3 years). Implant survival differed significantly when comparing complete and partial palatal coverage overdentures. Those with complete palatal coverage exhibited less bone loss overall compared to partial coverage overdentures. Participants of all studies reported an increase in the quality of life and in satisfaction after rehabilitation treatment with MDIs. Conclusions: The survival rate of mini-implants retaining an overdenture in the maxilla was observed to be lower than the values reported for traditional implants in the literature. Improvements were observed in all aspects in terms of patient satisfaction, quality of life, oromyofunction, and articulation after the treatment.

Persian participation measures for adolescents: A systematic review

2020 ◽  
pp. 030802262091040
Author(s):  
Ghodsiyeh Joveini ◽  
Armin Zareiyan ◽  
Laleh Lajevardi ◽  
Mitra Khalafbeigi ◽  
Afsoon Hassani Mehraban
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Leisure Activities ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Age Features ◽  
Adolescent Participation

Introduction Enhancing participation is the focus of occupational therapy. Comprehensive and accurate assessment ensures that clinicians can tailor an intervention to the client’s needs. This systematic review was completed to identify Persian adolescents’ participation measures and critically appraise them. It would be helpful in the selection of the most appropriate instrument to use in adolescent-related research and clinical practice. Method Ten bibliographic databases, four Iranian and six international, without year limits were searched up to June 2019. A systematic search was directed according to COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures and PRISMA guidelines (Systematic review registration: CRD42017073581). Results Seven measures were extracted from the articles. Reviewing the content and psychometric properties of the measures as well as the methodological quality of the studies indicated that the Modified Activity Questionnaire is the only measure with consistent and moderately reliable results. It measures adolescent participation in leisure activities but not all domains of participation. Conclusion There may be a growing need for adapting existing Persian measures or developing new ones based on specific age features related to puberty-stage alongside cultural, social and academic demands, which have a significant effect on adolescents’ participation in meaningful occupations. High methodological quality in designing such studies also has great importance.

scholarly journals Systematic review of the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for rheumatoid arthritis in the foot and ankle

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (11) ◽  
pp. 1788-1799 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Belen Ortega-Avila ◽  
Laura Ramos-Petersen ◽  
Pablo Cervera-Garvi ◽  
Christopher J Nester ◽  
José Miguel Morales-Asencio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Patient Reported

Objective: To identify self-reported outcome measures specific to the foot and ankle in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and to investigate the methodological quality and psychometric properties of these measures. Method: A systematic review focusing on patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Setting: The search was conducted in the PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, PEDro and Google Scholar databases, based on the following inclusion criteria: population (with rheumatoid arthritis) > 18 years; psychometric or clinimetric validation studies of patient-reported outcomes specific to the foot and ankle, in different languages, with no time limit. Two of the present authors independently assessed the quality of the studies located and extracted the relevant data. Terwee’s criteria and the COSMIN checklist were employed to ensure adequate methodological quality. Results: Of the initial 431 studies considered, 14 met the inclusion criteria, representing 7,793 patients (56.8 years). These instruments were grouped into three dimensions (pain, perceived health status and quality of life and disability). The time to complete any of the PROMs varies around 15 minutes. PROMs criterias with the worst scores by COSMIN, 92.85% and 85.71% were criterion validity, measurement error, internal consistency and responsiveness. 28.57% of PROMs were compared with the measurement properties. Conclusion: the Self-Reported Foot and Ankle Score achieved the highest number of positive criteria (according to Terwee and COSMIN), and is currently the most appropriate for patients with Rheumatoid arthritis.

scholarly journals Methodological quality of public health guideline recommendations on vitamin D and calcium : a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e031840 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaoli Dai ◽  
Cynthia M Kroeger ◽  
Sally McDonald ◽  
Matthew J Page ◽  
Joanne E McKenzie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Vitamin D ◽  
Bone Health ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Dietary Guidelines ◽  
Published Data

IntroductionCurrent recommendations for vitamin D and calcium in dietary guidelines and bone health guidelines vary significantly among countries and professional organisations. It is unknown whether the methods used to develop these recommendations followed a rigourous process and how the differences in methods used may affect the recommended intakes of vitamin D and calcium. The objectives of this study are (1) collate and compare recommendations for vitamin D and calcium across guidelines, (2) appraise methodological quality of the guideline recommendations and (3) identify methodological factors that may affect the recommended intakes for vitamin D and calcium. This study will make a significant contribution to enhancing the methodological rigour in public health guidelines for vitamin D and calcium recommendations.Methods and analysesWe will conduct a systematic review to evaluate vitamin D and calcium recommendations for osteoporosis prevention in generally healthy middle-aged and older adults. Methodological assessment will be performed for each guideline against those outlined in the 2014 WHO handbook for guideline development. A systematic search strategy will be applied to locate food-based dietary guidelines and bone health guidelines indexed in various electronic databases, guideline repositories and grey literature from 1 January 2009 to 28 February 2019. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise the data on intake recommendation and on proportion of guidelines consistent with the WHO criteria. Logistic regression, if feasible, will be used to assess the relationships between the methodological factors and the recommendation intakes.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as we will only extract published data or information from the published guidelines. Results of this review will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019126452

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Spine Surgery—How Good Are They in Methodological Quality? A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muthu Sathish ◽  
Ramakrishnan Eswar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Critical Flaw ◽  
Meta Analyses

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria. Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.

scholarly journals Automation of literature screening using machine learning in medical evidence synthesis: a diagnostic test accuracy systematic review protocol

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuelun Zhang ◽  
Siyu Liang ◽  
Yunying Feng ◽  
Qing Wang ◽  
Feng Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Digital Library ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Medical Evidence ◽  
Evidence Collection ◽  
Automatic Methods

Abstract Background Systematic review is an indispensable tool for optimal evidence collection and evaluation in evidence-based medicine. However, the explosive increase of the original literatures makes it difficult to accomplish critical appraisal and regular update. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have been applied to automate the literature screening procedure in medical systematic reviews. In these studies, different algorithms were used and results with great variance were reported. It is therefore imperative to systematically review and analyse the developed automatic methods for literature screening and their effectiveness reported in current studies. Methods An electronic search will be conducted using PubMed, Embase, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore Digital Library databases, as well as literatures found through supplementary search in Google scholar, on automatic methods for literature screening in systematic reviews. Two reviewers will independently conduct the primary screening of the articles and data extraction, in which nonconformities will be solved by discussion with a methodologist. Data will be extracted from eligible studies, including the basic characteristics of study, the information of training set and validation set, and the function and performance of AI algorithms, and summarised in a table. The risk of bias and applicability of the eligible studies will be assessed by the two reviewers independently based on Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Quantitative analyses, if appropriate, will also be performed. Discussion Automating systematic review process is of great help in reducing workload in evidence-based practice. Results from this systematic review will provide essential summary of the current development of AI algorithms for automatic literature screening in medical evidence synthesis and help to inspire further studies in this field. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020170815 (28 April 2020).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document