scholarly journals REGISTERING AND REPORTING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 122-126
Author(s):  
Pallavi Patro ◽  
Durga Prasanna Misra
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Extensive Literature ◽  
Literature Searches ◽  
Review Question ◽  
Based Medicine

Systematic reviews are considered as the highest rung in the ladder of evidence-based medicine. They are bound by a pre-defined structure and requirement for extensive literature searches, when compared with the more liberal format of narrative reviews. Systematic review protocols should ideally be pre-registered to avoid duplication or redundancy. After defining clear review question(s), thorough literature searches form the basis of systematic reviews. Presentation of results should be qualitative or quantitative (meta-analysis) if the data is homogenous enough to permit pooling across multiple studies. Quality of individual studies by Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool for interventional studies and other suitable scales for observational studies, as well as appropriate assessment of publication bias are recommended. Certainty of outcomes should be assessed by the GRADE profiler. Finally, systematic reviews should conclude with recommendations for future research, based on their findings.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 6. Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies

2008 ◽  
Vol 5;12 (5;9) ◽  
pp. 819-850
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Confounding Bias ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

Observational studies provide an important source of information when randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cannot or should not be undertaken, provided that the data are analyzed and interpreted with special attention to bias. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) stresses the examination of evidence from clinical research and describes it as a shift in medical paradigm, in contrast to intuition, unsystematic clinical experience, and pathophysiologic rationale. While the importance of randomized trials has been created by the concept of the hierarchy of evidence in guiding therapy, much of the medical research is observational. The reporting of observational research is often not detailed and clear enough with insufficient quality and poor reporting, which hampers the assessment of strengths and weaknesses of the study and the generalizability of the mixed results. Thus, in recent years, progress and innovations in health care are measured by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, “the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, clinical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic.” 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 suggests that a formal set of rules must complement medical training and common sense for clinicians to integrate the results of clinical research effectively. While expertise in the review methods is important, the expertise in the subject matter and technical components is also crucial. Even though, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, specifically of RCTs, have exploded, the quality of the systematic reviews is highly variable and consequently, the opinions reached of the same studies are quite divergent. Numerous deficiencies have been described in methodologic assessment of the quality of the individual articles. Consequently, observational studies can provide an important complementary source of information, provided that the data are analyzed and interpreted in the context of confounding bias to which they are prone. Appropriate systematic reviews of observational studies, in conjunction with RCTs, may provide the basis for elimination of a dangerous discrepancy between the experts and the evidence. Steps in conducting systematic reviews of observational studies include planning, conducting, reporting, and disseminating the results. MOOSE, or Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, a proposal for reporting contains specifications including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the MOOSE checklist should improve the usefulness of meta-analysis for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision-makers. This manuscript describes systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Authors frequently utilize RCTs and observational studies in one systematic review; thus, they should also follow the reporting standards of the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement, which also provides a checklist. A combined approach of QUOROM and MOOSE will improve reporting of systematic reviews and lead to progress and innovations in health care. Key words: Observational studies, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, metaanalysis, randomized trials, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, confounding bias, QUOROM, MOOSE

Review Article: The Flagship of Evidence-Based Medicine

2021 ◽  
pp. 153473462199563
Author(s):  
Miltos K. Lazarides ◽  
Irene-Zacharo Lazaridou ◽  
Nikolaos Papanas
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Relevant Evidence ◽  
Quantitative Studies ◽  
Current State ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Based Medicine

Global literature is ever-growing and physicians rely on it for evidence-based decision making. Review articles summarize available literature and provide the current state of knowledge on a given topic. Various review types exist, the main ones being narrative and systematic reviews. The former are based on studies selected in an undefined manner. They express the authors’ opinions of a given topic, lack a systematic search, and are prone to bias. By contrast, the latter represent an unbiased synthesis of knowledge on a particular topic and attempt to offer all relevant evidence. A systematic review may include a meta-analysis, which combines the results of quantitative studies using statistical techniques to provide a more precise summary of the evidence. With a dramatic increase in literature complexity, new “next-generation” types of reviews emerged to improve the quality of evidence synthesis: network meta-analysis, umbrella review, and meta-analysis of individual patient data, among others. Finally, scoping reviews are a special type, conducted as precursors to systematic reviews aiming to reveal specific knowledge gaps in a given subject.

scholarly journals Critical appraisal and meta-analysis of biological variation studies on glycosylated albumin, glucose and HbA1c

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Ricós ◽  
Pilar Fernández-Calle ◽  
Elisabet Gonzalez-Lao ◽  
Margarida Simón ◽  
Jorge Díaz-Garzón ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Biological Variation ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Literature Searches ◽  
Variation Data ◽  
Global Estimates ◽  
Systematic Literature Searches

