Published patterns of spin in biomedical literature: a protocol for a meta-research study

IntroductionSpin is defined as reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and create misleading conclusions by suggesting more favourable results. Such unjustifiable and misleading misrepresentation may negatively influence the development of further studies, clinical practice and healthcare policies. Spin manifests in various patterns in different sections of publications (titles, abstracts and main texts). The primary aim of this study is to identify reported spin patterns and assess the prevalence of spin in general, and the prevalence of spin patterns reported in biomedical literature based on previously published systematic reviews and literature reviews on spin.Methods and analysisPubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS will be searched to identify systematic or literature reviews on spin in biomedicine. To improve the comprehensiveness of the search, the snowballing method will be used to broaden the search. The data on spin-related outcomes and characteristics of the included studies will be extracted. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed with selective items of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 checklist. A new classification scheme for spin patterns will be developed if the classifications of spin patterns identified in the included studies vary. The prevalence of spin and spin patterns will be pooled based on meta-analyses if the classification schemes for spin are comparable across included studies. Otherwise, the prevalence will be described qualitatively. The seriousness of spin patterns will be assessed based on a Delphi consensus study.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam Ethics Review Committee (2020250). The study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.RegistrationOpen Science Framework: osf.io/hzv6e

Download Full-text

Where to prospectively register a systematic review

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-021-01877-1 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Dawid Pieper ◽

Tanja Rombey

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Open Science ◽

New Developments ◽

For Profit ◽

Science Framework ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Study Type ◽

Different Characteristics ◽

Responsible Party

Abstract Background Prospective registration aims to reduce bias in the conduct and reporting of research and to increase transparency. In addition, prospective registration of systematic reviews is argued to help preventing unintended duplication, thereby reducing research waste. PROSPERO was launched in 2011 as the first prospective register for systematic reviews. While it has long been the only option to prospectively register systematic reviews, recently there have been new developments. Our aim was to identify and characterize current options to prospectively register a systematic review to assist review authors in choosing a suitable register. Methods To identify systematic review registers, we independently performed internet searches in January 2021 using keywords related to systematic reviews and prospective registration. “Registration” was defined as the process of entering information about a planned systematic review into a database before starting the systematic review process. We collected data on the characteristics of the identified registries and contacted the responsible party of each register for verification of the data related to their registry. Results Overall, we identified five options to prospectively register a systematic review: PROSPERO, the Registry of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Research Registry, and INPLASY, which are specific to systematic reviews, and the Open Science Framework Registries and protocols.io, which represent generic registers open to any study type. Detailed information on each register is presented in tables in the main text. Regarding the systematic-review-specific registries, authors have to trade-off between the costs of registration and the processing time of their registration record. All registers provide an option to search for systematic reviews already registered in the register. However, it is unclear how useful these search functions are. Conclusion Authors can prospectively register their systematic review in five registries, which come with different characteristics and features. The research community should discuss fair and sustainable financing models for registers that are not operated by for-profit organizations.

Download Full-text

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

Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics ◽

10.1177/24730114211000637 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

The Effectiveness of Acupuncture and Moxibustion for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Protocol of an Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-70147/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Genhua Tang ◽

Jun Xiong ◽

Siyuan Zhu ◽

Zhiying Zhong ◽

Jun Chen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Scientific Journal ◽

Joint Damage ◽

Biomedical Literature ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽

Acupuncture And Moxibustion ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Rheumatoid Arthritis(RA) is a common chronic disease with an annual incidence of 25 per 10000 of the population, which will result in severe joint damage,disability and death. It is strongly supported by systematic reviews (SRs) as part of the treatment of these patients. However, the evidence has not been methodically integrated. This overview aims to describe,synthesize,evaluate the reliability of evidence come from current systematic reviews of acupuncture and moxibustion therapy for RA.Methods: We will search for SRs and meta-analyses from Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, Wan-Fang Databases,China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Citation Information by National Institute of Informatics, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database(CBM),Chinese Scientific Journal Database(VIP Database). Additionally, we will search for the ongoing, unpublished, or recently completed SRs on the PROSPERO database. Two reviewers will assess those SRs, select data independently. Any disagreement will be resolved through discussion or arbitrated by the third author if necessary. The overview of SRs and meta-analysis will be reportedaccording to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)statement.Results: The results in this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Conclusion: The conclusion of our study expects to provide extensive evidence from multiple meta-analysis and systematic reviews for patients with RA.INPLASY registration number:INPLASY202080031.

