scholarly journals Rethinking the assessment of risk of bias due to selective reporting: a cross-sectional study

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Page ◽  
Julian P. T. Higgins
Keyword(s):  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Selective Reporting ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional

scholarly journals Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for depression: a cross-sectional study

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 619-627 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. C. H. Chung ◽  
X. Y. Wu ◽  
Y. Feng ◽  
R. S. T. Ho ◽  
S. Y. S. Wong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Pharmacological Treatments ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Depression Treatments

Aims.Depression is one of the most common mental disorders and identifying effective treatment strategies is crucial for the control of depression. Well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses can provide the best evidence for supporting treatment decision-making. Nevertheless, the trustworthiness of conclusions can be limited by lack of methodological rigour. This study aims to assess the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on depression treatments.Methods.A cross-sectional study on the bibliographical and methodological characteristics of SRs published on depression treatments trials was conducted. Two electronic databases (the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) were searched for potential SRs. SRs with at least one meta-analysis on the effects of depression treatments were considered eligible. The methodological quality of included SRs was assessed using the validated AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool. The associations between bibliographical characteristics and scoring on AMSTAR items were analysed using logistic regression analysis.Results.A total of 358 SRs were included and appraised. Over half of included SRs (n = 195) focused on non-pharmacological treatments and harms were reported in 45.5% (n = 163) of all studies. Studies varied in methods and reporting practices: only 112 (31.3%) took the risk of bias among primary studies into account when formulating conclusions; 245 (68.4%) did not fully declare conflict of interests; 93 (26.0%) reported an ‘a priori’ design and 104 (29.1%) provided lists of both included and excluded studies. Results from regression analyses showed: more recent publications were more likely to report ‘a priori’ designs [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.57], to describe study characteristics fully (AOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06–1.28), and to assess presence of publication bias (AOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06–1.19), but were less likely to list both included and excluded studies (AOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81–0.92). SRs published in journals with higher impact factor (AOR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04–1.25), completed by more review authors (AOR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01–1.24) and SRs on non-pharmacological treatments (AOR 1.62, 95% CI 1.01–2.59) were associated with better performance in publication bias assessment.Conclusion.The methodological quality of included SRs is disappointing. Future SRs should strive to improve rigour by considering of risk of bias when formulating conclusions, reporting conflict of interests and authors should explicitly describe harms. SR authors should also use appropriate methods to combine the results, prevent language and publication biases, and ensure timely updates.

scholarly journals Selecting Risk of Bias Tools for Observational Studies for a Systematic Review of Anthropometric Measurements and Dental Caries among Children

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (16) ◽  
pp. 8623
Author(s):  
Rokiah Mamikutty ◽  
Ameera Syafiqah Aly ◽  
Jamaludin Marhazlinda
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dental Caries ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Anthropometric Measurements ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Kappa Score ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages

In conducting a systematic review, assessing the risk of bias of the included studies is a vital step; thus, choosing the most pertinent risk of bias (ROB) tools is crucial. This paper determined the most appropriate ROB tools for assessing observational studies in a systematic review assessing the association between anthropometric measurements and dental caries among children. First, we determined the ROB tools used in previous reviews on a similar topic. Subsequently, we reviewed articles on ROB tools to identify the most recommended ROB tools for observational studies. Of the twelve ROB tools identified from the previous steps, three ROB tools that best fit the eight criteria of a good ROB tool were the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort and case-control studies, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) for a cross-sectional study. We further assessed the inter-rater reliability for all three tools by analysing the percentage agreement, inter-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and kappa score. The overall percentage agreements and reliability scores of these tools ranged from good to excellent. Two ROB tools for the cross-sectional study were further evaluated qualitatively against nine of a tool’s advantages and disadvantages. Finally, the AHRQ and NOS were selected as the most appropriate ROB tool to assess cross-sectional and cohort studies in the present review.

