A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool

Fast-and-frugal decision tree for the rapid critical appraisal of systematic reviews

Conducting high-quality overviews of reviews (OoR) is time-consuming. Because the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) varies, it is necessary to critically appraise SRs when conducting an OoR. A well-established appraisal tool is A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, which takes about 15-32 min per application. To save time, we developed two fast-and-frugal decision trees (FFTs) for assessing the methodological quality of SR for OoR either during the full-text screening stage (Screening FFT) or to the resulting pool of SRs (Rapid Appraisal FFT). To build a data set for developing the FFT, we identified published AMSTAR 2 appraisals. Overall confidence ratings of the AMSTAR 2 were used as a criterion and the 16 items as cues. One thousand five hundred and nineteen appraisals were obtained from 24 publications and divided into training and test data sets. The resulting Screening FFT consists of three items and correctly identifies all non-critically low-quality SRs (sensitivity of 100%), but has a positive predictive value of 59%. The three-item Rapid Appraisal FFT correctly identifies 80% of the high-quality SRs and correctly identifies 97% of the low-quality SRs, resulting in an accuracy of 95%. The FFTs require about 10% of the 16 AMSTAR 2 items. The Screening FFT may be applied during full-text screening to exclude SRs with critically low quality. The Rapid Appraisal FFT may be applied to the final SR pool to identify SR that might be of high methodological quality.

Effectiveness of eHealth interventions for HIV prevention, testing and management: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection has become a major contributor to the global burden of disease. Globally, the number of cases of HIV continues to increase. Electronic health (eHealth) interventions have emerged as promising tools to support disease self-management among people living with HIV. The purpose of this umbrella review is to systematically evaluate and summarize the evidence and results of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the effectiveness of eHealth interventions for HIV prevention, testing and management.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for reviews. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using AMSTAR-2.

RESULTS

A total of 22 systematic reviews were included. The methodological quality of the reviews was low or critically low. EHealth interventions range from Internet, computer, or mobile interventions to websites, programs, applications, email, video, games, telemedicine, texting, and social media, or a combination of them. The majority of the reviews showed evidence of effectiveness (including increased participation in HIV management behaviours, successfully changed HIV testing behaviours, and reduced risk behaviours). EHealth interventions were effective in the short term.

CONCLUSIONS

Ehealth interventions have the potential to improve HIV prevention, HIV testing and disease management. Due to the limitations of the low methodological quality of the currently available systematic reviews, more high-quality evidence is needed to develop clear and robust recommendations.

Exploring decision-makers' challenges and strategies when selecting multiple systematic reviews: insights for AI decision support tools in healthcare

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) are being published at an accelerated rate. Decision-makers may struggle with comparing and choosing between multiple SRs on the same topic. We aimed to understand how healthcare decision-makers (eg, practitioners, policymakers, researchers) use SRs to inform decision-making and to explore the potential role of a proposed artificial intelligence (AI) tool to assist in critical appraisal and choosing among SRs.

METHODS

We developed a survey with 21 open and closed questions. We followed a knowledge translation plan to disseminate the survey through social media and professional networks.

RESULTS

Our survey response rate was lower than expected (7.9% of distributed emails). Of the 684 respondents, 58.2% identified as researchers, 37.1% as practitioners, 19.2% as students and 13.5% as policymakers. Respondents frequently sought out SRs (97.1%) as a source of evidence to inform decision-making. They frequently (97.9%) found more than one SR on a given topic of interest to them. Just over half (50.8%) struggled to choose the most trustworthy SR among multiple. These difficulties related to lack of time (55.2%), or difficulties comparing due to varying methodological quality of SRs (54.2%), differences in results and conclusions (49.7%) or variation in the included studies (44.6%). Respondents compared SRs based on the relevance to their question of interest, methodological quality, and recency of the SR search. Most respondents (87.0%) were interested in an AI tool to help appraise and compare SRs.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the identified barriers of using SR evidence, an AI tool to facilitate comparison of the relevance of SRs, the search and methodological quality, could help users efficiently choose among SRs and make healthcare decisions.

Evaluation of spin in systematic reviews on the use of tendon transfer for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears

PURPOSE

To identify, describe and account for the incidence of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of tendon transfer for the treatment of massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears. The secondary objective was to characterize the studies in which spin was identified and to determine whether identifiable patterns exist among studies with spin.

