Appraising the Quality of Systematic Reviews for Age-Related Macular Degeneration Interventions: A Systematic Review

TFOS Lifestyle - Evidence quality report: Advancing the evaluation and synthesis of research evidence

Evidence-based practice is a dominant paradigm in healthcare that emphasizes the importance of ensuring the translation of the best available, relevant research evidence into practice. An Evidence Quality Subcommittee was established to provide specialized methodological support and expertise to promote rigorous and evidence-based approaches for the Tear Film and Ocular Surface Society (TFOS) Lifestyle Epidemic reports. The present report describes the purpose, scope, and activity of the Evidence Quality Subcommittee in the undertaking of high-quality narrative-style literature reviews, and leading prospectively registered, reliable systematic reviews of high priority research questions, using standardized methods for each topic area report. Identification of predominantly low or very low certainty evidence across the eight systematic reviews highlights a need for further research to define the efficacy and/or safety of specific lifestyle interventions on the ocular surface, and to clarify relationships between certain lifestyle factors and ocular surface disease. To support the citation of reliable systematic review evidence in the narrative review sections of each report, the Evidence Quality Subcommittee curated topic-specific systematic review databases and relevant systematic reviews underwent standardized reliability assessment. Inconsistent methodological rigor was noted in the published systematic review literature, emphasizing the importance of internal validity assessment. Based on the experience of implementing the Evidence Quality Subcommittee, this report makes suggestions for incorporation of such initiatives in future international taskforces and working groups. Content areas broadly relevant to the activity of the Evidence Quality Subcommittee, including the critical appraisal of research, clinical evidence hierarchies (levels of evidence), and risk of bias assessment, are also outlined.

Randomization, design and analysis for interdependency in aging research: no person or mouse is an island

Investigators traditionally use randomized designs and corresponding analysis procedures to make causal inferences about the effects of interventions, assuming independence between an individual's outcome and treatment assignment and the outcomes of other individuals in the study. Often, such independence may not hold. We provide examples of interdependency in model organism studies and human trials and group effects in aging research and then discuss methodologic issues and solutions. We group methodologic issues as they pertain to (1) single-stage individually randomized trials; (2) cluster-randomized controlled trials; (3) pseudo-cluster-randomized trials; (4) individually randomized group treatment; and (5) two-stage randomized designs. Although we present possible strategies for design and analysis to improve the rigor, accuracy and reproducibility of the science, we also acknowledge real-world constraints. Consequences of nonadherence, differential attrition or missing data, unintended exposure to multiple treatments and other practical realities can be reduced with careful planning, proper study designs and best practices.

Aging and its treatment with vitamin C: a comprehensive mechanistic review

Aging and age-related disorders have become one of the prominent issue of world. Oxidative stress due to overproduction of reactive oxygen species is the most significant cause of aging. The aim of literature compilation was to elucidate the therapeutic effect of vitamin C against oxidative stress. Various mediators with anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant properties might be probable competitors of vitamin C for the improvement of innovative anti-aging treatments. More attention has been paid to vitamin C due to its anti-oxidant property and potentially beneficial biological activities for inhibiting aging.Vitamin C acts as an antioxidant agent and free radical scavenger that can protect the cell from oxidative stress, disorganization of chromatin, telomere attrition, and prolong the lifetime. This review emphasizes mechanism of aging and various biomarkers that are directly related to aging and also focuses on the therapeutic aspect of vitamin C against oxidative stress and age-related disorders.

Evaluation of Systematic Reviews of Interventions for Retina and Vitreous Conditions

Importance

Patient care and clinical practice guidelines should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The reliability of systematic reviews related to forthcoming guidelines for retina and vitreous conditions is unknown.

