scholarly journals How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Celina Borges Migliavaca ◽  
Cinara Stein ◽  
Verônica Colpani ◽  
Timothy Hugh Barker ◽  
Zachary Munn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Prediction Interval ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Prevalence Data ◽  
Prevalence Studies ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Funding Information

Abstract Background: There is a notable lack of methodological and reporting guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data. This information void has the potential to result in reviews that are inconsistent and inadequate to inform healthcare policy and decision making. The aim of this meta-epidemiological study is to describe the methodology of recently published prevalence systematic reviews.Methods: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from February 2017 to February 2018 for systematic reviews of prevalence studies. We included systematic reviews assessing the prevalence of any clinical condition using patients as the unit of measurement and we summarized data related to reporting of and methodology of the reviews.Results: A total of 235 systematic reviews of prevalence were analyzed. The median number of authors was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7), the median number of databases searched was 4 (3-6) and the median of studies included in each review was 24 (IQR 15-41.5). Search strategies were presented for 68% of reviews. Forty five percent of reviews received external funding, and 24% did not provide funding information. Twenty three percent of included reviews had published or registered the systematic review protocol. Reporting guidelines were used in 72% of reviews. The quality of included studies was assessed in 80% of reviews. Nine reviews assessed the overall quality of evidence (4 using GRADE). Meta-analysis was conducted in 65% of reviews; 1% used Bayesian methods. Random effect meta-analysis was used in 94% of reviews; among them, 75% did not report the variance estimator used. Among the reviews with meta-analysis, 70% did not report how data was transformed; 59% percent conducted subgroup analysis, 38% conducted meta-regression and 2% estimated prediction interval; I2 was estimated in 95% of analysis. Publication bias was examined in 48%. The most common software used was STATA (55%).Conclusions: Our results indicate that there are significant inconsistencies regarding how these reviews are conducted. Many of these differences arose in the assessment of methodological quality and the formal synthesis of comparable data. This variability indicates the need for clearer reporting standards and consensus on methodological guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data.

scholarly journals How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Celina Borges Migliavaca ◽  
Cinara Stein ◽  
Verônica Colpani ◽  
Timothy Hugh Barker ◽  
Zachary Munn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Prediction Interval ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Prevalence Data ◽  
Prevalence Studies ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Funding Information

Abstract Background: There is a notable lack of methodological and reporting guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data. This information void has the potential to result in reviews that are inconsistent and inadequate to inform healthcare policy and decision making. The aim of this meta-epidemiological study is to describe the methodology of recently published prevalence systematic reviews. Methods: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from February 2017 to February 2018 for systematic reviews of prevalence studies. We included systematic reviews assessing the prevalence of any clinical condition using patients as the unit of measurement and we summarized data related to reporting of and methodology of the reviews. Results: A total of 235 systematic reviews of prevalence were analyzed. The median number of authors was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7), the median number of databases searched was 4 (3-6) and the median of studies included in each review was 24 (IQR 15-41.5). Search strategies were presented for 68% of reviews. Forty five percent of reviews received external funding, and 24% did not provide funding information. Twenty three percent of included reviews had published or registered the systematic review protocol. Reporting guidelines were used in 72% of reviews. The quality of included studies was assessed in 80% of reviews. Twelve reviews assessed the overall quality of evidence (50% of them using GRADE). Meta-analysis was conducted in 65% of reviews; 1% used Bayesian methods. Random effect meta-analysis was used in 94% of reviews; among them, 75% did not report the variance estimator used. Among the reviews with meta-analysis, 70% did not report how data was transformed; 59% percent conducted subgroup analysis, 38% conducted meta-regression and 2% estimated prediction interval; I 2 was estimated in 95% of analysis. Publication bias was examined in 48%. The most common software used was STATA (55%). Conclusions: Our results indicate that there are significant inconsistencies regarding how these reviews are conducted. Many of these differences arose in the assessment of methodological quality and the formal synthesis of comparable data. This variability indicates the need for clearer reporting standards and consensus on methodological guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data.

scholarly journals How Are Systematic Reviews of Prevalence Conducted? A Methodological Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Celina Borges Migliavaca ◽  
Cinara Stein ◽  
Verônica Colpani ◽  
Timothy Hugh Barker ◽  
Zachary Munn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Prediction Interval ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Prevalence Data ◽  
Prevalence Studies ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Funding Information