Interventions that improve adherence to antihypertensive medications in coronary heart disease patients: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
pp. postgradmedj-2020-139116
Author(s):  
Jialin Hong ◽  
Yuen Chak Tiu ◽  
Po Yat Bowie Leung ◽  
Man Fai Wong ◽  
Wing Yan Ng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Antihypertensive Drugs ◽  
Heart Diseases ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Total Quality ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale ◽  
Ottawa Scale

A systematic review is conducted to identify effective interventions that improved adherence to antihypertensive drugs among patients with coronary heart diseases (CHDs). Primary studies designed to measure interventions to improve adherence on antihypertensive drugs in patients with CHD were included. Three online databases, COCHRANE, EMBASE and MEDLINE, were searched for primary studies published in English from 2005 to 2019. Studies were screened independently for eligibility. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for quality assessment of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies, respectively. Of the 2000 entries identified, seven articles, including one cross-sectional study and six RCTs, met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. One of the articles evaluated two interventions, so eight interventions were evaluated in total. Quality of the included studies was generally high, with the cross-sectional study rated as having good quality under Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while four and two RCTs were rated as having low and some risk of bias under Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, respectively. Six of the intervention programmes were considered effective. An intervention was considered effective if it is associated with a significant (p≤0.05) and non-trivial (Cohen’s d≥0.2) improvement in compliance-related outcomes such as in terms of the Morisky 8-item Medication Adherence Scale. Medication education, disease education, health education, constant reminders and medications dispensed using blister packs were identified to be effective in improving patients’ compliance to medications. The importance of the continuity of interventions was also established. It is recommended that health service institutions should provide continuous education programmes, daily reminders and regular follow-ups for their patients who have CHD. It is recommended that further research ought to be carried out by using only one intervention in each trial with a standardised outcome measure, or using factorial designs, so that further cost-effectiveness evaluation of each intervention can be carried out independently, leading to the formulation of a comprehensive, optimised intervention programme for patients with CHD taking antihypertensives.

scholarly journals Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study

BMJ ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 339 (oct19 1) ◽  
pp. b4012-b4012 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Hartling ◽  
M. Ospina ◽  
Y. Liang ◽  
D. M Dryden ◽  
N. Hooton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Bias Versus

scholarly journals Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: Cross-Sectional Analysis

10.2196/16978 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. e16978 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Ottwell ◽  
Taylor C Rogers ◽  
J Michael Anderson ◽  
Austin Johnson ◽  
Matt Vassar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Acne Vulgaris ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Selective Reporting ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background Spin is the misrepresentation of study findings, which may positively or negatively influence the reader’s interpretation of the results. Little is known regarding the prevalence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews, specifically systematic reviews pertaining to the management and treatment of acne vulgaris. Objective The primary objective of this study was to characterize and determine the frequency of the most severe forms of spin in systematic review abstracts and to evaluate whether various study characteristics were associated with spin. Methods Using a cross-sectional study design, we searched PubMed and EMBASE for systematic reviews focusing on the management and treatment of acne vulgaris. Our search returned 316 studies, of which 36 were included in our final sample. To be included, each systematic review must have addressed either pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic treatment of acne vulgaris. These studies were screened, and data were extracted in duplicate by two blinded investigators. We analyzed systematic review abstracts for the nine most severe types of spin. Results Spin was present in 31% (11/36) of abstracts. A total of 12 examples of spin were identified in the 11 abstracts containing spin, with one abstract containing two instances of spin. The most common type of spin, selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention, was identified five times (5/12, 42%). A total of 44% (16/36) of studies did not report a risk of bias assessment. Of the 11 abstracts containing spin, six abstracts (55%) had not reported a risk of bias assessment or performed a risk of bias assessment but did not discuss it. Spin in abstracts was not significantly associated with a specific intervention type, funding source, or journal impact factor. Conclusions Spin is present in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of acne vulgaris. This paper raises awareness of spin in abstracts and emphasizes the importance of its recognition, which may lead to fewer incidences of spin in future studies.

scholarly journals Methodological quality of systematic reviews on interventions for osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 1759720X2095996
Author(s):  
Irene XY Wu ◽  
Huan Wang ◽  
Lin Zhu ◽  
Yancong Chen ◽  
Charlene HL Wong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Random Sequence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

