Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis

ObjectivesAs much as 50%–90% of research is estimated to be irreproducible, costing upwards of $28 billion in USA alone. Reproducible research practices are essential to improving the reproducibility and transparency of biomedical research, such as including preregistering studies, publishing a protocol, making research data and metadata publicly available, and publishing in open access journals. Here we report an investigation of key reproducible or transparent research practices in the published oncology literature.DesignWe performed a cross-sectional analysis of a random sample of 300 oncology publications published from 2014 to 2018. We extracted key reproducibility and transparency characteristics in a duplicative fashion by blinded investigators using a pilot tested Google Form.Primary outcome measuresThe primary outcome of this investigation is the frequency of key reproducible or transparent research practices followed in published biomedical and clinical oncology literature.ResultsOf the 300 publications randomly sampled, 296 were analysed for reproducibility characteristics. Of these 296 publications, 194 contained empirical data that could be analysed for reproducible and transparent research practices. Raw data were available for nine studies (4.6%). Five publications (2.6%) provided a protocol. Despite our sample including 15 clinical trials and 7 systematic reviews/meta-analyses, only 7 included a preregistration statement. Less than 25% (65/194) of publications provided an author conflict of interest statement.ConclusionWe found that key reproducibility and transparency characteristics were absent from a random sample of published oncology publications. We recommend required preregistration for all eligible trials and systematic reviews, published protocols for all manuscripts, and deposition of raw data and metadata in public repositories.

Download Full-text

A Critical Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Acupuncture for Poststroke Insomnia

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1155/2020/2032575 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2020 ◽

pp. 1-7

Author(s):

Jinke Huang ◽

Manli Wu ◽

Simin Liang ◽

Xiaohui Qin ◽

Min Shen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Quality Assessment ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Acupuncture Treatment ◽

Descriptive Analysis ◽

Control Group ◽

Evidence Quality ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Quality Evidence

Objectives. Acupuncture has increasingly been used for insomnia relief after stroke. We aimed to evaluate the methodological quality and summarize the evidence regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture for poststroke insomnia (PSI) from systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs). Methods. Eight databases were searched from inception through August 23, 2020. SRs/MAs on acupuncture treatment for PSI were included. Methodological quality assessment was performed using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), and evidence quality assessment was performed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results. Six SRs/MAs on acupuncture treatment for PSI were included. The AMSTAR-2 showed that the methodological quality of all included SRs/MAs was rated as critically low. According to the evaluation results of GRADE, 38.9% (7/18) of outcomes were rated as very low-quality evidence, 22.2% (4/18) were low-quality evidence, and 8.9% (7/18) were moderate-quality evidence. Descriptive analysis results showed that acupuncture was an effective treatment modality for PSI. Conclusions. All included reviews indicated that acupuncture was more effective than the control group for the treatment of PSI, but the credibility of the results is limited owing to the generally low methodological and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs. More high-quality evidence is needed to determine whether acupuncture is more effective than other treatments.

Download Full-text

The clinical outcome of the Metha short hip stem: a systematic scoping review

Hip International ◽

10.1177/1120700020903719 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 112070002090371 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Michael-Alexander Malahias ◽

Purnachandra Tejaswi ◽

Dimitrios Chytas ◽

Vikram Kadu ◽

Dimitrios Karanikas ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Outcome ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Scoping Review ◽

Hip Resurfacing ◽

Long Term Results ◽

Middle Aged ◽

Cochrane Database ◽

Pubmed Database ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Age Range

Introduction: Short femoral stems were designed to bridge the gap between conventional straight design stems and hip resurfacing prostheses in total hip arthroplasty (THA). A number of clinical trials have been recently conducted to assess the clinical and safety profile of the cementless, colarless, tapered Metha short hip stem in young or active middle-aged individuals. Methods: A systematic scoping review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. 4 reviewers independently conducted the search using the MEDLINE/PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. These databases were queried with the terms “short” AND “hip” AND “stem”. Results: From the initial 773 studies we finally chose 12 studies after applying our inclusion-exclusion criteria. The number of operated hips that were included in these studies was 5048 (mean BMI range: 22.7–35.2, mean age range: 44.4–60.4 years, mean follow-up range: 2–9 years). The mean modified Coleman methodology score was 52.3/100, while it ranged from 31/100 to 63/100. All mean clinical outcome scores that were used in the studies illustrated significant postoperative improvement when compared with the respective initial values. The revision rate of the Metha stem for component-related reasons was 2.5%, while the rate of major complications not requiring revision of the Metha stem was 2.8%. Conclusions: The Metha stem performs well in young or active middle-aged THA patients. Further studies are required for the assessment of the long-term results.

