Reporting of the Role of the Expert Searcher in Cochrane Reviews

Introduction - This study applied the principles of evidence based information practice to clarify the role of information specialists and librarians in the preparation of Cochrane systematic reviews and to determine whether information specialists impact the quality of searching in Cochrane systematic reviews. Objectives - This research project sought to determine how the contribution of the person responsible for searching in the preparation of Cochrane systematic reviews was reported; whether the contribution was recognized through authorship or acknowledgement; the qualifications of the searcher; and the association between the type of contributorship and characteristics of the search strategy, assessability, and the presence of certain types of errors. Methods - Data sources: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, The Cochrane Library 3 (2002). Inclusion criteria: The study included systematic reviews that met the following criteria: one or more sections of the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy were utilised, primary studies were either randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs, and included and excluded studies were clearly identified. Data extraction: Two librarians assessed the searches for errors, establishing consensus on discordant ratings. Results - Of the 169 reviews screened for this project, 105 met all eligibility criteria. Authors fulfilled the searching role in 41.9% of reviews studied, acknowledged persons or groups in 13.3%, a combination in 9.5%, and the role was not reported in 35.2% of reviews. For the 78 reviews in which meta-analyses were performed, the positions of those responsible for statistical decisions were examined for comparative purposes. The statistical role was performed by an author in 47.4% of cases and unreported in the same number of cases. Insufficient analyzable data was obtained regarding professional qualifications (3/105 for searching, 2/78 for statistical decisions). Search quality was assessed for 66 searches across 74 reviews. In general, it was more possible to assess the search quality when the searcher role was reported. An association was found between the reporting of searcher role and the presence of a consequential error. There was no association between the number of consequential errors and how the contribution of the searcher was reported. Conclusions - Qualifications of the persons responsible for searching and statistical decision-making were poorly reported in Cochrane reviews, but more complete role reporting is associated with greater assessability of searches and fewer substantive errors in search strategies.

Download Full-text

Search for unpublished data by systematic reviewers: an audit

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017737 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 7 (10) ◽

pp. e017737 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Hedyeh Ziai ◽

Rujun Zhang ◽

An-Wen Chan ◽

Nav Persaud

Keyword(s):

Publication Bias ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Ovid Medline ◽

Cochrane Reviews ◽

Unpublished Studies ◽

Cochrane Database

ObjectivesWe audited a selection of systematic reviews published in 2013 and reported on the proportion of reviews that researched for unpublished data, included unpublished data in analysis and assessed for publication bias.DesignAudit of systematic reviews.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013 for the following journals:Journal of the American Medical Association,The British Medical Journal,Lancet,Annals of Internal Medicineand theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also searched the Cochrane Library and included 100 randomly selected Cochrane reviews.Eligibility criteriaSystematic reviews published in 2013 in the selected journals were included. Methodological reviews were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently reviewed each included systematic review. The following data were extracted: whether the review searched for grey literature or unpublished data, the sources searched, whether unpublished data were included in analysis, whether publication bias was assessed and whether there was evidence of publication bias.Main findings203 reviews were included for analysis. 36% (73/203) of studies did not describe any attempt to obtain unpublished studies or to search grey literature. 89% (116/130) of studies that sought unpublished data found them. 33% (68/203) of studies included an assessment of publication bias, and 40% (27/68) of these found evidence of publication bias.ConclusionA significant fraction of systematic reviews included in our study did not search for unpublished data. Publication bias may be present in almost half the published systematic reviews that assessed for it. Exclusion of unpublished data may lead to biased estimates of efficacy or safety in systematic reviews.

