scholarly journals Appraisal of systematic reviews on interventions for postpartum depression: systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Chow ◽  
Eileen Huang ◽  
Allen Li ◽  
Sophie Li ◽  
Sarah Y. Fu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Postpartum Depression ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool

Abstract Background Postpartum depression (PPD) is a highly prevalent mental health problem that affects parental health with implications for child health in infancy, childhood, adolescence and beyond. The primary aim of this study was to critically appraise available systematic reviews describing interventions for PPD. The secondary aim was to evaluate the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews and their conclusions. Methods An electronic database search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2020 was conducted to identify systematic reviews that examined an intervention for PPD. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews was utilized to independently score each included systematic review which was then critically appraised to better define the most effective therapeutic options for PPD. Results Of the 842 studies identified, 83 met the a priori criteria for inclusion. Based on the systematic reviews with the highest methodological quality, we found that use of antidepressants and telemedicine were the most effective treatments for PPD. Symptoms of PPD were also improved by traditional herbal medicine and aromatherapy. Current evidence for physical exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy in treating PPD remains equivocal. A significant, but weak relationship between AMSTAR score and journal impact factor was observed (p = 0.03, r = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.43) whilst no relationship was found between the number of total citations (p = 0.27, r = 0.12; 95% CI, − 0.09 to 0.34), or source of funding (p = 0.19). Conclusion Overall the systematic reviews on interventions for PPD are of low-moderate quality and are not improving over time. Antidepressants and telemedicine were the most effective therapeutic interventions for PPD treatment.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and safety of inpatient versus extended venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis with heparin following major pelvic surgery for malignancy: protocol for a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Heijkoop ◽  
Natalie Parker ◽  
George Kiroff ◽  
Daniel Spernat
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Venous Thromboembolism ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Pelvic Surgery ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Optimum Duration ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Increased Risk

Abstract Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common postoperative complication associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The use of prophylactic heparin postoperatively reduces this risk, and the use of extended duration prophylaxis is becoming increasingly common. Malignancy and pelvic surgery both independently further increase the risk of postoperative VTE and patients undergoing major pelvic surgery for malignancy are at particularly high risk of VTE. However, the optimum duration of prophylaxis specifically in this population currently remains unclear. Methods We will conduct a systematic review of literature in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.1.0.,2011) to evaluate current evidence of the effectiveness and safety of inpatient versus extended VTE prophylaxis with heparin (all forms) following major pelvic surgery for malignancy. We will search PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Regarding safety, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) websites will be searched, including all levels of evidence. Results will be the postoperative timeframe in which a VTE event can be considered to have been provoked by the surgery, and the number of patients needed to treat with both inpatient and extended prophylaxis to prevent a VTE event in this timeframe, comparing these to determine if there is a significant benefit from extended prophylaxis. Discussion This systematic review will aim to identify the postoperative period in which patients undergoing major pelvic surgery for malignancy are at further increased risk of VTE as a result of their surgery and the optimum duration of heparin VTE prophylaxis with heparin to reduce this risk. Determining this will allow evidence-based recommendations to be made for the optimum duration of heparin VTE prophylaxis post major pelvic surgery for malignancy, leading to improved standards of care that are consistent between different providers and institutions. Systematic review registration In accordance with guidelines, our systematic review was submitted to PROSPERO for consideration of registration on 16/12/17 and was registered on 12/1/18 with the registration number CRD42018068961, and it was last updated on December 1, 2018.

scholarly journals Exploring the effectiveness of technology-based learning on the educational outcomes of undergraduate healthcare students: an overview of systematic reviews protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e041153
Author(s):  
Muhammad Hibatullah Romli ◽  
Manraj Singh Cheema ◽  
Muhammad Zulfadli Mehat ◽  
Nur Fariesha Md Hashim ◽  
Hafizah Abdul Hamid
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Industrial Revolution ◽  
Knowledge Generation ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Gradual Transition ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Valuable Insight ◽  
Healthcare Education ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews

IntroductionRapid technology development due to the introduction of Industrial Revolution 4.0 and Internet of Things has created a demand and gradual transition from traditional teaching and learning to technology-based learning in higher education, including healthcare education. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated this process, with educators now required to quickly adapt to and adopt such changes. The abundance of available systematic reviews has made the effectiveness of such approaches ambiguous especially in healthcare education. Therefore, a protocol of the overview of systematic reviews (OoSR) is planned to extrapolate the effectiveness of technology-based learning in undergraduate healthcare education.Methods and analysisScopus, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection databases were selected. Screening was conducted independently by at least two authors and the decision for inclusion was done through discussion or involvement of an arbiter against a predetermined criteria. Included articles will be evaluated for quality using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews and Risk of Bias in Systematic Review tools, while primary systematic review articles will be cross-checked and reported for any overlapping using the ‘corrected covered area’ method. Only narrative synthesis will be employed according to the predefined themes into two major dimensions—theory and knowledge generation (focusing on cognitive taxonomy due to its ability to be generalised across disciplines), and clinical-based competence (focusing on psychomotor and affective taxonomies due to discipline-specific influence). The type of technology used will be identified and extracted.Ethics and disseminationThe OoSR involves analysis of secondary data from published literature, thus ethical approval is not required. The findings will provide a valuable insight for policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers in terms of technology-based learning implementation and gaps identification. The findings will be published in several reports due to the extensiveness of the topic and will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD4202017974.

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 Telerehabilitation Versus Standard Care for Improving Cognitive Function and Quality of Life for Adults with Traumatic Brain Injury: a Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Betts ◽  
Lana Feichter ◽  
Zoe Kleinig ◽  
Alice O'Connell-Debais ◽  
Henry Thai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ABSTRACT Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the most significant cause of death and severe disability following major trauma within Australia. Populations at risk include young adults aged 15 to 34, older adults, and military personnel. The main form of intervention following traumatic brain injury is rehabilitation, which places a large demand on the healthcare system. Telerehabilitation involves interventions delivered via telecommunication, which can improve accessibility and reduce this burden. There have been no systematic reviews conducted on the effectiveness of telerehabilitation in treating traumatic brain injury. Purpose: To examine the effectiveness of telerehabilitation for adults with traumatic brain injury. Methods: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, The Cochrane Library, OTSeeker and Google Scholar was conducted. Studies were included with participants aged 18 to 64 with traumatic brain injury and receiving telerehabilitation interventions. Methodological quality was assessed using the critical appraisal tools: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for randomised controlled trials, and McMaster Critical Review for Quantitative Studies for non-randomised studies. Results: Three randomised controlled trials, one pseudo-randomised controlled trial, one case-control trial and one pre-post case series were included in this systematic review. Critical appraisal of the included studies revealed overall methodological quality to be moderate. A range of interventions with differing parameters were used as part of telerehabilitation. Collectively, there is some consistent evidence to indicate that telerehabilitation may be equally effective as other forms of care in the delivery of cognitive and psychological interventions, in addressing memory and depressive symptoms for adults with mild to severe traumatic brain injury. However, it is unclear if it is superior to other forms of care. Conclusions: A small number of studies have investigated the effect of telerehabilitation for adults with traumatic brain injury. The current evidence base is limited due to lack of standardised intervention parameters, outcomes measures and robust sample size. Despite these limitations, telerehabilitation may offer a complementary model of care for adults with traumatic brain injury, especially in instances where traditional models of care may not be readily accessible (such as those in rural and remote areas).

scholarly journals Recommendations for the Design and Implementation of Virtual Reality for Acquired Brain Injury Rehabilitation: Systematic Review

10.2196/26344 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. e26344
Author(s):  
Sophie Brassel ◽  
Emma Power ◽  
Andrew Campbell ◽  
Melissa Brunner ◽  
Leanne Togher
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Design And Implementation ◽  
Assessment And Treatment

Background Virtual reality (VR) is increasingly being used for the assessment and treatment of impairments arising from acquired brain injuries (ABIs) due to perceived benefits over traditional methods. However, no tailored options exist for the design and implementation of VR for ABI rehabilitation and, more specifically, traumatic brain injury (TBI) rehabilitation. In addition, the evidence base lacks systematic reviews of immersive VR use for TBI rehabilitation. Recommendations for this population are important because of the many complex and diverse impairments that individuals can experience. Objective This study aims to conduct a two-part systematic review to identify and synthesize existing recommendations for designing and implementing therapeutic VR for ABI rehabilitation, including TBI, and to identify current evidence for using immersive VR for TBI assessment and treatment and to map the degree to which this literature includes recommendations for VR design and implementation. Methods This review was guided by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). A comprehensive search of 11 databases and gray literature was conducted in August 2019 and repeated in June 2020. Studies were included if they met relevant search terms, were peer-reviewed, were written in English, and were published between 2009 and 2020. Studies were reviewed to determine the level of evidence and methodological quality. For the first part, qualitative data were synthesized and categorized via meta-synthesis. For the second part, findings were analyzed and synthesized descriptively owing to the heterogeneity of data extracted from the included studies. Results In the first part, a total of 14 papers met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations for VR design and implementation were not specific to TBI but rather to stroke or ABI rehabilitation more broadly. The synthesis and analysis of data resulted in three key phases and nine categories of recommendations for designing and implementing VR for ABI rehabilitation. In the second part, 5 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 2 studies reported on VR for assessment and three for treatment. Studies were varied in terms of therapeutic targets, VR tasks, and outcome measures. VR was used to assess or treat impairments in cognition, balance, and anxiety, with positive outcomes. However, the levels of evidence, methodological quality, and inclusion of recommendations for VR design and implementation were poor. Conclusions There is limited research on the use of immersive VR for TBI rehabilitation. Few studies have been conducted, and there is limited inclusion of recommendations for therapeutic VR design and implementation. Future research in ABI rehabilitation should consider a stepwise approach to VR development, from early co-design studies with end users to larger controlled trials. A list of recommendations is offered to provide guidance and a more consistent model to advance clinical research in this area.