AbstractObjectivesNumerous biological variation (BV) studies have been performed over the years, but the quality of these studies vary. The objectives of this study were to perform a systematic review and critical appraisal of BV studies on glycosylated albumin and to deliver updated BV estimates for glucose and HbA1c, including recently published high-quality studies such as the European Biological Variation study (EuBIVAS).MethodsSystematic literature searches were performed to identify BV studies. Nine publications not included in a previous review were identified; four for glycosylated albumin, three for glucose, and three for HbA1c. Relevant studies were appraised by the Biological Variation Data Critical Appraisal Checklist (BIVAC). Global BV estimates were derived by meta-analysis of BIVAC-compliant studies in healthy subjects with similar study design.ResultsOne study received BIVAC grade A, 2B, and 6C. In most cases, the C-grade was associated with deficiencies in statistical analysis. BV estimates for glycosylated albumin were: CVI=1.4% (1.2–2.1) and CVG=5.7% (4.7–10.6), whereas estimates for HbA1c, CVI=1.2% (0.3–2.5), CVG=5.4% (3.3–7.3), and glucose, CVI=5.0% (4.1–12.0), CVG=8.1% (2.7–10.8) did not differ from previously published global estimates.ConclusionsThe critical appraisal and rating of BV studies according to their methodological quality, followed by a meta-analysis, generate robust, and reliable BV estimates. This study delivers updated and evidence-based BV estimates for glycosylated albumin, glucose and HbA1c.

Evidence-based approaches to psychiatry

2017 ◽  
pp. 119-134
Author(s):  
Paul Harrison ◽  
Philip Cowen ◽  
Tom Burns ◽  
Mina Fazel
Keyword(s):  
Patient Experience ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Psychiatric Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Qualitative Methodologies ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Quality Evidence

‘Evidence-based approaches to psychiatry’ describes the application of evidence-based medicine (EBM) to psychiatric practice. The chapter covers the key processes in EBM, including the formulation of a clinically relevant question, the systematic search for high-quality evidence and the meta-analytic synthesis of data. It demonstrates how evidence-based approaches to psychiatry have led to important developments showing quantitative effects of different treatments through advanced meta-analysis of data from randomized trials. This has underpinned the development of clinical guidelines that have the aim of improving the reliability and quality of treatments that patients receive. The chapter also describes how meta-analyses should be critically reviewed, as well as their problems and limitations. Not all relevant questions in psychiatric research are susceptible to the quantitative approach offered by EBM, and the chapter also outlines how qualitative methodologies can play a key role in answering important questions related, for example, to the patient experience.

scholarly journals Pearls for Interpreting Neurosurgical Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Lessons From a Collaborative Effort

Neurosurgery ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 87 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor M Lu ◽  
Christopher S Graffeo ◽  
Avital Perry ◽  
Michael J Link ◽  
Fredric B Meyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cranial Neuralgia ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the neurosurgical literature have surged in popularity over the last decade. It is our concern that, without a renewed effort to critically interpret and appraise these studies as high or low quality, we run the risk of the quality and value of evidence-based medicine in neurosurgery being misinterpreted. Correspondingly, we have outlined 4 major domains to target in interpreting neurosurgical systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on the lessons learned by a collaboration of clinicians and academics summarized as 4 pearls. The domains of (1) heterogeneity, (2) modeling, (3) certainty, and (4) bias in neurosurgical systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified as aspects in which the authors’ approaches have changed over time to improve robustness and transparency. Examples of how and why these pearls were adapted were provided in areas of cranial neuralgia, spine, pediatric, and neuro-oncology to demonstrate how neurosurgical readers and writers may improve their interpretation of these domains. The incorporation of these pearls into practice will empower neurosurgical academics to effectively interpret systematic reviews and meta-analyses, enhancing the quality of our evidence-based medicine literature while maintaining a critical focus on the needs of the individual patients in neurosurgery.

Joint incorporation of randomised and observational evidence in estimating treatment effects

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 235-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Ferguson ◽  
Alberto Alvarez-Iglesias ◽  
John Newell ◽  
John Hinde ◽  
Martin O’ Donnell
Keyword(s):  
Observational Studies ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Observational Evidence ◽  
Estimation Accuracy ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Potential Gain ◽  
Based Medicine

In evidence-based medicine, randomised trials are regarded as a gold standard in estimating relative treatment effects. Nevertheless, a potential gain in precision is forfeited by ignoring observational evidence. We describe a simple estimator that combines treatment estimates from randomised and observational data and investigate its properties by simulation. We show that a substantial gain in estimation accuracy, compared with the estimator based solely on the randomised trial, is possible when the observational evidence has low bias and standard error. In the contrasting scenario where the observational evidence is inaccurate, the estimator automatically discounts its contribution to the estimated treatment effect. Meta-analysis extensions, combining estimators from multiple observational studies and randomised trials, are also explored.

scholarly journals The Impact of Malocclusion/Orthodontic Treatment Need on the Quality of Life

