Safety of topical corticosteroids in atopic eczema: an umbrella review

ObjectiveAn umbrella review summarising all safety data from systematic reviews of topical corticosteroids (TCS) in adults and children with atopic eczema.MethodsEmbase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology map of eczema systematic reviews were searched until 7 November 2018 and Epistemonikos until 2 March 2021. Reviews were included if they assessed the safety of TCS in atopic eczema and searched >1 database using a reproducible search strategy. Review quality was assessed using version 2 of 'A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews' (AMSTAR 2 tool).Results38 systematic reviews included, 34 low/critically low quality. Treatment and follow-up were usually short (2–4 weeks).Key findingsTCS versus emollient/vehicle: No meta-analyses identified for skin-thinning. Two 2-week randomised controlled trials (RCTs) found no significant increased risk with very potent TCS (0/196 TCS vs 0/33 vehicle in children and 6/109 TCS vs 2/50 vehicle, age unknown). Biochemical adrenal suppression (cortisol) was 3.8% (95% CI 2.4% to 5.8%) in a meta-analysis of 11 uncontrolled observational studies (any potency TCS, 522 children). Effects reversed when treatment ceased.TCS versus topical calcineurin inhibitors: Meta-analysis showed higher relative risk of skin thinning with TCS (4.86, 95% CI 1.06 to 22.28, n=4128, four RCTs, including one 5-year RCT). Eight cases in 2068 participants, 7 using potent TCS. No evidence of growth suppression.Once daily versus more frequent TCS: No meta-analyses identified. No skin-thinning in one RCT (3 weeks potent TCS, n=94) or biochemical adrenal suppression in two RCTs (up to 2 weeks very potent/moderate TCS, n=129).TCS twice/week to prevent flares (‘weekend therapy’) versus vehicle: No meta-analyses identified. No evidence of skin thinning in five RCTs. One RCT found biochemical adrenal suppression (2/44 children, potent TCS).ConclusionsWe found no evidence of harm when TCS were used intermittently ‘as required’ to treat flares or ‘weekend therapy’ to prevent flares. However, long-term safety data were limited.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018079409.

Download Full-text

Evidence-based umbrella review of cognitive effects of prefrontal tDCS

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience ◽

10.1093/scan/nsaa084 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Luis C Farhat ◽

Andre F Carvalho ◽

Marco Solmi ◽

Andre R Brunoni

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Affective Neuroscience ◽

Umbrella Review ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Neuroscience Research ◽

Cochrane Database ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique, which has been increasingly used as an investigational tool in neuroscience. In social and affective neuroscience research, the prefrontal cortex has been primarily targeted, since this brain region is critically involved in complex psychobiological processes subserving both ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ domains. Although several studies have suggested that prefrontal tDCS can enhance neuropsychological outcomes, meta-analyses have reported conflicting results. Therefore, we aimed to assess the available evidence by performing an umbrella review of meta-analyses. We evaluated the effects of prefrontal active vs sham tDCS on different domains of cognition among healthy and neuropsychiatric individuals. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 was employed to evaluate the quality of meta-analyses, and the GRADE system was employed to grade the quality of evidence of every comparison from each meta-analysis. PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched, and 11 meta-analyses were included resulting in 55 comparisons. Only 16 comparisons reported significant effects favoring tDCS, but 13 of them had either very low or low quality of evidence. Of the remaining 39 comparisons which reported non-significant effects, 38 had either very low or low quality of evidence. Meta-analyses were rated as having critically low and low quality. Among several reasons to explain these findings, the lack of consensus and reproducibility in tDCS research is discussed.

Download Full-text

Frailty Status and All-Cause Mortality in the Community-Dwelling Older People: An Umbrella Review

Innovation in Aging ◽

10.1093/geroni/igaa057.1580 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 488-489

Author(s):

A R M Saifuddin Ekram ◽

Joanne Ryan ◽

Carlene Britt ◽

Sara Espinoza ◽

Robyn Woods

Keyword(s):

Older People ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Community Dwelling ◽

Umbrella Review ◽

Frailty Phenotype ◽

Frailty Status ◽

Increased Risk ◽

All Cause Mortality ◽

Community Dwelling Older People ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Frailty is increasingly recognised for its association with adverse health outcomes including mortality. However, various measures are used to assess frailty, and the strength of association could vary depending on the specific definition used. This umbrella review aimed to map which frailty scale could best predict the relationship between frailty and all-cause mortality among community-dwelling older people. According to the PRISMA guidelines, Medline, Embase, EBSCOhost and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses which examined the association between frailty and all-cause mortality in the community-dwelling older people. Relevant data were extracted and summarised qualitatively. Methodological quality was assessed by AMSTAR-2 checklist. Five moderate-quality systematic reviews with a total of 374,529 participants were identified. Of these, two examined the frailty phenotype and its derivatives, two examined the cumulative deficit models and the other predominantly included studies assessing frailty with the FRAIL scale. All of the reviews found a significant association between frailty status and all-cause mortality. The magnitude of association varied between individual studies, with no consistent pattern related to the frailty measures that were used. In conclusion, regardless of the measure used to assess frailty status, it is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality.

