scholarly journals Does Probe-Tube Verification of Real-Ear Hearing Aid Amplification Characteristics Improve Outcomes in Adults? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 233121652199956
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Almufarrij ◽  
Harvey Dillon ◽  
Kevin J. Munro
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Minimum Clinically Important Difference ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Meta Analyses

This systematic review, the first on this topic, aimed to investigate if probe-tube verification of real-ear hearing aid amplification characteristics improves outcomes in adults. The review was preregistered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and performed in accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. After assessing more than 1,420 records from seven databases, six experimental studies (published between 2012 and 2019) met the inclusion criteria; five were included in the meta-analyses. The primary outcome of interest (hearing-specific, health-related quality of life) was not reported in any study. There were moderate and statistically significant positive effects of probe-tube real-ear measurement (REM), compared with the manufacturer’s initial fit, on speech intelligibility in quiet settings (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.59) and user’s final preference (proportion difference: 52.2%). There were small but statistically significant positive effects of REM on self-reported listening abilities (SMD: 0.22) and speech intelligibility in noise (SMD: 0.15). The quality of evidence for these outcomes ranged from high to very low. The findings show that REMs improve outcomes statistically, but this is based on a small number of studies and a limited number of participants. It is currently unclear if the benefits are of material importance because minimum clinically important differences have not been established for most of the outcomes. Ultimately, there needs to be a cost-effectiveness analysis to show that statistically significant benefits, which exceed the minimum clinically important difference, are worth the cost involved.

Mindfulness- and Acceptance-Based Interventions for Stroke Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 003435522110432
Author(s):  
Areum Han
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Mental Fatigue ◽  
Stroke Survivors ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective: Mindfulness- and acceptance-based intervention (MABI) is an emerging evidenced-based practice, but no systematic review incorporating meta-analyses for MABIs in stroke survivors has been conducted. The objective of this systematic review was to measure the effectiveness of MABIs on outcomes in people with stroke. Method: Three electronic databases, including PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, were searched to identify relevant studies published in peer-reviewed journals. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed. Data were extracted and combined in a meta-analysis with a random-effect model to compute the size of the intervention effect. Results: A total of 11 studies met the eligibility criteria. Meta-analyses found a small-to-moderate effect of MABIs on depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.12, 0.66]) and a large effect on mental fatigue (SMD = 1.22, 95% CI = [0.57, 1.87]). No statistically significant effect of MABIs on anxiety, quality of life, and mindfulness was found, but there was a trend in favor of MABIs overall. Conclusions: This meta-analysis found positive effects of MABIs on depressive symptoms and mental fatigue in stroke survivors, but future high-quality studies are needed to guarantee treatment effects of MABIs on varied outcomes in stroke survivors.

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.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 6. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies

2008 ◽  
Vol 5;12 (5;9) ◽  
pp. 819-850
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Confounding Bias ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

Observational studies provide an important source of information when randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cannot or should not be undertaken, provided that the data are analyzed and interpreted with special attention to bias. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) stresses the examination of evidence from clinical research and describes it as a shift in medical paradigm, in contrast to intuition, unsystematic clinical experience, and pathophysiologic rationale. While the importance of randomized trials has been created by the concept of the hierarchy of evidence in guiding therapy, much of the medical research is observational. The reporting of observational research is often not detailed and clear enough with insufficient quality and poor reporting, which hampers the assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the study and the generalizability of the mixed results. Thus, in recent years, progress and innovations in health care are measured by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, “the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, clinical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic.” Meta-analysis usually is the final step in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are labor intensive, requiring expertise in both the subject matter and review methodology, and also must follow the rules of EBM which suggests that a formal set of rules must complement medical training and common sense for clinicians to integrate the results of clinical research effectively. While expertise in the review methods is important, the expertise in the subject matter and technical components is also crucial. Even though, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, specifically of RCTs, have exploded, the quality of the systematic reviews is highly variable and consequently, the opinions reached of the same studies are quite divergent. Numerous deficiencies have been described in methodologic assessment of the quality of the individual articles. Consequently, observational studies can provide an important complementary source of information, provided that the data are analyzed and interpreted in the context of confounding bias to which they are prone. Appropriate systematic reviews of observational studies, in conjunction with RCTs, may provide the basis for elimination of a dangerous discrepancy between the experts and the evidence. Steps in conducting systematic reviews of observational studies include planning, conducting, reporting, and disseminating the results. MOOSE, or Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, a proposal for reporting contains specifications including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the MOOSE checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analysis for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision-makers. This manuscript describes systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Authors frequently utilize RCTs and observational studies in one systematic review; thus, they should also follow the reporting standards of the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement, which also provides a checklist. A combined approach of QUOROM and MOOSE will improve reporting of systematic reviews and lead to progress and innovations in health care. Key words: Observational studies, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, metaanalysis, randomized trials, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, confounding bias, QUOROM, MOOSE