Objectives

To summarize the reliability of systematic reviews on interventions for 7 retina and vitreous conditions, describe characteristics of reliable and unreliable systematic reviews, and examine the primary area in which they appeared to be lacking.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews was conducted. Systematic reviews of interventions for retina- and vitreous-related conditions in a database maintained by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite were identified. Databases that the reviewers searched, whether any date or language restrictions were applied, and bibliographic information, such as year and journal of publication, were documented. The initial search was conducted in March 2007, and the final update was performed in July 2018. The conditions of interest were age-related macular degeneration; diabetic retinopathy; idiopathic epiretinal membrane and vitreomacular traction; idiopathic macular hole; posterior vitreous detachment, retinal breaks, and lattice degeneration; retinal and ophthalmic artery occlusions; and retinal vein occlusions. The reliability of each review was evaluated using prespecified criteria. Data were extracted by 2 research assistants working independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion or by 1 research assistant with verification by a senior team member.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportion of reviews that meet all of the following criteria: (1) defined eligibility criteria for study selection, (2) described conducting a comprehensive literature search, (3) reported assessing risk of bias in included studies, (4) described using appropriate methods for any meta-analysis performed, and (5) provided conclusions consistent with review findings.

Results

A total of 327 systematic reviews that addressed retina and vitreous conditions were identified; of these, 131 reviews (40.1%) were classified as reliable and 196 reviews (59.9%) were classified as not reliable. At least 1 reliable review was found for each of the 7 retina and vitreous conditions. The most common reason that a review was classified as not reliable was lack of evidence that a comprehensive literature search for relevant studies had been conducted (149 of 196 reviews [76.0%]).

Conclusion and Relevance

The findings of this study suggest that most systematic reviews that addressed interventions for retina and vitreous conditions were not reliable. Systematic review teams and guideline developers should work with information professionals who can help navigate sophisticated and varied syntaxes required to search different resources.

CLEAR - Evidence-based contact lens practice

Evidence-based contact lens -->practice involves finding, appraising and applying research findings as the basis for patient management decisions. These decisions should be informed by the strength of the research study designs that address the question, as well as by the experience of the practitioner and the preferences and environment of the patient. This reports reviews and summarises the published research evidence that is available to inform soft and rigid contact lens history and symptoms taking, anterior eye health examination (including the optimised use of ophthalmic dyes, grading scales, imaging techniques and lid eversion), considerations for contact lens selection (including the ocular surface measurements required to select the most appropriate lens parameter, lens modality and material selection), evaluation of lens fit, prescribing (teaching self-application and removal, adaptation, care regimen and cleaning instructions, as well as -->minimising risks of lens wear through encouraging compliance) and an aftercare routine.

Appraising the quality of meta-analysis for breast cancer treatment in the adjuvant setting: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is the tumor with highest incidence in women worldwide and adjuvant treatment is extremely important to achieve disease control. Given the relevance of systematic reviews, their rigor should be warranted to avoid biased conclusions. Our objective was to investigate the methodological quality of meta-analysis of early breast cancer adjuvant treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Comprehensive searches were performed using electronic databases from 1/1/2007 to 11/12/2018. All studies identified as a systematic review with meta-analysis investigating the efficacy of breast cancer adjuvant treatments were included. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts, then full-texts for eligibility. Quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) version 2 tool.

RESULTS

Of 950 citations retrieved, 66 studies (7.0%) were deemed eligible. Methodological quality was highly variable, median AMSTAR score 8.5 (IQR 7-9.5) and range 0-16. There was a weak positive correlation between journal impact factor and AMSTAR score (r = 0.17) and citation rate and AMSTAR score (r = 0.16). Cochrane Systematic Reviews were of higher quality than reviews from other journals. Overall confidence was critically low for 61 (92.4%) studies, and the least well-reported domains were the statement of conflict of interest and funding source for the included studies (4.6%), the report of a pre-defined study protocol (15.2%), and the description of details of excluded studies (6.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings reinforce concerns about the design, conduction and interpretation of meta-analysis in current literature. Methodological quality should be carefully considered and journal editors, decision makers and readers in general, must follow a critical approach to this studies.

Prevalence and incidence of age-related macular degeneration in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the main cause of visual impairment and blindness in Europe. A further increase in the number of affected persons is expected and current European data are needed for healthcare resource planning.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review on the prevalence and incidence of AMD based on the meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology guideline. Meta-analysis and meta-regression on time-trends, age, countries, regions, sex and classification systems for AMD were performed. Based on Eurostat population projections, the pooled prevalence estimates were extrapolated to the year 2050.