Download Full-text

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

Global Spine Journal ◽

10.1177/2192568220906810 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 219256822090681 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

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.

Download Full-text

Identifying competing interest disclosures in systematic reviews of surgical interventions and devices: a cross-sectional survey

10.21203/rs.3.rs-33056/v4 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Jiajie Yu ◽

Guanyue Su ◽

Allison Hirst ◽

Zengyue Yang ◽

You Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Descriptive Analysis ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Chi Square ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Surgical Interventions ◽

Competing Interests ◽

Funding Sources ◽

Research Fields ◽

Competing Interest

Abstract Background: A competing interest is an important source of bias in research and disclosure is frequently employed as a strategy to manage it. Considering the importance of systematic reviews (SRs) and the varying prevalence of competing interests in different research fields, we conducted a survey to identify the range of competing interests in SRs assessing surgical interventions or devices and explored the association between the competing interest disclosures and authors’ conclusions.Methods: We retrieved SRs of surgical interventions and devices published in 2017 via PubMed. Information regarding general characteristics, funding sources, and competing interest disclosures were extracted. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the studies’ characteristics and compared them between Cochrane SRs (CSRs)and non-Cochrane SRs using the Chi-square test. Results were expressed as odds ratio and their 95% confidence interval.Results: 155 SRs published in 2017 were included in the study. More than half of the SRs (58.7%) reported their funding sources and 94.2% reported authors’ competing interest disclosures. Among 146 SRs that stated competing interest disclosures, only 35 (22.6%) SRs declared at least one author had a competing interest. More than 40 terms were used to describe competing interests. Cochrane SRs (CSRs) were more likely to provide a detailed description of competing interests compared to those in non-CSRs (48.0% versus 25.4%, P=0.023). No association between positive conclusions and competing interest disclosures was found (P=0.484, OR=0.43, 95%CI: 0.08, 2.16). In the subgroup analyses, SRs stating no competing interest disclosure were more likely to report positive conclusions than those stating at least one type of competing interest, but the difference is not significantly different (P=0.406, OR=1.38, 95%CI: 0.64, 2.98)Conclusion: In surgical SRs, there is a high percentage of competing interest disclosures but without detailed information. The identification and statement of competing interests with a detailed description, particularly the non-financial ones, needs improvement. Some efficient and effective methods/tools for identifying, quantifying, and minimizing potential competing interests in systematic reviews remains valuable.

Download Full-text

Nutritional Supplementation during Pulmonary Rehabilitation in COPD: A Systematic Review

10.1101/19000786 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Abdulelah M Aldhahir ◽

Ahmed M Al Rajah ◽

Yousef S Aldabayan ◽

Salifu Drammeh ◽

Vanitha Subbu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Pulmonary Rehabilitation ◽

Nutritional Supplementation ◽

Systematic Search ◽

Current Evidence ◽

Chronic Obstructive ◽

Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽

Cochrane Database ◽

Registration Number ◽

Meta Analyses

ABSTRACTBackgroundUptake of nutritional supplementation during pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been limited by an absence of rigorous evidence-based studies supporting use. Our objective were to report and summarise the current evidence supporting use of nutritional supplementation to improve outcomes during pulmonary rehabilitation in stable COPD patients.MethodsA systematic search was conducted up to May 7th, 2019 (registration number CRD42018089142). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used. Six databases were included: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online or MEDLARS Online (Medline), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (Embase), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Science.ResultsThis systematic search generated 580 initial matches, of which 24 studies (1035 COPD participants) met the pre-specified criteria and were included. Our analysis does not confirm an impact of nutritional supplementation during PR, but studies, supplements and PR programmes were heterogeneous in nature.ConclusionThere is currently insufficient evidence on the effect of nutritional supplementation on improving outcomes during PR in patients with COPD. Therefore, controversy remains and further research is needed.

