scholarly journals Enhancing the Reporting Quality of Meta-Analyses for Trustworthy Decision of Breast Cancer Intervention: A Cross-Sectional Survey

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo Zhu ◽  
Shanshan Lin ◽  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
Chang Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Reporting Guideline ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Potential Factors ◽  
Cancer Intervention ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Meta-analysis of RCTs has been widely employed to evaluate effectiveness of the interventions for breast cancer, but little is known of their reporting validity. Related studies showed that meta-analysis may mislead clinical practice when the reporting is uninformative. The purpose of the study was to assess the reporting quality of meta-analyses of RCTs for breast cancer intervention, and explore potential factors associated with the reporting.Method We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews from inception to November 2019 for published meta-analysis of RCTs for breast cancer intervention. The PRISMA checklist (27-items) was used for the measuring of the reporting quality. The adherence of eligible meta-analyses under each reporting item from PRISMA were evaluated and those with an adherence ≥ 80% were regarded as well reported while less than 30% were poor reported. The proportion of reporting issues were summarized and compared in pre-defined settings measured by rate difference (RD).Result A total of 296 meta-analyses were included. For the 27 reporting items, there were only 6 items were identified as well-reported, while as much as 9 items were poorly reported by these meta-analyses. The reporting issues mainly embodied in the methods and results section. Our further analysis suggested that those published more recently (RD=-0.07, 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.03), complied with reporting guideline (RD=-0.04, 95% CI: -0.07 to -0.02), and pre-specified protocol (RD=-0.09, 95% CI: -0.09 to -0.01) were associated with less reporting issues.Conclusion The reporting of the meta-analyses for breast cancer intervention was uninformative to support the decision-making. Although improvement has seen over times, further efforts are still needed. Some easy-to-implement measures could be considered such as referring to a reporting guideline, develop a protocol in advance to help further researchers to improve the reporting of their meta-analysis.

scholarly journals Evaluation of quality of life in early breast cancer disease free survivors. a cross sectional survey

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. iv74
Author(s):  
D. Aiello ◽  
S. Patti ◽  
M. Alì ◽  
M.V. Sanò ◽  
S. Virgilio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Early Breast Cancer ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cancer Disease ◽  
Disease Free

Abstract P155: Phenotyping The Association Between Nocturia And Hypertension: A Systematic Review And Meta-analysis

Hypertension ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 76 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Syed N Rahman ◽  
Daniel J Cao ◽  
Thomas F Monaghan ◽  
Viktor X Flores ◽  
Matthew W Moy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Quality Assessment Tool ◽  
Observable Effect ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Observational Cohort ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Relationship

Introduction: The association between nocturia and hypertension has been widely reported, yet remains poorly characterized, precluding a more refined understanding of blood pressure as it relates to the clinical urology setting. We synthesized current evidence on the relationship between nocturia and hypertension as a function of nocturia severity, age, sex, race, and diuretic use. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for studies published up to May 2020. Random effects meta-analyses were performed to identify the pooled odds ratio (OR) for nocturia given the presence of hypertension. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to identify differences across demographic factors. We applied the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies to evaluate the quality of evidence. Results: Of 1530 identified studies, 23 met the criteria for inclusion. The overall pooled OR for the association of hypertension with nocturia was 1.26 (95% CI 1.22-1.29, p<0.001). Pooled estimates were 1.21 (1.16-1.25, p<0.001) and 1.31 (1.26-1.36, p<0.001) using a 1- and 2-void cutoff for nocturia, respectively (p<0.001 between cutoffs). The association was stronger in females compared to males (1.41 [1.29-1.53] vs. 1.26 [1.20-1.32], p<0.001), and in African-American (1.56 [1.25-1.94]) and Asian (1.28 [1.24-1.32]) versus Caucasian populations (1.16 [1.09-1.24]) (p<0.05for both). Age and diuretic use had no observable effect on the association between nocturia and hypertension. Conclusions: There exists an increased odds of nocturia in hypertensive individuals. This association is stronger following a higher nocturia cutoff, in females, and in some racial subgroups, but unrelated to age and diuretic utilization.