Download Full-text

Reporting of the methodological quality of search strategies in orthodontic quantitative systematic reviews

European Journal of Orthodontics ◽

10.1093/ejo/cjaa078 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Danah AlMubarak ◽

Nikolaos Pandis ◽

Martyn T Cobourne ◽

Jadbinder Seehra

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Search Strategy ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Search Strategies ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Cochrane Reviews

Summary Background This study aimed to assess the reporting of the methodological quality of search strategies undertaken in orthodontic quantitative systematic reviews (SRs) and hence their reproducibility. Materials and methods A search of a single electronic database (Medline via PubMed) was undertaken to identify interventional orthodontic SRs with meta-analysis published within a 10-year period. The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews was also sourced. Full articles were reviewed by two assessors against the eligibility criteria. The reporting quality of each search strategy was assessed using a previously validated checklist with a score of 1 or 2 given for each of the eight items. Cumulative totals were calculated. Guided by previous research, the authors agreed the following cut-offs to categorize the overall level of quality: 8–10 (poor), 10–12 (fair), and greater than 13 (good). Results A total of 127 SRs were analysed. The overall median quality score for the reporting of the search strategy was 14 [interquartile range (IQR): 13–15]. Cochrane SRs and those originating in Europe received higher aggregate scores, whereas no difference was evident based on Prospero registration. The continent of the corresponding author predicated the overall score. Non-Cochrane reviews achieved lower overall scores compared to Cochrane reviews (−1.0, 95% confidence interval: −1.65, −0.34, P = 0.003). The most frequently searched database was EMBASE (N = 93) and the median number of authors was 5 (IQR 4–6). Authors of 26.8% of SRs searched the grey literature. Language restrictions were applied to the search strategies of 88 (69.3%) SRs. Conclusions The reporting quality of search strategies undertaken in orthodontic SRs is at a good level but differences between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews currently exist. The reporting of searching of the grey literature and application of no language restrictions can be improved.

Download Full-text

Clinical and pharmacokinetic/dynamic outcomes of prolonged infusions of beta-lactam antimicrobials: An overview of systematic reviews

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0244966 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

pp. e0244966

Author(s):

Pierre Thabet ◽

Anchal Joshi ◽

Erika MacDonald ◽

Brian Hutton ◽

Wei Cheng ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Clinical Cure ◽

Search Strategy ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Hospitalized Patients ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Beta Lactam ◽

Beta Lactams ◽

Overview Of Systematic Reviews

Objective This overview of reviews aims to map and compare of objectives, methods, and findings of existing systematic reviews to develop a greater understanding of the information available about prolonged beta-lactam infusions in hospitalized patients with infection. Design Overview of systematic reviews. Data sources Medline, Embase, PROSPERO and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from January, 1990 to June, 2019 using a peer reviewed search strategy. Grey literature was also searched for relevant reviews. Eligibility criteria for selecting reviews Systematic reviews were sought that compared two or more infusion strategies for intravenous beta-lactam antimicrobials and report clinical cure or mortality. Populations of included reviews were restricted to hospitalized patients with infection, without restrictions on age, infection type, or disease. Data extraction and analysis Abstract screening, data extraction, quality and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers. Overlap between reviews was assessed using a modified corrected covered area. Overview findings are reported in accordance with Cochrane’s recommendation for overview conduct. Clinical outcomes extracted included survival, clinical cure, treatment failure, microbiological cure, length of stay, adverse events, cost, and emergence of resistance. Results The search strategy identified 3327 unique citations from which 21 eligible reviews were included. Reviews varied by population, intervention and outcomes studied. Between reviews, overlap of primary studies was generally high, methodologic quality generally low and risk of bias variable. Nine of 14 reviews that quantitatively evaluated mortality and clinical cure identified a benefit with prolonged infusions of beta lactams when compared with intermittent infusions. Evidence of mortality and clinical cure benefit was greater among critically ill patients when compared to less sick patients and lower in randomized controlled trials when compared with observational studies. Conclusions Findings from our review demonstrate a consistent and reproducible lack of harm with prolonged infusions of beta-lactam antibiotics with variability in effect size and significance of benefits. Despite 21 systematic reviews addressing prolonged infusions of beta-lactams, this overview supports the continued need for a definitive systematic review given variability in populations, interventions and outcomes in the current systematic reviews. Subsequent systematic reviews should have more rigorous and transparent methods, only include RCTs and evaluate the proposed benefits found in various subgroup-analyses—i.e. high risk of mortality. Trial registration Prospero registry, CRD42019117118.

