Systematic Reviews and Quality Appraisal of In Vitro Cancer Studies: Investigation of Current Practice

Introduction: Systematic reviews involve synthesis of research to inform decision making by clinicians, consumers, policy makers and researchers. While guidance for synthesis often focuses on meta-analysis, synthesis begins with specifying the ’PICO for each synthesis’ (i.e. the criteria for deciding which populations, interventions, comparators and outcomes are eligible for each analysis). Synthesis may also involve the use of statistical methods other than meta-analysis (e.g. vote counting based on the direction of effect, presenting the range of effects, combining P values) augmented by visual display, tables and text-based summaries. This study examines these two aspects of synthesis. Objectives: To identify and describe current practice in systematic reviews of health interventions in relation to: (i) approaches to grouping and definition of PICO characteristics for synthesis; and (ii) methods of summary and synthesis when meta-analysis is not used. Methods: We will randomly sample 100 systematic reviews of the quantitative effects of public health and health systems interventions published in 2018 and indexed in the Health Evidence and Health Systems Evidence databases. Two authors will independently screen citations for eligibility. Two authors will confirm eligibility based on full text, then extract data for 20% of reviews on the specification and use of PICO for synthesis, and the presentation and synthesis methods used (e.g. statistical synthesis methods, tabulation, visual displays, structured summary). The remaining reviews will be confirmed as eligible and data extracted by a single author. We will use descriptive statistics to summarise the specification of methods and their use in practice. We will compare how clearly the PICO for synthesis is specified in reviews that primarily use meta-analysis and those that do not. Conclusion: This study will provide an understanding of current practice in two important aspects of the synthesis process, enabling future research to test the feasibility and impact of different approaches.

Download Full-text

Development and Validation of a Nutrition-Specific Set of Tools to Assess the Quality of Nutrition Studies

Current Developments in Nutrition ◽

10.1093/cdn/nzaa061_005 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 4 (Supplement_2) ◽

pp. 1377-1377

Author(s):

Karima Benkhedda ◽

Stephen Brooks ◽

Linda Greene-Finestone ◽

Shannon Kelly ◽

Amanda MacFarlane ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Quality Assessment ◽

Study Design ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

A Priori ◽

Reliability And Validity ◽

Quality Appraisal ◽

Case Control Studies ◽

Perfect Agreement ◽

Development And Validation

Abstract Objectives To develop and validate a set of 3 quality assessment instruments (QAls) for evaluating the quality of nutrition studies, for each of the commonly used study designs: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs), (2) prospective cohort, and (3) case-control studies. Methods The QAI development and validation process included 8 steps: 1) identify and evaluate existing general QAls for adaptation with nutrition-specific quality appraisal items; 2) scan the literature to identify nutrition-specific quality appraisal issues; 3) generate nutrition-specific items to be added to each of the general QAIs, adapt existing guidance for general items for nutrition applications and develop guidance for added nutrition items; 4) review, by two experts in clinical and population nutrition, of the modified general QAIs with added nutrition-specific items and guidance; 5) assess reliability and validity of the QAI for each study design; 6) improve the usability and feasibility, of the QAIs by considering feedback from the validation exercise to refine the wording of the guidance; 7) develop a worksheet to help evaluate, a priori, topic-specific methodology to address risk of bias; and 8) validate the final QAIs using five peer-reviewed studies identified from published systematic reviews with reported quality assessment. Agreement and reliability were determined for each QAI. Results Results of the validation show good to perfect agreement among evaluators for the overall study rating and across domains. When compared to the study quality assessment reported in the systematic review, nutrition- specific items had the greatest impact on study ratings, generally resulting in a downgrade of the overall rating. Conclusions A set of nutrition-specific QAls were developed to assess the quality and robustness of nutrition studies. These tools incorporate general quality issues of study design and conduct, as well as address recognised nutrition study-specific issues. They will improve consistency in how nutrition studies are assessed particularly in nutrition-related systematic reviews. This will contribute to the overall quality of assessment of diet and Funding Sources This work was supported by Health Canada.

Download Full-text

Guidance on conducting systematic reviews/meta-analyses of pharmacoepidemiological studies of safety outcomes: the gap is now filled

Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences ◽

10.1017/s2045796016000299 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 25 (5) ◽

pp. 425-427 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

S. Cortese

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Data Extraction ◽

European Medicines Agency ◽

Study Quality ◽

European Network ◽

Quality Appraisal ◽

Comprehensive Guidance ◽

Extraction Study ◽

Safety Outcomes ◽

Meta Analyses

Until recently, no comprehensive guidance specifically on the conduction of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of pharmacoepidemiological studies of safety outcomes was available. In December 2015, the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharamacovigilance (ENCePP), a network coordinated by the European Medicines Agency, published their ‘Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of completed comparative pharmacoepidemiological studies of safety outcomes’, filling an important gap in the field. This paper highlights the ENCePP recommendations in terms of study identification, data extraction, study quality appraisal and analytical plan. Although the ENCePP document should not be considered as definitive, since it will likely be refined following researchers’ feedback, it is expected that it will be highly influential and useful for the field, with the ultimate goal to improve and standardise the conduction and reporting of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of pharmacoepidemiological studies of safety outcomes.

Download Full-text

In vitro anti-breast cancer studies of LED red light therapy through autophagy

Breast Cancer ◽

10.1007/s12282-020-01128-6 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Kok Lee Yang ◽

Boon Yin Khoo ◽

Ming Thong Ong ◽

Ivan Chew Ken Yoong ◽

Subramaniam Sreeramanan

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Red Light ◽

Light Therapy ◽

Cancer Studies

Download Full-text

Early history of in vitro fertilization

Reproduction ◽

10.1530/rep.0.1240181 ◽

2002 ◽

pp. 181-196 ◽

Cited By ~ 52

Author(s):

BD Bavister

Keyword(s):

In Vitro Fertilization ◽

Early Development ◽

Current Practice ◽

Historical Review ◽

Early History ◽

Sperm Capacitation ◽

Vitro Fertilization ◽

History Of

Although in vitro fertilization (IVF) is used widely for a variety of purposes, it is often not appreciated how this technology was developed. A large number of experiments beginning in 1878 contributed to the first successful reports of IVF over 75 years later. The discovery of sperm capacitation in 1951 was central to the development of IVF technology, and it was rapidly followed by the first convincing reports of IVF in several species. The ability to fertilize oocytes in vitro has allowed major advances to be made into understanding the mechanisms involved in fertilization and early development, and IVF now supports reproductive biotechnology in animals and in humans. This article is a historical review of key experiments that helped to provide the basis for present day IVF procedures, placed into context with current practice.

Download Full-text