scholarly journals Low Reporting Quality of the Meta-Analyses in Diagnostic Pathology

2017 ◽  
Vol 141 (3) ◽  
pp. 423-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xulei Liu ◽  
Michael Kinzler ◽  
Jiangfan Yuan ◽  
Guozhong He ◽  
Lanjing Zhang
Keyword(s):  
North American ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Diagnostic Pathology ◽  
Analysis Methodology ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Item Checklist ◽  
Research And Education ◽  
Meta Analyses

Context.— Little is known regarding the reporting quality of meta-analyses in diagnostic pathology. Objective.— To compare reporting quality of meta-analyses in diagnostic pathology and medicine and to examine factors associated with reporting quality of diagnostic pathology meta-analyses. Design.— Meta-analyses were identified in 12 major diagnostic pathology journals without specifying years and 4 major medicine journals in 2006 and 2011 using PubMed. Reporting quality of meta-analyses was evaluated using the 27-item checklist of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement published in 2009. A higher PRISMA score indicates higher reporting quality. Results.— Forty-one diagnostic pathology meta-analyses and 118 medicine meta-analyses were included. Overall, reporting quality of meta-analyses in diagnostic pathology was lower than that in medicine (median [interquartile range] = 22 [15, 25] versus 27 [23, 28], P < .001). Compared with medicine meta-analyses, diagnostic pathology meta-analyses less likely reported 23 of the 27 items (85.2%) on the PRISMA checklist, but more likely reported the data items. Higher reporting quality of diagnostic pathology meta-analyses was associated with recent publication years (later than 2009 versus 2009 or earlier, P = .002) and non–North American first authors (versus North American, P = .001), but not journal publisher's location (P = .11). Interestingly, reporting quality was not associated with adjusted citation ratio for meta-analyses in either diagnostic pathology or medicine (P = .40 and P = .09, respectively). Conclusions.— Meta-analyses in diagnostic pathology had lower reporting quality than those in medicine. Reporting quality of diagnostic pathology meta-analyses is linked to publication year and first author's location, but not to journal publisher's location or article's adjusted citation ratios. More research and education on meta-analysis methodology may improve the reporting quality of diagnostic pathology meta-analyses.

scholarly journals Enhancing the Reporting Quality of Meta-Analyses for Trustworthy Decision of Breast Cancer Intervention: A Cross-Sectional Survey

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bo Zhu ◽  
Shanshan Lin ◽  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
Chang Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Reporting Guideline ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Potential Factors ◽  
Cancer Intervention ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Meta-analysis of RCTs has been widely employed to evaluate effectiveness of the interventions for breast cancer, but little is known of their reporting validity. Related studies showed that meta-analysis may mislead clinical practice when the reporting is uninformative. The purpose of the study was to assess the reporting quality of meta-analyses of RCTs for breast cancer intervention, and explore potential factors associated with the reporting.Method We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews from inception to November 2019 for published meta-analysis of RCTs for breast cancer intervention. The PRISMA checklist (27-items) was used for the measuring of the reporting quality. The adherence of eligible meta-analyses under each reporting item from PRISMA were evaluated and those with an adherence ≥ 80% were regarded as well reported while less than 30% were poor reported. The proportion of reporting issues were summarized and compared in pre-defined settings measured by rate difference (RD).Result A total of 296 meta-analyses were included. For the 27 reporting items, there were only 6 items were identified as well-reported, while as much as 9 items were poorly reported by these meta-analyses. The reporting issues mainly embodied in the methods and results section. Our further analysis suggested that those published more recently (RD=-0.07, 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.03), complied with reporting guideline (RD=-0.04, 95% CI: -0.07 to -0.02), and pre-specified protocol (RD=-0.09, 95% CI: -0.09 to -0.01) were associated with less reporting issues.Conclusion The reporting of the meta-analyses for breast cancer intervention was uninformative to support the decision-making. Although improvement has seen over times, further efforts are still needed. Some easy-to-implement measures could be considered such as referring to a reporting guideline, develop a protocol in advance to help further researchers to improve the reporting of their meta-analysis.

