scholarly journals Protocol registration improves reporting quality of systematic reviews in dentistry

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mateus Bertolini Fernandes dos Santos ◽  
Bernardo Antônio Agostini ◽  
Rafaela Bassani ◽  
Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira ◽  
Rafael Sarkis-Onofre
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Protocol Registration

scholarly journals A Methodological and Reporting Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses about Chinese Medical Treatment for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Zipan Lyu ◽  
Zhongyu Huang ◽  
Fengbin Liu ◽  
Zhengkun Hou
Keyword(s):  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Selection Methods ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Protocol Registration ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective. To access the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) about Chinese medical treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Methods. The PubMed, Wanfang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), Chinese Biomedical (CBM), Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to June 2020. Two researchers independently screened the literature considering the eligibility criteria. Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the included reports. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to evaluate the level of evidence in each report. Results. Thirty-three SRs/MAs met the inclusion criteria. The OQAQ results showed that defects in the methodological quality of 17/32 reports were major, with scores of 3 points. Analyzing a single item as the object, search strategies (item 2), and risk of bias in individual studies (item 4) was considered poor. The AMSTAR 2 results showed that 25.4% of the items were not reported, and 7.8% of the items were only partially reported. The overall assessment of AMSTAR 2 showed the majority of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were of low/very low (31/33, 93.9%) methodological quality, with a lack of protocol registration and excluded study list. The PRISMA results showed that 19.9% of items were not reported, and 15.2% of items were only partially reported, due to a lack of protocol registration and study selection methods. The methodological and reporting quality of the included studies was generally poor. Evidence evaluation with GRADE showed that most (31/33) of the included studies had low or very low levels of evidence. Conclusion. The methodological and reporting quality of SRs/MAs about Chinese medical treatment for GERD is generally poor. The main problems included incomplete search strategies, risk of bias in individual studies, the lack of protocol registration and excluded study list, and incorrect study selection methods.

scholarly journals Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multi-method studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Reema Harrison ◽  
Benjamin Jones ◽  
Peter Gardner ◽  
Rebecca Lawton
Keyword(s):  
Health Services Research ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Services Research ◽  
Appraisal Tool

Abstract Background In the context of the volume of mixed- and multi-methods studies in health services research, the present study sought to develop an appraisal tool to determine the methodological and reporting quality of such studies when included in systematic reviews. Evaluative evidence regarding the design and use of our existing Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD) was synthesised to enhance and refine it for application across health services research. Methods Secondary data were collected through a literature review of all articles identified using Google Scholar that had cited the QATSDD tool from its inception in 2012 to December 2019. First authors of all papers that had cited the QATSDD (n=197) were also invited to provide further evaluative data via a qualitative online survey. Evaluative findings from the survey and literature review were synthesised narratively and these data used to identify areas requiring refinement. The refined tool was subject to inter-rater reliability, face and content validity analyses. Results Key limitations of the QATSDD tool identified related to a lack of clarity regarding scope of use of the tool and in the ease of application of criteria beyond experimental psychological research. The Quality Appraisal for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool emerged as a revised tool to address the limitations of the QATSDD. The QuADS tool demonstrated substantial inter-rater reliability (k=0.66), face and content validity for application in systematic reviews with mixed, or multi-methods health services research. Conclusion Our findings highlight the perceived value of appraisal tools to determine the methodological and reporting quality of studies in reviews that include heterogeneous studies. The QuADS tool demonstrates strong reliability and ease of use for application to multi or mixed-methods health services research.

scholarly journals Quality of Systematic Reviews of the Foods with Function Claims in Japan: Comparative Before- and After-Evaluation of Verification Reports by the Consumer Affairs Agency

Nutrients ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 1583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamioka ◽  
Tsutani ◽  
Origasa ◽  
Yoshizaki ◽  
Kitayuguchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Health Claims ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Product Effectiveness