Background: Healthcare providers need reliable evidence for supporting the adoption of new interventions, of which the source of evidence often originates from systematic reviews (SRs). However, little assessment on the rigor of SRs related to osteoarthritis interventions has been conducted. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality and predictors among SRs on osteoarthritis interventions. Methods: Four electronic databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO) were searched, from 1 January 2008 to 10 October 2019. An SR was eligible if it focused on osteoarthritis interventions, and we performed at least one meta-analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the validated AMSTAR 2 instrument. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to assess predictors of methodological quality. Results: In total, 167 SRs were included. The most SRs were non-Cochrane reviews (88.6%), and 54.5% investigated non-pharmacological interventions. Only seven (4.2%) had high methodological quality. Respectively, eight (4.8%), 25 (15.0%), and 127 (76.0%) SRs had moderate, low, and critically low quality. Main methodological weaknesses were as follows: only 16.8% registered protocol a priori, 4.2% searched literature comprehensively, 25.7% included lists of excluded studies with justifications, and 30.5% assessed risk of bias appropriately by considering allocation concealment, blinding of patients and assessors, random sequence generation and selective reported outcomes. Cochrane reviews [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 251.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 35.5–1782.6], being updates of previous SRs (AOR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1–13.7), and SRs published after 2017 (AOR 7.7, 95% CI 2.8–21.5) were positively related to higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite signs of improvement in recent years, most of the SRs on osteoarthritis interventions have critically low methodological quality, especially among non-Cochrane reviews. Future SRs should be improved by conducting comprehensive literature search, justifying excluded studies, publishing a protocol, and assessing the risk of bias of included studies appropriately.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: Cross-Sectional Analysis (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Ottwell ◽  
Taylor C Rogers ◽  
J Michael Anderson ◽  
Austin Johnson ◽  
Matt Vassar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Acne Vulgaris ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Selective Reporting ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Meta Analyses

BACKGROUND Spin is the misrepresentation of study findings, which may positively or negatively influence the reader’s interpretation of the results. Little is known regarding the prevalence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews, specifically systematic reviews pertaining to the management and treatment of acne vulgaris. OBJECTIVE The primary objective of this study was to characterize and determine the frequency of the most severe forms of spin in systematic review abstracts and to evaluate whether various study characteristics were associated with spin. METHODS Using a cross-sectional study design, we searched PubMed and EMBASE for systematic reviews focusing on the management and treatment of acne vulgaris. Our search returned 316 studies, of which 36 were included in our final sample. To be included, each systematic review must have addressed either pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic treatment of acne vulgaris. These studies were screened, and data were extracted in duplicate by two blinded investigators. We analyzed systematic review abstracts for the nine most severe types of spin. RESULTS Spin was present in 31% (11/36) of abstracts. A total of 12 examples of spin were identified in the 11 abstracts containing spin, with one abstract containing two instances of spin. The most common type of spin, <i>selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention,</i> was identified five times (5/12, 42%). A total of 44% (16/36) of studies did not report a risk of bias assessment. Of the 11 abstracts containing spin, six abstracts (55%) had not reported a risk of bias assessment or performed a risk of bias assessment but did not discuss it. Spin in abstracts was not significantly associated with a specific intervention type, funding source, or journal impact factor. CONCLUSIONS Spin is present in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of acne vulgaris. This paper raises awareness of spin in abstracts and emphasizes the importance of its recognition, which may lead to fewer incidences of spin in future studies.

Does a Graduate Course in Fluency Disorders Make a Difference?

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn R. Klein ◽  
Barbara J. Amster
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Graduate Programs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Graduate Course ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Fluency Disorders ◽  
Introductory Course ◽  
Communicative Disorders

Abstract A study by Yaruss and Quesal (2002), based on responses from 134 of 239 ASHA accredited graduate programs, indicated that approximately 25% of graduate programs in the United States allow students to earn their degree without having coursework in fluency disorders and 66% of programs allow students to graduate without clinical experience treating people who stutter (PWS). It is not surprising that many clinicians report discomfort in treating PWS. This cross-sectional study compares differences in beliefs about the cause of stuttering between freshman undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory course in communicative disorders and graduate students enrolled and in the final weeks of a graduate course in fluency disorders.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document