Methodological quality and reporting of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (8) ◽  
pp. 852-856 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Wasiak ◽  
A. Y. Shen ◽  
R. Ware ◽  
T. J. O’Donohoe ◽  
C. M. Faggion
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Methodological Assessment ◽  
Meta Analyses

The objective of this study was to assess methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2016 for relevant studies. Reporting quality was evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and methodological quality using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews, the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used to identify features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 91 studies were included in the analysis. Most reviews inadequately reported PRISMA items regarding study protocol, search strategy and bias and AMSTAR items regarding protocol, publication bias and funding. Systematic reviews published in a plastics journal, or which included more authors, were associated with higher AMSTAR scores. A large proportion of systematic reviews within hand and wrist pathology literature score poorly with validated methodological assessment tools, which may affect the reliability of their conclusions. Level of evidence: I

scholarly journals Interventions to reduce the prescription of inappropriate medicines in older patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 53 ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Nathalia Serafim dos Santos ◽  
Lívia Luize Marengo ◽  
Fabio Da Silva Moraes ◽  
Silvio Barberato-Filho
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Quality Evaluation ◽  
Inappropriate Medication ◽  
Potentially Inappropriate Medication ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Potentially Inappropriate Medications ◽  
Combined Interventions

OBJECTIVE: Identify and critically evaluate systematic reviews addressing the effectiveness of interventions to reduce the number of prescriptions of potentially inappropriate medication to older patients. METHODS: This is an overview of systematic reviews. The studies were searched and selected from Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, Virtual Health Library, and Web of Science databases, combining the terms aged, prescriptions, inappropriate prescribing and potentially inappropriate medication list with their entry terms and other related descriptors, published by June 2017. This study included systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis that addressed the effectiveness of any intervention or combined interventions to reduce the number of prescriptions of potentially inappropriate medications to older patients, without restriction in terms of design, language or date of publication of primary studies. AMSTAR – A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews – was used to evaluate the methodological quality of selected systematic reviews. Study selection and the methodological quality evaluation were performed by two independent evaluators, who resolved any divergence by consensus. The main findings were grouped into thematic categories, defined after a content analysis and discussed qualitatively as narrative synthesis. RESULTS: This study analyzed 24 systematic reviews. In terms of study design and methodological quality evaluation, most were systematic reviews of randomized controlled clinical trials and studies of moderate quality, respectively. The interventions were analyzed in five thematic categories: medication review services, pharmaceutical interventions, computerized systems, educational interventions, and others. The interventions analyzed showed good results and most of them helped reduce the number of prescriptions of potentially inappropriate medication to older patients. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic reviews included in this overview showed potential benefits of different interventions. However, it was not possible to determine the most effective intervention. Combined interventions are likely to provide better results than isolated interventions.

scholarly journals Characteristics, quality and volume of the first 5 months of the COVID-19 evidence synthesis infodemic: a meta-research study

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2021-111710
Author(s):  
Rebecca Abbott ◽  
Alison Bethel ◽  
Morwenna Rogers ◽  
Rebecca Whear ◽  
Noreen Orr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Definition Of