scholarly journals PRM263 - THE USE OF PRISMA STATEMENT IMPROVES THE REPORTING QUALITY OF META-ANALYSES PUBLISHED IN THE FIELD OF PSYCHOLOGY

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. S401
Author(s):  
V Leclercq ◽  
C Beaudart ◽  
S Ajamieh ◽  
V Rabenda ◽  
E Tirelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Meta Analyses

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.

scholarly journals Reporting quality of systematic reviews with moxibustion

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ran Tian ◽  
Xuan Zhang ◽  
Si-Yao Li ◽  
Qi-Ying Aixinjueluo ◽  
Wai Ching Lam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Safety Evaluation ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background Moxibustion is one of the major interventions of Chinese medicine (CM). The systematic reviews (SRs) are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of moxibustion interventions. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of these SRs, particularly whether necessary information related to moxibustion was adequately reported. Methods Seven databases (including four English and three Chinese databases) were systematically searched for SRs of moxibustion that were published up to 31 December 2019. The primary analysis was to assess their reporting quality based on 27-item of the Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and 14-item of moxibustion-related information designed according to CM theory and the STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials Of Moxibustion (STRICTOM). Descriptive statistics were also used to analyze their baseline characteristics. Results A total of 97 SRs of moxibustion were identified from 2011 to 2019. For 27-item of PRISMA, except item 5, 8, 16 and 23, the remaining 23 items had the reporting compliances higher than 55%, of which 2 items (item 20 and 26) were fully reporting (100%). However, for moxibustion-related information, 69.1% (67/97) SRs did not provide the specific type of moxibustion, 39.2% (38/97) lacked details regarding the materials, procedure and technique used for moxibustion, 67.0% (65/97) did not report the selection criteria of acupoints for moxibustion, 28.9% (28/97) did not provide the number or duration of treatment sessions, 69.1% (67/97) did not provide any information about safety evaluation, and 94.8% (92/97) SRs did not report the treatment environment. For 51 (55.4%) of 92 SRs that included meta-analysis, it was impossible to assess whether meta-analysis had been properly conducted due to inadequate reporting of moxibustion interventions. Conclusion The reporting quality of SRs of moxibustion need further improvements in terms of adequate reporting of moxibustion interventions and of moxibustion-related rationales. Reporting guideline of “PRISMA extension for moxibustion interventions” should be developed thus to improve their quality.

scholarly journals The Effects of Tai Chi Exercise Among Adults With Chronic Heart Failure: An Overview of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinke Huang ◽  
Xiaohui Qin ◽  
Min Shen ◽  
Yanjuan Xu ◽  
Yong Huang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Tai Chi ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Quality Reporting ◽  
Evidence Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Tai chi (TC) is a popular form of exercise among adults with chronic heart failure (CHF), yet services are greatly underutilized. The aim of the current study was to identify and summarize the existing evidence and to systematically determine the clinical effectiveness of Tai Chi in the management of CHF using a systematic overview.Methods: Both English and Chinese databases were searched for systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) on TC for CHF from their inception to June 2020. The methodological quality, reporting quality, and risk of bias of SRs/MAs were assessed using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, and Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS), respectively. The evidence quality of outcome measures was assessed by the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).Results: Six SRs/MAs using a quantitative synthesis to assess various outcomes of TC in CHF were included in this overview. The methodological quality, reporting quality and risk of bias of the SRs/MAs and the evidence quality of the outcome measures are generally unsatisfactory. The limitations of the past SRs/MAs included the lack of either the protocol or registration, the list of excluded studies, and the computational details of meta-analysis were inadequately reported. The critical problems were that qualitative data synthesis relied on trials with small sample sizes and critical low quality.Conclusions: TC may be a promising complementary treatment for CHF. However, further rigorous and comprehensive SRs/MAs and RCTs are required to provide robust evidence for definitive conclusions.