RESULTS

Twenty-two prevalence and four incidence studies published since 1996 were included. Our pooled prevalence estimate of early or intermediate AMD and any late AMD in those 60 years and older was 25.3% (95% CI 18.0% to 34.4%) and 2.4% (95% CI 1.8% to 3.3%), respectively. A significant increase in prevalence was seen in older populations. In the meta-analysis of incidence, the pooled annual incidence of any late AMD was 1.4 per 1 000 individuals (95% CI 0.8 to 2.6). Overall, the number of EU inhabitants with any AMD is expected to increase from 67 to 77 million until 2050. Incident late AMD is estimated to increase from 400 000 per year today to 700 000 per year in 2050.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 67 million people in the EU are currently affected by any AMD and, due to population ageing, this number is expected to increase by 15% until 2050. Monitoring and treatment of people with advanced disease stages will require additional healthcare resources and thorough healthcare planning in the years and decades to come.

Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published on direct oral anticoagulants in the past 5 years

Systematic reviews (SRs) have been reported with increasing frequency as a means of collating studies which may have been performed over different period of times, in different geographical areas and by different groups of investigators. As SRs have become more common, quality metrics such as Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) have become available for these reviews. AMSTAR is an 11-point checklist that assesses the methodological and reporting quality of a SR. In clinical practice, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been increasingly used for the treatment and prevention of both venous and arterial thromboembolism. We sought to evaluate the quality of SRs published on DOACs using the AMSTAR criteria. A comprehensive search of Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2013 to February 2019 was performed. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and subsequently full texts for eligibility. Data extraction was also completed in duplicate. Categories of extracted data included AMSTAR rating, journal of publication, year of publication, number of studies included in the SR, reporting adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, number of times the paper was cited and journal impact factor. A total of 3729 articles were identified, of which 250 were eligible for analysis. SR quality was highly variable with mean (SD) AMSTAR score of 5.68/11 (2.21). Reporting adherence to PRISMA guideline correlated with a moderate (5-8) or high quality (9-11) (OR=4.19, p<0.01) AMSTAR score. The methodological quality of DOACs was generally rated to be low-moderate, and improved adherence to AMSTAR methodological practices are strongly recommended.

Therapeutic role of garlic and vitamins C and E against toxicity induced by lead on various organs

Due to industrial and urban sewage, the metal contaminations in aquatic and terrestrial environments are increasing day by day, especially in developing countries. Despite the study of several years, we are inert far away from an actual medication for prolonged toxicity of heavy metals such as mercury, lead, cadmium etc. Lead is one of the most common heavy metals that possess toxicological effects on numerous tissues of animals as well as humans. Several toxic effects of lead on reproductive organs, renal system, central nervous system, liver, lungs, blood parameters, and bones have been reported. On the other hand, several reports depicted that garlic is operative in declining the absorption of lead in bones as well as soft tissues. A combination of vitamin C and vitamin E enhances the biological recovery induced by lead and mobilize the heavy metal such as lead from intra-cellular positions. This review provides therapeutic approaches such as vitamin C, vitamin E, and extract of garlic to treat the detrimental effects caused after the exposure of lead. These therapeutic strategies are beneficial for both the prevention and alleviation of lead noxiousness.

Perspective on Systematic Medical Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PURPOSE

This study sought to identify factors contributing to the inadequacies of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) published in the ophthalmology literature.

DESIGN

Perspective.

METHODS

Review and synthesis of selective literature, with interpretation and perspective.

RESULTS

Although recommendations for the design, conduct, assessment of quality, and risk of bias of systematic reviews have been widely available, some recent publications illustrate a serious potential failing in this domain: inclusion of refuted science, lack of citation of post-publication correspondence and failure to use ≥1 alternative search strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

Examples of inadequacies of peer review in medical literature and perpetuation of erroneous science by unfiltered inclusion in subsequent systematic reviews have been identified, and the problem can be traced to authors, peer reviewers, and editors of journals. This perspective identifies and analyzes several possible causes of the problem and recommends some specific corrective actions to improve the quality and accuracy of such reviews.

Reliability of the Evidence Addressing Treatment of Corneal Diseases: A Summary of Systematic Reviews

Importance

Patient care should be informed by clinical practice guidelines, which in turn should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The American Academy of Ophthalmology is updating its Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for the management of the following 6 corneal diseases: bacterial keratitis, blepharitis, conjunctivitis, corneal ectasia, corneal edema and opacification, and dry eye syndrome.

Objective

To summarize the reliability of the existing systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases.