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

Association betweenH. pyloriinfection and health Outcomes: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031951 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

pp. e031951

Author(s):

Liqun Li ◽

Jinjing Tan ◽

Lijian Liu ◽

Jianfeng Li ◽

Guangwen Chen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Irritable Bowel Syndrome ◽

Health Outcomes ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Significant Heterogeneity ◽

Umbrella Review ◽

Increased Risk ◽

H Pylori ◽

Irritable Bowel ◽

Meta Analyses

ObjectiveSystematic reviews and meta-analyses have revealed the associations betweenH. pyloriinfection and various health outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the strength and breadth of evidence on the associations.DesignUmbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.SettingNo settings.ParticipantsNo patients involved.Data sourcesEmbase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library Databases, CNKI, VIP database and Wangfang database from inception to February 1, 2019.Outcomes measuresDiverse diseases (such as cancer and ischaemic heart disease).ResultsSixty articles reporting 88 unique outcomes met the eligible criteria. 74 unique outcomes had nominal significance (p<0.05). Of the outcomes with significance, 61 had harmful associations and 13 had beneficial associations. Furthermore, 73% (64) of the outcomes exhibited significant heterogeneity . Of the these meta-analyses, 32 had moderate to high heterogeneity (I2=50%–75%) and 24 had high heterogeneity (I2>75%). Moreover, 20% exhibited publication bias (p<0.1). In addition, 97% of the methodological qualities were rated ‘critically low’. 36% of the evidence qualities of outcomes were rated ‘low’, 56% of the evidence qualities were rated ‘very low’ and 8% of the evidence qualities were rated ‘moderate’.H. pyloriinfection may be associated with an increased risk of five diseases and a decreased risk of irritable bowel syndrome.ConclusionAlthough 60 meta-analyses explored 88 unique outcomes, moderate quality evidence only existed for six outcomes with statistical significance.H. pyloriinfection may be associated with a decreased risk of irritable bowel syndrome and an increased risk of hypertriglyceridemia, chronic cholecystitis and cholelithiasis, gestational diabetes mellitus, gastric cancer and systemic sclerosis.Trial registrationCRD42019124680.

Download Full-text

Robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric cancer: protocol for umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033634 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (2) ◽

pp. e033634

Author(s):

Luigi Marano ◽

Daniele Fusario ◽

Vinno Savelli ◽

Luigi Verre ◽

Alessandro Neri ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gastric Cancer ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Laparoscopic Gastrectomy ◽

Laparoscopic Approach ◽

Primary Data ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Reference List ◽

Robotic Approach ◽

Umbrella Review ◽

Meta Analyses

IntroductionLaparoscopic surgery has been adopted in some parts of the world as an innovative approach to the resection of gastric cancers. However, in the modern era of surgical oncology, to overcome intrinsic limitations of the traditional laparoscopy, the robotic approach is advocated as able to facilitate the lymph node dissection and complex reconstruction after gastrectomy, to assure oncologic safety also in advanced gastric cancer patients. Previous meta-analyses highlighted a lower complication rate as well as bleeding in the robotic approach group when compared with the laparoscopic one. This potential benefit must be balanced against an increased time of intervention. The aim of this umbrella review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature for surgeons and policymakers in order to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of robotic gastrectomy (RG) compared with the laparoscopic approach for gastric cancer.Methods and analysisWe will perform a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases for all articles published up to May 2019 and reference list of relevant publications for systematic review and meta-analyses comparing the outcomes of RG and laparoscopic gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. Studies will be selected by two independent reviewers based on prespecified eligibility criteria and the quality will be assessed according to AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) checklist. All information will be collected using piloted and standardised data-extraction forms in DistillerSR developed following the Joanna Briggs Institute’s recommended extraction items.Ethics and disseminationThis umbrella review will inform clinical and policy decisions regarding the benefits and harms of RG for treating gastric cancer. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and the popular press. Formal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019139906.

