scholarly journals AMSTAR 2 Appraisal of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in the Field of Heart Failure from High-impact Journals

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
LIN LI ◽  
IRIAGBONSE ROTIMI ASEMOTA ◽  
BOLUN LIU ◽  
JAVIER GOMEZ-VALENZIA ◽  
LIFENG LIN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Compliance Rate ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Critical Appraisal Tool ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: The MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 is a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of interventions. We aimed to perform the first AMSTAR 2-based quality assessment of heart failure-related studies. Methods: Eleven high-impact journals were searched from 2009 to 2019. The included studies were assessed on the basis of 16 domains. Seven domains were deemed critical for high-quality studies. On the basis of the performance in these 16 domains with different weights, overall ratings were generated and the quality was determined to be “high,” “moderate,” “low,” or “critically low.” Results: Eighty-one heart failure-related SRs with MAs were included. Overall, 79 studies were of “critically low quality” and two were of “low quality.” These findings were attributed to insufficiency in the following critical domains: a priori protocols (compliance rate, 5%), complete list of exclusions with justification (5%), risk of bias assessment (69%), meta-analysis methodology (78%), and investigation of publication bias (60%).Conclusions: The low ratings for these potential high-quality heart failure-related SRs and MAs challenge the discrimination capacity of AMSTAR 2. In addition to identifying certain areas of insufficiency, these findings indicate the need to justify or modify AMSTAR 2’s rating rules.

P14.71 An assessment of the reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii51-ii52
Author(s):  
A M George ◽  
S Gupta ◽  
S M Keshwara ◽  
M A Mustafa ◽  
C S Gillespie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neurofibromatosis Type ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract BACKGROUND Systematic reviews and meta-analyses constitute the highest level of research evidence and for a disease with limited clinical trial activity, are often relied upon to help inform clinical practice. This review of reviews evaluates both the reporting & methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS Potentially eligible meningioma reviews published between 1st January 1990 and 31st December 2020 were identified from eight electronic databases. Inclusion required the study to meet the Cochrane guideline definition of a systematic review or meta-analysis. Reviews concerning neurofibromatosis type 2, spinal and pediatric meningiomas were excluded. The reporting and methodological quality of articles were assessed against the following modified guidelines: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) guidelines. RESULTS 117 systematic reviews were identified, 57 of which included meta-analysis (48.7%). The number of meningioma systematic reviews published each year has increased with 63 studies (53.9%) published between 01/2018 and 12/2020. A median of 17 studies (IQR 9–29) were included per review. Impact factor of journals publishing a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis was similar (median 2.3 vs 1.8, P=0.397). The mean PRISMA scores for systematic reviews with a meta-analysis was 21.11 (SD 4.1, 78% adherence) and without was 13.89 (SD 3.4, 63% adherence). Twenty-nine systematic reviews with meta-analysis (51%) and 11 without meta-analysis (18%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA recommendations. Methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR2 revealed one study (0.9%) as high quality whilst 111 (94.8%) studies were graded as critically low. One hundred and two articles (87.2%) did not utilize a comprehensive search strategy as defined by the AMSTAR2 tool. Ninety-nine studies (84.6%) obtained a high level of concern for potential bias as per the ROBIS assessment. One hundred and eight articles (92.3%) failed to present information that a protocol had been established prior to study commencement and 76 articles (65.0%) did not conduct a risk of bias assessment. Across the three tools, domains relating to the establishment of a protocol prior to review commencement and conducting appropriate risk of bias assessments were frequently low scoring. CONCLUSION Overall reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews was sub-optimal. Established critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should be utilized a priori to assist in producing high-quality systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Quality of the Evidence Supporting the Role of Oral Nutritional Supplements in the Management of Malnutrition: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Baldwin ◽  
Rosemary Smith ◽  
Michelle Gibbs ◽  
C Elizabeth Weekes ◽  
Peter W Emery
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Hospital Readmissions ◽  
Nutritional Supplement ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Oral Nutritional Supplements ◽  
Meta Analyses