Download Full-text

Technical-Tactical Performance from Data Providers: A Systematic Review in Regular Football Leagues

Sustainability ◽

10.3390/su131810167 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (18) ◽

pp. 10167

Author(s):

Fernando Manuel Otero-Saborido ◽

Rubén D. Aguado-Méndez ◽

Víctor M. Torreblanca-Martínez ◽

José Antonio González-Jurado

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Comparative Analysis ◽

Physical Fitness ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Descriptive Analysis ◽

Contextual Variables ◽

Premier League ◽

Fitness Parameters ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Predictive Analyses

In recent years, the number of technology companies providing data to football teams has multiplied. At first, the provided information focused more on physical fitness parameters, but today, ever more data is being generated on technical-tactical performance. The objective of this study was to review the studies on technical-tactical variables based on the information offered by data providers from every country’s regular elite league championship. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards. A total of 31 studies were selected. LaLiga (27.91%) and the Premier League (18.60%) were the most studied competitions. Amisco was the company with the largest number of studies (54.84%). Descriptive studies (58.06%) predominated over comparative (22.58%) and predictive analyses (19.05%). “Style of play”, “contextual variables” (descriptive analysis), and “demarcation” (comparative analysis) were the most used objectives in the 28 studies reviewed.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Treatments of Erectile Dysfunction: A Cross-sectional Analysis

Sexual Medicine ◽

10.1016/j.esxm.2020.10.012 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

pp. 100284

Author(s):

Arjun K. Reddy ◽

Kaley Lulkovich ◽

Ryan Ottwell ◽

Wade Arthur ◽

Aaron Bowers ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Erectile Dysfunction ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Cross Sectional Analysis ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Sectional Analysis

Download Full-text

Use and reporting of risk of bias tools in 825 systematic reviews of acupuncture: a cross-sectional study

Acupuncture in Medicine ◽

10.1177/0964528420946043 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 096452842094604

Author(s):

Youlin Long ◽

Xin Wang ◽

Wenzhe Xiao ◽

Rui Chen ◽

Qiong Guo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Impact Factor ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

English Language ◽

Chinese Language ◽

Descriptive Analysis ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Knowledge Infrastructure ◽

Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure

Objective: To assess the use and reporting of risk of bias (RoB) tools in systematic reviews (SRs) of acupuncture. Study design and setting: We extracted and analyzed information relating to RoB in acupuncture SRs via Medline, Embase and the Chinese CNKI (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure), WanFang and VIP databases from their inception to 24 November 2017. Three subgroup analyses were used to check the influence of language, journal type and impact factor, following which we used descriptive analysis. Results: We included 825 acupuncture SRs, of which 48% used the Cochrane RoB tool. Only 36% used the latest version of the Cochrane Handbook (version 5.1.0 at time of writing) with higher proportions among Cochrane SRs (65%) versus non-Cochrane SRs (34%), and high impact factor journals (58%) versus low or no impact factor journals (28% and 38%, respectively). In the last decade, there were notable increases in the use of the Cochrane RoB tool and Cochrane Handbook version 5.1.0, of 43% and 19%, respectively. Chinese-language SRs demonstrated proportionally higher tendencies to report an incorrect Cochrane Handbook version, increasing by 14% in the last 5 years. Additionally, 7% SRs did not report any results, and only 10% reported relatively complete and adequate RoB assessment. Cochrane SRs reported more complete assessments than Chinese-language or non-Cochrane English-language SRs. Conclusion: Use and reporting of RoB tools were suboptimal. Proportionally, use of the Cochrane RoB tool and Cochrane Handbook version 5.1.0 was low but rising. Our results highlight the prevalence and concerns of using unsuitable tools and the issue of incomplete RoB reporting. RoB tool application requires further improvement.

Download Full-text