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 Does pain influence force steadiness? A protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e042525
Author(s):  
Michail Arvanitidis ◽  
Deborah Falla ◽  
Andy Sanderson ◽  
Eduardo Martinez-Valdes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Force Steadiness ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionPerforming contractions with minimum force fluctuations is essential for everyday life as reduced force steadiness impacts on the precision of voluntary movements and functional ability. Several studies have investigated the effect of experimental or clinical musculoskeletal pain on force steadiness but with conflicting findings. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the current literature to determine whether pain, whether it be clinical or experimental, influences force steadiness.Methods and analysisThis protocol for a systematic review was informed and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Key databases will be searched from inception to 31 August 2020, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, ZETOC and Web of Science. Grey literature and key journals will be also reviewed. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa tool, and the quality of the cumulative evidence assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. If homogeneity exists between groups of studies, meta-analysis will be conducted. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis approach and a vote-counting method will be used, while the results will be presented as net increases or decreases of force steadiness.Ethics and disseminationThe findings will be presented at conferences and the review will be also submitted for publication in a refereed journal. No ethical approval was required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020196479

scholarly journals Buteyko method for people with asthma: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e049213
Author(s):  
Karla Morganna Pereira Pinto de Mendonça ◽  
Sean Collins ◽  
Tácito ZM Santos ◽  
Gabriela Chaves ◽  
Sarah Leite ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionButeyko method is recommended as a non-pharmacological treatment for people with asthma. Although the worldwide interest in the Buteyko method, there is a paucity of studies gathering evidence to support its use. Therefore, we aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of the Buteyko method in children and adults with asthma.Methods and analysisWe will search on Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for studies focusing on the Buteyko method for children and adults with asthma. The searches will be carried out in September 2021 from database’s inception to the present. We will include randomised controlled trials comparing Buteyko method alone with asthma education or inactive control intervention. There will be no restriction on language. Primary outcomes include quality of life, asthma symptoms and adverse events/side effects. Two review authors will independently screen the studies for inclusion and extract data. We will assess the quality of the included studies using the ‘Risk of Bias’ tool. The certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach. Data synthesis will be conducted using Review Manager software. Reporting of the review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.Ethics and disseminationThis study will assess and provide evidence for the use of the Buteyko method in people with asthma. We will analyse secondary data and this does not require ethics approval. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals, at relevant conferences and will be shared in plain language in social media. Moreover, the findings of this review could guide the direction of healthcare practice and research.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020193132.

scholarly journals Evaluating the Quality of the Iranian Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Economic Evaluations in Healthcare from 2005 to 2015

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morteza Arab-Zozani ◽  
Zahra Heidarifard ◽  
Efat Jabarpour
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Economic Perspective ◽  
Meta Analyses

