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

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

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

scholarly journals Concordance between systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproduction: an overview

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariano Mascarenhas ◽  
Theodoros Kalampokas ◽  
Sesh Kamal Sunkara ◽  
Mohan S Kamath
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Reproduction ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Selective Reporting ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Are systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on interventions in ART concordant in their conclusions? SUMMARY ANSWER The majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period in the field of assisted reproduction on the same topic had discordant conclusions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have now replaced individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at the top of the evidence pyramid. There has been a proliferation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, many of which suffer from methodological issues and provide varying conclusions. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION We assessed nine interventions in women undergoing ART with at least three systematic reviews each, published from January 2015 to December 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The systematic reviews which included RCTs were considered eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was extent of concordance between systematic reviews on the same topic. Secondary outcomes included assessment of quality of systematic reviews, differences in included studies in meta-analyses covering the same search period, selective reporting and reporting the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Concordant results and conclusions were found in only one topic, with reviews in the remaining eight topics displaying partial discordance. The AMSTAR grading for the majority of the non-Cochrane reviews was critically low whilst it was categorized as high for all of the Cochrane reviews. For three of the nine topics, none of the included systematic reviews assessed the quality of evidence. We were unable to assess selective reporting as most of the reviews did not have a pre-specified published protocol. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We were limited by the high proportion of reviews lacking a pre-specified protocol, which made it impossible to assess for selective reporting. Furthermore, many reviews did not specify primary and secondary outcomes which made it difficult to assess reporting bias. All the authors of this review were Cochrane review authors which may introduce some assessment bias. The categorization of the review’s conclusions as beneficial, harmful or neutral was subjective, depending on the tone and wording of the conclusion section of the review. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on the same topic in the field of assisted reproduction revealed discordant conclusions and suffered from serious methodological issues, hindering the process of informed healthcare decision-making. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) All the authors are Cochrane authors. M.S.K. is an editorial board member of Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. No grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors was obtained.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Endodontics

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (6) ◽  
pp. 903-913 ◽  
Author(s):  
Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu ◽  
Shaju Jacob Pulikkotil ◽  
Omer Sheriff Sultan ◽  
Jayakumar Jayaraman ◽  
Ove A. Peters
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

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

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.

scholarly journals A Reporting Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Sports Physical Therapy: A Review of Reviews

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 1368
Author(s):  
Sung-Hyoun Cho ◽  
In-Soo Shin
Keyword(s):  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Review Of Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

This review of reviews aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of sports physical therapy using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This review of reviews included a literature search; in total, 2047 studies published between January 2015 and December 2020 in the top three journals related to sports physical therapy were screened. Among the 125 identified articles, 47 studies on sports physical therapy were included in the analysis (2 systematic reviews and 45 meta-analyses). There were several problems areas, including a lack of reporting for key components of the structured summary (10/47, 21.3%), protocol and registration (18/47, 38.3%), risk of bias in individual studies (28/47, 59.6%), risk of bias across studies (24/47, 51.1%), effect size and variance calculations (5/47, 10.6%), additional analyses (25/47, 53.2%), and funding (10/47, 21.3%). The quality of the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies on sports physical therapy was low to moderate. For better evidence-based practice in sports physical therapy, both authors and readers should examine assumptions in more detail, and report valid and adequate results. The PRISMA guideline should be used more extensively to improve reporting practices in sports physical therapy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document