Abstract Background There is a notable lack of methodological and reporting guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data. This information void has the potential to result in reviews that are inconsistent and inadequate to inform healthcare policy and decision making. The aim of this meta-epidemiological study is to describe the methodology of recently published prevalence systematic reviews.Methods We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from February 2017 to February 2018 for systematic reviews of prevalence studies. We included systematic reviews assessing the prevalence of any clinical condition using patients as the unit of measurement and we summarized data related to reporting of and methodology of the reviews.Results A total of 235 systematic reviews of prevalence were analyzed. The median number of authors was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7), the median number of databases searched was 4 (3-6) and the median of studies included in each review was 24 (IQR 15-41.5). Search strategies were presented for 68% of reviews. Forty five percent of reviews received external funding, and 24% did not provide funding information. Twenty three percent of included reviews had published or registered the systematic review protocol. Reporting guidelines were used in 72% of reviews. The quality of included studies was assessed in 80% of reviews. Only 12 reviews assessed the overall quality of evidence (50% of them using GRADE). Meta-analysis was conducted in 65% of reviews; only 1% used Bayesian methods. Random effect meta-analysis was used in 94% of reviews; among them, 75% did not report the variance estimator used. Among the reviews with meta-analysis, 70% did not report how data was transformed; 59% percent conducted subgroup analysis, 38% conducted meta-regression and 2% estimated prediction interval; I2 was estimated in 95% of analysis. Publication bias was examined in 48%. The most common software used was STATA (55%).Conclusions Our results indicate that there are significant inconsistencies regarding how these reviews are conducted. Many of these differences arose in the assessment of methodological quality and the formal synthesis of comparable data. This variability indicates the need for clearer reporting standards and consensus on methodological guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data.

A Primer on Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (02) ◽  
pp. 103-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nghia Nguyen ◽  
Siddharth Singh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Data Abstraction ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Medical Librarian ◽  
Quantitative Synthesis ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractWith the rapid growth of biomedical literature, there is increasing need to make meaningful inferences from a comprehensive and complex body of evidence. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses offer an objective and summative approach to synthesize knowledge and critically appraise evidence to inform clinical practice. Systematic reviews also help identify key knowledge gaps for future investigation. In this review, the authors provide a step-by-step approach to conducting a systematic review. These include: (1) formulating a focused and clinically-relevant question; (2) designing a detailed review protocol with explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria; (3) performing a systematic literature search of multiple databases and unpublished data, in consultation with a medical librarian, to identify relevant studies; (4) meticulous data abstraction by at least two sets of investigators independently; (5) assessing risk of bias in individual studies; (6) quantitative synthesis with meta-analysis; and (7) critically and transparently ascertaining quality of evidence.

scholarly journals Psychological resilience during COVID-19: a meta-review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e051417
Author(s):  
Katie Seaborn ◽  
Mark Chignell ◽  
Jacek Gwizdka
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Psychological Resilience ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Meta Review ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Protocol

IntroductionThe global COVID-19 pandemic continues to have wide-ranging implications for health, including psychological well-being. A growing corpus of research reviews has emerged on the topic of psychological resilience in the context of the pandemic. However, this body of work has not been systematically reviewed for its quality, nor with respect to findings on the effectiveness of tools and strategies for psychological resilience. To this end, a meta-review protocol is proposed with the following objectives: (1) identify review work on the topic of psychological resilience during COVID-19; (2) assess the quality of this review work using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; (3) assess the risk of bias in this work; (4) generate a narrative summary of the key points, strengths and weaknesses; (5) identify the psychological resilience strategies that have been reviewed; (6) identify how these strategies have been evaluated for their effectiveness; (7) identify what outcomes were measured and (8) summarise the findings on strategies for psychological resilience so far, providing recommendations, if possible.Methods and analysisA systematic meta-review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews for Protocols and Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review guidelines. Electronic searches of general databases, especially Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed, will be conducted. Only results from January 2020 onwards will be considered, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. Only results in English will be included. Descriptive statistics, thematic analysis and narrative summaries describing the nature of the reviewed work and evaluation of psychological resilience strategies will be carried out.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not needed for systematic review protocols. The results of the meta-review will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. The raw and summarised data will be shared in the journal or other open venues.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021235288.

