scholarly journals Living systematic review: new inputs and challenges

Medwave ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. e8092-e8092
Author(s):  
Laura Vergara-Merino ◽  
Catalina Verdejo ◽  
Cynthia Carrasco ◽  
Manuel Vargas-Peirano
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Clinical Epidemiology ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Editorial Process ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Health Decision ◽  
New Evidence

This is the second article from a collaborative methodological series of biostatistics and clinical epidemiology narrative reviews. This review aims to describe living systematic reviews’ relevance, the considerations that should be taken when producing one, and the challenges proper of this type of review. The living systematic review is a continuous update that maintains a systematic review’s rigor and methodological quality. The living format is appropriate when the review aims to answer a priority question in terms of health decision-making, the existent certainty of the evidence for this question is low or very low, and new evidence will likely appear soon. To carry out a successful living systematic review, researchers should consider different things, such as: having a continuous and automated search, having update criteria, evaluating how to update the meta-analysis and how to perform the editorial process, and publishing in a friendly format, among others. As living systematic reviews are a new proposal, they will likely change in the future to improve their performance, so we will have to keep an eye on its future updates.

Global epidemiology of mucopolysaccharidosis type III (Sanfilippo syndrome): an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Weijing Kong ◽  
Shanshan Wu ◽  
Jing Zhang ◽  
Cheng Lu ◽  
Yingxue Ding ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Birth Prevalence ◽  
Public Health Decision ◽  
Live Births ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Global Epidemiology ◽  
Health Decision

Abstract Objectives Mucopolysaccharidosis III, an autosomal recessive lysosomal storage disorder, is characterized by progressive mental retardation and behavioral problems. Meta-analysis of global mucopolysaccharidosis III epidemiology, which serves as a fundamental reference for public health decision-making, was not available prior to this study. To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of birth prevalence of mucopolysaccharidosis III in multiple countries. Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for original research articles on the epidemiology of mucopolysaccharidosis III from inception until 1st July, 2020. A checklist adapted from STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) was used to assess the quality of all studies involved. Meta-analysis, adopting a random effects logistic model, was performed to estimate pooled birth prevalence of mucopolysaccharidosis III and its subtypes. Results Twenty-five studies screened out of 1,826 records were included for data extraction. The pooled global mucopolysaccharidosis III birth prevalence was 0.76 cases (95% CI: 0.57–0.96) per 100,000 live births. The pooled global birth prevalence of mucopolysaccharidosis III subtypes (A, B, and C) was 0.52 cases (95% CI: 0.33–0.72), 0.21 cases (95% CI: 0.12–0.30) and 0.01 cases (95% CI: 0.005–0.02) per 100,000 live births, respectively. Conclusions Based on the global population size (7.8 billion) and the life span of patients, there would be 12–19 thousand mucopolysaccharidosis III patients worldwide. To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive systematic review that presented quantitative data fundamental for evidence-based public health decision-making by evaluating global epidemiology of mucopolysaccharidosis III.

scholarly journals Advancing systematic-review methodology in exposure science for environmental health decision making

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 906-916
Author(s):  
Elaine A. Cohen Hubal ◽  
Jessica J. Frank ◽  
Rebecca Nachman ◽  
Michelle Angrish ◽  
Nicole C. Deziel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Environmental Health ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Exposure Science ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Health Decision

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Spine Surgery—How Good Are They in Methodological Quality? A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muthu Sathish ◽  
Ramakrishnan Eswar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Critical Flaw ◽  
Meta Analyses

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria. Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.

scholarly journals The Use of Research Evidence in Public Health Decision Making Processes: Systematic Review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. e21704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lois Orton ◽  
Ffion Lloyd-Williams ◽  
David Taylor-Robinson ◽  
Martin O'Flaherty ◽  
Simon Capewell
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Public Health Decision ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Health Decision ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Use Of Research

