scholarly journals Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 82
Author(s):  
Marta Roqué ◽  
Laura Martínez-García ◽  
Ivan Solà ◽  
Pablo Alonso-Coello ◽  
Xavier Bonfill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
Model Study ◽  
Question Development

Background: Systematic reviews (SR) can be classified by type depending on the research question they are based on. This work identifies and describes the most relevant methodological resources to conduct high-quality reviews that answer health care questions regarding prevalence, prognosis, diagnostic accuracy and effects of interventions. Methods: Methodological resources have been identified from literature searches and consulting guidelines from institutions that develop SRs. The selected resources are organized by type of SR, and stage of development of the review (formulation of the research question, development of the protocol, literature search, risk of bias assessment, synthesis of findings, assessment of the quality of evidence, and report of SR results and conclusions). Results: Although the different types of SRs are developed following the same steps, each SR type requires specific methods, differing in characteristics and complexity. The extent of methodological development varies by type of SR, with more solid guidelines available for diagnostic accuracy and effects of interventions SRs. This methodological toolkit describes the most up-to-date risk of bias instruments: Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic SRs, Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic accuracy SRs, Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2) and Risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions studies tool (ROBINS-I) for effects of interventions SRs, as well as the latest developments on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Conclusions: This structured compilation of the best methodological resources for each type of SR may prove to be a very useful tool for those researchers that wish to develop SRs or conduct methodological research works on SRs

scholarly journals Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 82
Author(s):  
Marta Roqué ◽  
Laura Martínez-García ◽  
Ivan Solà ◽  
Pablo Alonso-Coello ◽  
Xavier Bonfill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
Model Study ◽  
Question Development

Background: Systematic reviews (SR) can be classified by type depending on the research question they are based on. This work identifies and describes the most relevant methodological resources to conduct high-quality reviews that answer clinical questions regarding prevalence, prognosis, diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of interventions. Methods: Methodological resources have been identified from literature searches and consulting guidelines from institutions that develop SRs. The selected resources are organized by type of SR, and stage of development of the review (formulation of the research question, development of the protocol, literature search, risk of bias assessment, synthesis of findings, assessment of the quality of evidence, and report of SR results and conclusions). Results: Although the different types of SRs are developed following the same steps, each SR type requires specific methods, differing in characteristics and complexity. The extent of methodological development varies by type of SR, with more solid guidelines available for diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of interventions SRs. This methodological toolkit describes the most up-to-date risk of bias instruments: Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic SRs, Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic accuracy SRs, Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2) and Risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions studies tool (ROBINS-I) for efficacy of interventions SRs, as well as the latest developments on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Conclusions: This structured compilation of the best methodological resources for each type of SR may prove to be a very useful tool for those researchers that wish to develop SRs or conduct methodological research works on SRs.

scholarly journals Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 82
Author(s):  
Marta Roqué ◽  
Laura Martínez-García ◽  
Ivan Solà ◽  
Pablo Alonso-Coello ◽  
Xavier Bonfill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Stage Of Development ◽  
Model Study ◽  
Question Development

Background: Systematic reviews (SR) can be classified by type depending on the research question they are based on. This work identifies and describes the most relevant methodological resources to conduct high-quality reviews that answer health care questions regarding prevalence, prognosis, diagnostic accuracy and effects of interventions. Methods: Methodological resources have been identified from literature searches and consulting guidelines from institutions that develop SRs. The selected resources are organized by type of SR, and stage of development of the review (formulation of the research question, development of the protocol, literature search, risk of bias assessment, synthesis of findings, assessment of the quality of evidence, and report of SR results and conclusions). Results: Although the different types of SRs are developed following the same steps, each SR type requires specific methods, differing in characteristics and complexity. The extent of methodological development varies by type of SR, with more solid guidelines available for diagnostic accuracy and effects of interventions SRs. This methodological toolkit describes the most up-to-date risk of bias instruments: Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic SRs, Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic accuracy SRs, Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2) and Risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions studies tool (ROBINS-I) for effects of interventions SRs, as well as the latest developments on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Conclusions: This structured compilation of the best methodological resources for each type of SR may prove to be a very useful tool for those researchers that wish to develop SRs or conduct methodological research works on SRs

