scholarly journals Special Education Math Interventions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gena Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Data ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Mathematics Intervention ◽  
Screening Criteria ◽  
Math Interventions ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Analysis Quality

The purpose of document is to provide readers with the coding protocol that authors used to code 22 mathematics intervention meta-analyses focused on participants with or at-risk of disabilities. The author drafted this coding protocol based on the meta-analysis quality indicators recommended by Talbott et al. (2018, pp. 248–249); specifically, the author considered the variables presented in Table 1 of Talbott et al. and supplemented the information so that the variables and definitions were specific to the purpose of this systematic review. We coded each meta-analysis for 53 variables across eight categories, including: Quality of Clear Research Questions, Quality of Eligibility Criteria, Quality of Search Procedures, Quality of Screening Criteria, Quality of Coding Procedures, Quality of Research Participants and Contexts, Quality of Data Analysis Plan, and Quality of Reporting Results. The mean interrater reliability across all codes using this protocol was 87.8% (range across categories = 74% –100%).

Reporting Quality in Math Meta-Analyses for Students with or at Risk of Disabilities

2021 ◽  
pp. 001440292110508
Author(s):  
Gena Nelson ◽  
Soyoung Park ◽  
Tasia Brafford ◽  
Nicole A. Heller ◽  
Angela R. Crawford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Mathematics Interventions ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Mathematics Intervention ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Abstract Screening

Researchers and practitioners alike often look to meta-analyses to identify effective practices to use with students with disabilities. The number of meta-analyses in special education has also expanded in recent years. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of reporting in meta-analyses focused on mathematics interventions for students with or at risk of disabilities. We applied 53 quality indicators (QIs) across eight categories based on recommendations from Talbott et al. to 22 mathematics intervention meta-analyses published between 2000 and 2020. Overall, the meta-analyses met 61% of QIs and results indicated that meta-analyses most frequently met QIs related to providing a clear purpose (95%) and data analysis plan (77%), whereas meta-analyses typically met fewer QIs related to describing participants (39%) and explaining the abstract screening process (48%). We discuss the variation in quality indicator scores within and across the quality categories and provide recommendations for future researchers.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Preeclampsia Results after Use of Metformin in Gestation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (11) ◽  
pp. 713-721 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iramar Nascimento ◽  
Guilherme Dienstmann ◽  
Matheus de Souza ◽  
Raquel Fleig ◽  
Carla Hoffmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Treatment Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Time Segment ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Lower Correlation

Objective Does the use of metformin have an influence on the outcomes of preeclampsia (PE)? Sources of Data The descriptors pregnancy, metformin, treatment, and preeclampsia associated with the Boolean operators AND and OR were found in the MEDLINE, LILACS, Embase and Cochrane databases. A flowchart with exclusion criteria and inclusion strategy using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol, and eligibility criteria was used. Data were extracted regarding the type of study, the applied dosage, treatment time, segment, bias risks, and the Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) strategy to identify the quality of the study. Selection of Studies Total number of journals in the initial search (n = 824); exclusions from repeated articles on different search engines (n = 253); exclusions after reading the titles, when the title had no correlations with the proposed theme (n = 164); exclusions due to incompatibility with the criteria established in the methodological analysis (n = 185), exclusion of articles with lower correlation with the objective of the present study (n = 187); and final bibliographic selection (n = 35). Data Collection At first, a systematic review of the literature was performed. Subsequently, from the main selection, randomized and non-randomized trials with metformin that presented their results in absolute and relative numbers of PE outcomes were selected. The variables were treated statistically in the meta-analysis with the Review Manager software (RevMan), version 5.3. Copenhagen: Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Denmark in the Hovedistaden region. Synthesis of Data The study showed that metmorfin presented greater preventive effects for pregnancy-induced hypertension and was less effective for PE. Conclusion Metformin may gain place in preventive treatments for PE, once the dosages, the gestational age, and treatment time are particularly evaluated. A methodological strategy with an improved perspective of innovative and/or carefully progressive dosages during pregnancy to avoid side effects and the possibility of maternal-fetal risks is suggested.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between periodontitis and oral high-risk human papillomavirus infection

