Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Published in High-Impact Otolaryngology Journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 163 (5) ◽  
pp. 892-905
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Martinez-Monedero ◽  
Arman Danielian ◽  
Varun Angajala ◽  
Jennifer E. Dinalo ◽  
Eric J. Kezirian
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Abstract Screening

Objective To assess the methodological quality of intervention-focused systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) published in high-impact otolaryngology journals. Data Sources Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Review Methods A comprehensive search was performed for SR and MA citations from 2012 to 2017 in the 10 highest impact factor otolaryngology journals. Abstracts were screened to identify published manuscripts in which the authors indicated clearly that they were performing an SR or MA. Applying a modified typology of reviews, 4 reviewers characterized the review type as SR, MA, or another review type. A simplified version of the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2) tool was used to assess the reporting and methodological quality of the SRs and MAs that were focused on interventions. Results Search and abstract screening generated 499 manuscripts that identified themselves as performing an SR or MA. A substantial number (85/499, 17%) were review types other than SRs or MAs, including 34 (7%) that were literature reviews. In total, 236 SRs and MAs focused on interventions. Over 50% of these SRs and MAs had weaknesses in at least 3 of the 16 items in the AMSTAR 2, and over 40% had weaknesses in at least 2 of the 7 critical domains. Ninety-nine percent of SRs and MAs provided critically low confidence in the results of the reviews. Conclusion Intervention-focused SRs and MAs published in high-impact otolaryngology journals have important methodological limitations that diminish confidence in the results of these reviews.

Methodological quality and reporting of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (8) ◽  
pp. 852-856 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Wasiak ◽  
A. Y. Shen ◽  
R. Ware ◽  
T. J. O’Donohoe ◽  
C. M. Faggion
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Methodological Assessment ◽  
Meta Analyses

The objective of this study was to assess methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2016 for relevant studies. Reporting quality was evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and methodological quality using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews, the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used to identify features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 91 studies were included in the analysis. Most reviews inadequately reported PRISMA items regarding study protocol, search strategy and bias and AMSTAR items regarding protocol, publication bias and funding. Systematic reviews published in a plastics journal, or which included more authors, were associated with higher AMSTAR scores. A large proportion of systematic reviews within hand and wrist pathology literature score poorly with validated methodological assessment tools, which may affect the reliability of their conclusions. Level of evidence: I

scholarly journals Evaluating the Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses About Breast Augmentation Using AMSTAR

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morgan Yuan ◽  
Jeremy Wu ◽  
Ryan E Austin ◽  
Frank Lista ◽  
Jamil Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Breast Augmentation ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Number Of Citations

Abstract Background Breast augmentation is one of the most commonly performed cosmetic surgeries worldwide. Therefore, it is imperative to have evidence with high methodological quality to guide clinical decision making. Objectives To evaluate the methodological quality of the systematic reviews (SRs) focused on breast augmentation. Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews was performed. SRs that have a particular focus on breast augmentation and were published in the top 15 plastic and reconstructive surgery journals were included. Quality assessment was performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Study characteristics were extracted including journal and impact factor, year of publication, country affiliation of corresponding author, reporting adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, number of citations, and number of studies included. Results Among the 22 studies included for analysis, the mean AMSTAR score was moderate (5.55), with no SR achieving good quality (AMSTAR score ≥9). There were no significant associations between AMSTAR score and journal impact factor, number of citations, year of publication, or number of included studies. Studies that reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines on average scored higher on the AMSTAR tool (p=0.03). Conclusions The methodological quality of reviews about breast augmentation was found to be moderate, with no significant increase in studies or quality over time. Adherence to PRISMA guidelines and increased appraisal of SRs about breast augmentation using methodological assessment tools would further strengthen methodological quality and confidence in study findings.

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

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.

scholarly journals Methodological quality of meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO: leads for enhancements: a meta-epidemiological study

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e036349
Author(s):  
Victoria Leclercq ◽  
Charlotte Beaudart ◽  
Sara Ajamieh ◽  
Ezio Tirelli ◽  
Olivier Bruyère
Keyword(s):  
Epidemiological Study ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Positive Influence ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Literature Search Strategy ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Meta Analyses

