Quality assessment and factor analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis.
ABSTRACT: Comprehensive monitoring of the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) requires complete and accurate reporting and methodology.To assess the reporting and methodological quality of SRs/MAs on EUS diagnosis and to explore the potential factors influencing articles' quality.The quality of the reporting and methodology was evaluated in relation to the adherence of papers to the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR quality scale. The total scores for every criterion and for every article on the two standards were calculated. Data were evaluated and analyzed using SPSS17.0 and RevMan 5.1 in terms of publication time, category of reviews, category of journals, and funding resource.A total of 72 SRs/MAs was included, but no Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) were obtained. The number of SRs/MAs ranged from 1 in 1998 to 15 in 2013; 88.1% used the QUADAS tool; the average overall scores by PRISMA statement and AMSTAR tool were 19.9 and 5.4, respectively. Scores on some items showed substantial improvement after publication of PRISMA and AMSTAR. However, no reviews followed the criterion of protocol and registration, and only 11.1% of articles fulfilled the criterion of literature search. SRs/MAs from the Science Citation Index (SCI) were of better quality than non-SCI studies. Funding resource made no difference to quality. Regression analysis showed that time of publication and inclusion in the SCI were significantly correlated with total scores on the two standards.The reporting and methodological quality of SRs/MAs on EUS diagnosis has improved measurably since PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists released. It is hoped that CSR in this field will be produced. Literature searching and protocol criteria, as well as QUADAS-2 tool need to be addressed more in the future. Time of publication and SCI relate more to the overall quality of SRs/MAs than does funding resource.
Project description:<b>Background:</b> Acupuncture may be an effective complementary treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD). The aim of this study was to summarize the evidence provided by systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) on the effect of acupuncture on AD. <b>Methods:</b> Eight electronic databases were searched from their inception until October 19, 2020. The methodological quality, reporting quality, and risk of bias of the included SRs were assessed by the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Moreover, the evidence quality of the outcome measures was assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). <b>Results:</b> Eleven SRs/MAs met all inclusion criteria. According to the results of the AMSTAR-2, all included reviews were rated critically as being of low quality. With PRISMA, the reporting checklist was relatively complete, but some reporting weaknesses remained in the topics of the protocol and registration, search strategy, risk of bias, additional analyses, and funding. Based on the ROBIS tool, only two SRs/MAs had a low risk of bias. With the GRADE system, no high-quality evidence was found, and only seven outcomes provided moderate-quality evidence. Among the downgraded factors, the risk of bias within the original trials was ranked first, followed by inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias. <b>Conclusions:</b> Acupuncture is a promising complementary treatment for AD. However, due to the low quality of the SRs/MAs supporting these results, high-quality studies with rigorous study designs and larger samples are needed before widespread recommendations can be made.
Project description:With efforts to combat opioid use disorder, there is an increased interest in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for opioid use disorder treatments. No literature exists examining the quality of systematic reviews used in opioid use disorder CPGs. This study aims to describe the methodological quality and reporting clarity of systematic reviews (SRs) used to create CPGs for opioid use disorder.From June to July 2016 guideline clearinghouses and medical literature databases were searched for relevant CPGs used in the treatment of opioid use disorder. Included CPGs must have been recognized by a national organization. SRs from the reference section of each CPG was scored by using AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews) tool and PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) checklist.Seventeen CPGs from 2006-2016 were included in the review. From these, 57 unique SRs were extracted. SRS comprised 0.28% to 17.92% of all references found in the CPGs. All SRs obtained moderate or high methodological quality score on the AMSTAR tool. All reviews met at least 70% of PRISMA criteria. In PRISMA, underperforming areas included accurate title labeling, protocol registration, and risk of bias. Underperforming areas in AMSTAR included conflicts of interest, funding, and publication bias. A positive correlation was found between AMSTAR and PRISMA scores (r = .79).Although the SRs in the CPGs were of good quality, there are still areas for improvement. Systematic reviewers should consult PRISMA and AMSTAR when conducting and reporting reviews. It is important for CPG developers to consider methodological quality as a factor when developing CPG recommendations, recognizing that the quality of systematic reviews underpinning guidelines does not necessarily correspond to the quality of the guideline itself.