Data Source

The Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database.

Study Selection

In this study of published systematic reviews from 1997 to 2017 (median, 2014), the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database was searched for systematic reviews evaluating interventions for the management of any corneal disease, combining eyes and vision keywords and controlled vocabulary terms with a validated search filter.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

The study classified systematic reviews as reliable when each of the following 5 criteria were met: the systematic review specified eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies, assessed risk of bias of the individual included studies, used appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (only assessed if meta-analysis was performed), and had conclusions that were supported by the results of the systematic review. They were classified as unreliable if at least 1 criterion was not met.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The proportion of systematic reviews that were reliable and the reasons for unreliability.

Results

This study identified 98 systematic reviews that addressed interventions for 15 corneal diseases. Thirty-three of 98 systematic reviews (34%) were classified as unreliable. The most frequent reasons for unreliability were that the systematic review did not conduct a comprehensive literature search for studies (22 of 33 [67%]), did not assess risk of bias of the individual included studies (13 of 33 [39%]), and did not use appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (12 of 17 systematic reviews that conducted a quantitative synthesis [71%]). Sixty-five of 98 systematic reviews (66%) were classified as reliable. Forty-two of the 65 reliable systematic reviews (65%) addressed corneal diseases relevant to the 2018 American Academy of Ophthalmology PPPs; 33 of these 42 systematic reviews (79%) are cited in the 2018 PPPs.

Conclusions and Relevance

One in 3 systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases are unreliable and thus were not used to inform PPP recommendations. Careful adherence by systematic reviewers and journal editors to well-established best practices regarding systematic review conduct and reporting might help make future systematic reviews in eyes and vision more reliable.

A Critical Appraisal of National and International Clinical Practice Guidelines Reporting Nutritional Recommendations for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Are Recommendations Evidence-Based?

: Eye care professionals should have access to high quality clinical practice guidelines that ideally are underpinned by evidence from robust systematic reviews of relevant research. The aim of this study was to identify clinical guidelines with recommendations pertaining to dietary modification and/or nutritional supplementation for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and to evaluate the overall quality of the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. We also mapped recommendations to existing systematic review evidence. A comprehensive search was undertaken using bibliographic databases and other electronic resources for eligible guidelines. Quality appraisal was undertaken to generate scores for each of the six AGREE II domains, and mapping of extracted nutritional recommendations was performed for systematic reviews published up to March 2017. We identified 13 national and international guidelines, developed or updated between 2004 and 2019. These varied substantially in quality. The lowest scoring AGREE II domains were for 'Rigour of Development', 'Applicability' (which measures implementation strategies to improve uptake of recommendations), and 'Editorial Independence'. Only four guidelines used evidence from systematic reviews to support their nutritional recommendations. In conclusion, there is significant scope for improving current Clinical Practice Guidelines for AMD, and guideline developers should use evidence from existing high quality systematic reviews to inform clinical recommendations.

Cochrane Eyes and Vision: a perspective introducing Cochrane Corner in Eye

In 1972, Archie Cochrane wrote "It is surely a great criticism of our profession that we have not organised a critical summary, by specialty or subspecialty, adapted periodically, of all relevant randomised controlled trials". The Cochrane Collaboration arose in response to Archie Cochrane's challenge. Cochrane Eyes and Vision aims to prepare and promote access to systematic reviews of interventions for preventing or treating eye conditions and/or visual impairment, and helping people adjust to visual impairment or blindness. To identify all relevant randomised controlled trials, Cochrane Eyes and Vision has a team of information specialists who develop search strategies to identify studies for inclusion in Cochrane reviews. Since 1997 we have published 266 protocols, 193 new reviews and 158 updated reviews. The majority of these are reviews of intervention effectiveness; three reviews are diagnostic test accuracy reviews. Overall 18% of reviews contain no trials, highlighting a potential evidence gap. We provide training, education and guidance to systematic review authors and work with clinical and patient partners to prioritise and disseminate reviews. In addition, Cochrane Eyes and Vision US satellite carries out critical methodologic research addressing topics relevant to producing high-quality reviews. We are partnering with the journal Eye to publish commentaries on selected Cochrane systematic review findings. This partnership will allow us to make high-quality evidence available to ophthalmologists and other practitioners, researchers, policy makers and patients.