ObjectiveThe academic and scientific community has reacted at pace to gather evidence to help and inform about COVID-19. Concerns have been raised about the quality of this evidence. The aim of this review was to map the nature, scope and quality of evidence syntheses on COVID-19 and to explore the relationship between review quality and the extent of researcher, policy and media interest.Design and settingA meta-research: systematic review of reviews.Information sourcesPubMed, Epistemonikos COVID-19 evidence, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and the WHO COVID-19 database, searched between 10 June 2020 and 15 June 2020.Eligibility criteriaAny peer-reviewed article reported as a systematic review, rapid review, overview, meta-analysis or qualitative evidence synthesis in the title or abstract addressing a research question relating to COVID-19. Articles described as meta-analyses but not undertaken as part of a systematic or rapid review were excluded.Study selection and data extractionAbstract and full text screening were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Descriptive information on review type, purpose, population, size, citation and attention metrics were extracted along with whether the review met the definition of a systematic review according to six key methodological criteria. For those meeting all criteria, additional data on methods and publication metrics were extracted.Risk of biasFor articles meeting all six criteria required to meet the definition of a systematic review, AMSTAR-2 ((A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, version 2.0) was used to assess the quality of the reported methods.Results2334 articles were screened, resulting in 280 reviews being included: 232 systematic reviews, 46 rapid reviews and 2 overviews. Less than half reported undertaking critical appraisal and a third had no reproducible search strategy. There was considerable overlap in topics, with discordant findings. Eighty-eight of the 280 reviews met all six systematic review criteria. Of these, just 3 were rated as of moderate or high quality on AMSTAR-2, with the majority having critical flaws: only a third reported registering a protocol, and less than one in five searched named COVID-19 databases. Review conduct and publication were rapid, with 52 of the 88 systematic reviews reported as being conducted within 3 weeks, and a half published within 3 weeks of submission. Researcher and media interest, as measured by altmetrics and citations, was high, and was not correlated with quality.DiscussionThis meta-research of early published COVID-19 evidence syntheses found low-quality reviews being published at pace, often with short publication turnarounds. Despite being of low quality and many lacking robust methods, the reviews received substantial attention across both academic and public platforms, and the attention was not related to the quality of review methods.InterpretationFlaws in systematic review methods limit the validity of a review and the generalisability of its findings. Yet, by being reported as ‘systematic reviews’, many readers may well regard them as high-quality evidence, irrespective of the actual methods undertaken. The challenge especially in times such as this pandemic is to provide indications of trustworthiness in evidence that is available in ‘real time’.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020188822.

scholarly journals Evaluating the Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses About Breast Augmentation Using AMSTAR

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morgan Yuan ◽  
Jeremy Wu ◽  
Ryan E Austin ◽  
Frank Lista ◽  
Jamil Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Breast Augmentation ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Number Of Citations

Abstract Background Breast augmentation is one of the most commonly performed cosmetic surgeries worldwide. Therefore, it is imperative to have evidence with high methodological quality to guide clinical decision making. Objectives To evaluate the methodological quality of the systematic reviews (SRs) focused on breast augmentation. Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews was performed. SRs that have a particular focus on breast augmentation and were published in the top 15 plastic and reconstructive surgery journals were included. Quality assessment was performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Study characteristics were extracted including journal and impact factor, year of publication, country affiliation of corresponding author, reporting adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, number of citations, and number of studies included. Results Among the 22 studies included for analysis, the mean AMSTAR score was moderate (5.55), with no SR achieving good quality (AMSTAR score ≥9). There were no significant associations between AMSTAR score and journal impact factor, number of citations, year of publication, or number of included studies. Studies that reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines on average scored higher on the AMSTAR tool (p=0.03). Conclusions The methodological quality of reviews about breast augmentation was found to be moderate, with no significant increase in studies or quality over time. Adherence to PRISMA guidelines and increased appraisal of SRs about breast augmentation using methodological assessment tools would further strengthen methodological quality and confidence in study findings.

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Published in High-Impact Otolaryngology Journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 163 (5) ◽  
pp. 892-905
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Martinez-Monedero ◽  
Arman Danielian ◽  
Varun Angajala ◽  
Jennifer E. Dinalo ◽  
Eric J. Kezirian
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Abstract Screening

Objective To assess the methodological quality of intervention-focused systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) published in high-impact otolaryngology journals. Data Sources Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Review Methods A comprehensive search was performed for SR and MA citations from 2012 to 2017 in the 10 highest impact factor otolaryngology journals. Abstracts were screened to identify published manuscripts in which the authors indicated clearly that they were performing an SR or MA. Applying a modified typology of reviews, 4 reviewers characterized the review type as SR, MA, or another review type. A simplified version of the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2) tool was used to assess the reporting and methodological quality of the SRs and MAs that were focused on interventions. Results Search and abstract screening generated 499 manuscripts that identified themselves as performing an SR or MA. A substantial number (85/499, 17%) were review types other than SRs or MAs, including 34 (7%) that were literature reviews. In total, 236 SRs and MAs focused on interventions. Over 50% of these SRs and MAs had weaknesses in at least 3 of the 16 items in the AMSTAR 2, and over 40% had weaknesses in at least 2 of the 7 critical domains. Ninety-nine percent of SRs and MAs provided critically low confidence in the results of the reviews. Conclusion Intervention-focused SRs and MAs published in high-impact otolaryngology journals have important methodological limitations that diminish confidence in the results of these reviews.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document