scholarly journals A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics

2012 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Padhraig S. Fleming ◽  
Jadbinder Seehra ◽  
Argy Polychronopoulou ◽  
Zbys Fedorowicz ◽  
Nikolaos Pandis
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Univariable Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Percentage Score ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Number Of Authors

AbstractObjectives:To assess the reporting quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SR) in orthodontics and to compare the reporting quality (PRISMA score) with methodological quality (AMSTAR criteria).Materials and Methods:Systematic reviews (n  =  109) published between January 2000 and July 2011 in five leading orthodontic journals were identified and included. The quality of reporting of the included reviews was assessed by two authors in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Each article was assigned a cumulative grade based on fulfillment of the applicable criteria, and an overall percentage score was assigned. Descriptive statistics and simple and multiple linear regression analyses were undertaken.Results:The mean overall PRISMA score was 64.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%–65%). The quality of reporting was considerably better in reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (P < .001) than in non-Cochrane reviews. Both multivariable and univariable analysis indicated that journal of publication and number of authors was significantly associated with the PRISMA score. The association between AMSTAR score and modified PRISMA score was also found to be highly statistically significant.Conclusion:Compliance of orthodontic SRs published in orthodontic journals with PRISMA guidelines was deficient in several areas. The quality of reporting assessed using PRISMA guidelines was significantly better in orthodontic SRs published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Treating schizophrenia: the quality of evidence behind treatment recommendations and how it can improve

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 138-142
Author(s):  
Greg Aran ◽  
Chandler Hicks ◽  
Alexander Demand ◽  
Austin L Johnson ◽  
Jason Beaman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Treatment Recommendations ◽  
Post Hoc Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Post Hoc

ObjectiveTo assess the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews that comprise the American Psychiatric Association (APA) Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Schizophrenia and to determine the extent to which results from Cochrane systematic reviews published after guideline development would alter or confirm current recommendations.ParticipantsSystematic reviews that underpinned recommendations in the APA guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews.Main outcomeThree independent reviewers scored all systematic reviews referenced in the guideline for quality and reporting using AMSTAR and PRISMA checklist, respectively. Items in both tools were individually graded and compared to identify consistently low-performing areas within the systematic reviews. Post hoc analysis of the Cochrane systematic reviews since the latest revision of APA’s guidelines were performed to determine whether their findings were congruent with recent recommendations.ResultsThe mean score of the 57 reviews on the PRISMA checklist was 70%. The mean AMSTAR score was 6.8, correlating with a moderate quality score. Post hoc analysis revealed that 171 Cochrane reviews had been published since the APA guideline release. Only half of the reviews of pharmacological interventions confirmed current recommendations.Conclusions and relevanceThe methodological quality of the systematic reviews included in the APA guideline was deficient in key areas. Our study brings to light the importance of using high-quality evidence in the development of clinical practice guidelines. An updated APA guideline (last updated in 2009) is necessary to provide the highest quality treatment recommendations for clinicians in the management of schizophrenia.Trial registration numberUMIN-CTR, UMIN000023099.

scholarly journals The methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews is low, except for Cochrane reviews: a meta-epidemiological study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuki KATAOKA ◽  
Shiho Oide ◽  
Takashi Ariie ◽  
Yasushi Tsujimoto ◽  
Toshi A. Furukawa
Keyword(s):  
Epidemiological Study ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
The Mean

Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate the methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews (SRs) indexed in medRxiv and PubMed, compared with Cochrane COVID Reviews. Study Design and Setting: This is a cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study. We searched medRxiv, PubMed, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for SRs of COVID-19. We evaluated the methodological quality using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklists. The maximum AMSTAR score is 11, and minimum is 0. Higher score means better quality. Results: We included 9 Cochrane reviews as well as randomly selected 100 non-Cochrane reviews in medRxiv and PubMed. Compared with Cochrane reviews (mean 9.33, standard deviation 1.32), the mean AMSTAR scores of the articles in medRxiv were lower (mean difference -2.85, 95%confidence intervals (CI): -0.96 to -4.74) and those in PubMed was also lower (mean difference -3.28, 95% CI: -1.40 to -5.15), with no difference between the latter two. Conclusions: It should be noted that AMSTAR is not a perfect tool of assessing quality SRs other than intervention. Readers should pay attention to the potentially low methodological quality of COVID-19 SRs in both PubMed and medRxiv but less so in Cochrane COVID reviews.