Parent–Infant Interventions to Promote Parental Sensitivity During NICU Hospitalization: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 105381512199192
Author(s):  
Andréane Lavallée ◽  
Gwenaëlle De Clifford-Faugère ◽  
Ariane Ballard ◽  
Marilyn Aita
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Parental Sensitivity ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Implementation Failure ◽  
Meta Analyses

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of parent–infant interventions for parents of preterm infants on parental sensitivity compared to standard care or active comparators. This review follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration ID: CRD42016047083). Database searches were performed from inception to 2020 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool and quality of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. A total of 19 studies ( n = 2,111 participants) were included and 14 were suitable to be pooled in our primary outcome meta-analysis. Results show no significant effect of parent–infant interventions over standard care or basic educational programs, on parental sensitivity. Results may not necessarily be due to the ineffectiveness of the interventions but rather due to implementation failure or high risk of bias of included studies.

scholarly journals Predictors of Higher Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Nutrition and Cancer Prevention

2022 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 506
Author(s):  
Dawid Storman ◽  
Magdalena Koperny ◽  
Joanna Zając ◽  
Maciej Polak ◽  
Paulina Weglarz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Prevention ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Lower Number ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Assessment Instrument ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Quality Risk

Systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are considered a reliable source of information in healthcare. We aimed to explore the association of several characteristics of SR/MAs addressing nutrition in cancer prevention and their quality/risk of bias (using assessments from AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools). The analysis included 101 SR/MAs identified in a systematic survey. Associations of each specified characteristic (e.g., information about the protocol, publication year, reported use of GRADE, or other methods for assessing overall certainty of evidence) with the number of AMSTAR-2 not met (‘No’ responses) and the number of ROBIS items met (‘Probably Yes’ or “Yes’ responses) were examined. Poisson regression was used to identify predictors of the number of ‘No’ answers (indicating lower quality) for all AMSTAR-2 items and the number of ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably Yes’ answers (indicating higher quality/lower concern for bias) for all ROBIS items. Logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with at least one domain assessed as ‘low concern for bias’ in the ROBIS tool. In multivariable analysis, SR/MAs not reporting use of any quality/risk of bias assessment instrument for primary studies were associated with a higher number of ‘No’ answers for all AMSTAR-2 items (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.45), and a lower number of ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably Yes’ answers for all ROBIS items (IRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66–0.87). Providing information about the protocol and search for unpublished studies was associated with a lower number of ‘No’ answers (IRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56–0.97 and IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59–0.95, respectively) and a higher number of ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably Yes’ answers (IRR 1.43, 95% CI 1.17–1.74 and IRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07–1.52, respectively). Not using at least one quality/risk of bias assessment tool for primary studies within an SR/MA was associated with lower odds that a study would be assessed as ‘low concern for bias’ in at least one ROBIS domain (odds ratio 0.061, 95% CI 0.007–0.527). Adherence to methodological standards in the development of SR/MAs was associated with a higher overall quality of SR/MAs addressing nutrition for cancer prevention.

scholarly journals Prognostic models for predicting in-hospital paediatric mortality in resource-limited countries: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e035045
Author(s):  
Morris Ogero ◽  
Rachel Jelagat Sarguta ◽  
Lucas Malla ◽  
Jalemba Aluvaala ◽  
Ambrose Agweyu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Model Development ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Prognostic Models ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Bias Assessment