ABSTRACT There is considerable heterogeneity across the findings of systematic reviews of oral nutritional supplement (ONS) interventions, presenting difficulties for healthcare decision-makers and patients alike. It is not known whether heterogeneity arises from differences in patient populations or relates to methodological rigor. This overview aimed to collate and compare findings from systematic reviews of ONSs compared with routine care in adult patients who were malnourished or at risk of malnutrition with any clinical condition and to examine their methodological quality. Three electronic databases were searched to July 2019, supplemented with hand-searching. Data on all outcomes were extracted and review methodological quality assessed using A MeaSurement Tool for Assessment of systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Twenty-two reviews were included, 11 in groups from mixed clinical backgrounds and 11 in specific clinical conditions. Ninety-one meta-analyses were identified for 12 different outcomes but there was discordance between results. Significant benefits of ONSs were reported in 4 of 4 analyses of energy intake, 7 of 11 analyses of body weight, 7 of 22 analyses of mortality, 10 of 17 analyses of complications (total and infectious), 1 of 3 analyses of muscle strength, 4 of 9 analyses of body composition/nutritional status, 2 of 14 analyses of length of stay, and 2 of 5 analyses of hospital readmissions. Ten reviews were high quality (AMSTAR scores 8–11), 9 moderate (AMSTAR scores 3–8), and 3 poor (AMSTAR scores 0–3). Methodological deficiencies were limitations to searches, poor reporting of heterogeneity, and failure to incorporate quality of evidence into any recommendations. Discordance between reviews was not markedly reduced when only high-quality reviews were considered. Evidence for the effects of ONS in malnourished patients or those who are at risk of malnutrition is uncertain, and discordance in results can arise from differences in clinical background of patients or the etiological basis of malnutrition.

scholarly journals Scoping review of COVID-19-related systematic reviews and meta-analyses: can we really have confidence in their results?

2021 ◽  
pp. postgradmedj-2020-139392
Author(s):  
Rachel Wurth ◽  
Michelle Hajdenberg ◽  
Francisco J Barrera ◽  
Skand Shekhar ◽  
Caroline E Copacino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Literature Search Strategy ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Meta Analyses

AimThe aim of this study was to systematically appraise the quality of a sample of COVID-19-related systematic reviews (SRs) and discuss internal validity threats affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence.DesignWe conducted a scoping review of the literature. SRs with or without meta-analysis (MA) that evaluated clinical data, outcomes or treatments for patients with COVID-19 were included.Main outcome measuresWe extracted quality characteristics guided by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 to calculate a qualitative score. Complementary evaluation of the most prominent published limitations affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence was performed.ResultsA total of 63 SRs were included. The majority were judged as a critically low methodological quality. Most of the studies were not guided by a pre-established protocol (39, 62%). More than half (39, 62%) failed to address risk of bias when interpreting their results. A comprehensive literature search strategy was reported in most SRs (54, 86%). Appropriate use of statistical methods was evident in nearly all SRs with MAs (39, 95%). Only 16 (33%) studies recognised heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19 as a limitation of the study, and 15 (24%) recognised repeated patient populations as a limitation.ConclusionThe methodological and reporting quality of current COVID-19 SR is far from optimal. In addition, most of the current SRs fail to address relevant threats to their internal validity, including repeated patients and heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19. Adherence to proper study design and peer-review practices must remain to mitigate current limitations.

Quality of meta-analyses of non-opioid, pharmacological, perioperative interventions for chronic postsurgical pain: a systematic review

2022 ◽  
pp. rapm-2021-102981
Author(s):  
Rachel H McGregor ◽  
Freda M Warner ◽  
Lukas D Linde ◽  
Jacquelyn J Cragg ◽  
Jill A Osborn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Critical Element ◽  
Postsurgical Pain ◽  
Chronic Postsurgical Pain ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundIn an attempt to aggregate observations from clinical trials, several meta-analyses have been published examining the effectiveness of systemic, non-opioid, pharmacological interventions to reduce the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain.ObjectiveTo inform the design and reporting of future studies, the purpose of our study was to examine the quality of these meta-analyses.Evidence reviewWe conducted an electronic literature search in Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Published meta-analyses, from the years 2010 to 2020, examining the effect of perioperative, systemic, non-opioid pharmacological treatments on the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain in adult patients were identified. Data extraction focused on methodological details. Meta-analysis quality was assessed using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) critical appraisal tool.FindingsOur search yielded 17 published studies conducting 58 meta-analyses for gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin), ketamine, lidocaine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and mexiletine. According to AMSTAR 2, 88.2% of studies (or 15/17) were low or critically low in quality. The most common critical element missing was an analysis of publication bias. Trends indicated an improvement in quality over time and association with journal impact factor.ConclusionsWith few individual trials adequately powered to detect treatment effects, meta-analyses play a crucial role in informing the perioperative management of chronic postsurgical pain. In light of this inherent value and despite a number of attempts, high-quality meta-analyses are still needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021230941.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and Safety of Acupuncture for Migraine: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Xi Li ◽  
Xi-li Xiao ◽  
Dong-Ling Zhong ◽  
Liao-Jun Luo ◽  
Han Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Western Medicine ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Quality Of Evidence

