scholarly journals The usefulness and interpretation of systematic reviews

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharine A. Smith ◽  
Andrea Cipriani ◽  
John R. Geddes
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Treatment Interventions ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Meta Analyses

SummaryKeeping up to date with the best evidence on treatment interventions is an essential part of clinical practice, but it can seem an overwhelming task for busy clinicians. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a useful and convenient summary of knowledge and form an essential part of an evidence-based approach to clinical practice. However, these reviews vary in methodology and therefore in the quality of the recommendations they provide. Clinicians need to feel confident in their skills of critical appraisal, so that they can assess the relative merits of systematic reviews. In this article we discuss the strengths and limitations of different types of evidence synthesis to enable the reader to feel more confident in assessing the scientific information to use in clinical practice.

scholarly journals Methods for the Development of Healthcare Practice Recommendations Using Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Platz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Practice Recommendations ◽  
Meta Analyses

Quality of healthcare can be improved when the best external evidence available is integrated in clinical decision-making in a systematic explicit manner. With the rapid expansion of clinical evidence, the opportunities for evidence-based high-quality healthcare increase. Paradoxically, the likelihood of any one person to get a complete and balanced picture of the evidence available decreases. This is especially true for rehabilitation interventions that are complex in nature and where clinical research is rather diverse. Given the complex nature of the evidence, there is a substantial risk of misinterpreting the complex information both at the level of individual sources (e.g., reports of clinical trials) and for aggregated data syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews and meta-analyses). These risks are inherent in these sources themselves and are in addition related to the methodological expertise necessary to make valid use of the evidence for clinical decision-making. Taken together, there is a great demand for systematic structured guidance from evidence to clinical decision. This methodology paper describes a structured process for the development and report of evidence-based clinical practice recommendations that uses systematic reviews and meta-analyses as evidence source. It provides a comprehensive framework with specific requirements for the development group, the formulation of the healthcare question addressed, the systematic search for the evidence, its critical appraisal, the extraction and the outcome-centered presentation of the evidence, the rating of its quality, strengths and weaknesses, any further considerations relevant for decision-making, and an explicit recommendation statement along with its justification, implementation, and resource aspects. The suggested methodology uses international standards in evidence synthesis, critical appraisal of systematic reviews, rating the quality of evidence, characteristics of recommendations, and guideline development as developed by Cochrane, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation), AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews), and AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation). An added distinctive feature of the methodology is to focus on the most up-to-date, most valid evidence and hence to support the development of valid practice recommendations in an efficient way. Practice recommendations generated by such a valid methodology would be generally applicable and promote evidence-based clinical practice globally.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Interventional Pain Management: Principles, Problems, Potential and Applications

2007 ◽  
Vol 2;10 (3;2) ◽  
pp. 329-356
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Based Medicine

Background: The past decade has been marked by unprecedented interest in evidencebased medicine (EBM) and a focus upon the use of innovative methods and protocols to provide valid and reliable information for and about healthcare. Thus (it is at least purported that), healthcare decisions are increasingly being based upon research-derived evidence, rather than on expert opinion or clinical experience alone. But this quest for evidence to support clinical practice also compels the question of whether the methods employed to acquire information, the ranking of information that is acquired, and the prudent use of this information are sound enough to actually sustain the validity of an evidence-based paradigm in practice. Moreover, it is becoming apparent that the scope, depth, and applicability of available evidence to effectively and ethically guide the myriad of situational decisions in clinical practice is not uniform across all medical fields or disciplines. In particular, comprehensive evidence synthesis or complete guidelines for clinical decision-making in interventional pain management remain relatively scarce. EBM is defined as the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of the current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. Thus, the practice of EBM requires the integration of individual clinical expertise with the best available external evidence from systematic research. To arrive at evidence-based medical decisions all valid and relevant evidence should be considered alongside randomized controlled trials, patient preferences, and resources. Objective: To describe principles of EBM, and the methods and relative utility of evidence synthesis in interventional pain management. Description: This review provides 1) an understanding of evidence-based medicine, 2) an overview of issues related to evaluating the quality of individual studies, analyses, narrative, and systematic reviews, 3) discussion of factors affecting the strength and value(s) of evidence, 4) analysis of specific reviews of interventional techniques, and finally, 5) the utility and purpose of guidelines in interventional pain management. Conclusion: Interpreting and understanding evidence synthesis, systematic reviews and other analytic literature is a difficult task. It is crucial for pain physicians to understand the goals, principles, and process(es) of EBM so as to meaningfully improve its application(s). This knowledge affords better insight into not only the analytic reviews in interventional pain management provided herein, but ultimately allows future information to be selected, evaluated, and used with prudence in technically competent, ethically sound medical practice. Key words: Interventional pain management, interventional techniques, evidence-based medicine, evidence synthesis, pragmatic or practical clinical trials, randomized trials, observational studies, non-randomized trials, systematic reviews, quality of evidence

scholarly journals Methodology for Evidence Synthesis and Development of Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Interventional Techniques in Chronic Spinal Pain