scholarly journals Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Otorhinolaryngologic Articles Based on the PRISMA Statement

PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e0136540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen P. M. Peters ◽  
Lotty Hooft ◽  
Wilko Grolman ◽  
Inge Stegeman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals Oxytocin levels in individuals with schizophrenia are high in cerebrospinal fluid but low in serum: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yazmin Hernández-Díaz ◽  
Thelma Beatriz González-Castro ◽  
Carlos Tovilla-Zarate ◽  
María Lilia López-Narváez ◽  
Alma Delia Genis-Mendoza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cerebrospinal Fluid ◽  
Comparison Group ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Analysis Software ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Ottawa Scale

Abstract Schizophrenia is a mental and disabling disease. Levels of oxytocin have been proposed as a biomarker of schizophrenia; however, the observed levels of oxytocin in individuals with schizophrenia have been inconsistent across studies. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate oxytocin levels in plasma, serum and cerebrospinal fluid to see if there are statistically different concentrations between individuals with schizophrenia and the comparison group.The meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement to guarantee a high quality and reproducibility.Following the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The quality of the study was evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A random-effects model was performed using the Comprehensive Meta-analysis software with the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Serum oxytocin levels in individuals with schizophrenia were significantly lower than that in comparison group (SMD = − 1.74, 95% CI = − 3.22 to − 0.26, p = 0.02) but cerebrospinal fluid oxytocin levels in individuals with schizophrenia were significantly higher than those in the comparison group (SMD = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.05 to 1.04, p = 0.03).Our results suggest that oxytocin levels in cerebrospinal fluid are increased in individuals with schizophrenia but decreased in serum. Therefore, the oxytocin system dysregulation may play a role in the pathophysiology of schizophrenia and it should be measured in more populations for a possible implementation as a biomarker of schizophrenia.

scholarly journals Reporting quality of systematic reviews with Moxibustion

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ran Tian ◽  
Xuan Zhang ◽  
Si-Yao Li ◽  
Qi-Ying Aixinjueluo ◽  
Wai Ching Lam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Safety Evaluation ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Moxibustion is one of the major interventions of Chinese medicine (CM). The systematic reviews (SRs) are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of moxibustion interventions. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of these SRs, particularly whether necessary information related to moxibustion was adequately reported.Methods: Seven Databases (including four English and three Chinese databases) were systematically searched for SRs of moxibustion that were published up to 31 December 2019. The primary analysis was to assess their reporting quality based on 27-item of the Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and 16-item of moxibustion-related information designed according to CM theory and the STRICTOM (STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials Of Moxibustion). Descriptive statistics were also used to analyze their baseline characteristics.Results: A total of 97 SRs of moxibustion were identified from 2011 to 2019. For 27-item of PRISMA, except item 5, 8, 16 and 23, the remaining 23 items had the reporting compliances higher than 50%, of which 2 items (item 20 and 26) were fully reporting (100%). However, for moxibustion-related information, 69.1% (67/97) SRs did not provide the specific type of moxibustion, 39.2% (38/97) lacked details regarding the materials, procedure and technique used for moxibustion, 67.0% (65/97) did not report the selection criteria of acupoints for moxibustion, 28.9% (28/97) did not provide the number or duration of treatment sessions, 69.1% (67/97) did not provide any information about safety evaluation, and 94.8% (92/97) SRs did not report the treatment environment. For 51 (55.4%) of 92 SRs that included meta-analysis, it was impossible to assess whether meta-analysis had been properly conducted due to inadequate reporting of moxibustion interventions.Conclusion: The reporting quality of SRs of moxibustion need further improvements in terms of adequate reporting of moxibustion interventions and of moxibustion-related rationales. Reporting guideline of “PRISMA extension for moxibustion interventions” should be developed thus to improve their quality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document