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Ali ◽  
Zohra S Lassi ◽  
Kostas Kapellas ◽  
Lisa Jamieson ◽  
Alice R Rumbold
Keyword(s):  
Human Papillomavirus ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Hpv Infection ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Oral Hpv ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background The incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-related oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCCs) is increasing globally. Common oral conditions such as periodontitis may contribute. We undertook a meta-analysis to quantify the association between periodontitis, oral HPV and OPSCCs. Methods Multiple electronic databases were searched until 12 February 2020. Studies conducted in males and/or females aged ≥ 18 years that examined periodontitis, periodontal procedures, oral HPV infection, and where possible, oral cancers, were eligible. Meta-analyses were conducted and the GRADE approach was used to examine the quality of evidence. Results Of 2709 studies identified, 13 met the eligibility criteria. Five studies could be included in the meta-analyses. There was no significant increase in the odds of high-risk oral HPV infection among individuals with confirmed periodontitis (odds ratio 4.71, 95% confidence interval 0.57–38.97). Individuals with periodontitis had a 3.65 times higher odds of having any type of oral HPV infection compared with those without periodontitis (95% confidence interval 1.67–8.01). The overall body of evidence was rated as low to very-low certainty. Conclusion Meta-analysis confirms there is a positive association between periodontitis and oral HPV infection, although the overall quality of this evidence is low. Evidence for an association between periodontitis and high-risk oral HPV infection is inconclusive.

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Spine Surgery—How Good Are They in Methodological Quality? A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muthu Sathish ◽  
Ramakrishnan Eswar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Critical Flaw ◽  
Meta Analyses

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria. Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.

scholarly journals A Framework to Assess the Quality of Non-traditional Articles in the Field of Disaster Response and Management

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (02) ◽  
pp. 147-151
Author(s):  
Mary Hall ◽  
Chris Cartwright ◽  
Andrew C. K. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Disaster Response ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractObjectiveWhile carrying out a scoping review of earthquake response, we found that there is no universal standardized approach for assessing the quality of disaster evidence, much of which is variable or not peer reviewed. With the lack of a framework to ascertain the value and validity of this literature, there is a danger that valuable insights may be lost. We propose a theoretical framework that may, with further validation, address this gap.MethodsExisting frameworks – quality of reporting of meta-analyses (QUORUM), meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE), the Cochrane assessment of bias, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklists, strengthening the reporting of observation studies in epidemiology (STROBE), and consensus guidelines on reports of field interventions in disasters and emergencies (CONFIDE)–were analyzed to identify key domains of quality. Supporting statements, based on these existing frameworks were developed for each domain to form an overall theoretical framework of quality. This was piloted on a data set of publications from a separate scoping review.ResultsFour domains of quality were identified: robustness, generalizability, added value, and ethics with 11 scored, supporting statements. Although 73 out of 111 papers (66%) scored below 70%, a sizeable portion (34%) scored higher.ConclusionOur theoretical framework presents, for debate and further validation, a method of assessing the quality of non-traditional studies and thus supporting the best available evidence approach to disaster response. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:147–151)

Abstract P205: Quality of Reporting and Methods of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Addressing High-intensity Interval Training Efficacy on Cardiorespiratory Fitness: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Circulation ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 137 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucas Helal ◽  
Cintia E Botton ◽  
Marlos R Domingues ◽  
Daniel Umpierre
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Interval Training ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
High Intensity Interval Training ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
High Intensity Interval ◽  
Apparently Healthy