Background: In Japan, a new type of foods with health claims, called Foods with Function Claims (FFC), was introduced in April 2015 in order to make more products available that are clearly labeled with certain health functions. Regarding substantiating product effectiveness, scientific evidence for the proposed function claims must be explained by systematic reviews (SRs), but the quality of SRs was not clear. The objectives of this review were to assess the quality of SRs based on the FFC registered on the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) website in Japan, and to determine whether the CAA’s verification report in 2016 was associated with improvement in the quality of SRs. Methods: We evaluated the reporting quality of each SR by the AMSTAR checklist on methodological quality. We searched the database from 1 April to 31 October 2015 as the before-SR and from 1 July 2017 to 31 January 2018 as the after-SR. Results: Among the 104 SRs reviewed, 96 final products were included: 51 (53.1%) were supplements, 42 (43.8%) were processed foods without supplements, and 3 (3.1%) were fresh foods. Of the 104 SRs, 92 (88.5%) were qualitative reviews (i.e., without meta-analysis) and 12 (11.5%) performed a meta-analysis. The average quality score of before-SRs and after-SRs was 6.2 ± 1.8 and 5.0 ± 1.9, respectively, a statistically significant decrease (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Overall, the methodology and reporting quality of after-SRs based on the FFC were poorer than those of before-SRs. In particular, there were very poor descriptions and/or implementations of study selection and data extraction, search strategy, evaluation methods for risk of bias, assessment of publication bias, and formulating conclusions based on methodological rigor and scientific quality of the included studies.

scholarly journals An Overview of Meta-Analyses of Danhong Injection for Unstable Angina

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoxia Zhang ◽  
Hui Wang ◽  
Yanxu Chang ◽  
Yuefei Wang ◽  
Xiang Lei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Unstable Angina ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conventional Medicine ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Danhong Injection ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective. To systematically collect evidence and evaluate the effects of Danhong injection (DHI) for unstable angina (UA).Methods. A comprehensive search was conducted in seven electronic databases up to January 2015. The methodological and reporting quality of included studies was assessed by using AMSTAR and PRISMA.Result. Five articles were included. The conclusions suggest that DHI plus conventional medicine treatment was effective for UA pectoris treatment, could alleviate symptoms of angina and ameliorate electrocardiograms. Flaws of the original studies and systematic reviews weaken the strength of evidence. Limitations of the methodology quality include performing an incomprehensive literature search, lacking detailed characteristics, ignoring clinical heterogeneity, and not assessing publication bias and other forms of bias. The flaws of reporting systematic reviews included the following: not providing a structured summary, no standardized search strategy. For the pooled findings, researchers took statistical heterogeneity into consideration, but clinical and methodology heterogeneity were ignored.Conclusion. DHI plus conventional medicine treatment generally appears to be effective for UA treatment. However, the evidence is not hard enough due to methodological flaws in original clinical trials and systematic reviews. Furthermore, rigorous designed randomized controlled trials are also needed. The methodology and reporting quality of systematic reviews should be improved.

scholarly journals The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews from China and the USA are similar

2017 ◽  
Vol 85 ◽  
pp. 50-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinhui Tian ◽  
Jun Zhang ◽  
Long Ge ◽  
Kehu Yang ◽  
Fujian Song
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
The Usa

scholarly journals Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kusala Pussegoda ◽  
Lucy Turner ◽  
Chantelle Garritty ◽  
Alain Mayhew ◽  
Becky Skidmore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Descriptive Study

scholarly journals Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in articles hand and wrist pathology: a review

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 50-57
Author(s):  
Amanda Yang Shen ◽  
Robert S Ware ◽  
Tom J O'Donohoe ◽  
Jason Wasiak
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
English Language ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Annual Basis ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Abstract Reporting

Background: An increasing number of systematic reviews are published on an annual basis. Although perusal of the full text of articles is preferable, abstracts are sometimes relied upon to guide clinical decisions. Despite this, the abstracts of systematic reviews have historically been poorly reported. We evaluated the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts within hand and wrist pathology literature. Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2017 for systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology using the 12-item PRISMA-A checklist to assess abstract reporting quality. Results: A total of 114 abstracts were included. Most related to fracture (38%) or arthritis (17%) management. Forty-seven systematic reviews (41%) included meta-analysis. Mean PRISMA-A score was 3.6/12 with Cochrane reviews having the highest mean score and hand-specific journals having the lowest. Abstracts longer than 300 words (mean difference [MD]: 1.43, 95% CI [0.74, 2.13]; p <0.001) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (MD: 0.64, 95% CI [0.05, 1.22]; p = 0.034) were associated with higher scores. Unstructured abstracts were associated with lower scores (MD: –0.65, 95% CI [–1.28, –0.02]; p = 0.044). A limitation of this study is the possible exclusion of relevant studies that were not published in the English language. Conclusion: Abstracts of systematic reviews pertaining to hand and wrist pathology have been suboptimally reported as assessed by the PRISMA-A checklist. Improvements in reporting quality could be achieved by endorsement of PRISMA-A guidelines by authors and journals, and reducing constraints on abstract length.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document