Updated Method Guidelines for Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A.T. Ghogomu ◽  
Lara J. Maxwell ◽  
Rachelle Buchbinder ◽  
Tamara Rader ◽  
Jordi Pardo Pardo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Musculoskeletal Diseases ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Previous Method ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 53 groups of the not-for-profit, international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. It is important that authors conducting CMSG reviews and the readers of our reviews be aware of and use updated, state-of-the-art systematic review methodology. One hundred sixty reviews have been published. Previous method guidelines for systematic reviews of interventions in the musculoskeletal field published in 2006 have been substantially updated to incorporate methodological advances that are mandatory or highly desirable in Cochrane reviews and knowledge translation advances. The methodological advances include new guidance on searching, new risk-of-bias assessment, grading the quality of the evidence, the new Summary of Findings table, and comparative effectiveness using network metaanalysis. Method guidelines specific to musculoskeletal disorders are provided by CMSG editors for various aspects of undertaking a systematic review. These method guidelines will help improve the quality of reporting and ensure high standards of conduct as well as consistency across CMSG reviews.

scholarly journals Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in articles hand and wrist pathology: a review

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 50-57
Author(s):  
Amanda Yang Shen ◽  
Robert S Ware ◽  
Tom J O'Donohoe ◽  
Jason Wasiak
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
English Language ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Annual Basis ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Abstract Reporting

Background: An increasing number of systematic reviews are published on an annual basis. Although perusal of the full text of articles is preferable, abstracts are sometimes relied upon to guide clinical decisions. Despite this, the abstracts of systematic reviews have historically been poorly reported. We evaluated the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts within hand and wrist pathology literature. Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2017 for systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology using the 12-item PRISMA-A checklist to assess abstract reporting quality. Results: A total of 114 abstracts were included. Most related to fracture (38%) or arthritis (17%) management. Forty-seven systematic reviews (41%) included meta-analysis. Mean PRISMA-A score was 3.6/12 with Cochrane reviews having the highest mean score and hand-specific journals having the lowest. Abstracts longer than 300 words (mean difference [MD]: 1.43, 95% CI [0.74, 2.13]; p <0.001) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (MD: 0.64, 95% CI [0.05, 1.22]; p = 0.034) were associated with higher scores. Unstructured abstracts were associated with lower scores (MD: –0.65, 95% CI [–1.28, –0.02]; p = 0.044). A limitation of this study is the possible exclusion of relevant studies that were not published in the English language. Conclusion: Abstracts of systematic reviews pertaining to hand and wrist pathology have been suboptimally reported as assessed by the PRISMA-A checklist. Improvements in reporting quality could be achieved by endorsement of PRISMA-A guidelines by authors and journals, and reducing constraints on abstract length.

scholarly journals Inconsistencies are common between non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their protocols registered in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) but were seldom explained