2021 ◽  
Vol S1;24 (1;S1) ◽  
pp. S1-S26
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Interventional Techniques

BACKGROUND: The re-engineered definition of clinical guidelines in 2011 from the IOM (Institute of Medicine) states, “clinical practice guidelines are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that is informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefit and harms of alternative care options.” The revised definition distinguishes between the term “clinical practice guideline” and other forms of clinical guidance derived from widely disparate development processes, such as consensus statements, expert advice, and appropriate use criteria. OBJECTIVE: To assess the literature and develop methodology for evidence synthesis and development of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature including methodology of guideline development encompassing GRADE approach for guidance on evidence synthesis with recommendations. RESULTS: Some of the many factors described in 2011 continue as of 2020 and impede the development of clinical practice guidelines. These impediments include biases due to a variety of conflicts and confluence of interest, inappropriate and poor methodological quality, poor writing and ambiguous presentation, projecting a view that these are not applicable to individual patients or too restrictive with the elimination of clinician autonomy, and overzealous and inappropriate recommendations, either positive, negative, or non-committal. Thus, ideally, a knowledgeable, multidisciplinary panel of experts with true lack of bias and confluence of interest must develop guidelines based on a systematic review of the existing evidence. This manuscript describes evidence synthesis from observational studies, various types of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and, finally, methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews. The manuscript also describes various methods utilized in the assessment of the quality of observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, RCTs, and systematic reviews. LIMITATIONS: Paucity of publications with appropriate evidence synthesis methodology in reference to interventional techniques. CONCLUSION: This review described comprehensive evidence synthesis derived from systematic reviews, including methodologic quality and bias measurement. The manuscript described various methods utilized in the assessment of the quality of the systematic reviews, RCTs, diagnostic accuracy studies, and observational studies. KEY WORDS: Evidence-based medicine (EBM), interventional pain management, evidence synthesis, methodological quality assessment, conflict of interest, confluence of interest, comparative effectiveness research (CER), clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews, meta-analysis

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Published in Indexed Portuguese Medical Journals: Time Trends and Critical Appraisal.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luísa Prada ◽  
Ana Prada ◽  
Miguel Antunes ◽  
Ricardo Fernandes ◽  
João Costa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Electronic Search ◽  
Potential Impact

Abstract Introduction:Over the last years, the number of systematic reviews published is steadily increasing due to the global interest in this type of evidence synthesis. However, little is known about the characteristics of this research published in Portuguese medical journals. This study aims to evaluate the publication trends and overall quality of these systematic reviews.Material and Methods:Systematic reviews were identified through an electronic search up to August 2020, targeting Portuguese Medical journals indexed in MEDLINE. Systematic reviews selection and data extraction were done independently by three authors. The overall quality critical appraisal using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR II) was independently assessed by three authors. Disagreements were solved by consensus.Results:Seventy systematic reviews published in 5 Portuguese medical journals were included. Most (n=57; 81,4%) were systematic reviews without meta-analysis. Until 2010, the number of systematic reviews per year increased. Since then, the number of reviews published has not remained stable and no less than 3 SRs were published per year. According to the systematic reviews’ typology, most have been predominantly conducted to assess the effectiveness of health interventions (n=28; 40,0%). General and Internal Medicine (n=26; 37,1%) was the most addressed field. Most systematic reviews (n=45; 64,3%) were rated as being of “critically low-quality”.Conclusions:There were consistent flaws in the methodological quality report of the systematic reviews included, particularly in establishing a prior protocol and not assessing the potential impact of the risk of bias on the results.Through the years, the number of systematic reviews published increased, yet their quality is suboptimal. There is a need to improve the reporting of systematic reviews in Portuguese medical journals, which can be achieved by better adherence to quality checklists/tools.Systematic review registration: INPLASY202090105