Introduction: The efficacy of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) for cardiorespiratory fitness (VO 2 max) has been increasingly investigated in different populations, resulting in efforts to summarize intervention effects through generation of systematic reviews and meta-analysis (SRMAs). Despite of many available SRMAs, the quality of methods and reporting of these syntheses is still unknown. Thus, we aimed to quantify it by a meta-epidemiological design, in order to cover all eligible SRMAs. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that SRMAs would have low quality of reporting and methodology, based on previous findings on overall biomedical literature. Methods: We searched four electronic databases, grey-literature, and hand-searched relevant SRMAs. Eligibility criteria were any SRMA having HIIT/SIT on VO2max as one of addressed meta-analysis from individual studies including apparently healthy subjects as well as patients with cerebrovascular (stroke) or cardiovascular (CVD) diseases (coronary artery disease, heart failure, heart attack, and peripheral artery disease). No restriction was made regarding publication status or language. Eligibility assessment and data extraction were done in duplicate and discordances were solved by consensus. We used 14 items adapted from PRISMA and AMSTAR tools to assess methodological, quantitative and reporting practices in SRMAs. This SR is registered (CRD42017067269) and all documentation and raw data are available at https://github.com/lhelal/srma-hiit.git and osf.io/6xzyf. This abstract is the first report regarding our final analysis. Results: From 141 retrieved titles, 47 duplicates were excluded and 94 full-texts were assessed, resulting in 13 eligible SRMAs. Of these, 7 SRMAs were on CVD and 6 on apparently healthy patients. Median AMSTAR score was 4/11 (median ± IQR, 4 ± 2). Regarding reporting, none of the SRMAs reported registry (0%), 39% (5/13) self-reported as in accordance to PRISMA, 8/13 (62%) reported disclosure status, 46% (6/13) reported full eligibility and extraction process and 100% (13/13) referred to a comparator group. For methodology, database median number was 4 (4 ± 5), where 92% (12/13) restricted to English and 61.5% (8/13) restricted to publication status on their primary study eligibility criteria. Moreover, 69% (9/13) had a comparator group, 31% (4/13) provided full-search strategy that allows replication and 62% (8/13) analyzed primary study risk of bias. Conclusions: Only a low to modest proportion of SRMAs followed practices to provide adequate literature coverage, methodological transparency and assessment of potential biases. Since such syntheses are useful to decision making regarding exercise interventions, increased adherence to approaches that enhance methodological and reporting quality is warranted from authors and journal editors.

A systematic review of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery between 2000 and 2016

2018 ◽  
Vol 100-B (10) ◽  
pp. 1270-1274 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Manta ◽  
E. Opingari ◽  
A. H. Saleh ◽  
N. Simunovic ◽  
A. Duong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Orthopaedic Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Quality Review ◽  
Orthopaedic Literature ◽  
Medium Quality ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Meta Analyses

Aims The aims of this systematic review were to describe the quantity and methodological quality of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery published during the last 17 years. Materials and Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed, between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2016, were searched for meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery dealing with at least one surgical intervention. Meta-analyses were included if the interventions involved a human muscle, ligament, bone or joint. Results A total of 392 meta-analyses met eligibility criteria, for which the mean AMSTAR quality score was 7.1/11. There was a positive correlation between the year of publication and the quality of the meta-analysis (r = 0.238, p < 0.001). Between 2000 and 2011, the mean AMSTAR score corresponded to that of a medium quality review. However, between 2012 and 2016, the mean scores have been consistently equivalent to those of a high-quality review. The number of meta-analyses published increased 10-fold between 2005 and 2014. Conclusion The quantity and quality of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery which have been published has increased, reaching a plateau in 2012. Methodological flaws remain to be addressed in future meta-analyses in order to continue increasing the quality of the orthopaedic literature. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1270–4.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 3: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Trials

2009 ◽  
Vol 1;12 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 35-42
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

In recent years, progress and innovations in healthcare are measured by evidencebased medicine (EBM), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, “the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic.” In contrast, meta-analysis is the statistical pooling of data across studies to generate pooled estimates of effects. 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 suggest that a formal set of rules must complement medical training and common sense for clinicians to interpret the results of clinical research effectively. While expertise in the subject matter is crucial, expertise in review methods is also particularly important. Despite an explosion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the empiric research on the quality of systematic reviews has shown that not all systematic reviews are truly systematic, having highly variable quality, deficiencies in methodologic assessment of the quality of the included manuscripts, and bias. Even then, systematic review of the literature is currently the best, least biased, and most rational way to organize, cull, evaluate, and integrate the research evidence from among the expanding medical and healthcare literature. However, a dangerous discrepancy between the experts and the evidence continues to persist in part because multiple instruments are available to assess the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Steps in conducting systematic reviews include planning, conducting, reporting, and disseminating the results. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement provides a checklist and a flow diagram. The checklist describes the preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of the report of an analysis. This review describes various aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials with a special focus on interventional pain management. Key words: Randomized trials, pragmatic trials, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines, bias, interventional pain management, Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), Cochrane reviews