Effects of patient navigation on satisfaction with cancer care: A systematic review.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18088-e18088
Author(s):  
Pascal Jean-Pierre
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Patient Navigation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Optimal Health

e18088 Background: Patient navigation (PN) is a model of health care coordination designed to ameliorate health disparities by reducing barriers to achieving optimal health outcomes. Systematic reviews that evaluate whether PN is associated with higher patient satisfaction with cancer care are lacking. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to synthesize evidence of comparative studies evaluating the effectiveness of PN programs to improve satisfaction with cancer-related care. We included studies reported in English that: 1) evaluated a PN intervention designed to increase satisfaction with cancer care; and 2) involved a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or observational design. We abstracted data from studies using standardized forms, and evaluated these studies for methodological quality. Data were summarized qualitatively and synthesized under a random effects model. Results: The initial search yielded 831 citations, of which 3 RCTs and 6 observational studies met inclusion criteria. These nine studies involving 4,200 surveyed patients revealed either a neutral or positive effect in patient satisfaction in the majority of studies of PN and cancer-related care. However, only 5 studies (1 RCT and 4 observational) had adequate datato include in the meta-analysis. Methodological quality of eight of the included studies ranged from weak to moderate to strong, with half rated as weak. Findings of the RCT showed a statistically significant increase in satisfaction with cancer care involving PN [standardized mean difference (SMD) = 2.30; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.79, 2.80, p < .001]. Pooled results from non-RCTs showed no significant association between PN and satisfaction with cancer-related care (SMD = 0.39; 95% CI: -0.02, 0.80, p = .06). Conclusions: More systematic reviews are needed to characterize the relationship between PN and satisfaction with cancer-related care across the cancer care continuum and across different types of cancer.

scholarly journals Rapid reviews: definitions and uses

Medwave ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (01) ◽  
pp. e8090-e8090
Author(s):  
Luis Tapia-Benavente ◽  
Laura Vergara-Merino ◽  
Luis Ignacio Garegnani ◽  
Luis Ortiz-Muñoz ◽  
Cristóbal Loézar Hernández ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Epidemiology ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Limited Time ◽  
Rapid Reviews ◽  
Health Decision ◽  
Principal Value ◽  
Time Frames

This article is the first in a collaborative methodological series of narrative reviews on biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. This review aims to present rapid reviews, compare them with systematic reviews, and mention how they can be used. Rapid reviews use a methodology like systematic reviews, but through shortcuts applied, they can attain answers in less than six months and with fewer resources. Decision-makers use them in both America and Europe. There is no consensus on which shortcuts have the least impact on the reliability of conclusions, so rapid reviews are heterogeneous. Users of rapid reviews should identify these shortcuts in the methodology and be cautious when interpreting the conclusions, although they generally reach answers concordant with those obtained through a formal systematic review. The principal value of rapid reviews is to respond to health decision-makers’ needs when the context demands answers in limited time frames.

P14.71 An assessment of the reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii51-ii52
Author(s):  
A M George ◽  
S Gupta ◽  
S M Keshwara ◽  
M A Mustafa ◽  
C S Gillespie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neurofibromatosis Type ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract BACKGROUND Systematic reviews and meta-analyses constitute the highest level of research evidence and for a disease with limited clinical trial activity, are often relied upon to help inform clinical practice. This review of reviews evaluates both the reporting & methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS Potentially eligible meningioma reviews published between 1st January 1990 and 31st December 2020 were identified from eight electronic databases. Inclusion required the study to meet the Cochrane guideline definition of a systematic review or meta-analysis. Reviews concerning neurofibromatosis type 2, spinal and pediatric meningiomas were excluded. The reporting and methodological quality of articles were assessed against the following modified guidelines: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) guidelines. RESULTS 117 systematic reviews were identified, 57 of which included meta-analysis (48.7%). The number of meningioma systematic reviews published each year has increased with 63 studies (53.9%) published between 01/2018 and 12/2020. A median of 17 studies (IQR 9–29) were included per review. Impact factor of journals publishing a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis was similar (median 2.3 vs 1.8, P=0.397). The mean PRISMA scores for systematic reviews with a meta-analysis was 21.11 (SD 4.1, 78% adherence) and without was 13.89 (SD 3.4, 63% adherence). Twenty-nine systematic reviews with meta-analysis (51%) and 11 without meta-analysis (18%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA recommendations. Methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR2 revealed one study (0.9%) as high quality whilst 111 (94.8%) studies were graded as critically low. One hundred and two articles (87.2%) did not utilize a comprehensive search strategy as defined by the AMSTAR2 tool. Ninety-nine studies (84.6%) obtained a high level of concern for potential bias as per the ROBIS assessment. One hundred and eight articles (92.3%) failed to present information that a protocol had been established prior to study commencement and 76 articles (65.0%) did not conduct a risk of bias assessment. Across the three tools, domains relating to the establishment of a protocol prior to review commencement and conducting appropriate risk of bias assessments were frequently low scoring. CONCLUSION Overall reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews was sub-optimal. Established critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should be utilized a priori to assist in producing high-quality systematic reviews.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document