Download Full-text

Impactos psicossociais do isolamento social por covid-19 em crianças, adolescentes e jovens: scoping review

Revista de Enfermagem da UFSM ◽

10.5902/2179769265407 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 ◽

pp. e73

Author(s):

Letícia Camilo Santos ◽

Tayná July Silva Pinheiro ◽

Thayane Ingrid Xavier de Andrade ◽

Paulo Henrique Alves Sousa ◽

Patrícia Pinto Braga ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Scoping Review ◽

Open Science ◽

Scoping Reviews ◽

Science Framework ◽

Meta Analyses

Objetivo: mapear os impactos psicossociais causados pelo isolamento social, durante a pandemia da COVID-19, em crianças, adolescentes e jovens. Método: revisão de escopo realizada de acordo com o método proposto por JBI e adotando as recomendações do guia internacional Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Protocolo de revisão registrado no Open Science Framework. Resultados: compuseram esta revisão 20 artigos. A depressão (70%; n=14) e a ansiedade (60%; n=16) foram os sintomas mais frequentes entre as investigações estudadas. Identificou-se um aumento do tempo de tela e utilização de internet. Conclusão: o isolamento social em função da COVID-19 tem impactado socialmente e psicologicamente na vida de crianças e adolescentes. O adoecimento mental deste público é uma realidade e as repercussões no desenvolvimento infanto-juvenil não podem ser desconsideradas.

Download Full-text

Application of the Subspace-Based Methods in Health Monitoring of Civil Structures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Applied Sciences ◽

10.3390/app10103607 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (10) ◽

pp. 3607

Author(s):

Hoofar Shokravi ◽

Hooman Shokravi ◽

Norhisham Bakhary ◽

Mahshid Heidarrezaei ◽

Seyed Saeid Rahimian Koloor ◽

...

Keyword(s):

System Identification ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Health Monitoring ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Civil Structures ◽

Literature Reviews ◽

Research Gap ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Subspace System Identification ◽

Insight Into

A large number of research studies in structural health monitoring (SHM) have presented, extended, and used subspace system identification. However, there is a lack of research on systematic literature reviews and surveys of studies in this field. Therefore, the current study is undertaken to systematically review the literature published on the development and application of subspace system identification methods. In this regard, major databases in SHM, including Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, have been selected and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) has been applied to ensure complete and transparent reporting of systematic reviews. Along this line, the presented review addresses the available studies that employed subspace-based techniques in the vibration-based damage detection (VDD) of civil structures. The selected papers in this review were categorized into authors, publication year, name of journal, applied techniques, research objectives, research gap, proposed solutions and models, and findings. This study can assist practitioners and academicians for better condition assessment of structures and to gain insight into the literature.

Download Full-text

Google Scholar Could Be Used as a Stand-Alone Resource for Systematic Reviews

Evidence Based Library and Information Practice ◽

10.18438/b8k31f ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 10 (2) ◽

pp. 147

Author(s):

Saori Wendy Herman

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Recall Rate ◽

Biomedical Literature ◽

Google Scholar ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Bibliographic Database ◽