ObjectivesTo identify and appraise the methodological rigour of multivariable prognostic models predicting in-hospital paediatric mortality in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).DesignSystematic review of peer-reviewed journals.Data sourcesMEDLINE, CINAHL, Google Scholar and Web of Science electronic databases since inception to August 2019.Eligibility criteriaWe included model development studies predicting in-hospital paediatric mortality in LMIC.Data extraction and synthesisThis systematic review followed the Checklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies framework. The risk of bias assessment was conducted using Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). No quantitative summary was conducted due to substantial heterogeneity that was observed after assessing the studies included.ResultsOur search strategy identified a total of 4054 unique articles. Among these, 3545 articles were excluded after review of titles and abstracts as they covered non-relevant topics. Full texts of 509 articles were screened for eligibility, of which 15 studies reporting 21 models met the eligibility criteria. Based on the PROBAST tool, risk of bias was assessed in four domains; participant, predictors, outcome and analyses. The domain of statistical analyses was the main area of concern where none of the included models was judged to be of low risk of bias.ConclusionThis review identified 21 models predicting in-hospital paediatric mortality in LMIC. However, most reports characterising these models are of poor quality when judged against recent reporting standards due to a high risk of bias. Future studies should adhere to standardised methodological criteria and progress from identifying new risk scores to validating or adapting existing scores.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018088599.

scholarly journals Risk of bias assessment of test comparisons was uncommon in comparative accuracy systematic reviews: an overview of reviews

2020 ◽  
Vol 127 ◽  
pp. 167-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bada Yang ◽  
Yasaman Vali ◽  
Anahita Dehmoobad Sharifabadi ◽  
Isobel Marion Harris ◽  
Sophie Beese ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Overview Of Reviews ◽  
Comparative Accuracy

scholarly journals RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 193-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iain J Marshall ◽  
Joël Kuiper ◽  
Byron C Wallace
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Reasonable Accuracy ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Unclear Risk

Abstract Objective To develop and evaluate RobotReviewer, a machine learning (ML) system that automatically assesses bias in clinical trials. From a (PDF-formatted) trial report, the system should determine risks of bias for the domains defined by the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool, and extract supporting text for these judgments. Methods We algorithmically annotated 12,808 trial PDFs using data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Trials were labeled as being at low or high/unclear risk of bias for each domain, and sentences were labeled as being informative or not. This dataset was used to train a multi-task ML model. We estimated the accuracy of ML judgments versus humans by comparing trials with two or more independent RoB assessments in the CDSR. Twenty blinded experienced reviewers rated the relevance of supporting text, comparing ML output with equivalent (human-extracted) text from the CDSR. Results By retrieving the top 3 candidate sentences per document (top3 recall), the best ML text was rated more relevant than text from the CDSR, but not significantly (60.4% ML text rated ‘highly relevant' v 56.5% of text from reviews; difference +3.9%, [−3.2% to +10.9%]). Model RoB judgments were less accurate than those from published reviews, though the difference was <10% (overall accuracy 71.0% with ML v 78.3% with CDSR). Conclusion Risk of bias assessment may be automated with reasonable accuracy. Automatically identified text supporting bias assessment is of equal quality to the manually identified text in the CDSR. This technology could substantially reduce reviewer workload and expedite evidence syntheses.

scholarly journals Recent Research Trends in Moxibustion Treatment in Korea

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Ju-Hyeon Lee ◽  
Doo-ree Hwang ◽  
Seung-Hyo Hong
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Korean Traditional Medicine ◽  
Study Type ◽  
Circulatory Diseases

A total of 1,235 studies were retrieved on June 23, 2019, from 3 databases. Selected 59 studies were evaluated by year of publication, study type, subject condition/disease, acupoint, standards for reporting interventions in clinical trials of moxibustion (STRICTOM), Cochrane risk of bias (RoB), and risk of bias assessment tool for non-randomized study (RoBANS). Most studies were conducted in 2011, after which the number of studies decreased. The most common study type was 25 case reports (CR), 16 uncontrolled clinical trials (UCT), 11 randomized controlled trials (RCT), and 7 controlled clinical trials (CCT). Moxibustion treatment was mainly used for musculoskeletal and circulatory diseases/conditions. A total of 83 acupoints were used, A-shi points being the most used. As for STRICTOM, an average of 7.4 items were satisfactory for UCT and CR without a control group, and an average of 9.4 items were satisfactory for RCT and CCT. RCT was assessed using the RoB, and many items were rated as uncertain. In this study, the need for RCT of moxibustion treatment in Korea was identified. The detailed description of study methods and results will provide evidence for the efficacy of moxibustion treatment in preventive and therapeutic aspects of Korean traditional medicine.