Download Full-text

Management of haemorrhoids: protocol of an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035287 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (3) ◽

pp. e035287

Author(s):

Min Chen ◽

Tai-Chun Tang ◽

Tao-Hong He ◽

Yong-Jun Du ◽

Di Qin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Random Effect Model ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Final Report ◽

Umbrella Review ◽

Effect Model ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

The Impact

IntroductionThe prevalence of haemorrhoidal diseases was high in general population, and many treatments are proposed for the management of haemorrhoids. The treatments include conservative and surgical interventions; the credibility and strength of current evidence of their effectiveness are not comprehensively evaluated. We aim to evaluate the credibility of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that assess the effectiveness of the treatments for haemorrhoidal diseases through an umbrella review.Methods and analysisWe will search Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane library and Web of Science from inception to March 2020 without any language restriction. We will include meta-analyses that examine the effectiveness of treatments in the management of haemorrhoids. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts of retrieved articles, and they will extract data from the included meta-analyses. For each meta-analysis, we will estimate the effect size of a treatment through the random-effect model and the fixed-effect model, and we will evaluate between-study heterogeneity (Cochrane’s Q and I2statistics) and small-study effect (Egger’s test); we will also estimate the evidence of excess significance bias. Evidence of each treatment will be graded according to prespecified criteria. Methodological quality of each meta-analysis will be evaluated by using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2. The corrected cover area method will be used to assess the impact of overlap in reviews on the findings of the umbrella review.Ethics and disseminationWe will present the results of the umbrella review at conferences and publish the final report in a peer-reviewed journal. The umbrella review does not require ethical approval.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019140702.

Download Full-text

Mapping Host-Related Correlates of Influenza Vaccine-Induced Immune Response: An Umbrella Review of the Available Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Vaccines ◽

10.3390/vaccines7040215 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 7 (4) ◽

pp. 215 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Alexander Domnich ◽

Ilaria Manini ◽

Giovanna Elisa Calabrò ◽

Chiara de Waure ◽

Emanuele Montomoli

Keyword(s):

Influenza Vaccine ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Health Condition ◽

Vitamin D Supplementation ◽

Umbrella Review ◽

Related Factors ◽

Ready Availability ◽

Meta Analyses

Seasonal influenza is the leading infectious disease in terms of its health and socioeconomic impact. Annual immunization is the most efficient way to reduce this burden. Several correlates of influenza vaccine-induced protection are commonly used, owing to their ready availability and cheapness. Influenza vaccine-induced immunogenicity is a function of host-, virus- and vaccine-related factors. Host-related factors constitute the most heterogeneous group. The objective of this study was to analyze the available systematic evidence on the host factors able to modify influenza vaccine-induced immunogenicity. An umbrella review approach was undertaken. A total of 28 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were analyzed—these covered the following domains: intravenous drug use, psychological stress, acute and chronic physical exercise, genetic polymorphisms, use of pre-/pro-/symbiotics, previous Bacillus Calmette–Guérin vaccination, diabetes mellitus, vitamin D supplementation/deficiency, latent cytomegalovirus infection and various forms of immunosuppression. In order to present effect sizes on the same scale, all possible meta-analyses were re-performed and cumulative evidence synthesis ranking was carried out. The meta-analysis was conducted separately on each health condition category and virus (sub)type. A total of 97 pooled estimates were used in order to construct an evidence-based stakeholder-friendly map. The principal public health implications are discussed.

Download Full-text

P14.71 An assessment of the reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Neuro-Oncology ◽

10.1093/neuonc/noab180.178 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 23 (Supplement_2) ◽

pp. ii51-ii52

Author(s):

A M George ◽

S Gupta ◽

S M Keshwara ◽

M A Mustafa ◽

C S Gillespie ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Neurofibromatosis Type ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

