Updated Method Guidelines for Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses

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.

Download Full-text

Update of Strategies to Translate Evidence from Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Systematic Reviews for Use by Various Audiences

The Journal of Rheumatology ◽

10.3899/jrheum.121307 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 41 (2) ◽

pp. 206-215 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Tamara Rader ◽

Jordi Pardo Pardo ◽

Dawn Stacey ◽

Elizabeth Ghogomu ◽

Lara J. Maxwell ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Musculoskeletal Diseases ◽

Journal Club ◽

Decision Aids ◽

Cochrane Collaboration ◽

Well Being ◽

Careful Consideration ◽

Plain Language ◽

Cochrane Reviews ◽

Clinical Scenarios

For rheumatology research to have a real influence on health and well-being, evidence must be tailored to inform the decisions of various audiences. 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. While systematic reviews provided by the CMSG fill a major gap in meeting the need for high-quality evidence syntheses, our work does not end at the completion of a review. The term “knowledge translation” (KT) refers to the activities involved in bringing research evidence to various audiences in a useful form so it can be used to support decision making and improve practices. Systematic reviews give careful consideration to research methods and analysis. Because the review is often long and detailed, the clinically relevant results may not be apparent or in the optimal form for use by patients and their healthcare practitioners. This paper describes 10 formats, many of them new, for ways that evidence from Cochrane Reviews can be translated with the intention of meeting the needs of various audiences, including patients and their families, practitioners, policy makers, the press, and members of the public (the “5 Ps”). Current and future knowledge tools include summary of findings tables, patient decision aids, plain language summaries, press releases, clinical scenarios in general medical journals, frequently asked questions (Cochrane Clinical Answers), podcasts, Twitter messages, Journal Club materials, and the use of storytelling and narratives to support continuing medical education. Future plans are outlined to explore ways of improving the influence and usefulness of systematic reviews by providing results in formats suitable to our varied audiences.

Download Full-text

Systematic Review as a Research Method in Library and Information Science

Advances in Library and Information Science - Handbook of Research on Connecting Research Methods for Information Science Research ◽

10.4018/978-1-7998-1471-9.ch005 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 80-94 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Mercy Mlay Komba ◽

Edda Tandi Lwoga

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Research Method ◽

Information Science ◽

Library And Information Science ◽

Knowledge Gaps ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Research Teams ◽

Current State

The aim of this chapter is to assess the current state of application of systematic reviews (SRs) in library and information science (LIS) field and determine how information scientists can advance the SRs as a methodology. The literature shows that there is an increasing number of SRs in LIS although there are still knowledge gaps about the use of SRs as a methodology. The quality of reporting in primary studies in LIS is still poor, and hence, it becomes difficult to appraise the value of the study undertaken. In order to advance the use of SRs in LIS domain, it is important to introduce SRs in LIS education curricular, integrate SRs as part of the continuing scientist development programmes (CPD), use automated SR software to minimize workload, introduce SRs a formal role and service in the libraries, collaborate with research teams as co-authors to conduct SRs not only in the topics defined by research teams, but also in LIS topics, and create SR databases and tools in LIS.

Download Full-text

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

Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery ◽

10.34239/ajops.v2n2.141 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Systematic Review as a Research Method in Library and Information Science

10.4018/978-1-6684-3881-7.ch002 ◽

2022 ◽

pp. 17-31

Author(s):

Mercy Mlay Komba ◽

Edda Tandi Lwoga

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Research Method ◽

Information Science ◽

Library And Information Science ◽

Knowledge Gaps ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Research Teams ◽

Current State

Download Full-text

Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

10.31222/osf.io/92n4w ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Melissa Rethlefsen ◽

Sara Schroter ◽

Lex Bouter ◽

David Moher ◽

Ana Patricia Ayala ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Randomized Controlled Trial ◽

Peer Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Peer Reviewers

Background: Problems continue to exist with the reporting of and risk of bias in search methods and strategies in systematic reviews and related review types. Peer reviewers who are not familiar with what is required to transparently and fully report a search may not be prepared to review the search components of systematic reviews, nor may they know what is likely to introduce bias into a search. Librarians and information specialists, who have expertise in searching, may offer specialized knowledge that would help improve systematic review search reporting and lessen risk of bias, but they are underutilized as methodological peer reviewers.Methods: This study will evaluate the effect of adding librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches. The study will be a pragmatic randomized controlled trial using 150 systematic review manuscripts submitted to BMJ and BMJ Open as the unit of randomization. Manuscripts that report on completed systematic reviews and related review types and have been sent for peer review are eligible. For each manuscript randomized to the intervention, a librarian/information specialist will be invited as an additional peer reviewer using standard practices for each journal. First revision manuscripts will be assessed in duplicate for reporting quality and risk of bias, using adherence to 4 items from PRISMA-S and assessors’ judgements on 4 signaling questions from ROBIS Domain 2, respectively. Identifying information from the manuscripts will be removed prior to assessment.Discussion: The primary outcomes for this study are quality of reporting as indicated by differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups and risk of bias as indicated by differences in the proportions of first revision manuscripts with high, low, and unclear bias. If the intervention demonstrates an effect on search reporting or bias, this may indicate a need for journal editors to work with librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers.Trial registration: This trial was registered on the Open Science Framework on June 17, 2021 at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W4CK2.

