scholarly journals Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses in urological literature

PeerJ ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. e3129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leilei Xia ◽  
Jing Xu ◽  
Thomas J. Guzzo
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Predictive Factors ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Regression Analyses ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Funding Support ◽  
Meta Analyses

Purpose To assess the overall quality of published urological meta-analyses and identify predictive factors for high quality. Materials and Methods We systematically searched PubMed to identify meta-analyses published from January 1st, 2011 to December 31st, 2015 in 10 predetermined major paper-based urology journals. The characteristics of the included meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting and methodological qualities were assessed by the PRISMA checklist (27 items) and AMSTAR tool (11 items), respectively. Descriptive statistics were used for individual items as a measure of overall compliance, and PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were calculated as the sum of adequately reported domains. Logistic regression was used to identify predictive factors for high qualities. Results A total of 183 meta-analyses were included. The mean PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were 22.74 ± 2.04 and 7.57 ± 1.41, respectively. PRISMA item 5, protocol and registration, items 15 and 22, risk of bias across studies, items 16 and 23, additional analysis had less than 50% adherence. AMSTAR item 1, “a priori” design, item 5, list of studies and item 10, publication bias had less than 50% adherence. Logistic regression analyses showed that funding support and “a priori” design were associated with superior reporting quality, following PRISMA guideline and “a priori” design were associated with superior methodological quality. Conclusions Reporting and methodological qualities of recently published meta-analyses in major paper-based urology journals are generally good. Further improvement could potentially be achieved by strictly adhering to PRISMA guideline and having “a priori” protocol.

Quality of Split-Mouth Trials in Dentistry: 1998, 2008, and 2018

2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (13) ◽  
pp. 1453-1460
Author(s):  
D. Qin ◽  
F. Hua ◽  
H. He ◽  
S. Liang ◽  
H. Worthington ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Linear Models ◽  
Sample Size Calculation ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Item Checklist ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Over Time

The objectives of this study were to assess the reporting quality and methodological quality of split-mouth trials (SMTs) published during the past 2 decades and to determine whether there has been an improvement in their quality over time. We searched the MEDLINE database via PubMed to identify SMTs published in 1998, 2008, and 2018. For each included SMT, we used the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guideline, CONSORT for within-person trial (WPT) extension, and a new 3-item checklist to assess its trial reporting quality (TRQ), WPT-specific reporting quality (WRQ), and SMT-specific methodological quality (SMQ), respectively. Multivariable generalized linear models were performed to analyze the quality of SMTs over time, adjusting for potential confounding factors. A total of 119 SMTs were included. The mean overall score for the TRQ (score range, 0 to 32), WRQ (0 to 15), and SMQ (0 to 3) was 15.77 (SD 4.51), 6.06 (2.06), and 1.12 (0.70), respectively. The primary outcome was clearly defined in only 28 SMTs (23.5%), and only 27 (22.7%) presented a replicable sample size calculation. Only 45 SMTs (37.8%) provided the rationale for using a split-mouth design. The correlation between body sites was reported in only 5 studies (4.2%) for sample size calculation and 4 studies (3.4%) for statistical results. Only 2 studies (1.7%) performed an appropriate sample size calculation, and 46 (38.7%) chose appropriate statistical methods, both accounting for the correlation among treatment groups and the clustering/multiplicity of measurements within an individual. Results of regression analyses suggested that the TRQ of SMTs improved significantly with time ( P < 0.001), while there was no evidence of improvement in WRQ or SMQ. Both the reporting quality and methodological quality of SMTs still have much room for improvement. Concerted efforts are needed to improve the execution and reporting of SMTs.

scholarly journals Quality of the Evidence Supporting the Role of Acupuncture for Stable Angina Pectoris: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min Shen ◽  
Jinke Huang ◽  
Tao Qiu
Keyword(s):  
Angina Pectoris ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Stable Angina ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Stable Angina Pectoris ◽  
Quality Reporting ◽  
Evidence Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: To systematically appraise and synthesize evidence, we conducted an overview of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on acupuncture for stable angina pectoris (SAP).Methods: Eight databases were searched for SRs/MAs of acupuncture on SAP. The methodological quality, reporting quality, and evidence quality were evaluated by Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system, respectively.Results: A total of seven published SRs/MAs met the inclusion criteria. According to the evaluation results of AMSTAR-2, two studies were considered as of moderate quality; the remaining five were considered as of very low quality. According to the evaluation results of the PRISMA checklist, only one study reported the checklist in its entirety, while others had reporting deficiencies. According to GRADE, a total of 18 outcome indicators extracted from the included studies were evaluated. The evidence quality was very low in three, low in three, moderate in eight, and high in four.Conclusion: Acupuncture may be beneficial for SAP from the currently published evidence. However, this conclusion must be interpreted cautiously due to the generally low methodological quality, reporting quality, and evidence quality of the included studies. More rigorous, more standardized and comprehensive SRs/MAs are needed to provide strong evidence for convincing conclusions.