scholarly journals Factors underpinning discrepant findings from reviews on the same topic: A systematic analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Hacke ◽  
David Nunan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
List Type ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractObjectiveTo explore factors underpinning discrepancies in reported pooled effect estimates from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews answering the same question.Study Design and SettingWe observed discrepant pooled effects in 23 out of 24 pairs of meta-analyses from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews answering the same question. Here we present the results of a systematic assessment of methodological quality and factors that explain the observed quantitative discrepancies. Methodological quality of each review was assessed using AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Matched pairs were contrasted at the macro- (review methodology), meso- (application of methodology) and micro- (data extraction) level and reasons for differences were derived.ResultsAll Cochrane reviews had high methodological quality (AMSTAR 8-11), whereas the majority (87.5%) of non-Cochrane reviews were classified as moderate (AMSTAR 4-7). Only one pair included exactly the same studies for their respective meta-analyses but there was still a discrepancy in the pooled estimate due to differences in data extraction. One pair did not include any study of its match and for one pair the same effect estimates were reported despite inclusion of different studies. The remaining pairs included at least one study in their match. Due to insufficient reporting (predominantly affecting non-Cochrane reviews) we were only able to completely ascertain the reasons for discrepancies in all included studies for 9/24 (37.5%) pairs. Across all pairs, differences in pre-defined methods (macro-level) including search strategy, eligibility criteria and performance of dual screening could possibly explain mismatches in included studies. Study selection procedures (meso-level) including disagreements in the interpretation of pre-defined eligibility criteria (14 matches) were identified as reasons underpinning discrepant review findings. Comparison of data extraction from primary studies (micro-level) was not possible in 13/24 pairs as a result of the non-Cochrane review providing insufficient details of the studies included in their meta-analyses. Two out of 24 pairs completely agreed on the numerical data presented for the same studies in their respective meta-analysis. Both review types provided sufficient information to check the accuracy of data extraction for 8 pairs (45 studies) where there were discrepancies. An assessment of 50% (22 studies) of these showed that reasons for differences in extracted data could be identified in 15 studies. We found examples for both types of review where data presented were discrepant from that given in the source study without a plausible explanation.ConclusionMethodological and author judgements and performance are key aspects underpinning poor overlap of included studies and discrepancies in reported pooled effect estimates between topic-matched reviews. Though caution must be taken when extrapolating, our findings raise the question as to what extent the entire meta-analysis evidence-base accurately reflects the available primary research both in terms of volume and data. Reinforcing awareness of the application of guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses may help mitigate some of the key issues identified in our analysis.What is new?Key findings Non-Cochrane reviews were of a lower overall methodological quality compared with Cochrane reviews. Discrepant results of meta-analyses on the same topic can be attributed to differences in included studies based on review author decision, judgements and performance at different stages of the review process.What this adds to what was known?This study provides the most robust analysis to date of the potential methodological factors underpinning discrepant review findings between matched meta-analyses answering the same question. Assessing differences between reviews at the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels is a useful method to identify reasons for discrepant meta-analyses at key stages of the review process.What is the implication and what should change now?There is a need for a standardised approach to performing matched-pair analysis of meta-analyses and systematic reviews answering the same question. Our paper provides a base for this that can be refined by replication and expert consensus.

scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis of correlation between cough variant asthma and mycoplasma pneumonia in children

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luyan Jiao ◽  
Guoqing Zhang ◽  
Yi Yuan ◽  
Ling Cao
Keyword(s):  
Eosinophil Count ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cough Variant Asthma ◽  
Number Of Children ◽  
Mycoplasma Pneumonia ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Review Manager

IntroductionThe present study was to explore the correlation between cough variant asthma (CVA) and repeated episodes of mycoplasma pneumonia in children.Material and methodsMultiple databases were searched for relevant studies, and the articles that eventually satisfied the inclusion criteria were included. All the meta-analyses were conducted with the Review Manager 5.2. To estimate the quality of each article, the risk of bias table was performed. Totally 1223 patients with CVA and 1437 patients with simple cough (SC) were included.ResultsFinally, 9 studies including 2660 patients were included, who eventually satisfied the eligibility criteria. The results of heterogeneity test suggested that the serum level of IgE (MD = 80.69, 95%CI [77.75, 83.62], P < 0.001; P for heterogeneity <0.001, I2 = 95%), eosinophil count (MD= 2.93, 95%CI [2.72, 3.13], P < 0.001; P for heterogeneity < 0.001, I2 = 71%) and the number of children with positive IgM (OR = 4.44, 95%CI [3.73, 5.29], P < 0.001; P for heterogeneity = 0.63, I2 = 0%) were significantly different. The value of IgE in CVA was higher than that in SC, eosinophil count in CVA was higher than that in SC and the number of IgM positive children in the CVA group was higher than that in the SC group.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated a correlation between cough variant asthma and mycoplasma pneumonia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document