Download Full-text

Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review

BMJ ◽

10.1136/bmj.f7668 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 348 (jan08 1) ◽

pp. f7668-f7668 ◽

Cited By ~ 82

Author(s):

L. Zorzela ◽

S. Golder ◽

Y. Liu ◽

K. Pilkington ◽

L. Hartling ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Quality Of Reporting

Download Full-text

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

10.21203/rs.2.18725/v1 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Kaiyan Hu ◽

Ting Zhang ◽

Weiyi Zhang ◽

Qi Zhou ◽

Joey S.W. Kwong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Open Access ◽

Comparative Study ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Fundamental Solutions ◽

Cochrane Reviews ◽

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 reviews process. However, pre-registered a protocol is not enough, the author also need to follow it. PROSPERO is an open-access online facility for the registration of non-Cochrane systematic reviews. The purpose of our research is to determined what changed were made between non-Cochrane reviews and their protocols in PROSPERO and how likely these changes impacted the quality of systematic review. Method: In this retrospective comparative study we electronically searched for protocols and their corresponding systematic reviews in the PROSPERO platform that were “completed and published” from January to December, 2018. Two reviewers independently identified and classified changes between the protocols and systematic reviews then evaluated the impact (improve/reduce/unclear)of these change on the reporting/methodology quality of reviews. Frequency (n), percentage (%) were used to analyze the number of changes categorically in each review and the distribution of different impact caused by these changes. Results: We identified 39 pre-registered protocols and their reviews, all of which exhibited alterations. All changes to only one review are considered to improve the reporting/methodology quality, and remaining 97% of reviews (n=38) contain changes that are categorically considered to reduce the methodology/reporting quality or that have an unclear impact on reviews. Conclusions: Differences between the non-Cochrane reviews and their protocols recorded in PROSPERO are widespread, and there have been many changes having an unclear impact on the quality of reviews. Guiding the author to report and explain the differences between protocol and reviews or even requiring authors to so at the level of journal are two fundamental solutions to further improve the transparency of the non-Cochrane reviews.

Download Full-text

Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 3: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Trials

January 2018 - Pain Physician ◽

10.36076/ppj.2009/12/35 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 1;12 (1;1) ◽

pp. 35-42

Author(s):

Laxmaiah Manchikanti

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Pain Management ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Randomized Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Quality Of Reporting ◽

Interventional Pain Management ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Based Medicine

In recent years, progress and innovations in healthcare are measured by evidencebased medicine (EBM), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, “the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic.” In contrast, meta-analysis is the statistical pooling of data across studies to generate pooled estimates of effects. Meta-analysis usually is the final step in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are labor intensive, requiring expertise in both the subject matter and review methodology, and also must follow the rules of EBM which suggest that a formal set of rules must complement medical training and common sense for clinicians to interpret the results of clinical research effectively. While expertise in the subject matter is crucial, expertise in review methods is also particularly important. Despite an explosion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the empiric research on the quality of systematic reviews has shown that not all systematic reviews are truly systematic, having highly variable quality, deficiencies in methodologic assessment of the quality of the included manuscripts, and bias. Even then, systematic review of the literature is currently the best, least biased, and most rational way to organize, cull, evaluate, and integrate the research evidence from among the expanding medical and healthcare literature. However, a dangerous discrepancy between the experts and the evidence continues to persist in part because multiple instruments are available to assess the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Steps in conducting systematic reviews include planning, conducting, reporting, and disseminating the results. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement provides a checklist and a flow diagram. The checklist describes the preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of the report of an analysis. This review describes various aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials with a special focus on interventional pain management. Key words: Randomized trials, pragmatic trials, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines, bias, interventional pain management, Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), Cochrane reviews

Download Full-text

Risk of bias in Cochrane systematic reviews: assessments of risk related to attrition bias are highly inconsistent

10.1101/366658 ◽

2018 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Andrija Babic ◽

Ruzica Tokalic ◽

João Amílcar Silva Cunha ◽

Ivana Novak ◽

Jelena Suto ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Systematic Review Methodology ◽

Attrition Bias ◽

Included Trial ◽

Cochrane Reviews ◽

Cochrane Database ◽

Golden Standard ◽

Improve Reliability

AbstractBackgroundAn important part of the systematic review methodology is appraisal of the risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) are considered golden standard regarding systematic review methodology, but Cochrane’s instructions for assessing risk of attrition bias are vague, which may lead to inconsistencies in authors’ assessments. The aim of this study was to analyze consistency of judgments and support for judgments of attrition bias in CSRs of interventions published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).MethodsWe analyzed CSRs published from July 2015 to June 2016 in the CDSR. We extracted data on number of included trials, judgment of attrition risk of bias for each included trial (low, unclear or high) and accompanying support for the judgment (supporting explanation). We also assessed how many CSRs had different judgments for the same supporting explanations.ResultsIn the main analysis we included 10292 judgments and supporting explanations for attrition bias from 729 CSRs. We categorized supporting explanations for those judgments into four categories and we found that most of the supporting explanations were unclear. Numerical indicators for percent of attrition, as well as statistics related to attrition were judged very differently. One third of CSR authors had more than one category of supporting explanation; some had up to four different categories. Inconsistencies were found even with the number of judgments, names of risk of bias domains and different judgments for the same supporting explanations in the same CSR.ConclusionWe found very high inconsistency in methods of appraising risk of attrition bias in recent Cochrane reviews. Systematic review authors need clear guidance about different categories they should assess and judgments for those explanations. Clear instructions about appraising risk of attrition bias will improve reliability of the Cochrane’s risk of bias tool, help authors in making decisions about risk of bias and help in making reliable decisions in healthcare.

Download Full-text

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

The Angle Orthodontist ◽

10.2319/032612-251.1 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 83 (1) ◽

pp. 158-163 ◽

Cited By ~ 57

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.

Download Full-text