Predictive Values ◽

Advanced Search ◽

Search Tool ◽

Meta Analyses

A Review of: Gehanno, J. F., Rollin, L., & Darmoni, S. (2013). Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13(1): 7. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-7 Abstract Objective – To determine if Google Scholar (GS) is sensitive enough to be used as the sole search tool for systematic reviews. Design – Citation analysis. Setting – Biomedical literature. Subjects – Original studies included in 29 systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library or JAMA. Methods – The authors searched MEDLINE for any systematic reviews published in the 2008 and 2009 issues of JAMA or in the July 8, 2009 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. They chose 29 systematic reviews for the study and included these reviews in a gold standard database created specifically for this project. The authors searched GS for the title of each of the original references for the 29 reviews. They computed and noted the recall of GS for each reference. Main Results – The authors searched GS for 738 original studies with a 100% recall rate. They also made a side discovery of a number of major errors in the bibliographic references. Conclusion – Researchers could use GS as a stand-alone database for systematic reviews or meta-analyses. With a couple improvements to the rate of positive predictive values and advanced search features, GS could become the leading medical bibliographic database. Conclusion – Researchers could use GS as a stand-alone database for systematic reviews or meta-analyses. With a couple improvements to the rate of positive predictive values and advanced search features, GS could become the leading medical bibliographic database.

Download Full-text

Interventions to Promote a Healthy Sexuality among School Adolescents: A Scoping Review

Journal of Personalized Medicine ◽

10.3390/jpm11111155 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (11) ◽

pp. 1155

Author(s):

Fernanda Loureiro ◽

Margarida Ferreira ◽

Paula Sarreira-de-Oliveira ◽

Vanessa Antunes

Keyword(s):

Open Science ◽

Multidisciplinary Teams ◽

Adolescent Sexual Behavior ◽

Scoping Reviews ◽

Key Factor ◽

Nurses Role ◽

Healthy Sexuality ◽

Science Framework ◽

Meta Analyses

Schools are particularly suitable contexts for the implementation of interventions focused on adolescent sexual behavior. Sexual education and promotion have a multidisciplinary nature. Nurses’ role and the spectrum of the carried-out interventions is not clear. We aimed to identify interventions that promote a healthy sexuality among school adolescents. Our review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews and was registered in the Open Science Framework. Published articles on sexuality in adolescents in school contexts were considered. The research limitations included primary studies; access in full text in English, Spanish, or Portuguese; and no data publication limitation. Research was carried out on the EBSCOhost, PubMed, SciELO, and Web of Science platforms; gray literature and the bibliographies of selected articles were also searched. A total of 56 studies were included in the sample. The studies used a broad range of research methods, and 10 types of interventions were identified. Multi-interventional programs and socio-emotional interventions showed a greater impact on long-term behavioral changes, and continuity seemed to be a key factor. Long-term studies are needed to reach a consensus on the effectiveness of interventions. Nurses’ particular role on the multidisciplinary teams was found to be a gap in the research, and must be further explored.

Download Full-text

What you need to know about scoping reviews

Medwave ◽

10.5867/medwave.2021.02.8144 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (02) ◽

pp. e8144-e8144

Author(s):

Catalina Verdejo ◽

Luis Tapia-Benavente ◽

Bastián Schuller-Martínez ◽

Laura Vergara-Merino ◽

Manuel Vargas-Peirano ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Scoping Review ◽

Clinical Epidemiology ◽

Recent Model ◽

Reporting Guideline ◽

Scoping Reviews ◽

Literature Reviews ◽

Different Types ◽

Reproducible Method ◽

Meta Analyses

The increasing amount of evidence has caused an increasing amount of literature reviews. There are different types of reviews —systematic reviews are the best known—, and every type of review has different purposes. The scoping review is a recent model that aims to answer broad questions and identify and expose the available evidence for a broader question, using a rigorous and reproducible method. In the last two decades, researchers have discussed the most appropriate method to carry out scoping reviews, and recently the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guideline was published. This is the fifth article of a methodological collaborative series of narrative reviews about general topics on biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. This review aims to describe what scoping reviews are, identify their objectives, differentiate them from other types of reviews, and provide considerations on how to carry them out.

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

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