METHODS

This study was conducted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Each abstract was assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin derived from a previously established methodology. General data that were extracted included study title, authors, publication year, journal, level of evidence, study design, funding source, reported adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, preregistration of the study protocol, and methodologic quality per A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews Version 2 (AMSTAR 2).

RESULTS

The search yielded 53 articles, of which 13 were included in the final analysis. Articles were excluded if they were not published in a peer reviewed journal, not written in English, utilized cadaveric or nonhuman models, or lacked an abstract with accessible full text. 53.8% (7/13) of the included studies contained at least 1 type of spin in the abstract. Type 5 spin ("The conclusion claims beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies") was the most common, appearing in 23.1% (3/13) of included abstracts. Nine of the spin categories did not appear in any of the included abstracts. A lower AMSTAR 2 score was significantly associated with the presence of spin in the abstract (P < .006).

CONCLUSION

Spin is highly prevalent in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses concerning tendon transfer for massive rotator cuff tears. A lower overall AMSTAR 2 rating was associated with a higher incidence of spin. Future studies should continue to explore the prevalence of spin in orthopedic literature and identify any factors that may contribute to its presence.

The confidence in the results of physiotherapy systematic reviews in the musculoskeletal field is not increasing over time: a meta-epidemiological study using AMSTAR 2 tool

OBJECTIVES

To assess the confidence in the results of systematic reviews on the effectiveness of physiotherapy for musculoskeletal conditions in the past 10 years and to analyze trends and factors associated.

METHODS

This is a metaepidemiological study on systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and PEDro were searched for SRs of RCT on physiotherapy interventions for musculoskeletal disorders from December 2012 to December 2022. Two researchers independently screened the records based on the inclusion criteria; a random sample of 100 studies was selected, and each journal, author, and study variable was extracted. The methodological quality of SRs was independently assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool. Any disagreement was solved by consensus.

RESULTS

The confidence in SRs results was critically low in 90% of the studies, and it did not increase over time. Cochrane reviews are predominantly represented in the higher AMSTAR 2 confidence levels, with a statistically significant difference compared to non-Cochrane reviews. The last author's H-index is the only predictor of higher confidence among the variables analyzed (OR 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.06).

CONCLUSION

The confidence in SRs results is unacceptably low. Given the relevance of musculoskeletal disorders and the impact of evidence synthesis on the clinical decision-making process, there is an urgent need to improve the quality of secondary research by adopting more rigorous methods.

Overview of systematic reviews on periodontal-orthodontic interactions: A comprehensive literature analysis

The aims of this research were to investigate the methodological quality of systematic reviews on periodontal-orthodontic interactions (i.e. reviews of primary research broadly defined as any including both periodontic and orthodontic components) and to provide a mapping of the researched topics. We searched four major databases (PubMed, Lilacs, Web of Science, and Embase) for systematic reviews of periodontal-orthodontic interactions. We used the AMSTAR-2 tool (the acronym is derived from 'a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews') to assess the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews. Individual AMSTAR-2 ratings were tabulated, and the percentage per item was calculated. To assess the association between the AMSTAR-2 percentage score and the overall confidence in the systematic review results, an ordinal regression model was used. We initially retrieved 973 documents, and 43 systematic reviews were included. Systematic reviews of interventions were the most prevalent (n = 26, 60.5%). Most of the systematic reviews did not report a meta-analysis (n = 25, 58.1%). In addition, most of the studies included in the systematic reviews had an unclear or high risk of bias. Most of the systematic reviews were rated as having critically low or low overall confidence (n = 34, 79.1%). A significant correlation was found between the AMSTAR-2 percentage score and overall confidence in the results. The methodological quality of systematic reviews on periodontal-orthodontic interactions can be improved. The limitations of our study include potential language bias and an arbitrary classification of the topics researched.

Association between semen parameters and recurrent pregnancy loss: An umbrella review of meta-analyses

AIM

Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is a common clinical reproductive problem. With research advancements, an increasing number of studies have suggested that male factors play an important role in RPL. However, the evaluation results of male sperm quality in published meta-analyses are inconsistent. We aimed to summarize the evidence of the association between semen factors and RPL and evaluate the level and validity of the evidence.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for systematic reviews or meta-analyses to evaluate the association between male semen parameters and RPL. The methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was assessed, and data and evidence were re-synthesized and stratified using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Seven meta-analyses and nine semen parameters were included in the final analysis. The methodological quality of all publications was considered low or very low. There was highly suggestive evidence for the association between sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF), sperm progressive motility rate, and RPL (class II). The evidence level for the association between sperm concentration, normal sperm morphology, sperm deformity rate, total motility, and RPL was suggestive evidence (class III). The evidence level for the association between sperm volume and sperm count and RPL was weak (class IV). There was no significant association between sperm pH and RPL (class NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest level II evidence for the association between male SDF and RPL, while the evidence level for the association between conventional semen routine parameters and RPL was low (classes III and IV).