ObjectivesMeta-analyses (MAs) are often used because they are lauded to provide robust evidence that synthesises information from multiple studies. However, the validity of MA conclusions relies on the procedural rigour applied by the authors. Therefore, this meta-research study aims to characterise the methodological quality and meta-analytic practices of MAs indexed in PsycINFO.DesignA meta-epidemiological study.ParticipantsWe evaluated a random sample of 206 MAs indexed in the PsycINFO database in 2016.Primary and secondary outcomesTwo authors independently extracted the methodological characteristics of all MAs and checked their quality according to the 16 items of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) tool for MA critical appraisal. Moreover, we investigated the effect of mentioning Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) on the methodological quality of MAs.ResultsAccording to AMSTAR2 criteria, 95% of the 206 MAs were rated as critically low quality. Statistical methods were appropriate and publication bias was well evaluated in 87% and 70% of the MAs, respectively. However, much improvement is needed in data collection and analysis: only 11% of MAs published a research protocol, 44% had a comprehensive literature search strategy, 37% assessed and 29% interpreted the risk of bias in the individual included studies, and 11% presented a list of excluded studies. Interestingly, the explicit mentioning of PRISMA suggested a positive influence on the methodological quality of MAs.ConclusionThe methodological quality of MAs in our sample was critically low according to the AMSTAR2 criteria. Some efforts to tremendously improve the methodological quality of MAs could increase their robustness and reliability.

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

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.

scholarly journals Similarities, reliability and gaps in assessing the quality of conduct of systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS: systematic survey of nutrition reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mateusz J. Swierz ◽  
Dawid Storman ◽  
Joanna Zajac ◽  
Magdalena Koperny ◽  
Paulina Weglarz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Nutritional Intervention ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Systematic Survey ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Abstract Background AMSTAR-2 (‘A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2’) and ROBIS (‘Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews’) are independent instruments used to assess the quality of conduct of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs). The degree of overlap in methodological constructs together with the reliability and any methodological gaps have not been systematically assessed and summarized in the field of nutrition. Methods We performed a systematic survey of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for SR/MAs published between January 2010 and November 2018 that examined the effects of any nutritional intervention/exposure for cancer prevention. We followed a systematic review approach including two independent reviewers at each step of the process. For AMSTAR-2 (16 items) and ROBIS (21 items), we assessed the similarities, the inter-rater reliability (IRR) and any methodological limitations of the instruments. Our protocol for the survey was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019121116). Results We found 4 similar domain constructs based on 11 comparisons from a total of 12 AMSTAR-2 and 14 ROBIS items. Ten comparisons were considered fully overlapping. Based on Gwet’s agreement coefficients, six comparisons provided almost perfect (> 0.8), three substantial (> 0.6), and one a moderate level of agreement (> 0.4). While there is considerable overlap in constructs, AMSTAR-2 uniquely addresses explaining the selection of study designs for inclusion, reporting on excluded studies with justification, sources of funding of primary studies, and reviewers’ conflict of interest. By contrast, ROBIS uniquely addresses appropriateness and restrictions within eligibility criteria, reducing risk of error in risk of bias (RoB) assessments, completeness of data extracted for analyses, the inclusion of all necessary studies for analyses, and adherence to predefined analysis plan. Conclusions Among the questions on AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS, 70.3% (26/37 items) address the same or similar methodological constructs. While the IRR of these constructs was moderate to perfect, there are unique methodological constructs that each instrument independently addresses. Notably, both instruments do not address the reporting of absolute estimates of effect or the overall certainty of the evidence, items that are crucial for users’ wishing to interpret the importance of SR/MA results.

Cancer-related fatigue: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of mind–body intervention

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Huda Anshasi ◽  
Muayyad Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Publication Type ◽  
Gray Literature ◽  
Cancer Related Fatigue ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of mind–body interventions (MBIs) for the management of cancer-related fatigue. Methods A comprehensive search on multiple databases was conducted to identify relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses published from January 2008 to December 2019. Two authors independently selected reviews, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of included reviews using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Results Sixteen reviews published between 2010 and 2018 were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the 16 included systematic reviews was moderate (score 4–7) to high (score ≥ 8) on the 11-point AMSTAR scale. The most common methodological weaknesses were the lack of a list of excluded studies (n = 15, 93.8%) and a priori protocol (n = 2,87.5%). Furthermore, most of the systematic reviews did not search the gray literature for eligible studies (n = 13, 81.3%). Significance of the study This study has revealed the need for high methodological quality systematic reviews on the MBIs for the management of cancer-related fatigue. Thus, further research should focus on methodologically strong systematic reviews by providing a priori design, not limiting the publication type, and providing an excluded primary studies list. Additionally, the researchers should conduct systematic reviews according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline.

scholarly journals An umbrella review comparing computer-assisted and conventional total joint arthroplasty: quality assessment and summary of evidence