Project description:<b>Background:</b> 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. <b>Objectives:</b> 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. <b>Methods:</b> 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. <b>Results:</b> 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. <b>Conclusion:</b> 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.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Psoriasis is a chronic recurrent dermatological disease that patents always suffer from different comorbidities. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has been commonly used in the treatment of psoriasis for a long history. Previous systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) have shown that CHM may benefit patients with psoriasis. This overview aims to summarize the evidence from published SRs/MAs for clinical application and to provide several directions for future researches. METHODS:Nine electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, AMED, CINAHL, CBM, CNKI, VIP Database, Wanfang Databases) will be searched from their inceptions to September 2020 without language restrictions. At least 2 reviewers will independently conduct the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. The methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and evidence quality will be respectively evaluated by the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS:The results of this overview will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. CONCLUSIONS:We expect to compile current evidence from published SRs/MAs of CHM for patients with psoriasis in an accessible and useful document. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study is a protocol for an overview of SRs/MAs that did not involve individual data. Thus, ethical approval is not required. OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER:DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/VC654.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Breast augmentation is one of the most commonly performed cosmetic surgeries worldwide. Therefore, it is imperative to have evidence with high methodological quality to guide clinical decision making.<h4>Objectives</h4>To evaluate the methodological quality of the systematic reviews (SRs) focused on breast augmentation.<h4>Methods</h4>A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews was performed. SRs that have a particular focus on breast augmentation and were published in the top 15 plastic and reconstructive surgery journals were included. Quality assessment was performed using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). Study characteristics were extracted including journal and impact factor, year of publication, country affiliation of the corresponding author, reporting adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, number of citations, and number of studies included.<h4>Results</h4>Among the 22 studies included for analysis, the mean AMSTAR score was moderate (5.55), with no SR achieving good quality (AMSTAR score of ≥9). There were no significant associations between AMSTAR score and journal impact factor, number of citations, year of publication, or number of included studies. Studies that reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines on average scored higher on the AMSTAR tool (<i>P</i> = 0.03).<h4>Conclusions</h4>The methodological quality of reviews about breast augmentation was found to be moderate, with no significant increase in studies or quality over time. Adherence to PRISMA guidelines and increased appraisal of SRs about breast augmentation using methodological assessment tools would further strengthen methodological quality and confidence in study findings.
Project description:<h4>Aims</h4>The aim of this review was to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on nursing interventions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and to determine potential factors that predict high quality.<h4>Design</h4>The review is a quantitative systematic review.<h4>Data sources</h4>PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.<h4>Review methods</h4>A comprehensive literature search was conducted in three databases for SRs/MAs published up to 6 May 2020. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR checklist were used to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 130 articles published between 1996-2020 from 69 journals were included in this review. Multivariate regression analyses demonstrated that the following factors were related to the higher reporting quality of included articles: having a protocol or registration and being published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Systematic reviews including meta-analyses, number of authors >5, number of pages and having protocol or registration were related to higher methodological quality. A strong linear correlation (r = 0.860) was detected between the scores of PRISMA and AMSTAR.<h4>Conclusion</h4>A significant number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on nursing interventions in patients with COPD show suboptimal reporting and poor methodology quality. The use of PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines in conducting, reading, reviewing and editing systematic reviews and meta-analyses is recommended to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.<h4>Impact</h4>The findings of this review can provide references for health workers and health policy makers to evaluate and apply evidence-based knowledge. Additionally, such high-quality systematic reviews/meta-analyses can guide medical and health practice.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>The quality of reporting in systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of diagnostic tests published by authors in China has not been evaluated. The aims of present study are to evaluate the quality of reporting in diagnostic SRs/MAs using the PRISMA statement and determine the changes in the quality of reporting over time.<h4>Methods</h4>According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we searched five databases including Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of knowledge, to identify SRs/MAs on diagnostic tests. The searches were conducted on July 14, 2012 and the cut off for inclusion of the SRs/MAs was December 31(st) 2011. The PRISMA statement was used to assess the quality of reporting. Analysis was performed using Excel 2003, RevMan 5.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 312 studies were included. Fifteen diseases systems were covered. According to the PRISMA checklist, there had been serious reporting flaws in following items: structured summary (item 2, 22.4%), objectives (item 4, 18.9%), protocol and registration (item 5, 2.6%), risk of bias across studies (item 15, 26.3%), funding (item 27, 28.8%). The subgroup analysis showed that there had been some statistically significant improvement in total compliance for 9 PRISMA items after the PRISMA was released, 6 items were statistically improved regarding funded articles, 3 items were statistically improved for CSCD articles, and there was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of reviews reporting on 22 items for SCI articles (P<0.050).<h4>Conclusion</h4>The numbers of diagnostic SRs/MAs is increasing annually. The quality of reporting has measurably been improved over the previous years. Unfortunately, there are still many deficiencies in the reporting including protocol and registration, search, risk of bias across studies, and funding. Future Chinese reviewers should address issues on these aspects.