Download Full-text

Publication practices of sub-Saharan African Cochrane authors: a bibliometric study

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051839 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (9) ◽

pp. e051839

Author(s):

Lawrence Mbuagbaw ◽

Anel Schoonees ◽

Joy Oliver ◽

Dachi Arikpo ◽

Solange Durão ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Sub Saharan Africa ◽

Bibliometric Study ◽

Test Accuracy ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Cochrane Reviews ◽

Publication Practices ◽

Sub Saharan ◽

Overviews Of Systematic Reviews

IntroductionCochrane Africa (https://africa.cochrane.org/) aims to increase Cochrane reviews addressing high priority questions in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Researchers residing in SSA, despite often drawing on Cochrane methods, training or resources, conduct and publish systematic reviews outside of Cochrane. Our objective was to investigate the extent to which Cochrane authors from SSA publish Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.MethodsWe conducted a bibliometric study of systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews from SSA, first by identifying SSA Cochrane authors, then retrieving their first and last author systematic reviews and overviews from PubMed (2008 to April 2019) and using descriptive analyses to investigate the country of origin, types of reviews and trends in publishing Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews over time. To be eligible, a review had to have predetermined objectives, eligibility criteria, at least two databases searched, data extraction, quality assessment and a first or last author with a SSA affiliation.ResultsWe identified 657 Cochrane authors and 757 eligible systematic reviews. Most authors were from South Africa (n=332; 51%), followed by Nigeria (n=126; 19%). Three-quarters of the reviews (71%) were systematic reviews of interventions. The intervention reviews were more likely to be Cochrane reviews (60.3% vs 39.7%). Conversely, the overviews (23.8% vs 76.2%), qualitative reviews (14.8% vs 85.2%), diagnostic test accuracy reviews (16.1% vs 83.9%) and the ‘other’ reviews (11.1% vs 88.9%) were more likely to be non-Cochrane reviews. During the study period, the number of non-Cochrane reviews increased more than the number of Cochrane reviews. About a quarter of the reviews covered infectious disease topics.ConclusionCochrane authors from SSA are increasingly publishing a diverse variety of systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews, often opting for non-Cochrane journals.

Download Full-text

Data Contained in Electronic Health Records Associated with Risk of Lung Cancer: A Protocol for a Systematic Review

10.21203/rs.3.rs-910471/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Lamorna Brown ◽

Frank Sullivan ◽

Tom Kelsey ◽

Utkarsh Agrawal

Keyword(s):

Lung Cancer ◽

Electronic Health Records ◽

Search Strategy ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Health Records ◽

Risk Modelling ◽

Electronic Health ◽

The Cochrane Library

Abstract Background: Lung cancer is one of the most common and aggressive forms of cancer, resulting in a low survival and high mortality rate. To improve cancer related outcomes, high-risk subpopulations should be identified to reduce overdiagnosis of lung cancer and aid in the implementation of interventions. Electronic Health Records (EHRs) have been effective in identifying cohorts and phenotyping diseases. To identify whether EHR data can be used in risk modelling for lung cancer, this review will seek to identify data features that are contained in EHRs and related to lung cancer. Methods: A search strategy was developed and then applied to MEDLINE via Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus and the Cochrane library. The titles and abstracts of studies will be identified and screened independently by reviewers. Reviewers will read the full texts of studies that appear to meet the eligibility criteria after initial screening. Articles that meet the criteria at this stage, will have their bibliographies examined for relevant studies. Data extraction will then be performed independently by reviewers and a narrative synthesis will be carried out.Discussion: While risk factors for lung cancer have been extensively researched, there has to date been no effort to identify whether information that relates to these factors are available in EHRs and can be modelled with. As such, the results of the review will seek to broaden knowledge around the use of EHRs in lung cancer risk modelling and inform researchers of the variables that are available in EHRs.Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021246781, Registered on 26/04/21.

