scholarly journals Critically Low Confidence in the Results Produced by Spine Surgery Systematic Reviews: An AMSTAR-2 Evaluation From 4 Spine Journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 667-673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Dettori ◽  
Andrea C. Skelly ◽  
Erika D. Brodt
Keyword(s):  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Surgery Research

Study Design: A systematic cross-sectional survey of systematic reviews (SRs). Objective: To evaluate the methodological quality of spine surgery SRs published in 2018 using the updated AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal instrument. Methods: We identified the PubMed indexed journals devoted to spine surgery research in 2018. All SRs of spine surgical interventions from those journals were critically appraised for quality independently by 2 reviewers using the AMSTAR 2 instrument. We calculated the percentage of SRs achieving a positive response for each AMSTAR 2 domain item and assessed the levels of confidence in the results of each SR. Results: We identified 28 SRs from 4 journals that met our criteria for inclusion. Only 49.5% of the AMSTAR 2 domain items satisfied the AMSTAR 2 criteria. Critical domain items were satisfied less often (39.1%) compared with noncritical domain items (57.3%). Domain items most poorly reported include accounting for individual study risk of bias when interpreting results (14%), list and justification of excluded articles (18%), and an a priori establishment of methods prior to the review or registered protocol (18%). The overall confidence in the results was rated “low” in 2 SRs and “critically low” in 26. Conclusions: The credibility of a SR and its value to clinicians and policy makers are dependent on its methodological quality. This appraisal found significant methodological limitations in several critical domains, such that the confidence in the findings of these reviews is “critically low.”

scholarly journals Methodological quality for systematic reviews of adverse events with surgical interventions: a cross-sectional survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoqin Zhou ◽  
Linji Li ◽  
Lifeng Lin ◽  
Ke Ju ◽  
Joey S. W. Kwong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Absolute Difference ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Background An increasing number of systematic reviews assessed the safety of surgical interventions over time. How well these systematic reviews were designed and conducted determines the reliability of evidence. In this study, we aimed to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews on the safety of surgical interventions. Methods We searched PubMed for systematic reviews of surgical interventions with safety as the exclusive outcome from 1st-Jan, 2015 to 1st-Jan, 2020. The methodological quality of eligible systematic reviews was evaluated according to the AMSTAR 2.0 instrument. The primary outcomes were the number of methodological weaknesses and the global methodological quality. The proportion of each methodological weakness among eligible systematic reviews was compared by three pre-defined stratification variables. The absolute difference of the proportion (PD) was used as the effect estimator, with the two-tailed z-test for the significance. Results We identified 127 systematic reviews from 18,636 records. None (n = 0, 0.00%) of them could be rated as “high” in terms of the global methodological quality; in contrast, they were either rated as “low” (n = 18, 14.17%) or as “critically low” (n = 109, 85.83%). The median number of methodological weaknesses of these systematic reviews was 8 (interquartile range, IQR: 6 to 9), in which 4 (IQR: 2 to 4) were critical weaknesses. Systematic reviews that used any reporting guideline (e.g., domain 13, PD = -0.22, 95% CI: − 0.39, − 0.06; p = 0.01) and developed a protocol in advance (e.g., domain 6, PD = -0.20, 95% CI: − 0.39, − 0.01; p = 0.04) were less likely to have methodological weakness in some domains but not for the rest (e.g., domain 8, PD = 0.04, 95% CI: − 0.14, 0.21; p = 0.68; with protocol vs. without). Conclusions The methodological quality of current systematic reviews of adverse events with surgical interventions was poor. Further efforts, for example, encouraging researchers to develop a protocol in advance, are needed to enhance the methodological quality of these systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for depression: a cross-sectional study

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 619-627 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. C. H. Chung ◽  
X. Y. Wu ◽  
Y. Feng ◽  
R. S. T. Ho ◽  
S. Y. S. Wong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Pharmacological Treatments ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Depression Treatments

Aims.Depression is one of the most common mental disorders and identifying effective treatment strategies is crucial for the control of depression. Well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses can provide the best evidence for supporting treatment decision-making. Nevertheless, the trustworthiness of conclusions can be limited by lack of methodological rigour. This study aims to assess the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on depression treatments.Methods.A cross-sectional study on the bibliographical and methodological characteristics of SRs published on depression treatments trials was conducted. Two electronic databases (the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) were searched for potential SRs. SRs with at least one meta-analysis on the effects of depression treatments were considered eligible. The methodological quality of included SRs was assessed using the validated AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool. The associations between bibliographical characteristics and scoring on AMSTAR items were analysed using logistic regression analysis.Results.A total of 358 SRs were included and appraised. Over half of included SRs (n = 195) focused on non-pharmacological treatments and harms were reported in 45.5% (n = 163) of all studies. Studies varied in methods and reporting practices: only 112 (31.3%) took the risk of bias among primary studies into account when formulating conclusions; 245 (68.4%) did not fully declare conflict of interests; 93 (26.0%) reported an ‘a priori’ design and 104 (29.1%) provided lists of both included and excluded studies. Results from regression analyses showed: more recent publications were more likely to report ‘a priori’ designs [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.57], to describe study characteristics fully (AOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06–1.28), and to assess presence of publication bias (AOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06–1.19), but were less likely to list both included and excluded studies (AOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81–0.92). SRs published in journals with higher impact factor (AOR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04–1.25), completed by more review authors (AOR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01–1.24) and SRs on non-pharmacological treatments (AOR 1.62, 95% CI 1.01–2.59) were associated with better performance in publication bias assessment.Conclusion.The methodological quality of included SRs is disappointing. Future SRs should strive to improve rigour by considering of risk of bias when formulating conclusions, reporting conflict of interests and authors should explicitly describe harms. SR authors should also use appropriate methods to combine the results, prevent language and publication biases, and ensure timely updates.