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaiyan Hu ◽  
Ting Zhang ◽  
Weiyi Zhang ◽  
Qi Zhou ◽  
Mengyao Jiang New ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Fundamental Solutions ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Or Methodology ◽  
Retrospective Comparative Study ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: Protocols of systematic reviews allow for planning and documentation of review methods and thus improve the transparency of the reviews process. However, pre-registration of a protocol is not enough, the author also need to follow it. PROSPERO is an open-access online database for the registration of non-Cochrane systematic reviews. The purpose of this study is to compare published non-Cochrane reviews with their pre-registered protocols on PROSPERO to determine what changes, if any, have been made, and how likely these changes are to impact the quality of systematic review. Methods: This is a retrospective comparative study. We searched for protocols on PROSPERO platform that were registered in 2018 and then selected the protocols that full text have been published as of January 1st 2019. Published full texts were identified through the protocol's final publication citation. Two authors independently compared and identified changes between protocols and systematic reviews and then evaluated the impact (improve, reduce, or unclear) of these changes on the reporting or methodology quality of reviews. Descriptive statistics of percentage (%) and frequency (n) were conducted. Results: We identified 39 pairs, all of which exhibited changes. “Search strategy”(92%, n=36), “data extraction”(90%, n=35), “data synthesis”(77%, n=30), “outcome”(64%, n=24), and “subgroup analysis”(64%, n=24) all showed significant changes. All changes to only one review were considered to improve the reporting or methodology quality, and the remaining 97% of reviews (n=38) contained changes that were considered to reduce the methodology or reporting quality or that had an unclear impact on systematic reviews. Conclusions: Changes between the non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their protocols recorded on PROSPERO were widespread. Some of the changes reduced the methodology or reporting quality of systematic reviews or had an unclear impact. Measures should be taken to further improve the transparency of the non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Adding a new item in updated “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA) and “Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology” (MOOSE) to guide reporting and explaining the changes, as well as advising peer reviewers (and editors) to check the reviews against the protocols are two suggested fundamental solutions.

scholarly journals Quality of reporting and risk of bias: a review of randomised trials in occupational health

2021 ◽  
pp. oemed-2020-107038
Author(s):  
Christina Tikka ◽  
Jos Verbeek ◽  
Sharea Ijaz ◽  
Jan L Hoving ◽  
Julitta Boschman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Occupational Health ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo assess the reporting quality of randomisation and allocation methods in occupational health and safety (OHS) trials in relation to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) requirements of journals, risk of bias (RoB) and publication year.MethodsWe systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed between 2010 and May 2019 in 18 OHS journals. We measured reporting quality as percentage compliance with the CONSORT 2010 checklist (items 8–10) and RoB with the ROB V.2.0 tool (first domain). We tested the mean difference (MD) in % in reporting quality between CONSORT-requiring and non-requiring journals, trials with low, some concern and high RoB and publications before and after 2015.ResultsIn 135 articles reporting on 129 RCTs, average reporting quality was at 37.4% compliance (95% CI 31.9% to 43.0%), with 10% of articles reaching 100% compliance. Reporting quality was significantly better in CONSORT-requiring journals than non-requiring journals (MD 31.0% (95% CI 21.4% to 40.7%)), for studies at low RoB than high RoB (MD 33.1% (95% CI 16.1% to 50.2%)) and with RoB of some concern (MD 39.8% (95% CI 30.0% to 49.7%)). Reporting quality did not improve over time (MD −5.7% (95% CI −16.8% to 5.4%).ConclusionsArticles in CONSORT-requiring journals and of low RoB studies show better reporting quality. Low reporting quality is linked to unclear RoB judgements (some concern). Reporting quality did not improve over the last 10 years and CONSORT is insufficiently implemented. Concerted efforts by editors and authors are needed to improve CONSORT implementation.

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 Using digital interventions to improve the cardiometabolic health of populations: a meta-review of reporting quality

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 867-879 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrienne O’Neil ◽  
Fiona Cocker ◽  
Patricia Rarau ◽  
Shaira Baptista ◽  
Mandy Cassimatis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Health Programs ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Digital Interventions ◽  
Meta Review ◽  
Research Findings

Abstract Objectives. We conducted a meta-review to determine the reporting quality of user-centered digital interventions for the prevention and management of cardiometabolic conditions. Materials and Methods. Using predetermined inclusion criteria, systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2015 were identified from 3 databases. To assess whether current evidence is sufficient to inform wider uptake and implementation of digital health programs, we assessed the quality of reporting of research findings using (1) endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, (2) a quality assessment framework (eg, Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool), and (3) 8 parameters of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile HEalth Applications and onLine TeleHealth (CONSORT-eHEALTH) guidelines (developed in 2010). Results. Of the 33 systematic reviews covering social media, Web-based programs, mobile health programs, and composite modalities, 6 reported using the recommended PRISMA guidelines. Seven did not report using a quality assessment framework. Applying the CONSORT-EHEALTH guidelines, reporting was of mild to moderate strength. Discussion. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-review to provide a comprehensive analysis of the quality of reporting of research findings for a range of digital health interventions. Our findings suggest that the evidence base and quality of reporting in this rapidly developing field needs significant improvement in order to inform wider implementation and uptake. Conclusion. The inconsistent quality of reporting of digital health interventions for cardiometabolic outcomes may be a critical impediment to real-world implementation.