scholarly journals Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Part II

2014 ◽  
Vol 133 (3) ◽  
pp. 206-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valter Silva ◽  
Antonio Jose Grande ◽  
Alan Pedrosa Viegas de Carvalho ◽  
Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco ◽  
Rachel Riera
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews ◽  
New Type ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
General Profile

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Overviews of Systematic Reviews (OoRs) are a new type of study in which multiple evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) is compiled into an accessible and useful document. The aim here was to describe the state of the art and critically assess Cochrane OoRs that have been published.DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study conducted at a research center.METHODS: The OoRs identified through the filter developed in Part I of this study were evaluated in five domains: methodological quality; quality of evidence; implications for practice; general profile of OoRs; and length of work.RESULTS: All 13 OoRs included had high methodological quality. Some OoRs did not present sufficient data to judge the quality of evidence; using sensitivity analysis, the quality of evidence of the OoRs increased. Regarding implications for practice, 64% of the interventions were judged as beneficial or harmful, while 36% of them showed insufficient evidence for judgment. It is expected (with 95% confidence interval) that one OoR will include 9,462 to 64,469 patients, 9 to 29 systematic reviews and 80 to 344 primary studies, and assess 6 to 21 interventions; and that 50 to 92% of OoRs will produce meta-analysis. The OoRs generated 2 to 26 meta-analyses over a period of 18 to 31 months.CONCLUSION: The OoRs presented high methodological quality; the quality of evidence tended to be moderate/high; most interventions were judged to be beneficial/harmful; the mean length of work was 24 months. The OoR profile adds power to decision-making.

scholarly journals Quality assessment of outcome reporting, publication characteristics and overall methodological quality in trials on synthetic mesh procedures for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse for development of core outcome sets

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thais Regina de Mattos Lourenço ◽  
◽  
Vasilis Pergialiotis ◽  
Constantin M. Durnea ◽  
Abdullatif Elfituri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Synthetic Mesh ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Core Outcome Sets ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Introduction and hypothesis Variations in outcome measures and reporting of outcomes in trials on surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) using synthetic mesh have been evaluated and reported. However, the quality of outcome reporting, methodology of trials and their publication parameters are important considerations in the process of development of Core Outcome Sets. We aimed to evaluate these characteristics in randomized controlled trials on surgery for POP using mesh. Methods Secondary analysis of randomized controlled trials on surgical treatments using synthetic mesh for POP previously included in a systematic review developing an inventory of reported outcomes and outcome measures. The methodological quality was investigated with the modified Jadad criteria. Outcome reporting quality was evaluated with the MOMENT criteria. Publication parameters included publishing journal, impact factor and year of publication. Results Of the 71 previously reviewed studies published from 2000 to 2017, the mean JADAD score was 3.59 and the mean MOMENT score was 4.63. Quality of outcomes (MOMENT) was related to methodological quality (JADAD) (rho = 0.662; p = 0.000) and to year of publication (rho = 0.262; p = 0.028). Conclusions Methodological quality and outcome reporting quality appear correlated. However, publication characteristics do not have strong associations with the methodological quality of the studies. Evaluation of the quality of outcomes, methodology and publication characteristics are all an indispensable part of a staged process for the development of Core Outcome and Outcome Measure Sets.

Methodological quality and reporting of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (8) ◽  
pp. 852-856 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Wasiak ◽  
A. Y. Shen ◽  
R. Ware ◽  
T. J. O’Donohoe ◽  
C. M. Faggion
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Methodological Assessment ◽  
Meta Analyses

The objective of this study was to assess methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2016 for relevant studies. Reporting quality was evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and methodological quality using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews, the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used to identify features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 91 studies were included in the analysis. Most reviews inadequately reported PRISMA items regarding study protocol, search strategy and bias and AMSTAR items regarding protocol, publication bias and funding. Systematic reviews published in a plastics journal, or which included more authors, were associated with higher AMSTAR scores. A large proportion of systematic reviews within hand and wrist pathology literature score poorly with validated methodological assessment tools, which may affect the reliability of their conclusions. Level of evidence: I

Cancer-related fatigue: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of mind–body intervention

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Huda Anshasi ◽  
Muayyad Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Publication Type ◽  
Gray Literature ◽  
Cancer Related Fatigue ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of mind–body interventions (MBIs) for the management of cancer-related fatigue. Methods A comprehensive search on multiple databases was conducted to identify relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses published from January 2008 to December 2019. Two authors independently selected reviews, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological quality of included reviews using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Results Sixteen reviews published between 2010 and 2018 were eligible for inclusion. The methodological quality of the 16 included systematic reviews was moderate (score 4–7) to high (score ≥ 8) on the 11-point AMSTAR scale. The most common methodological weaknesses were the lack of a list of excluded studies (n = 15, 93.8%) and a priori protocol (n = 2,87.5%). Furthermore, most of the systematic reviews did not search the gray literature for eligible studies (n = 13, 81.3%). Significance of the study This study has revealed the need for high methodological quality systematic reviews on the MBIs for the management of cancer-related fatigue. Thus, further research should focus on methodologically strong systematic reviews by providing a priori design, not limiting the publication type, and providing an excluded primary studies list. Additionally, the researchers should conduct systematic reviews according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline.

