Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews on Platform-Switching vs Platform-Matched Implants: An Overview

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-162
Author(s):  
Joel Ferreira Santiago ◽  
Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo Lemos ◽  
Jéssica Marcela de Luna Gomes ◽  
Fellippo Ramos Verri ◽  
Sandra Lucia Dantas Moraes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Analysis ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Quality Analysis ◽  
Electronic Library ◽  
Implant Abutment ◽  
Bone Preservation ◽  
Platform Switching ◽  
Meta Analyses

The objective of this study was to perform a quality analysis of systematic reviews with meta-analyses that focused on the comparison of platform-switching (implant-abutment mismatching) and platform-matched (PM) implants. The assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and Glenny (Checklist) Scales were used to qualify the studies. PubMed, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Web of Science (formerly ISI Web of Knowledge), and Cochrane databases were searched, by topic, for systematic reviews on dental implants with switching platforms. A total of 8 systematic reviews, including 7 studies with meta-analyses, were selected. The AMSTAR scale indicated a high (n = 6) to moderate (n = 2) score for the included studies. The quantitative analysis indicated that platform-switching implants preserved more bone tissue when compared with platform-matched implants (6 meta-analyses; P < .001, smaller mean difference: −0.29 mm, 95% CI: −0.38, −0.19 and greater mean difference: −0.49 mm, 95% CI: −0.73, −0.26). Quantitative analysis based on 7 systematic reviews with meta-analysis indicated positive peri-implant bone preservation for implants restored with an implant-abutment mismatching (PSW). Further, there is evidence to improve the design of current systematic reviews. Future systematic reviews in this thematic area should consider searches in gray literature and different databases and include only randomized controlled clinical studies.

scholarly journals Application of the Subspace-Based Methods in Health Monitoring of Civil Structures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 3607
Author(s):  
Hoofar Shokravi ◽  
Hooman Shokravi ◽  
Norhisham Bakhary ◽  
Mahshid Heidarrezaei ◽  
Seyed Saeid Rahimian Koloor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
System Identification ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Monitoring ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Civil Structures ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Research Gap ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Subspace System Identification ◽  
Insight Into

A large number of research studies in structural health monitoring (SHM) have presented, extended, and used subspace system identification. However, there is a lack of research on systematic literature reviews and surveys of studies in this field. Therefore, the current study is undertaken to systematically review the literature published on the development and application of subspace system identification methods. In this regard, major databases in SHM, including Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, have been selected and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) has been applied to ensure complete and transparent reporting of systematic reviews. Along this line, the presented review addresses the available studies that employed subspace-based techniques in the vibration-based damage detection (VDD) of civil structures. The selected papers in this review were categorized into authors, publication year, name of journal, applied techniques, research objectives, research gap, proposed solutions and models, and findings. This study can assist practitioners and academicians for better condition assessment of structures and to gain insight into the literature.

scholarly journals Do we need to improve the reporting of evidence in tendinopathy management? A critical appraisal of systematic reviews with recommendations on strength of evidence assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. e000920
Author(s):  
Dimitris Challoumas ◽  
Neal L Millar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Strength Of Evidence ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

ObjectiveTo critically appraise the quality of published systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in tendinopathy with regard to handling and reporting of results with special emphasis on strength of evidence assessment.Data sourcesMedline from inception to June 2020.Study eligibilityAll SRs of RCTs assessing the effectiveness of any intervention(s) on any location of tendinopathy.Data extraction and synthesisIncluded SRs were appraised with the use of a 12-item tool devised by the authors arising from the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and other relevant guidance. Subgroup analyses were performed based on impact factor (IF) of publishing journals and date of publication.ResultsA total of 57 SRs were included published in 38 journals between 2006 and 2020. The most commonly used risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment tool and strength of evidence assessment tool were the Cochrane Collaboration RoB tool and the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group tool, respectively. The mean score on the appraisal tool was 46.5% (range 0%–100%). SRs published in higher IF journals (>4.7) were associated with a higher mean score than those in lower IF journals (mean difference 26.4%±8.8%, p=0.004). The mean score of the 10 most recently published SRs was similar to that of the first 10 published SRs (mean difference 8.3%±13.7%, p=0.54). Only 23 SRs (40%) used the results of their RoB assessment in data synthesis and more than half (n=30; 50%) did not assess the strength of evidence of their results. Only 12 SRs (21%) assessed their strength of evidence appropriately.ConclusionsIn light of the poor presentation of evidence identified by our review, we provide recommendations to increase transparency and reproducibility in future SRs.