High Quality ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract BACKGROUND Systematic reviews and meta-analyses constitute the highest level of research evidence and for a disease with limited clinical trial activity, are often relied upon to help inform clinical practice. This review of reviews evaluates both the reporting & methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS Potentially eligible meningioma reviews published between 1st January 1990 and 31st December 2020 were identified from eight electronic databases. Inclusion required the study to meet the Cochrane guideline definition of a systematic review or meta-analysis. Reviews concerning neurofibromatosis type 2, spinal and pediatric meningiomas were excluded. The reporting and methodological quality of articles were assessed against the following modified guidelines: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) guidelines. RESULTS 117 systematic reviews were identified, 57 of which included meta-analysis (48.7%). The number of meningioma systematic reviews published each year has increased with 63 studies (53.9%) published between 01/2018 and 12/2020. A median of 17 studies (IQR 9–29) were included per review. Impact factor of journals publishing a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis was similar (median 2.3 vs 1.8, P=0.397). The mean PRISMA scores for systematic reviews with a meta-analysis was 21.11 (SD 4.1, 78% adherence) and without was 13.89 (SD 3.4, 63% adherence). Twenty-nine systematic reviews with meta-analysis (51%) and 11 without meta-analysis (18%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA recommendations. Methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR2 revealed one study (0.9%) as high quality whilst 111 (94.8%) studies were graded as critically low. One hundred and two articles (87.2%) did not utilize a comprehensive search strategy as defined by the AMSTAR2 tool. Ninety-nine studies (84.6%) obtained a high level of concern for potential bias as per the ROBIS assessment. One hundred and eight articles (92.3%) failed to present information that a protocol had been established prior to study commencement and 76 articles (65.0%) did not conduct a risk of bias assessment. Across the three tools, domains relating to the establishment of a protocol prior to review commencement and conducting appropriate risk of bias assessments were frequently low scoring. CONCLUSION Overall reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews was sub-optimal. Established critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should be utilized a priori to assist in producing high-quality systematic reviews.

Download Full-text

Scoping review of COVID-19-related systematic reviews and meta-analyses: can we really have confidence in their results?

Postgraduate Medical Journal ◽

10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-139392 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. postgradmedj-2020-139392

Author(s):

Rachel Wurth ◽

Michelle Hajdenberg ◽

Francisco J Barrera ◽

Skand Shekhar ◽

Caroline E Copacino ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Scoping Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Internal Validity ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Literature Search Strategy ◽

Definition Of ◽

Meta Analyses

AimThe aim of this study was to systematically appraise the quality of a sample of COVID-19-related systematic reviews (SRs) and discuss internal validity threats affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence.DesignWe conducted a scoping review of the literature. SRs with or without meta-analysis (MA) that evaluated clinical data, outcomes or treatments for patients with COVID-19 were included.Main outcome measuresWe extracted quality characteristics guided by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 to calculate a qualitative score. Complementary evaluation of the most prominent published limitations affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence was performed.ResultsA total of 63 SRs were included. The majority were judged as a critically low methodological quality. Most of the studies were not guided by a pre-established protocol (39, 62%). More than half (39, 62%) failed to address risk of bias when interpreting their results. A comprehensive literature search strategy was reported in most SRs (54, 86%). Appropriate use of statistical methods was evident in nearly all SRs with MAs (39, 95%). Only 16 (33%) studies recognised heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19 as a limitation of the study, and 15 (24%) recognised repeated patient populations as a limitation.ConclusionThe methodological and reporting quality of current COVID-19 SR is far from optimal. In addition, most of the current SRs fail to address relevant threats to their internal validity, including repeated patients and heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19. Adherence to proper study design and peer-review practices must remain to mitigate current limitations.

Download Full-text

Effect of Probiotic, Prebiotic, or Synbiotic Supplement on Children, Adolescents, or Infants: A Protocol of an Umbrella Review

10.21203/rs.3.rs-656995/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Shunlian 付顺链 Fu ◽

Qian Zhou ◽

Lijun Yuan ◽

Zi-nan Li ◽

Qiu Chen

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Random Effect ◽

Control Group ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Umbrella Review ◽

Qualitative Comparison ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have studied the association between probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics and children, adolescents, or Infants. With the promotion of probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics in our life and medical practice, more and more attention has been paid to them. Therefore, it is necessary to make a systematic summary of them. When the information was obtained in the identified systematic review, it will be compared with a control group that do not use probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics. In addition, our aim is to assess the quality of the included systematic reviews.Methods: We will conduct a comprehensive systematic search by summarizing systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials which have studied effect of probiotic, prebiotic, or synbiotic supplement on children, adolescents, or Infants. Four electronic databases (Embase, PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) will be searched. Two reviewers will independently screen the retrieved papers. Two reviewers will independently extract the data by reference to the JBI Data Extraction Form for Review for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. We will also assess methodological quality and assessment of certainty in the findings by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Review version 2 (AMSTAR-2) and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We will calculate the corrected covered area (CCA). We will recalculate the summary effect and 95% CIs by using fixed-effect or random-effect models.Discussion: Through quantitative and qualitative comparison by conducting an umbrella review, we hope our results will service better for future clinical practice.Systematic review registration: This protocol have finished the registration in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (registration number: CRD42021244923).

Download Full-text