Systematic Reviews of Systematic Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Studies Reviews in Healthcare Research: How to Assess the Methodological Quality of Included Reviews?

2021 ◽  
pp. 155868982110542
Author(s):  
Geneviève Rouleau ◽  
Quan Nha Hong ◽  
Navdeep Kaur ◽  
Marie‐Pierre Gagnon ◽  
José Côté ◽  
...  

Conducting a review of systematic reviews can be challenging, especially when combining systematic quantitative, qualitative and mixed studies reviews. In this methodological discussion paper, we propose (a) a typology for categorizing various types of review of reviews and (b) an exploration of criteria pertaining to three existing critical appraisal tools (ROBIS, AMSTAR 2, and MMSR) to identify those that could be adapted for qualitative and mixed studies reviews. Further work has to be done to develop methodological guidance in conducting, interpreting, and reporting reviews of reviews that combine qualitative and quantitative data.

Author(s):  
Ana Beatriz Pizarro ◽  
Sebastián Carvajal ◽  
Adriana Buitrago-López

Introduction: Making decisions based on evidence has been a challenge for health professionals, given the need to have the tools and skills to carry out a critical appraisal of the evidence and assess the validity of the results. Systematic reviews of the literature (SRL) have been used widely to answer questions in the clinical field. Tools have been developed that support the appraisal of the quality of the studies. AMSTAR is one of these, validated and supported by reproducible evidence, which guides the methodological quality of the SRL. Objectives: To show a historical, theoretical and practical guide for critical assessment of systematic reviews using AMSTAR to guide the argumental bases for their use according to the components of this methodological structure in health research, and to provide practical examples of how to apply this checklist. Methods: We conducted a non-exhaustive review of literature in Pubmed and Cochrane Library using “AMSTAR” and “Systematic Reviews” as free terms without language or publication date limit; we also collected information from experts in the evaluation of the quality of the evidence. Conclusions: AMSTAR is an instrument used, validated and supported by reproducible evidence for the evaluation of the internal validity of systematic reviews of the literature. It consists of 16 items that assess the overall methodological quality of an SRL. It is currently used indiscriminately and favorably, but it is not exempt from limitations and future updates based on new reproducibility and validation studies.


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 548-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jayakumar Jayaraman ◽  
Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu ◽  
Shaju Jacob Pulikkotil ◽  
Nicola P. Innes

Materials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (18) ◽  
pp. 4180
Author(s):  
Agostino Guida ◽  
Gennaro Cecoro ◽  
Rosario Rullo ◽  
Luigi Laino ◽  
Massimo Del Fabbro ◽  
...  

The present study aimed to perform a systematic critical appraisal of the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) on the effect of autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) in the treatment of periodontal intraosseous defects and to provide a synthesis of the main clinical findings available. An electronic and hand search was performed up to February 2020; 14 systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), of which 11 were meta-analyses, were included. Only one SR fully satisfied all 11 items of the AMSTAR (“A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews”) checklist for methodological quality evaluation, 3 SRs were classified of high quality, 8 of medium quality, and 2 of low quality. There is some evidence on the beneficial additive effect of APCs in the surgical treatment of intraosseous defects when used alone or in combination with bone grafts. APCs did not show any advantage when used together with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) or enamel matrix derivative (EMD). Undertaking SRs which adhere to rigorous standards and protocols is strongly recommended. There are increasing data on the positive adjunctive effect of APCs in the surgical treatment of intraosseous defects but, due to the heterogeneity of the available primary studies, the quality of evidence remains rather low and further long-term well-designed RCTs are encouraged.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (23) ◽  
pp. 2686-2691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ioannis Doundoulakis ◽  
Christina Antza ◽  
Haralambos Karvounis ◽  
George Giannakoulas

Background: Anticoagulation in patients with pulmonary embolism. Objective: To identify how non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are associated with multiple outcomes in patients with pulmonary embolism. Methods: We performed a systematic search of systematic reviews via multiple electronic databases from inception to August 19th, 2019, without language restriction. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews using the ROBIS tool. Results: We found twelve systematic reviews. Eleven SRs collected their data from randomized clinical trials and one from observational studies. All the included studies were published between 2014 and 2019 in English. The methodological quality of the 12 systematic reviews was low to high. None of the systematic reviews, which are included in our overview of systematic reviews, has evaluated the overall quality of evidence outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Conclusion: This is the first effort to summarize evidence about non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in an overview of systematic reviews focusing exclusively on patients with pulmonary embolism. The evidence suggests that the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants seem to be more effective and safer than a dualdrug approach with LMWH- VKA.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynn Hendricks ◽  
Ingrid Eshun-Wilson ◽  
Anke Rohwer

Abstract Background People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) struggle with the challenges of living with a chronic disease and integrating antiretroviral treatment (ART) and care into their daily lives. The aims of this study were as follows: (1) to undertake the first mega-aggregation of qualitative evidence syntheses using the methods of framework synthesis and (2) make sense of existing qualitative evidence syntheses that explore the barriers and facilitators of adherence to antiretroviral treatment, linkage to care and retention in care for PLHIV to identify research gaps. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search and did all screening, data extraction and critical appraisal independently and in duplicate. We used the Kaufman HIV Behaviour Change model (Kaufman et al., 2014) as a framework to synthesise the findings using the mega-aggregative framework synthesis approach, which consists of 8 steps: (1) identify a clearly defined review question and objectives, (2) identify a theoretical framework or model, (3) decide on criteria for considering reviews for inclusion, (4) conduct searching and screening, (5) conduct quality appraisal of the included studies, (6) data extraction and categorisation, (7) present and synthesise the findings, and (8) transparent reporting. We evaluated systematic reviews up to July 2018 and assessed methodological quality, across reviews, using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews. Results We included 33 systematic reviews from low, middle- and high-income countries, which reported on 1,111,964 PLHIV. The methodological quality of included reviews varied considerably. We identified 544 unique third-order concepts from the included systematic reviews, which were reclassified into 45 fourth-order themes within the individual, interpersonal, community, institutional and structural levels of the Kaufman HIV Behaviour Change model. We found that the main influencers of linkage, adherence and retention behaviours were psychosocial and personal characteristics—perceptions of ART, desires, fears, experiences of HIV and ART, coping strategies and mental health issues—interwoven with other factors on the interpersonal, community, institutional and structural level. Using this approach, we found interdependence between factors influencing ART linkage, retention and adherence and identified the need for qualitative evidence that explores, in greater depth, the complex relationships between structural factors and adherence, sociodemographic factors such as community violence and retention, and the experiences of growing up with HIV in low- and middle-income countries—specifically in children, youth, women and key populations. Conclusions This is the first mega-aggregation framework synthesis, or synthesis of qualitative evidence syntheses using the methods of framework synthesis at the overview level. We found the novel method to be a transparent and efficient method for assessing the quality and making sense of existing qualitative systematic reviews. Systematic review registration The protocol of this overview was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017078155) on 17 December 2017.


Vaccine ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (15) ◽  
pp. 1678-1684 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cornelius Remschmidt ◽  
Ole Wichmann ◽  
Thomas Harder

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document