2009 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 585-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhijian Liu ◽  
Colman McGrath ◽  
Urban Hägg
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Treatment Need ◽  
Methodologic Quality ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objective: To assess the current evidence of the relationship between malocclusion/orthodontic treatment need and quality of life (QoL). Materials and Methods: Four electronic databases were searched for articles concerning the impact of malocclusion/orthodontic treatment need on QoL published between January 1960 and December 2007. Electronic searches were supplemented by manual searches and reference linkages. Eligible literature was reviewed and assessed by methodologic quality as well as by analytic results. Results: From 143 reviewed articles, 23 met the inclusion criteria and used standardized health-related QoL (HRQoL) and orthodontic assessment measures. The majority of studies (18/23) were conducted among child/adolescent populations. Seventeen of the papers were categorized as level 1 or 2 evidence based on the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. An observed association between HRQoL and malocclusion/orthodontic treatment need was generally detected irrespective of how they were assessed. However, the strength of the association could be described as modest at best. Key findings and future research considerations are described in the review. Conclusions: Findings of this review suggest that there is an association (albeit modest) between malocclusion/orthodontic treatment need and QoL. There is a need for further studies of their relationship, particularly studies that employ standardized assessment methods so that outcomes are uniform and thus amenable to meta-analysis.

scholarly journals Evaluating the Quality of the Iranian Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Economic Evaluations in Healthcare from 2005 to 2015

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morteza Arab-Zozani ◽  
Zahra Heidarifard ◽  
Efat Jabarpour
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Time Horizon ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Economic Perspective ◽  
Meta Analyses

Context: The number of studies on health is increasing rapidly worldwide and in Iran. Systematic review studies, meta-analyses, and economic evaluation are of great importance in evidence-based decision making because of their standing in the evidence-based pyramid. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of Iranian systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies and economic evaluations on healthcare. Evidence Acquisition: PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to find considered studies, including systematic reviews, meta analyses and economic evaluations published from 2005 to 2015. Because of the high volume of review studies, 10% of all systematic reviews and meta-analyses were selected as a random sample. Also, all economic evaluations were included. Articles were evaluated using checklists, including PRISMA, AMSTAR and QHES with a maximum score of 27, 11 and 100, respectively. The quality score for each criterion as well as the epidemiological and descriptive characteristics of all articles was determined. Data were analyzed using SPSS V. 16 software. Results: After searching the databases, 1084 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were obtained, 10% of which were included in the study. A total of 41 economic evaluations were also included. The mean scores of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were 17.04 (5.35) and 5.42 (1.97), respectively, and 68.21 (12.44) for economic evaluations based on QHES. Only three systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles had recorded protocols and 85% of the studies included the terms “systematic review” and “meta-analysis” in their titles. Only one study had been updated. In addition, 81% of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses were published in specialized journals and 47% in Iranian journals. Financial resources and conflict of interests had been mentioned in 33% and 66% of the studies, respectively. Of the selected studies, 60% had evaluated the quality of the articles and 35% of the studies had assessed publication bias. In economic evaluations, 56% had used CEA analysis, 22% CUA analysis, 12% CBA analysis, and one study had used CMA analysis. Of these studies, 54% were model-based health economic studies and 12% were trial-based. The economic perspective was the health care system in most studies. Forty-four percent of the studies had a short time horizon of one year or less, whereas 33% had a lifetime horizon. Moreover, 68% of the studies showed sensitivity analysis and only 5 included the magnitude and direction of the bias. Conclusions: Overall, the reporting and methodological quality of the selected studies were estimated at a moderate level. Based on these results, it is recommended to adopt strategies to reduce preventable errors in studies. Having a primary plan and protocol and registering it as a systematic review can be an important factor in improving the quality of studies. Economic evaluations should also focus on issues, such as economic perspective, time horizon, available bias, and sensitivity analysis.

scholarly journals An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Acupuncture for Post-Acute Stroke Dysphagia

Geriatrics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zi-Yu Tian ◽  
Xing Liao ◽  
Ying Gao ◽  
Shi-Bing Liang ◽  
Chong-Yang Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Stroke ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Acupuncture Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) on acupuncture treatment for post-acute stroke dysphagia have been published. Conflicting results from different SRs necessitated an overview to summarize and assess the quality of this evidence to determine whether acupuncture is effective for this condition. The aim was to evaluate methodological quality and summarizing the evidence for important outcomes. Methods: Seven databases were searched for SRs and/or meta-analysis of RCTs and quasi-RCTs on acupuncture for post-acute stroke dysphagia. Two authors independently identified SRs and meta-analyses, collected data to assess the quality of included SRs and meta analyses according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). Results: Searches yielded 382 SRs, 31 were included. The quality of 22 SRs was critically low, five SRs were low, and four Cochrane SRs were moderate when evaluated by AMSTAR2. A total of 17 SRs reported 85.2–96.3% of PRISMA items. Five SRs included explanatory RCTs, 16 SRs included pragmatic RCTs, and 10 SRs included both. Conclusion: Currently, evidence on the effectiveness of acupuncture on post-acute stroke dysphagia is of a low quality. The type of study appeared to have no direct influence on the result, but the primary outcome measures showed a relationship with the quality of SRs. High quality trials with large sample sizes should be the focus of future research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document