Project description:<h4>Study objectives</h4>To assess the methodological quality of published systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) about the efficacy of oral appliances (OA) in the management of adult and pediatric sleep-disordered breathing (SDB).<h4>Methods</h4>SRs/MAs that evaluated the efficacy of OA therapy on the treatment of SDB in human subjects of all age groups were sought. Multiple electronic databases were searched for articles published in any language from the database's inception until January 2016. Two reviewers independently selected and then assessed the methodological quality of the studies using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) measurement tool.<h4>Results</h4>Thirteen reviews on adult SDB were included (2 SRs and 11 SRs with MAs). Of those, seven were medium quality and six were high quality. Only four reviews were included on pediatric SDB (3 SRs and 1 SR with MA). Three of these were of high quality and one was medium quality. The identified limitations in the included reviews were failing to reference the excluded studies or describe reasons for exclusion, lack of applying valid criteria to assess the quality of included studies, lack of publication bias assessment, and absence of conflicts of interest reporting.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Overall, SRs/MAs on OA therapy for adult and pediatric SDB were conducted with acceptable methodological quality. High AMSTAR scores should not be extrapolated as a proxy of the methodological quality of the included evidence. There is a need for more primary studies and then that information can be used to be synthesized through SRs on pediatric SDB.
Project description:Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) provide the highest possible level of evidence. However, poor conduct or reporting of SRs and MAs may reduce their utility. The PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) was developed to help authors report their SRs and MAs adequately.Our objectives were to (1) evaluate the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs and their abstracts in otorhinolaryngologic literature using the PRISMA and PRISMA for Abstracts checklists, respectively, (2) compare the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs published in Ear Nose Throat (ENT) journals to the quality of SRs and MAs published in the 'gold standard' Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and (3) formulate recommendations to improve reporting of SRs and MAs in ENT journals.On September 3, 2014, we searched the Pubmed database using a combination of filters to retrieve SRs and MAs on otorhinolaryngologic topics published in 2012 and 2013 in the top 5 ENT journals (ISI Web of Knowledge 2013) or CDSR and relevant articles were selected. We assessed how many, and which, PRISMA (for Abstracts) items were reported adequately per journal type.We identified large differences in the reporting of individual items between the two journal types with room for improvement. In general, SRs and MAs published in ENT journals (n = 31) reported a median of 54.4% of the PRISMA items adequately, whereas the 49 articles published in the CDSR reported a median of 100.0 adequately (difference statistically significant, p < 0.001). For abstracts, medians of 41.7% for ENT journals and 75.0% for the CDSR were found (p < 0.001).The reporting of SRs and MAs in ENT journals leaves room for improvement and would benefit if the PRISMA Statement were endorsed by these journals.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are strongly encouraged to work from a protocol to facilitate high quality, transparent methodology. The completeness of reporting of a protocol (PRISMA-P) and manuscript (PRISMA) is essential to the quality appraisal (AMSTAR-2) and appropriate use of SR/MAs in making treatment decisions.<h4>Objectives</h4>The objectives of this study were to describe the completeness of reporting and quality of SR/MAs, assess the correlations between PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2, and to identify reporting characteristics between similar items of PRISMA-P and PRISMA.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a systematic review of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus SR/MAs of hypoglycemic agents with publicly available protocols. Cochrane reviews, guidelines, and specific types of MA were excluded. Two reviewers independently, (i) searched PubMed and Embase between 1/1/2015 to 20/3/2019; (ii) identified protocols of included studies by searching the manuscript bibliography, supplementary material, PROSPERO, and Google; (iii) completed PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2 tools. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multivariable linear regression.<h4>Results</h4>Of 357 relevant SR/MAs, 51 had available protocols and were included. The average score for PRISMA-P was 15.8±3.3 (66%; maximum 24) and 25.2±1.1 (93%; maximum 27) for PRISMA. The quality of SR/MAs assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool identified an overall poor quality (63% critically low, 18% low, 8% moderate, 12% high). The correlation between the PRISMA-P and PRISMA was not significant (r = 0.264; p = 0.06). Correlation was significant between PRISMA-P and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.333; p = 0.02) and PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.555; p<0.01). Discrepancies in reporting were common between similar PRISMA-P and PRISMA items.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Adherence to protocol reporting guidance was poor while manuscript reporting was comprehensive. Protocol completeness is not associated with a completely reported manuscript. Independently, PRISMA-P and PRISMA scores were weakly associated with higher quality assessments but insufficient as a surrogate for quality. Critical areas for quality improvement include protocol description, investigating causes of heterogeneity, and the impact of risk of bias on the evidence synthesis.