scholarly journals Improving the quality of reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analyses: a cross-sectional survey

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang Xu ◽  
Tong-Zu Liu ◽  
Peng-Li Jia ◽  
Yu Liu ◽  
Ling Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals Survey of the Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation

2013 ◽  
Vol 93 (11) ◽  
pp. 1456-1466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Gianola ◽  
Monica Gasparini ◽  
Michela Agostini ◽  
Greta Castellini ◽  
Davide Corbetta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Functional Limitations ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Item Data ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly important for informing clinical practice; however, little is known about the reporting characteristics and the quality of the SRs relevant to the practice of rehabilitation health professionals. Objective The purpose of this study was to examine the reporting quality of a representative sample of published SRs on rehabilitation, focusing on the descriptive, reporting, and bias-related characteristics. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted by searching MEDLINE for aggregative and configurative SRs indexed in 2011 that focused on rehabilitation as restorative of functional limitations. Two reviewers independently screened and selected the SRs and extracted data using a 38-item data collection form derived from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The data were analyzed descriptively. Results Eighty-eight SRs published in 59 journals were sampled. The median compliance with the PRISMA items was 17 (63%) out of 27 items (interquartile ratio=13–22 [48%–82%]). Two thirds of the SRs (n=66) focused on interventions for which efficacy is best addressed through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, and almost all of these SRs included RCTs (63/66 [95%]). More than two thirds of the SRs assessed the quality of primary studies (74/88 [84%]). Twenty-eight reviews (28/88 [32%]) meta-analyzed the results for at least one outcome. One half of the SRs reported positive statistically significant findings (46%), whereas a detrimental result was present only in one review. Conclusions This sample of SRs in the rehabilitation field showed heterogeneous characteristics and a moderate quality of reporting. Poor control of potential source of bias might be improved if more widely agreed-upon evidence-based reporting guidelines will be actively endorsed and adhered to by authors and journals.

scholarly journals Do oncology researchers adhere to reproducible and transparent principles? A cross-sectional survey of published oncology literature

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e033962 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corbin Walters ◽  
Zachery J Harter ◽  
Cole Wayant ◽  
Nam Vo ◽  
Michael Warren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Random Sample ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Reproducible Research ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Research Practices ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Raw Data ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Meta Analyses

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.

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 Enhancing the Reporting Quality of Meta-Analyses for Trustworthy Decision of Breast Cancer Intervention: A Cross-Sectional Survey

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo Zhu ◽  
Shanshan Lin ◽  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
Chang Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Reporting Guideline ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Potential Factors ◽  
Cancer Intervention ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Meta-analysis of RCTs has been widely employed to evaluate effectiveness of the interventions for breast cancer, but little is known of their reporting validity. Related studies showed that meta-analysis may mislead clinical practice when the reporting is uninformative. The purpose of the study was to assess the reporting quality of meta-analyses of RCTs for breast cancer intervention, and explore potential factors associated with the reporting.Method We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews from inception to November 2019 for published meta-analysis of RCTs for breast cancer intervention. The PRISMA checklist (27-items) was used for the measuring of the reporting quality. The adherence of eligible meta-analyses under each reporting item from PRISMA were evaluated and those with an adherence ≥ 80% were regarded as well reported while less than 30% were poor reported. The proportion of reporting issues were summarized and compared in pre-defined settings measured by rate difference (RD).Result A total of 296 meta-analyses were included. For the 27 reporting items, there were only 6 items were identified as well-reported, while as much as 9 items were poorly reported by these meta-analyses. The reporting issues mainly embodied in the methods and results section. Our further analysis suggested that those published more recently (RD=-0.07, 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.03), complied with reporting guideline (RD=-0.04, 95% CI: -0.07 to -0.02), and pre-specified protocol (RD=-0.09, 95% CI: -0.09 to -0.01) were associated with less reporting issues.Conclusion The reporting of the meta-analyses for breast cancer intervention was uninformative to support the decision-making. Although improvement has seen over times, further efforts are still needed. Some easy-to-implement measures could be considered such as referring to a reporting guideline, develop a protocol in advance to help further researchers to improve the reporting of their meta-analysis.

The quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses published in the field of bariatrics: A cross‐sectional systematic survey using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Storman ◽  
Dawid Storman ◽  
Katarzyna W. Jasinska ◽  
Mateusz J. Swierz ◽  
Malgorzata M. Bala
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Systematic Survey ◽  
Meta Analyses

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Atopic Dermatitis Treatments and Interventions

Dermatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Vanessa Lin ◽  
Raahi Patel ◽  
Alexis Wirtz ◽  
Deepika Mannem ◽  
Ryan Ottwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atopic Dermatitis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Included Study ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analyses

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Spin – the misrepresentation of a study’s results – has been identified in abstracts of studies focused on a variety of disorders from multiple fields of medicine. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> This study’s primary objective was to evaluate the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on the treatment of atopic dermatitis for the nine most severe forms of spin. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We systematically searched Embase and MEDLINE for systematic reviews of atopic dermatitis therapies. Screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion. Each included study was evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin and other study characteristics. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Our searches retrieved 2,456 studies, of which 113 were included for data extraction. Spin was found in 74.3% of our included studies (84/113). Spin type 6 occurred most frequently (68/113, 60.2%). Spin types 1, 2, and 9 were not identified. All industry-funded systematic reviews contained spin in their abstract. The presence of spin was not associated with any specific study characteristics, including the methodological quality of the study. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Severe forms of spin were found in the majority of abstracts for systematic reviews of atopic dermatitis treatments. Steps should be taken to prevent spin to improve the quality of reporting in abstracts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document