scholarly journals A systematic review of pharmacist-led audit and feedback interventions to influence prescribing behaviour in general practice settings

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i34-i35
Author(s):  
M Carter ◽  
N Abutheraa ◽  
N Ivers ◽  
J Grimshaw ◽  
S Chapman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Audit And Feedback ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Prescribing Behaviour ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Introduction Audit and Feedback (A&F) involves measuring data about practice, comparing it with clinical guidelines, professional standards or peer performance, and then feeding back the data to individuals/groups of health professionals to encourage change in practice (if required). A 2012 Cochrane review (1) found A&F was effective in changing health professionals’ behaviour and suggested that the person who delivers the A&F intervention influences its effect. Increasingly, pharmacists work in general practice and often have responsibility for medication review and repeat prescriptions. The effectiveness of pharmacist-led A&F in influencing prescribing behaviour is uncertain. Aim This secondary analysis from an ongoing update of the original Cochrane review aims to identify and describe pharmacist-led A&F interventions and evaluate their impact on prescribing behaviour in general practice compared with no intervention. Methods This sub-review is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42020194355 and complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (2). For the updated Cochrane review, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group searched MEDLINE (1946 to present), EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library (March 2019) to identify randomised trials featuring A&F interventions. For this sub-review, authors screened titles and abstracts (May 2020) to identify trials involving pharmacist-led A&F interventions in primary care, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (RoB) in eligible studies. Review results are summarised descriptively. Heterogeneity will be assessed and a random-effects meta-analysis is planned. Publication bias for selected outcomes and the certainty of the body of evidence will be evaluated and presented. Sub-group analyses will be conducted. Results Titles and abstracts of 295 studies identified for inclusion in the Cochrane A&F review update were screened. Eleven studies (all cluster-randomised trials) conducted in 9 countries (Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Ireland, UK, Australia, Malaysia, USA) were identified for inclusion (Figure 1). Six studies had low RoB, two had high risk due to dissimilarities between trial arms at baseline and/or insufficient detail about randomisation, and three studies had unclear RoB. Studies examined the effect of A&F on prescribing for specific conditions (e.g. hypertension), medications (e.g. antibiotics), populations (e.g. patients >70), and prescribing errors (e.g. inappropriate dose). The pharmacist delivering A&F was a colleague of intervention participants in five studies. Pharmacists’ levels of skill and experience varied; seven studies reported details of pharmacist training undertaken for trial purposes. A&F interventions in nine studies demonstrated changes in prescribing, including reductions in errors or inappropriate prescribing according to the study aims and smaller increases in unwanted prescribing compared with the control group. Data analyses are ongoing (results will be available for the conference). Conclusion The preliminary results demonstrate the effectiveness of pharmacist-led A&F interventions in different countries and health systems with influencing prescribing practice to align more closely with guidance. Studies measured different prescribing behaviours; meta-analysis is unlikely to include all 11 studies. Further detailed analysis including feedback format/content/frequency and pharmacist skill level/experience, work-base (external/internal to recipients), will examine the impact of specific features on intervention effectiveness. References 1. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(6):CD000259. 2. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.

scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol examining the clinical characteristics and epidemiological features of olfactory dysfunction (OD) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemond Qian-Xiu Tan ◽  
Wai Tak Victor Li ◽  
Wing-Zi Shum ◽  
Sheung Chit Chu ◽  
Hang-Long Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Olfactory Dysfunction ◽  
Statistical Analyses ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Analysis Protocol