Mindfulness- and Acceptance-Based Interventions for Stroke Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 003435522110432
Author(s):  
Areum Han
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Mental Fatigue ◽  
Stroke Survivors ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective: Mindfulness- and acceptance-based intervention (MABI) is an emerging evidenced-based practice, but no systematic review incorporating meta-analyses for MABIs in stroke survivors has been conducted. The objective of this systematic review was to measure the effectiveness of MABIs on outcomes in people with stroke. Method: Three electronic databases, including PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, were searched to identify relevant studies published in peer-reviewed journals. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed. Data were extracted and combined in a meta-analysis with a random-effect model to compute the size of the intervention effect. Results: A total of 11 studies met the eligibility criteria. Meta-analyses found a small-to-moderate effect of MABIs on depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.12, 0.66]) and a large effect on mental fatigue (SMD = 1.22, 95% CI = [0.57, 1.87]). No statistically significant effect of MABIs on anxiety, quality of life, and mindfulness was found, but there was a trend in favor of MABIs overall. Conclusions: This meta-analysis found positive effects of MABIs on depressive symptoms and mental fatigue in stroke survivors, but future high-quality studies are needed to guarantee treatment effects of MABIs on varied outcomes in stroke survivors.

Research Protocol for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Elder Abuse Prevalence Studies

2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 256-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yongjie Yon ◽  
Christopher Mikton ◽  
Zachary D. Gassoumis ◽  
Kathleen H. Wilber
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Elder Abuse ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Personnes Âgées ◽  
Nous Allons ◽  
Research Protocol ◽  
Prevalence Studies ◽  
Revue Systématique ◽  
Meta Regression

RÉSUMÉLa maltraitance des personnes âgées est un important problème de santé publique et de droits de l’homme. Néanmoins, notre connaissance de la veritable ampleur du phénomène demeure limitée. Pour y remédier, nous allons procéder à une revue systématique et une méta-analyse des études de prevalence de la maltraitance des personnes âgées dans le monde entier. Ce protocole décrit l’approche méthodologique qui sera adoptée pour la réalisation de la revue systématique et de la méta-analyse. En particulier, le protocole décrit le développement des stratégies de recherche et des critères pour identifier et sélectionner les études de prévalence ainsi que la façon dont les données des études sélectionnées seront extraites pour l’analyse. Le protocole décrit également l’approche analytique qui sera utilisée pour calculer les estimations de prevalence et l’utilisation de méta-régression pour évaluer la façon dont les caractéristiques des études influencent les estimations de la prévalence. Ce protocole est conforme au “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis” – ou PRISMA – et a été enregistré auprès du registre de revues systématique PROSPERO International Prospective Register.

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

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

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

scholarly journals Tryptophan Catabolites in Bipolar Disorder: A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaat Hebbrecht ◽  
Katrien Skorobogatov ◽  
Erik J. Giltay ◽  
Violette Coppens ◽  
Livia De Picker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bipolar Disorder ◽  
Cerebrospinal Fluid ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Healthy Controls ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Subgroup Analyses ◽  
Tryptophan Catabolites

ObjectiveTryptophan catabolites (TRYCATs) are implicated in the pathophysiology of mood disorders by mediating immune-inflammation and neurodegenerative processes. We performed a meta-analysis of TRYCAT levels in bipolar disorder (BD) patients compared to healthy controls.MethodsA systematic literature search in seven electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Emcare, PsycINFO, Academic Search Premier) was conducted on TRYCAT levels in cerebrospinal fluid or peripheral blood according to the PRISMA statement. A minimum of three studies per TRYCAT was required for inclusion. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were computed using random effect models. Subgroup analyses were performed for BD patients in a different mood state (depressed, manic). The methodological quality of the studies was rated using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality assessment Scale.ResultsTwenty-one eligible studies were identified. Peripheral levels of tryptophan (SMD = -0.44; p < 0.001), kynurenine (SMD = - 0.3; p = 0.001) and kynurenic acid (SMD = -.45; p = < 0.001) were lower in BD patients versus healthy controls. In the only three eligible studies investigating TRP in cerebrospinal fluid, tryptophan was not significantly different between BD and healthy controls. The methodological quality of the studies was moderate. Subgroup analyses revealed no significant difference in TRP and KYN values between manic and depressed BD patients, but these results were based on a limited number of studies.ConclusionThe TRYCAT pathway appears to be downregulated in BD patients. There is a need for more and high-quality studies of peripheral and central TRYCAT levels, preferably using longitudinal designs.