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. e000016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Mosaad Hasan ◽  
Manrui Zhang ◽  
Matthew Beal ◽  
Hassan M K Ghomrawi
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Computer Assisted ◽  
Safety Outcomes ◽  
Methodological Assessment ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) of computer-assisted (CA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) report conflicting evidence on its superiority over conventional surgery. Little is known about the quality of these SRs; variability in their methodological quality may be a contributing factor. We evaluated the methodological quality of all published SRs to date, summarized and examined the consistency of the evidence generated by these SRs.MethodsWe searched four databases through December 31, 2018. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) was applied to assess the methodological quality. Evidence from included meta-analyses on functional, radiological and patient-safety outcomes was summarized. The corrected covered area was calculated to assess the overlap between SRs in including the primary studies.ResultsBased on AMSTAR 2, confidence was critically low in 39 of the 42 included SRs and low in 3 SRs. Low rating was mainly due to failure in developing a review protocol (90.5%); providing a list of excluded studies (81%); accounting for risk of bias when discussing the results (67%); using a comprehensive search strategy (50%); and investigating publication bias (50%). Despite inconsistency between SR findings comparing functional, radiological and patient safety outcomes for CA and conventional procedures, most TKA meta-analyses favored CA TKA, whereas most THA meta-analyses showed no difference. Moderate overlap was observed among TKA SRs and high overlap among THA SRs.ConclusionsDespite conclusions of meta-analyses favoring CA arthroplasty, decision makers adopting this technology should be aware of the low confidence in the results of the included SRs. To improve confidence in future SRs, journals should consider using a methodological assessment tool to evaluate the SRs prior to making a publication decision.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Virtual Reality for Rehabilitation of Parkinson Disease: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaqin Lu ◽  
Yonggui Ge ◽  
Wanqiang Chen ◽  
Wenting Xing ◽  
Lushan Wei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Parkinson Disease ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
High Quality ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Quality Evidence

Abstract Background: An increasing number of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of clinical trials have begun to investigate the effects of virtual reality (VR) in patients with Parkinson disease (PD). The aim of this overview of was to systematically summarize the current best evidence for the effectiveness of VR therapy for the rehabilitation of people with PD.Methods: We searched SRs/MAs based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for relevant literature in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library databases from inception to December 5, 2020. The methodological quality of included SRs/MAs was evaluated with the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), and the evidence quality of outcome measures with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: A total of nine SRs/MAs were included. The evaluation with AMSTAR-2 showed that all included SRs/MAs but one were rated as low or critically low quality studies. The GRADE criteria revealed 19 studies with very-low-quality evidences, 20 with low-quality evidences, 8 with moderate-quality evidences, and 1 with high-quality evidence. Effectiveness evaluation showed that VR therapy had greater improvement of stride length compared with control groups. However, there were inconsistent results (better or similar effects) regarding to gait speed, gait ability, balance, global motor function, activities of daily living, quality of life, postural control, cognitive function, and neuropsychiatric symptoms.Conclusions: VR therapy appears to be a promising and effective treatment for PD, but there is still a lack of high-quality evidence. In the future, rigorous-designed, high-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to further verify the effectiveness of VR therapy in the treatment of PD.

scholarly journals Reported Outcomes in Published Systematic Reviews of Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment: Protocol for a Systematic Overview (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Dragioti ◽  
Huan-Ji Dong ◽  
Britt Larsson ◽  
Björn Gerdle
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Pain Treatment ◽  
Treatment Protocol ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Systematic Overview ◽  
Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment ◽  
Meta Analyses

BACKGROUND Interdisciplinary pain treatment (IPT) is a complex intervention; its outcomes are very diverse, as are the methodologies for handling those outcomes. This diversity may hamper evidence-based decision making. Presently, there is no gold standard recommendation of how to select reported outcomes in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses to explicitly demonstrate the effectiveness of IPT. OBJECTIVE In this systematic overview, we aim to evaluate the reported outcome domains and measurements across published systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to identify any methods, considerations, and discussion regarding the handling of the chosen outcome domains and measurements. METHODS This article describes the protocol for a systematic overview of the outcomes reported in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized control trials for the effectiveness of IPT versus any control. To this end, we searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Epistemonikos databases from inception to December 2019. Two independent investigators screened the titles, the abstracts of the identified records, and the full texts of the potentially eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses, performed data extraction according to predefined forms, and rated the quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The quality of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be rated with AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2. Data will be analyzed descriptively and stratified by AMSTAR 2. RESULTS We introduced the rationale and design of a systematic overview to summarize and map the chosen IPT outcome domains and the methods of handling these outcomes reported in published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. As of December 2019, we collected 5229 systematic reviews, of which 147 (2.81%) were examined in-depth for eligibility. Topline results are anticipated by September 2020. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study will be published as soon as they are available. Our results will fill a gap in the related literature and will be used to inform the development of a set of recommendations that can be applied in systematic reviews and hopefully serve as a gold standard. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/17795

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document