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused recurring and major outbreaks in multiple human populations around the world. The plethora of clinical presentations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been described extensively, of which olfactory dysfunction (OD) was established as an important and common extrapulmonary manifestation of COVID-19 infection. The aim of this protocol is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on peer-reviewed articles which described clinical data of OD in COVID-19 patients. Methods This research protocol has been prospectively registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42020196202). CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed, as well as Chinese medical databases China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP and WANFANG, will be searched using keywords including ‘COVID-19’, ‘coronavirus disease’, ‘2019-nCoV’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, ‘novel coronavirus’, ‘anosmia’, ‘hyposmia’, ‘loss of smell’, and ‘olfactory dysfunction’. Systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Articles will be screened according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria to extract studies that include new clinical data investigating the effect of COVID-19 on olfactory dysfunction. Included articles will be reviewed in full; data including patient demographics, clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD, methods of olfactory assessment and relevant clinical outcomes will be extracted. Statistical analyses will be performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3. Discussion This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol will aim to collate and synthesise all available clinical evidence regarding COVID-19-related OD as an important neurosensory dysfunction of COVID-19 infection. A comprehensive search strategy and screening process will be conducted to incorporate broad clinical data for robust statistical analyses and representation. The outcome of the systematic review and meta-analysis will aim to improve our understanding of the symptomatology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD and identify knowledge gaps in its disease process, which will guide future research in this specific neurosensory defect. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020196202.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017868
Author(s):  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
Sheyu Li ◽  
Wan-Jie Gu ◽  
Hao Chen ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Coronary Revascularisation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Collection Form ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.

PERFIL DOS USUÁRIOS DE TERAPIA NUTRICIONAL PARENTERAL EM HOSPITAIS NO CENÁRIO BRASILEIRO: UMA REVISÃO SISTEMÁTICA DE LITERATURA

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (9) ◽  
pp. e29688
Author(s):  
Jerônimo Gregório da Silva Neto ◽  
Ana Lourdes dos Reis Silva ◽  
Bruna Rayelle Freitas Lira ◽  
Maria Eduarda Pereira Alves ◽  
Amanda Cristine Ferreira dos Santos
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Electronic Library ◽  
Nrs 2002

A Terapia Nutricional são procedimentos terapêuticos realizados nos pacientes incapazes de satisfazer adequadamente suas necessidades nutricionais e metabólicas por via oral. Esse conjunto de procedimentos visa à manutenção ou recuperação do paciente em estado nutricional por meio da Nutrição Parenteral (NP) ou Enteral (NE). Investigar o perfil dos pacientes submetidos à Terapia Nutricional Parenteral (TNP) em hospitais brasileiros.  Trata-se de uma revisão sistemática realizada seguindo as recomendações PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis). Realizou-se busca para seleção dos estudos em cinco bases de dados: Literatura Latino-Americana em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Scientific Electronic, Library Online (SciELO) e Medline, usando os descritores de busca: “Terapia Nutricional”, “Nutrição Parenteral” e “Brasil”, por meio dos operadores boleanos “and” e “or”. Os critérios de inclusão foram: artigos originais, relacionados ao tema de interesse desse estudo e publicados nos últimos cinco anos (2015-2020) nos idiomas português e inglês. Por meio da investigação nas bases de dados foram encontrados 57 artigos, desses foram selecionados 43 dos últimos 5 anos, dos quais 2 eram duplicados e 12 não atendiam aos critérios de inclusão estabelecidos à priori, resultando em 14 artigos. Verificou-se risco de desnutrição de acordo com NRS-2002 e alto risco de desnutrição de acordo com 'MUST' aumentaram os custos do paciente, respectivamente, em 21,1% e 28,8%. A terapia nutricional parenteral retrata uma parte importante dos custos no tratamento de indivíduos hospitalizados, principalmente nos casos de cânceres. De acordo com os dados analisados o custo com dieta parenteral foi maior no grupo de óbitos.  