scholarly journals Dental Composite Restorations Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 707-738
Author(s):  
Abdulmohsen Al Rabiah ◽  
Alamri Zahrah ◽  
Tuwaym Malath ◽  
Al Daghri Ebtihal ◽  
Al Suhaibani Daniyah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Dental Composite ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Bias Assessment

Background: Controversy exists in the literature regarding the most optimal repair procedure for improving the adhesion between the repair resin and the existing resin composite materials. Hence the aim of the present study was to do a systematic review and to analyze the adhesion potential of resin-based composites to similar and dissimilar composites and aimed to determine the possible dominant factors affecting the bond strength results. Materials & Methods: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort design were searched through electronic databases including MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) until July 2020 that compared different methods of composite restoration repair and a minimum mean follow-up time of 1 year. There were no restrictions on a particular treatment indication or outcome measures. Two authors independently conducted screening, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction of eligible trials in duplicate. We applied the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool to consider the risk of bias. Results: We identified 10 articles; two of them were RCTs, and eight prospective cohort studies. There were 530 participants, with 990 teeth, dealing with resin-based composite (RBC) restorations. The intervention of defective restorations ranged from minimal intervention to total restoration replacement. The evaluation criteria were also varied with different evaluation protocols. The low number and heterogeneity of RCTs did not allow for meta-analyses. Conclusions: Although different repair protocols are mentioned in the literature according to the included studies, an appropriate and definitive conclusion can't be drawn. However, it seems repairs versus replacements should be considered as the first line of treatment when all factors lead to repair rather than replacement. Further randomized controlled trials with high methodological quality need to be conducted in order to establish evidence-based recommendations, particularly for RBC repair.

scholarly journals Adequacy of risk of bias assessment in surgical vs non-surgical trials in Cochrane reviews: a methodological study

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ognjen Barcot ◽  
Matija Boric ◽  
Svjetlana Dosenovic ◽  
Marija Cavar ◽  
Antonia Jelicic Kadic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Allocation Concealment ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Methodological Study ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Surgical Trials ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Background Bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can lead to underestimation or overestimation of the true effects of interventions. Surgical RCTs may suffer from the risk of bias (RoB) that is avoidable in trials of other interventions, and vice versa. We aimed to compare the adequacy of RoB assessments in surgical versus non-surgical RCTs included in Cochrane reviews and to assess the most common differences in those RoB assessments. Due to specificities of surgical trials, i.e. difficulties associated with blinding of surgical interventions, we hypothesized that assessments of surgical trials may be more adequate, compared to RCTs of non-surgical interventions. Methods This was a methodological study, analyzing methods of published Cochrane systematic reviews. Data were extracted from RoB tables in Cochrane reviews (judgments and accompanying explanatory comment) for the following four RoB domains used in the 2011 Cochrane RoB tool: randomization, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessors. We defined adequate assessments as those that were in line with instructions from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The prevalence of adequate assessments was compared in surgical versus non-surgical trials. The most common differences in both groups of reviews were presented. Results In 729 analyzed Cochrane reviews, there were 10,537 included trials. The prevalence of adequate RoB judgments made by Cochrane authors ranged from 87.9, 95%CI (87.3 to 88.6%) for randomization to 70.7, 95%CI (69.8 to 71.5%) for blinding of participants and personnel. For all analyzed RoB domains, the prevalence of adequate RoB domains was higher in surgical trials than in non-surgical trials. For two RoB domains assessing blinding, this difference between surgical and non-surgical trials was statistically significant (P < 0.001), while the difference was not significant for the RoB domain regarding randomization (P = 0.124) and allocation concealment (P = 0.039, β < 0.8). Conclusions RoB judgments were more in line with instructions from the Cochrane Handbook when Cochrane reviews assessed surgical trials, compared to those that analyzed non-surgical interventions. However, further steps are warranted to scrutinize RoB assessment in trials of both surgical and non-surgical interventions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document