scholarly journals Survey of the Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation

2013 ◽  
Vol 93 (11) ◽  
pp. 1456-1466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Gianola ◽  
Monica Gasparini ◽  
Michela Agostini ◽  
Greta Castellini ◽  
Davide Corbetta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Functional Limitations ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Item Data ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly important for informing clinical practice; however, little is known about the reporting characteristics and the quality of the SRs relevant to the practice of rehabilitation health professionals. Objective The purpose of this study was to examine the reporting quality of a representative sample of published SRs on rehabilitation, focusing on the descriptive, reporting, and bias-related characteristics. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted by searching MEDLINE for aggregative and configurative SRs indexed in 2011 that focused on rehabilitation as restorative of functional limitations. Two reviewers independently screened and selected the SRs and extracted data using a 38-item data collection form derived from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The data were analyzed descriptively. Results Eighty-eight SRs published in 59 journals were sampled. The median compliance with the PRISMA items was 17 (63%) out of 27 items (interquartile ratio=13–22 [48%–82%]). Two thirds of the SRs (n=66) focused on interventions for which efficacy is best addressed through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, and almost all of these SRs included RCTs (63/66 [95%]). More than two thirds of the SRs assessed the quality of primary studies (74/88 [84%]). Twenty-eight reviews (28/88 [32%]) meta-analyzed the results for at least one outcome. One half of the SRs reported positive statistically significant findings (46%), whereas a detrimental result was present only in one review. Conclusions This sample of SRs in the rehabilitation field showed heterogeneous characteristics and a moderate quality of reporting. Poor control of potential source of bias might be improved if more widely agreed-upon evidence-based reporting guidelines will be actively endorsed and adhered to by authors and journals.

scholarly journals Low Reporting Quality of the Meta-Analyses in Diagnostic Pathology

2017 ◽  
Vol 141 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xulei Liu ◽  
Michael Kinzler ◽  
Jiangfan Yuan ◽  
Guozhong He ◽  
Lanjing Zhang
Keyword(s):  
North American ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Diagnostic Pathology ◽  
Analysis Methodology ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Item Checklist ◽  
Research And Education ◽  
Meta Analyses

Context.— Little is known regarding the reporting quality of meta-analyses in diagnostic pathology. Objective.— To compare reporting quality of meta-analyses in diagnostic pathology and medicine and to examine factors associated with reporting quality of diagnostic pathology meta-analyses. Design.— Meta-analyses were identified in 12 major diagnostic pathology journals without specifying years and 4 major medicine journals in 2006 and 2011 using PubMed. Reporting quality of meta-analyses was evaluated using the 27-item checklist of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement published in 2009. A higher PRISMA score indicates higher reporting quality. Results.— Forty-one diagnostic pathology meta-analyses and 118 medicine meta-analyses were included. Overall, reporting quality of meta-analyses in diagnostic pathology was lower than that in medicine (median [interquartile range] = 22 [15, 25] versus 27 [23, 28], P &lt; .001). Compared with medicine meta-analyses, diagnostic pathology meta-analyses less likely reported 23 of the 27 items (85.2%) on the PRISMA checklist, but more likely reported the data items. Higher reporting quality of diagnostic pathology meta-analyses was associated with recent publication years (later than 2009 versus 2009 or earlier, P = .002) and non–North American first authors (versus North American, P = .001), but not journal publisher's location (P = .11). Interestingly, reporting quality was not associated with adjusted citation ratio for meta-analyses in either diagnostic pathology or medicine (P = .40 and P = .09, respectively). Conclusions.— Meta-analyses in diagnostic pathology had lower reporting quality than those in medicine. Reporting quality of diagnostic pathology meta-analyses is linked to publication year and first author's location, but not to journal publisher's location or article's adjusted citation ratios. More research and education on meta-analysis methodology may improve the reporting quality of diagnostic pathology meta-analyses.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document