Sinus Radiological Findings in General Asymptomatic Populations: A Systematic Review of Incidental Mucosal Changes

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110350
Author(s):  
Basil Razi ◽  
Adam Perkovic ◽  
Raquel Alvarado ◽  
Anna Stroud ◽  
Jacqueline Ho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Population Groups ◽  
Bibliographic Search ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
Mucosal Changes ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Asymptomatic Subjects ◽  
Mucosal Thickening ◽  
Retention Cysts

Objective To determine the range of incidental mucosal changes in a general sinonasally asymptomatic population on radiology. Data Sources Medline (1996-present) and Embase (1974-present) were searched on March 14, 2020, to identify articles that reported radiological sinus mucosal findings in asymptomatic population groups. Bibliographic search of included studies was conducted to identify additional articles. Review Methods The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A comprehensive search strategy was formulated and articles screened to extract data reporting Lund-Mackay (LM) score, presence of mucous retention cysts, and maxillary mucosal thickening. A random-effects model was used in meta-analysis. Results A total of 950 articles were identified, of which 33 manuscripts met the inclusion criteria. The included studies involved 16,966 sinonasally asymptomatic subjects. The mean LM score was 2.24 (95% CI, 1.61-2.87), and an LM score of ≥4 in 14.71% (95% CI, 6.86-24.82%) was present across all general asymptomatic population groups. Mucous retention cysts were noted in 13% (95% CI, 8.33-18.55%) and maxillary mucosal thickening of ≥2 mm in 17.73% (95% CI, 8.67-29.08%). Conclusion The prevalence of incidental mucosal changes in a general asymptomatic population on radiology needs to be considered when making a diagnosis of chronic rhinosinusitis.

scholarly journals Relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and outcomes in joint arthroplasty: protocol for a suite of systematic reviews and dose–response meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e022797 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiang-Dong Wu ◽  
Meng-Meng Liu ◽  
Ya-Ying Sun ◽  
Zhi-Hu Zhao ◽  
Quan Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Joint Arthroplasty ◽  
Surgeon Volume ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Records Management ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionJoint arthroplasty is a particularly complex orthopaedic surgical procedure performed on joints, including the hip, knee, shoulder, ankle, elbow, wrist and even digit joints. Increasing evidence from volume–outcomes research supports the finding that patients undergoing joint arthroplasty in high-volume hospitals or by high-volume surgeons achieve better outcomes, and minimum case load requirements have been established in some areas. However, the relationships between hospital/surgeon volume and outcomes in patients undergoing arthroplasty are not fully understood. Furthermore, whether elective arthroplasty should be restricted to high-volume hospitals or surgeons remains in dispute, and little is known regarding where the thresholds should be set for different types of joint arthroplasties.Methods and analysesThis is a protocol for a suite of systematic reviews and dose–response meta-analyses, which will be amended and updated in conjunction with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. Electronic databases, including PubMed and Embase, will be searched for observational studies examining the relationship between the hospital or surgeon volume and clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing primary or revision of joint arthroplasty. We will use records management software for study selection and a predefined standardised file for data extraction and management. Quality will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed using Stata statistical software. Once the volume–outcome relationships are established, we will examine the potential non-linear relationships between hospital/surgeon volume and outcomes and detect whether thresholds or turning points exist.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required, because these studies are based on aggregated published data. The results of this suite of systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017056639.

scholarly journals Comparative Effectiveness Research: Using Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses to Synthesize Empirical Evidence

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 191-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria C. Katapodi ◽  
Laurel L. Northouse
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness Research ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Effectiveness Research ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Research Studies

The increased demand for evidence-based health care practices calls for comparative effectiveness research (CER), namely the generation and synthesis of research evidence to compare the benefits and harms of alternative methods of care. A significant contribution of CER is the systematic identification and synthesis of available research studies on a specific topic. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of methodological issues pertaining to systematic reviews and meta-analyses to be used by investigators with the purpose of conducting CER. A systematic review or meta-analysis is guided by a research protocol, which includes (a) the research question, (b) inclusion and exclusion criteria with respect to the target population and studies, © guidelines for obtaining relevant studies, (d) methods for data extraction and coding, (e) methods for data synthesis, and (f ) guidelines for reporting results and assessing for bias. This article presents an algorithm for generating evidence-based knowledge by systematically identifying, retrieving, and synthesizing large bodies of research studies. Recommendations for evaluating the strength of evidence, interpreting findings, and discussing clinical applicability are offered.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document