Background. Migraine is a common neurological disease, which burdens individuals and society all over the world. Acupuncture, an important method in Traditional Chinese Medicine, is widely used in clinical practice as a treatment for migraine. Several systematic reviews (SRs) have investigated the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for migraine. Objective. To summarize and critically assess the quality of relevant SRs and present an objective and comprehensive evidence on the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for migraine. Data Sources. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biological Medicine (CBM), China Science and Technology Journal (SCTJ), and WanFang database (WF) were searched from inception to December 2019 and grey literatures were manually searched. Selection Criteria. SRs which meet the criteria were independently selected by 2 reviewers according to a predetermined protocol. Data Extraction. Characteristics of included SRs were independently extracted by 2 reviewers following a predefined data extraction form. Review Appraisal. The methodological quality, risk of bias, and reporting quality of included SRs were assessed, respectively, by a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool, and the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis-Acupuncture (PRISMA-A) statement. The quality of outcomes was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results. A total of 15 SRs were included. All the SRs were published between 2011–2019. Based on AMSTAR 2, 14 out of 15 SRs were rated critically low quality and 1 was rated low quality. According to ROBIS tool, 9 SRs (60%) were low risk of bias. With the PRISMA-A checklist, we found 11 out of 15 SRs were found adequately reported over 70%. With the GRADE tool, we found high quality of evidence indicated that the effective rate of acupuncture was superior to western medicine in treatment of migraine. Besides, acupuncture reduced more headache days and the times of using painkiller and was more effective in reducing the frequency and degree of headache than western medicine and sham acupuncture. Limitations. There might be some missing information. The accuracy of the conclusions may be decreased reduced since we were unable to synthesis all the evidence. Conclusions. Based on high quality of evidence, we concluded that acupuncture may be an effective and safe therapy for migraine. However, the quality of SRs in acupuncture for migraine still needs more improvement.

Esophageal defect repair by artificial scaffolds: a systematic review of experimental studies and proportional meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitrios Schizas ◽  
Maximos Frountzas ◽  
Emmanouil Sgouromallis ◽  
Eleftherios Spartalis ◽  
Konstantinos S Mylonas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tissue Engineering ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Esophageal Replacement ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Graft Stenosis ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background The traditional technique of gastrointestinal reconstruction of the esophagus after esophagectomy presents plenty of complications. Hence, tissue engineering has been introduced as an effective artificial alternative with potentially fewer complications. Three types of esophageal scaffolds have been used in experimental studies so far. The aim of our meta-analysis is to present the postoperative outcomes after esophageal replacement with artificial scaffolds and the investigation of possible factors that affect these outcomes. Methods The present proportional meta-analysis was designed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews guidelines. We searched Medline, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases from inception until February 2020. Results Overall, 32 studies were included that recruited 587 animals. The pooled morbidity after esophageal scaffold implantation was 53.4% (95% CI = 36.6–70.0%). The pooled survival interval was 111.1 days (95% CI = 65.5–156.8 days). Graft stenosis (46%), postoperative dysphagia (15%), and anastomotic leak (12%) were the most common complications after esophageal scaffold implantation. Animals that underwent an implantation of an artificial scaffold in the thoracic part of their esophagus presented higher survival rates than animals that underwent scaffold implantation in the cervical or abdominal part of their esophagus (P < 0.001 and P = 0.011, respectively). Conclusion Tissue engineering seems to offer an effective alternative for the repair of esophageal defects in animal models. Nevertheless, issues like graft stenosis and lack of motility of the esophageal scaffolds need to be addressed in future experimental studies before scaffolds can be tested in human trials.

scholarly journals Evidence-based umbrella review of cognitive effects of prefrontal tDCS

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis C Farhat ◽  
Andre F Carvalho ◽  
Marco Solmi ◽  
Andre R Brunoni
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Affective Neuroscience ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Neuroscience Research ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique, which has been increasingly used as an investigational tool in neuroscience. In social and affective neuroscience research, the prefrontal cortex has been primarily targeted, since this brain region is critically involved in complex psychobiological processes subserving both ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ domains. Although several studies have suggested that prefrontal tDCS can enhance neuropsychological outcomes, meta-analyses have reported conflicting results. Therefore, we aimed to assess the available evidence by performing an umbrella review of meta-analyses. We evaluated the effects of prefrontal active vs sham tDCS on different domains of cognition among healthy and neuropsychiatric individuals. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 was employed to evaluate the quality of meta-analyses, and the GRADE system was employed to grade the quality of evidence of every comparison from each meta-analysis. PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched, and 11 meta-analyses were included resulting in 55 comparisons. Only 16 comparisons reported significant effects favoring tDCS, but 13 of them had either very low or low quality of evidence. Of the remaining 39 comparisons which reported non-significant effects, 38 had either very low or low quality of evidence. Meta-analyses were rated as having critically low and low quality. Among several reasons to explain these findings, the lack of consensus and reproducibility in tDCS research is discussed.