Outcomes of digital biomarker-based interventions: protocol for a systematic review of systematic reviews (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hossein Motahari-Nezhad ◽  
Márta Péntek ◽  
László Gulácsi ◽  
Zsombor Zrubka
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Clinical Benefits ◽  
The Cochrane Library ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Digital Biomarkers

BACKGROUND Digital biomarkers are defined as objective, quantifiable physiological and behavioral data that are collected and measured by means of digital devices such as portables, wearables, implantables or digestibles. For their widespread adoption in publicly financed healthcare systems, it is important to understand how their benefits translate into improved patient outcomes, which is essential for demonstrating their value. OBJECTIVE To assess the quality and strength of evidence of the impact of digital biomarkers on clinical outcomes compared to interventions without digital biomarkers, reported in systematic reviews. METHODS A comprehensive search for 2019-2020 will be conducted in the PubMed and the Cochrane Library using keywords related to digital biomarkers and a filter for systematic reviews. Original full-text English publications of systematic reviews comparing clinical outcomes of interventions with and without digital biomarkers via meta-analysis will be included. The AMSTAR-2 tool will be used to assess the methodological quality of reviews. To assess the quality of evidence, we will evaluate systematic reviews using the GRADE tool. To detect the possible presence of reporting bias, we will record whether the protocol of the systematic reviews was published before the start of the study. A qualitative summary of results by digital biomarker technology and outcome will be provided. RESULTS This protocol was submitted before data collection. The next steps in this review will be initiated after the protocol is accepted for publication. CONCLUSIONS Our study will provide a comprehensive summary of the highest level of evidence available on digital biomarker interventions. Our results will help identify clinical areas where the use of digital biomarkers leads to favorable clinical outcomes. In addition, our findings will highlight areas of evidence gaps where the clinical benefits of digital biomarkers have not yet been demonstrated.

Effectiveness of Physiotherapy to Promote Motor Recovery in Individuals with Stroke: A Systematic Review Protocol

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shehong Zhang ◽  
Hongyu Xie ◽  
Chuanjie Wang ◽  
Fengfeng Wu ◽  
Xin Wang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Motor Function ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evaluation System ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Review Protocol

Abstract Introduction: Motor function is essential in our daily lives, one of the most common impairments caused by stroke is loss of functional movement. Over 70% of stroke survivors have motor or other neurological functional disabilities. However, rehabilitation of motor function suffered from a stroke can be rather difficult due to the complexity of organs and systems related to motor function, as well as the neural system that supported motor function. In particularly, previous evidence for the effectiveness of physiotherapy, a commonly prescribed intervention method for people with stroke, that recover motor function in people following a stroke is varied and limited in the chronic rehabilitation phase and therefore has never been reviewed systematically. With the progress of study in neurology and the development of novel tools for rehabilitation, results from more and more clinical trials are now available, thus here justifying conducting a systematic review. Methods and analysis: This systematic review protocol is developed in accordance with the methodology recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols, as well as the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Relevant studies will be identified by searching the databases. We will perform searches for relevant studies in databases, including PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science, Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Cochrane Library databases. The reference lists of included articles and reviews will be searched manually. The date range parameters used in searching all databases will be restricted between January 2001 and January 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published will be included. The language used in the articles included was restricted to English. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions) approach will be used to systematically appraise the quality of methodology. We will assess the risk of bias of the RCTs included using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and provide a qualitative synthesis. After that, we will consider conducting a meta-analysis if the final data across outcomes shows sufficient homogeneity. Ethics and dissemination: No ethical approval is needed as the proposed study does not involve the collection of primary data, and the results of this review will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Trial registration number: CRD42021267069.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document