scholarly journals A Methodological and Reporting Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses about Chinese Medical Treatment for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Zipan Lyu ◽  
Zhongyu Huang ◽  
Fengbin Liu ◽  
Zhengkun Hou
Keyword(s):  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Selection Methods ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Protocol Registration ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective. To access the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) about Chinese medical treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Methods. The PubMed, Wanfang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP), Chinese Biomedical (CBM), Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to June 2020. Two researchers independently screened the literature considering the eligibility criteria. Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the included reports. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to evaluate the level of evidence in each report. Results. Thirty-three SRs/MAs met the inclusion criteria. The OQAQ results showed that defects in the methodological quality of 17/32 reports were major, with scores of 3 points. Analyzing a single item as the object, search strategies (item 2), and risk of bias in individual studies (item 4) was considered poor. The AMSTAR 2 results showed that 25.4% of the items were not reported, and 7.8% of the items were only partially reported. The overall assessment of AMSTAR 2 showed the majority of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were of low/very low (31/33, 93.9%) methodological quality, with a lack of protocol registration and excluded study list. The PRISMA results showed that 19.9% of items were not reported, and 15.2% of items were only partially reported, due to a lack of protocol registration and study selection methods. The methodological and reporting quality of the included studies was generally poor. Evidence evaluation with GRADE showed that most (31/33) of the included studies had low or very low levels of evidence. Conclusion. The methodological and reporting quality of SRs/MAs about Chinese medical treatment for GERD is generally poor. The main problems included incomplete search strategies, risk of bias in individual studies, the lack of protocol registration and excluded study list, and incorrect study selection methods.

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 Quality of Evidence Supporting the Role of Acupuncture for the Treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Jinke Huang ◽  
Mengxiong Lu ◽  
Yijun Zheng ◽  
Jinxin Ma ◽  
Xiangxue Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Irritable Bowel Syndrome ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Evidence Quality ◽  
Irritable Bowel ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objectives. To systematically collate, appraise, and synthesize the current evidence on acupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Methods. Systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of acupuncture for IBS were searched in eight databases. For quality evaluation of the enrolled studies, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) was used for methodological quality, Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for reporting quality, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) for evidence quality. Results. Ten studies were included in our review. According to AMSTAR-2, only one study met all the criteria and was rated as high methodological quality, and the rest were rated as low or very low methodological quality. According to the PRISMA checklist, most of the items were fully reported, with the exception of Q5 (protocol and registration), Q8 (search), and Q27 (funding). With the GRADE system, no outcome measure was rated as high quality. Conclusions. Acupuncture may be a promising therapy for IBS. However, this conclusion must be treated with caution since the quality of SRs/MAs providing evidence is generally low.

scholarly journals Benefits and Safety of Chinese Herbal Medicine in Treating Psoriasis: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Zhang ◽  
Qianying Yu ◽  
Li Peng ◽  
Yuesi Qin ◽  
Mingyi Jing ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Chinese Herbal ◽  
Evidence Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Quality Evidence

Background: In recent years, systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for psoriasis have continuously emerged. Their methods and evidence quality, however, are yet to be evaluated, and whether their conclusions can provide clinicians with reliable evidence is still debatable.Objectives: This overview aims to evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, and reporting quality of relevant SRs/MAs, as well as the current evidence of CHM for treating psoriasis.Methods: We searched nine electronic databases from their respective time of establishment to January 20, 2021, as well as the reference lists of the included SRs/MAs, protocol registries, and gray literature. Two reviewers independently used the following: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), and Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs.Results: This review included 14 SRs/MAs involving 45 outcomes, of which 12 (85.71%) SRs/MAs had a very low quality evaluated by AMSTAR 2 and 7 (50.00%) SRs/MAs had a high risk of bias assessed by ROBIS. The protocol and registration and funding statements were the major reporting flaws according to the PRISMA checklist. The evaluation with the GRADE system demonstrated no outcome of high-quality evidence, and inconsistent efficacy evaluations were found in this overview. Only 15 (33.33%) outcomes were moderate-quality evidence, supporting the claim that CHM plus Western medicine (WM) was superior to WM. Generally low quality of evidence showed no difference in the incidence of adverse events between the combined therapy and WM. However, the conclusion that CHM was superior to WM cannot be drawn due to the inconsistent results.Conclusion: Despite that CHM has the potential benefit and safety in the adjuvant treatment of psoriasis, the conclusion should be treated with caution because of the generally low quality of methodology and evidence. In the future, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be carried out, and the quality of relevant SRs should also be improved to promote their clinical application.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document