Context: The number of studies on health is increasing rapidly worldwide and in Iran. Systematic review studies, meta-analyses, and economic evaluation are of great importance in evidence-based decision making because of their standing in the evidence-based pyramid. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of Iranian systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies and economic evaluations on healthcare. Evidence Acquisition: PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to find considered studies, including systematic reviews, meta analyses and economic evaluations published from 2005 to 2015. Because of the high volume of review studies, 10% of all systematic reviews and meta-analyses were selected as a random sample. Also, all economic evaluations were included. Articles were evaluated using checklists, including PRISMA, AMSTAR and QHES with a maximum score of 27, 11 and 100, respectively. The quality score for each criterion as well as the epidemiological and descriptive characteristics of all articles was determined. Data were analyzed using SPSS V. 16 software. Results: After searching the databases, 1084 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were obtained, 10% of which were included in the study. A total of 41 economic evaluations were also included. The mean scores of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were 17.04 (5.35) and 5.42 (1.97), respectively, and 68.21 (12.44) for economic evaluations based on QHES. Only three systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles had recorded protocols and 85% of the studies included the terms “systematic review” and “meta-analysis” in their titles. Only one study had been updated. In addition, 81% of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses were published in specialized journals and 47% in Iranian journals. Financial resources and conflict of interests had been mentioned in 33% and 66% of the studies, respectively. Of the selected studies, 60% had evaluated the quality of the articles and 35% of the studies had assessed publication bias. In economic evaluations, 56% had used CEA analysis, 22% CUA analysis, 12% CBA analysis, and one study had used CMA analysis. Of these studies, 54% were model-based health economic studies and 12% were trial-based. The economic perspective was the health care system in most studies. Forty-four percent of the studies had a short time horizon of one year or less, whereas 33% had a lifetime horizon. Moreover, 68% of the studies showed sensitivity analysis and only 5 included the magnitude and direction of the bias. Conclusions: Overall, the reporting and methodological quality of the selected studies were estimated at a moderate level. Based on these results, it is recommended to adopt strategies to reduce preventable errors in studies. Having a primary plan and protocol and registering it as a systematic review can be an important factor in improving the quality of studies. Economic evaluations should also focus on issues, such as economic perspective, time horizon, available bias, and sensitivity analysis.

Is Exercise a Useful Intervention in the Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 520-537
Author(s):  
Fatih Gür ◽  
Ganime Can Gür
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Alcohol Consumption ◽  
Alcohol Use ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Exercise Interventions ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effects of exercise on individuals with alcohol use disorders (AUDs) across multiple health outcomes. Data Sources: PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Academic Search complete, Sport Discuss, and ERIC databases. Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Interventional studies published between 2000 and 2018 focused on evaluating the effectiveness of exercise interventions in adults with AUD. Data Extraction: This protocol was prepared using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocols standard and the Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies guidelines. Data Synthesis: Physical activity levels/fitness [VO2 max (Oxygen Uptake) and HRmax (Maximum Heart Rate)], levels of depression, anxiety, self-efficacy, quality of life, and alcohol consumption (number of standard drinks consumed per day and per week). Results: The findings indicated that exercise significantly improved physical fitness as assessed by VO2 max (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.487, P < .05) and HRmax (SMD: 0.717, P < .05). Similarly, exercise significantly improved mental health as assessed by quality of life (SMD: 0.425, P < .05), but levels of depression, anxiety, self-efficacy, and alcohol consumption did not change significantly. Aerobic exercise alleviated depression and anxiety symptoms more than that of yoga and mixed types. Duration of exercise also had a similar effect on anxiety and depression. Conclusions: Exercise can be an effective and persistent adjunctive treatment for individuals with AUDs.

scholarly journals The Clinical Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Knee Disorders and Surgery—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Life ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 94
Author(s):  
Ewa Trams ◽  
Krzysztof Kulinski ◽  
Katarzyna Kozar-Kaminska ◽  
Stanislaw Pomianowski ◽  
Rafal Kaminski
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Knee Surgery ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Knee Disorders

In recent years, the interest in biological treatment of knee lesions has increased, especially the application of platelet-rich plasma is of particular note. The number of articles evaluating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) efficacy in the recovery of knee disorders and during knee surgery has exponentially increased over the last decade. A systematic review with meta-analyses was performed by assessing selected studies of local PRP injections to the knee joint. The study was completed in accordance with 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A multistep search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed to identify studies on knee surgery and knee lesion treatment with PRP. Of the 4004 articles initially identified, 357 articles focusing on knee lesions were selected and, consequently, only 83 clinical trials were analyzed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to evaluate risk. In total, seven areas of meta-analysis reported a positive effect of PRP. Among them, 10 sub-analyses demonstrated significant differences in favor of PRP when compared to the control groups (p < 0.05). This study showed the positive effects of PRP, both on the recovery of knee disorders and during knee surgery; however further prospective and randomized studies with a higher number of subjects and with lower biases are needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document