Download Full-text

Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews

Research Integrity and Peer Review ◽

10.1186/s41073-019-0084-4 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 4 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Pauline A. J. Steegmans ◽

Nicola Di Girolamo ◽

Reint A. Meursinge Reynders

Keyword(s):

Adverse Effects ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Linear Models ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Policy Implications ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Cochrane Reviews ◽

Cochrane Database ◽

Study Results

Abstract Background Titles and abstracts are the most read sections of biomedical papers. It is therefore important that abstracts transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of health care interventions and do not mislead the reader. Misleading reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of study results is called “spin”. In this study, we will assess whether adverse effects of orthodontic interventions were reported or considered in the abstracts of both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews and whether spin was identified and what type of spin. Methods Eligibility criteria were defined for the type of study designs, participants, interventions, outcomes, and settings. We will include systematic reviews of clinical orthodontic interventions published in the five leading orthodontic journals and in the Cochrane Database. Empty reviews will be excluded. We will manually search eligible reviews published between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2019. Data collection forms were developed a priori. All study selection and data extraction procedures will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Our main outcomes will be the prevalence of reported or considered adverse effects of orthodontic interventions in the abstract of systematic reviews and the prevalence of “spin” related to these adverse effects. We will also record the prevalence of three subtypes of spin, i.e., misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, and misleading extrapolation-related spin. All statistics will be calculated for the following groups: (1) all journals individually, (2) all journals together, and (3) the five leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews separately. Generalized linear models will be developed to compare the various groups. Discussion We expect that our results will raise the awareness of the importance of reporting and considering of adverse effects and the presence of the phenomenon of spin related to these effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. This is important, because an incomplete and inadequate reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of findings on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews can mislead readers and could lead to inadequate clinical practice. Our findings could result in policy implications for making judgments about the acceptance for publication of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions.

Download Full-text

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

10.1101/574046 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Risk of dementia in gout and hyperuricaemia: a meta-analysis of cohort studies

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041680 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (6) ◽

pp. e041680

Author(s):

Shu-Yue Pan ◽

Rui-Juan Cheng ◽

Zi-Jing Xia ◽

Qiu-Ping Zhang ◽

Yi Liu

Keyword(s):

Cohort Studies ◽

Quality Assessment ◽

Publication Bias ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Sensitivity Analyses ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Crystal Formation ◽

Medical Subject Headings ◽

Eligibility Criteria

ObjectivesGout, characterised by hyperuricaemia with monosodium urate crystal formation and inflammation, is the most common inflammatory arthritis in adults. Recent studies have found that elevated uric acid levels are related to the occurrence of dementia. We conducted a study to investigate the association between dementia and gout or hyperuricaemia.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.Data sourcesStudies were screened from inception to 28 June 2019 by searching Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases.Eligibility criteriaCohort studies comparing the risk of dementia in patients with gout and hyperuricaemia versus non-gout and non-hyperuricaemia controls were enrolled.Data extraction and analysisTwo reviewers separately selected studies and extracted data using the Medical Subject Headings without restriction on languages or countries. The adjusted HRs were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the stability of the results. Publication bias was evaluated using Egger’s and Begg’s tests. Quality assessment was performed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsFour cohort studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in our meta-analysis. We found that gout and hyperuricaemia did not increase the risk of dementia, with a pooled HR of 0.94 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.28), but might decrease the risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with a pooled HR of 0.78 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.95). There was little evidence of publication bias. Quality assessment of the included studies was high (range: 6–8 points).ConclusionsOur study shows that gout and hyperuricaemia do not increase the risk of dementia. However, gout and hyperuricaemia might have a protective effect against AD. Due to the limited number of research articles, more investigations are needed to demonstrate the potential relationship between dementia and gout or hyperuricaemia.