scholarly journals Nutritional interventions to improve muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical performance in older people: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelien Gielen ◽  
David Beckwée ◽  
Andreas Delaere ◽  
Sandra De Breucker ◽  
Maurits Vandewoude ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Muscle Strength ◽  
Muscle Mass ◽  
Physical Performance ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Belgian Society ◽  
Nutritional Interventions ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Context Sarcopenia is a progressive and generalized skeletal muscle disorder associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes such as falls, disability, and death. The Belgian Society of Gerontology and Geriatrics has developed evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and treatment of sarcopenia. This umbrella review presents the results of the Working Group on Nutritional Interventions. Objective The aim of this umbrella review was to provide an evidence-based overview of nutritional interventions targeting sarcopenia or at least 1 of the 3 sarcopenia criteria (ie, muscle mass, muscle strength, or physical performance) in persons aged ≥ 65 years. Data sources Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, the PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting the effect of nutritional supplementation on sarcopenia or muscle mass, strength, or physical performance. Data extraction Two authors extracted data on the key characteristics of the reviews, including participants, treatment, and outcomes. Methodological quality of the reviews was assessed using the product A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. Three authors synthesized the extracted data and generated recommendations on the basis of an overall synthesis of the effects of each intervention. Quality of evidence was rated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Data analysis A total of 15 systematic reviews were included. The following supplements were examined: proteins, essential amino acids, leucine, β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate, creatine, and multinutrient supplementation (with or without physical exercise). Because of both the low amount and the low to moderate quality of the reviews, the level of evidence supporting most recommendations was low to moderate. Conclusions Best evidence is available to recommend leucine, because it has a significant effect on muscle mass in elderly people with sarcopenia. Protein supplementation on top of resistance training is recommended to increase muscle mass and strength, in particular for obese persons and for ≥ 24 weeks. Effects on sarcopenia as a construct were not reported in the included reviews.

scholarly journals Pearls for Interpreting Neurosurgical Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Lessons From a Collaborative Effort

Neurosurgery ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 87 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor M Lu ◽  
Christopher S Graffeo ◽  
Avital Perry ◽  
Michael J Link ◽  
Fredric B Meyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cranial Neuralgia ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the neurosurgical literature have surged in popularity over the last decade. It is our concern that, without a renewed effort to critically interpret and appraise these studies as high or low quality, we run the risk of the quality and value of evidence-based medicine in neurosurgery being misinterpreted. Correspondingly, we have outlined 4 major domains to target in interpreting neurosurgical systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on the lessons learned by a collaboration of clinicians and academics summarized as 4 pearls. The domains of (1) heterogeneity, (2) modeling, (3) certainty, and (4) bias in neurosurgical systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified as aspects in which the authors’ approaches have changed over time to improve robustness and transparency. Examples of how and why these pearls were adapted were provided in areas of cranial neuralgia, spine, pediatric, and neuro-oncology to demonstrate how neurosurgical readers and writers may improve their interpretation of these domains. The incorporation of these pearls into practice will empower neurosurgical academics to effectively interpret systematic reviews and meta-analyses, enhancing the quality of our evidence-based medicine literature while maintaining a critical focus on the needs of the individual patients in neurosurgery.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 6. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies

2008 ◽  
Vol 5;12 (5;9) ◽  
pp. 819-850
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Confounding Bias ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

Observational studies provide an important source of information when randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cannot or should not be undertaken, provided that the data are analyzed and interpreted with special attention to bias. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) stresses the examination of evidence from clinical research and describes it as a shift in medical paradigm, in contrast to intuition, unsystematic clinical experience, and pathophysiologic rationale. While the importance of randomized trials has been created by the concept of the hierarchy of evidence in guiding therapy, much of the medical research is observational. The reporting of observational research is often not detailed and clear enough with insufficient quality and poor reporting, which hampers the assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the study and the generalizability of the mixed results. Thus, in recent years, progress and innovations in health care are measured by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, “the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, clinical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic.” Meta-analysis usually is the final step in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are labor intensive, requiring expertise in both the subject matter and review methodology, and also must follow the rules of EBM which suggests that a formal set of rules must complement medical training and common sense for clinicians to integrate the results of clinical research effectively. While expertise in the review methods is important, the expertise in the subject matter and technical components is also crucial. Even though, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, specifically of RCTs, have exploded, the quality of the systematic reviews is highly variable and consequently, the opinions reached of the same studies are quite divergent. Numerous deficiencies have been described in methodologic assessment of the quality of the individual articles. Consequently, observational studies can provide an important complementary source of information, provided that the data are analyzed and interpreted in the context of confounding bias to which they are prone. Appropriate systematic reviews of observational studies, in conjunction with RCTs, may provide the basis for elimination of a dangerous discrepancy between the experts and the evidence. Steps in conducting systematic reviews of observational studies include planning, conducting, reporting, and disseminating the results. MOOSE, or Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, a proposal for reporting contains specifications including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the MOOSE checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analysis for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision-makers. This manuscript describes systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Authors frequently utilize RCTs and observational studies in one systematic review; thus, they should also follow the reporting standards of the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement, which also provides a checklist. A combined approach of QUOROM and MOOSE will improve reporting of systematic reviews and lead to progress and innovations in health care. Key words: Observational studies, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, metaanalysis, randomized trials, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, confounding bias, QUOROM, MOOSE