scholarly journals Safety of topical corticosteroids in atopic eczema: an umbrella review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e046476
Author(s):  
Emma Axon ◽  
Joanne R Chalmers ◽  
Miriam Santer ◽  
Matthew J Ridd ◽  
Sandra Lawton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Atopic Eczema ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Adrenal Suppression ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Topical Corticosteroids ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Meta Analyses

ObjectiveAn umbrella review summarising all safety data from systematic reviews of topical corticosteroids (TCS) in adults and children with atopic eczema.MethodsEmbase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology map of eczema systematic reviews were searched until 7 November 2018 and Epistemonikos until 2 March 2021. Reviews were included if they assessed the safety of TCS in atopic eczema and searched >1 database using a reproducible search strategy. Review quality was assessed using version 2 of 'A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews' (AMSTAR 2 tool).Results38 systematic reviews included, 34 low/critically low quality. Treatment and follow-up were usually short (2–4 weeks).Key findingsTCS versus emollient/vehicle: No meta-analyses identified for skin-thinning. Two 2-week randomised controlled trials (RCTs) found no significant increased risk with very potent TCS (0/196 TCS vs 0/33 vehicle in children and 6/109 TCS vs 2/50 vehicle, age unknown). Biochemical adrenal suppression (cortisol) was 3.8% (95% CI 2.4% to 5.8%) in a meta-analysis of 11 uncontrolled observational studies (any potency TCS, 522 children). Effects reversed when treatment ceased.TCS versus topical calcineurin inhibitors: Meta-analysis showed higher relative risk of skin thinning with TCS (4.86, 95% CI 1.06 to 22.28, n=4128, four RCTs, including one 5-year RCT). Eight cases in 2068 participants, 7 using potent TCS. No evidence of growth suppression.Once daily versus more frequent TCS: No meta-analyses identified. No skin-thinning in one RCT (3 weeks potent TCS, n=94) or biochemical adrenal suppression in two RCTs (up to 2 weeks very potent/moderate TCS, n=129).TCS twice/week to prevent flares (‘weekend therapy’) versus vehicle: No meta-analyses identified. No evidence of skin thinning in five RCTs. One RCT found biochemical adrenal suppression (2/44 children, potent TCS).ConclusionsWe found no evidence of harm when TCS were used intermittently ‘as required’ to treat flares or ‘weekend therapy’ to prevent flares. However, long-term safety data were limited.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018079409.

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Published in High-Impact Otolaryngology Journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 163 (5) ◽  
pp. 892-905
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Martinez-Monedero ◽  
Arman Danielian ◽  
Varun Angajala ◽  
Jennifer E. Dinalo ◽  
Eric J. Kezirian
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Abstract Screening

Objective To assess the methodological quality of intervention-focused systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) published in high-impact otolaryngology journals. Data Sources Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Review Methods A comprehensive search was performed for SR and MA citations from 2012 to 2017 in the 10 highest impact factor otolaryngology journals. Abstracts were screened to identify published manuscripts in which the authors indicated clearly that they were performing an SR or MA. Applying a modified typology of reviews, 4 reviewers characterized the review type as SR, MA, or another review type. A simplified version of the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2) tool was used to assess the reporting and methodological quality of the SRs and MAs that were focused on interventions. Results Search and abstract screening generated 499 manuscripts that identified themselves as performing an SR or MA. A substantial number (85/499, 17%) were review types other than SRs or MAs, including 34 (7%) that were literature reviews. In total, 236 SRs and MAs focused on interventions. Over 50% of these SRs and MAs had weaknesses in at least 3 of the 16 items in the AMSTAR 2, and over 40% had weaknesses in at least 2 of the 7 critical domains. Ninety-nine percent of SRs and MAs provided critically low confidence in the results of the reviews. Conclusion Intervention-focused SRs and MAs published in high-impact otolaryngology journals have important methodological limitations that diminish confidence in the results of these reviews.

scholarly journals Systematic reviews and meta-analysis in nutrition research

2019 ◽  
Vol 122 (11) ◽  
pp. 1279-1294 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Kelley ◽  
Kristi S. Kelley
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Technical Information ◽  
Major Elements ◽  
Future Research ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Nutrition Research ◽  
Production And Consumption ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractThere exists an ever-increasing number of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, in the field of nutrition. Concomitant with this increase is the increased use of such to guide future research as well as both practice and policy-based decisions. Given this increased production and consumption, a need exists to educate both producers and consumers of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, on how to conduct and evaluate high-quality reviews of this nature in nutrition. The purpose of this paper is to try and address this gap. In the present manuscript, the different types of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analyses, are described as well as the description of the major elements, including methodology and interpretation, with a focus on nutrition. It is hoped that this non-technical information will be helpful to producers, reviewers and consumers of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, in the field of nutrition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document