The Impact of STRICTA and CONSORT on Reporting of Randomised Control Trials of Acupuncture: A Systematic Methodological Evaluation

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 349-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simen Svenkerud ◽  
Hugh MacPherson
Keyword(s):  
Positive Impact ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Time Periods ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

Background Clear and unambiguous reporting is essential for researchers and clinicians to be able to assess the quality of research. To enhance the quality of reporting, consensus-based reporting guidelines are commonly used. Objectives To update and extend previous research by evaluating the more recent impact of STRICTA (STandards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture) and CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) guidelines on the quality of reporting of acupuncture trials. Methods By random sampling, approximately 45 trials from each of five 2-year time periods between 1994 and 2015 were included in the study. Using scoring sheets based on the STRICTA and CONSORT checklist items (range 0 to 7 and 0 to 5, respectively), the distribution of items reported over time was investigated, with changes shown using scatterplots. The primary analysis used a before-and-after t-test to compare time periods. A meta-analysis investigated whether or not trials published in journals that endorsed STRICTA were associated with better reporting. Results The study included 207 trials. Improved reporting of items over time was observed, as represented by changes in the scatterplot slope and intercept. The mean STRICTA score increased from 4.27 in the 1994–1995 period to 5.53 in 2014–2015, an 18% improvement. The mean CONSORT score rose from 1.01 in the 1994–1995 period to 3.32 in 2014–2015, an increment of 46%. There was proportionately lower reporting for items related to practitioner background (STRICTA) and for randomisation implementation and allocation concealment (CONSORT). Trials published in journals that endorsed STRICTA had statistically significantly superior reporting of both STRICTA and CONSORT items overall. Conclusion This study has provided evidence of an improvement in reporting of STRICTA and CONSORT items over the time period from 1994 to 2015. Journals that endorse STRICTA have a better record in terms of reporting quality. Some evidence suggests that the publication of STRICTA has had a positive impact on reporting quality.

Quality Assessment of Reporting of Economic Evaluation in Cardiac Sugery: Has it Improved?

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pascale Guerre ◽  
Nermine Laaboub ◽  
Cyrille Colin ◽  
Jean-François Obadia ◽  
Christell Julien ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Economic ◽  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
The Mean

AbstractObjectivesCardiac surgery has seen substantial scientific progress over recent decades. Health economic evaluations have become important tools for decision makers to prioritize scarce health resources. The present study aimed to identify and critically appraise the reporting quality of health economic evaluations conducted in the field of cardiac surgery.MethodsA literature search was performed to identify health economic evaluations in cardiac surgery. The consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement was used to assess the quality of reporting of studies.ResultsA total 4,705 articles published between 1981 and 2016 were identified; sixty-nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was a trend toward a greater number of publications and reporting quality over time. Six (8.7 percent) studies were conducted between 1981 and 1990, nine (13 percent) between 1991 and 2000, twenty-four (34.8 percent) between 2001 and 2010, and thirty (43.5 percent) after 2011. The mean CHEERS score of all articles was 16.7/24; for those published between 1980 and 1990 the mean (SD) score was 10.2 (±1.4), for those published between 1991 and 2000 it was 11.2 (±2.4), between 2001 and 2010 it was 15.3 (±4.8), and after 2011 it was 19.9 (±2.9). The quality of reporting was still insufficient for several studies after 2000, especially concerning items “characterizing heterogeneity,” “assumptions,” and “choice of model.”ConclusionsThe present study suggests that, even if the quantity and the quality of health economics evaluation in cardiac surgery has increased, there remains a need for improvement in several reporting criteria to ensure greater transparency.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document