scholarly journals Low Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews on Acupuncture: A Cross- Sectional Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard TF Ho ◽  
Fiona YT Ke ◽  
Charlene HL Wong ◽  
Irene XY Wu ◽  
Andy KL Cheung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Quality Ratings ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

Abstract Background: While well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs) can provide best evidence on the potential effectiveness of acupuncture, limitations on methodological rigour of SRs may impact trustworthiness of their conclusions. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on acupuncture effectiveness.Methods: CDSR, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for SRs on acupuncture. AMSTAR2 was applied for assessing methodological quality. Associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality ratings were examined. Results: A total of 106 SRs were appraised. Only one (0.9%) SR was of high overall methodological quality, zero (0%) was of moderate-quality, six (5.7%) and 99 (93.4%) were of low-quality and critically low-quality respectively. Among appraised SRs, only ten (9.4%) provided an a priori protocol, four (3.8%) conducted a comprehensive literature search, five (4.7%) provided a list of excluded study, and six (5.7%) performed meta-analysis appropriately. Cochrane reviews, update reviews, reviews with corresponding authors from the America, and reviews that searched non-English databases had relatively higher overall quality. Conclusions: Methodological quality of SRs on acupuncture is unsatisfactory. Future reviewers should improve critical areas of publishing protocols, performing comprehensive search, providing a list of excluded studies with justifications for exclusion, and conducting meta-analysis appropriately.

scholarly journals Challenges Faced by Devolved Governance in Quality Service Delivery: A Case Study of Turkana Central Sub-county, Turkana County, Kenya

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 87
Author(s):  
James K. Sirite ◽  
Henry Ongori ◽  
Darius Bosire
Keyword(s):  
Service Delivery ◽  
Survey Design ◽  
Quality Service ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
County Governments ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
To Come

The purpose of this study was to identify the challenges faced in quality service delivery to Turkana Central Sub-county citizens of Turkana County. The study used cross-sectional survey design. The sample size selected for the study was 261.  Data was collected using questionnaires and interview guides. Data was analyzed by descriptive statistics and presented in tables and figures for ease interpretation. The major findings of the study show that devolved governance faces some challenges. For instance the devolved governance is faced with corruption, lack of transparency and accountability and inadequate funds. This adversely   affects quality service delivery to its citizens. The findings of the study would inspire policy makers at the county and national government level to come up with appropriate strategies to mitigate the challenges identified in order to improve the quality of services offered by the county governments.

scholarly journals The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study

Heliyon ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. e04776
Author(s):  
Katja Matthias ◽  
Olesja Rissling ◽  
Dawid Pieper ◽  
Johannes Morche ◽  
Marc Nocon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Major Depression ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional

Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for osteoporosis: A cross-sectional study

Bone ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 139 ◽  
pp. 115541
Author(s):  
Anna K.N. Tsoi ◽  
Leonard T.F. Ho ◽  
Irene X.Y. Wu ◽  
Charlene H.L. Wong ◽  
Robin S.T. Ho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional

scholarly journals Criteria list for assessment of methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 240-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Evers ◽  
Mariëlle Goossens ◽  
Henrica de Vet ◽  
Maurits van Tulder ◽  
André Ament
Keyword(s):  
Health Economic ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Delphi Panel ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Core Set ◽  
International Experts ◽  
Economic Criteria

Objectives:The aim of the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) project is to develop a criteria list for assessment of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. The criteria list resulting from this CHEC project should be regarded as a minimum standard.Methods:The criteria list has been developed using a Delphi method. Three Delphi rounds were needed to reach consensus. Twenty-three international experts participated in the Delphi panel.Results:The Delphi panel achieved consensus over a generic core set of items for the quality assessment of economic evaluations. Each item of the CHEC-list was formulated as a question that can be answered by yes or no. To standardize the interpretation of the list and facilitate its use, the project team also provided an operationalization of the criteria list items.Conclusions:There was consensus among a group of international experts regarding a core set of items that can be used to assess the quality of economic evaluations in systematic reviews. Using this checklist will make future systematic reviews of economic evaluations more transparent, informative, and comparable. Consequently, researchers and policy-makers might use these systematic reviews more easily. The CHEC-list can be downloaded freely fromhttp://www.beoz.unimaas.nl/chec/.

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Spine Surgery—How Good Are They in Methodological Quality? A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muthu Sathish ◽  
Ramakrishnan Eswar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Critical Flaw ◽  
Meta Analyses

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria. Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document