scholarly journals A Reporting Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Sports Physical Therapy: A Review of Reviews

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 1368
Author(s):  
Sung-Hyoun Cho ◽  
In-Soo Shin
Keyword(s):  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Review Of Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

This review of reviews aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of sports physical therapy using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This review of reviews included a literature search; in total, 2047 studies published between January 2015 and December 2020 in the top three journals related to sports physical therapy were screened. Among the 125 identified articles, 47 studies on sports physical therapy were included in the analysis (2 systematic reviews and 45 meta-analyses). There were several problems areas, including a lack of reporting for key components of the structured summary (10/47, 21.3%), protocol and registration (18/47, 38.3%), risk of bias in individual studies (28/47, 59.6%), risk of bias across studies (24/47, 51.1%), effect size and variance calculations (5/47, 10.6%), additional analyses (25/47, 53.2%), and funding (10/47, 21.3%). The quality of the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies on sports physical therapy was low to moderate. For better evidence-based practice in sports physical therapy, both authors and readers should examine assumptions in more detail, and report valid and adequate results. The PRISMA guideline should be used more extensively to improve reporting practices in sports physical therapy.

scholarly journals Evaluating the Quality of the Iranian Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Economic Evaluations in Healthcare from 2005 to 2015

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morteza Arab-Zozani ◽  
Zahra Heidarifard ◽  
Efat Jabarpour
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Economic Perspective ◽  
Meta Analyses

Context: The number of studies on health is increasing rapidly worldwide and in Iran. Systematic review studies, meta-analyses, and economic evaluation are of great importance in evidence-based decision making because of their standing in the evidence-based pyramid. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of Iranian systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies and economic evaluations on healthcare. Evidence Acquisition: PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to find considered studies, including systematic reviews, meta analyses and economic evaluations published from 2005 to 2015. Because of the high volume of review studies, 10% of all systematic reviews and meta-analyses were selected as a random sample. Also, all economic evaluations were included. Articles were evaluated using checklists, including PRISMA, AMSTAR and QHES with a maximum score of 27, 11 and 100, respectively. The quality score for each criterion as well as the epidemiological and descriptive characteristics of all articles was determined. Data were analyzed using SPSS V. 16 software. Results: After searching the databases, 1084 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were obtained, 10% of which were included in the study. A total of 41 economic evaluations were also included. The mean scores of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were 17.04 (5.35) and 5.42 (1.97), respectively, and 68.21 (12.44) for economic evaluations based on QHES. Only three systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles had recorded protocols and 85% of the studies included the terms “systematic review” and “meta-analysis” in their titles. Only one study had been updated. In addition, 81% of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses were published in specialized journals and 47% in Iranian journals. Financial resources and conflict of interests had been mentioned in 33% and 66% of the studies, respectively. Of the selected studies, 60% had evaluated the quality of the articles and 35% of the studies had assessed publication bias. In economic evaluations, 56% had used CEA analysis, 22% CUA analysis, 12% CBA analysis, and one study had used CMA analysis. Of these studies, 54% were model-based health economic studies and 12% were trial-based. The economic perspective was the health care system in most studies. Forty-four percent of the studies had a short time horizon of one year or less, whereas 33% had a lifetime horizon. Moreover, 68% of the studies showed sensitivity analysis and only 5 included the magnitude and direction of the bias. Conclusions: Overall, the reporting and methodological quality of the selected studies were estimated at a moderate level. Based on these results, it is recommended to adopt strategies to reduce preventable errors in studies. Having a primary plan and protocol and registering it as a systematic review can be an important factor in improving the quality of studies. Economic evaluations should also focus on issues, such as economic perspective, time horizon, available bias, and sensitivity analysis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document