Download Full-text

Managing overlap of primary study results across systematic reviews: practical considerations for authors of overviews of reviews

BMC Medical Research Methodology ◽

10.1186/s12874-021-01269-y ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Carole Lunny ◽

Dawid Pieper ◽

Pierre Thabet ◽

Salmaan Kanji

Keyword(s):

Case Studies ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Methodological Approach ◽

Study Data ◽

Primary Study ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Overlapping Data ◽

Study Results ◽

Yield Trends

Abstract Background Overviews often identify and synthesise a large number of systematic reviews on the same topic, which is likely to lead to overlap (i.e. duplication) in primary studies across the reviews. Using a primary study result multiple times in the same analysis overstates its sample size and number of events, falsely leading to greater precision in the analysis. This paper aims to: (a) describe types of overlapping data that arise from the same primary studies reported across multiple reviews, (b) describe methods to identify and explain overlap of primary study data, and (c) present six case studies illustrating different approaches to manage overlap. Methods We first updated the search in PubMed for methods from the MOoR framework relating to overlap of primary studies. One author screened the studies titles and abstracts, and any full-text articles retrieved, extracted methods data relating to overlap of primary studies and mapped it to the overlap methods from the MOoR framework. We also describe six case studies as examples of overviews that use specific overlap methods across the steps in the conduct of an overview. For each case study, we discuss potential methodological implications in terms of limitations, efficiency, usability, and resource use. Results Nine methods studies were found and mapped to the methods identified by the MOoR framework to address overlap. Overlap methods were mapped across four steps in the conduct of an overview – the eligibility criteria step, the data extraction step, the assessment of risk of bias step, and the synthesis step. Our overview case studies used multiple methods to reduce overlap at different steps in the conduct of an overview. Conclusions Our study underlines that there is currently no standard methodological approach to deal with overlap in primary studies across reviews. The level of complexity when dealing with overlap can vary depending on the yield, trends and patterns of the included literature and the scope of the overview question. Choosing a method might be dependent on the number of included reviews and their primary studies. Gaps in evaluation of methods to address overlap were found and further investigation in this area is needed.

Download Full-text

An overview of systematic reviews of complementary and alternative therapies for infantile colic

Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1186/s13643-019-1191-5 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Rachel Perry ◽

Verity Leach ◽

Chris Penfold ◽

Philippa Davies

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Research Literature ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Infantile Colic ◽

Breastfed Infants ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Complementary And Alternative

Abstract Background Infantile colic is a distressing condition characterised by excessive crying in the first few months of life. The aim of this research was to update the synthesis of evidence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) research literature on infantile colic and establish what evidence is currently available. Methods Medline, Embase and AMED (via Ovid), Web of Science and Central via Cochrane library were searched from their inception to September 2018. Google Scholar and OpenGrey were searched for grey literature and PROSPERO for ongoing reviews. Published systematic reviews that included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of infants aged up to 1 year, diagnosed with infantile colic using standard diagnostic criteria, were eligible. Reviews of RCTs that assessed the effectiveness of any individual CAM therapy were included. Three reviewers were involved in data extraction and quality assessment using the AMSTAR-2 scale and risk of bias using the ROBIS tool. Results Sixteen systematic reviews were identified. Probiotics, fennel extract and spinal manipulation show promise to alleviate symptoms of colic, although some concerns remain. Acupuncture and soy are currently not recommended. The majority of the reviews were assessed as having high or unclear risk of bias and low confidence in the findings. Conclusion There is clearly a need for larger and more methodologically sound RCTs to be conducted on the effectiveness of some CAM therapies for IC. Particular focus on probiotics in non-breastfed infants is pertinent. Systematic review registration PROSPERO: CRD42018092966.

Download Full-text