Appraisal methods and outcomes of AMSTAR 2 assessments in overviews of systematic reviews of interventions in the cardiovascular field: A methodological study

This study aimed to assess the methods and outcomes of The Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 appraisals in overviews of reviews (overviews) of interventions in the cardiovascular field and identify factors that are associated with these outcomes. MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched until November 2022. Eligible were overviews of cardiovascular interventions, analyzing systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Extracted data included characteristics of overviews and SRs and AMSTAR 2 appraisal methods and outcomes. Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to explore potential associations between the characteristics of SRs and extracted AMSTAR 2 overall ratings ("High-Moderate" vs. "Low-Critically low"). The original results on individual AMSTAR 2 items were entered into the official AMSTAR 2 online tool and the recalculated overall confidence ratings were compared to those provided in overviews. All 34 overviews identified were published between 2019 and 2022. Rating of overall confidence following the algorithm suggested by AMSTAR 2 developers was noted in 74% of overviews. The 679 unique included SRs were mainly of "Critically low" (53%) or "Low" (18.7%) confidence and underperformed in items 2 (Protocol, no = 65.2%) and 7 (List of excluded studies, no = 84%). The following characteristics of SRs were significantly associated with higher overall ratings: Cochrane origin, pharmacological interventions, including exclusively RCTs, citation of methodological and reporting guidelines, protocol, absence of funding and publication after AMSTAR 2 release. Generally, overviews' authors tended to deviate from the original rating scheme and ascribe higher ratings to SRs compared to the official AMSTAR 2 online tool. Most SRs included in overviews of cardiovascular interventions have critically low or low confidence in their results. Overviews' authors should be more transparent about the methods used to derive the overall confidence in SRs.

Increasing Value and Reducing Waste of Research on Neurofeedback Effects in Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: A State-of-the-Art-Review

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is often considered challenging to treat due to factors that contribute to its complexity. In the last decade, more attention has been paid to non-pharmacological or non-psychological therapies for PTSD, including neurofeedback (NFB). NFB is a promising non-invasive technique targeting specific brainwave patterns associated with psychiatric symptomatology. By learning to regulate brain activity in a closed-loop paradigm, individuals can improve their functionality while reducing symptom severity. However, owing to its lax regulation and heterogeneous legal status across different countries, the degree to which it has scientific support as a psychiatric treatment remains controversial. In this state-of-the-art review, we searched PubMed, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, Scopus, and MEDLINE and identified meta-analyses and systematic reviews exploring the efficacy of NFB for PTSD. We included seven systematic reviews, out of which three included meta-analyses (32 studies and 669 participants) that targeted NFB as an intervention while addressing a single condition-PTSD. We used the MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 and the criteria described by Cristea and Naudet (Behav Res Therapy 123:103479, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2019.103479 ) to identify sources of research waste and increasing value in biomedical research. The seven assessed reviews had an overall extremely poor quality score (5 critically low, one low, one moderate, and none high) and multiple sources of waste while opening opportunities for increasing value in the NFB literature. Our research shows that it remains unclear whether NFB training is significantly beneficial in treating PTSD. The quality of the investigated literature is low and maintains a persistent uncertainty over numerous points, which are highly important for deciding whether an intervention has clinical efficacy. Just as importantly, none of the reviews we appraised explored the statistical power, referred to open data of the included studies, or adjusted their pooled effect sizes for publication bias and risk of bias. Based on the obtained results, we identified some recurrent sources of waste (such as a lack of research decisions based on sound questions or using an appropriate methodology in a fully transparent, unbiased, and useable manner) and proposed some directions for increasing value (homogeneity and consensus) in designing and reporting research on NFB interventions in PTSD.

Factors influencing health-related quality of life among long-term care residents experiencing pain: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Pain is highly burdensome, affecting over 30% of long-term care (LTC) residents. Pain significantly reduces residents' health-related quality of life (HRQoL), limits their ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs), restricts their social activities, and can lead to hopelessness, depression, and unnecessary healthcare costs. Although pain can generally be prevented or treated, eliminating pain may not always be possible, especially when residents have multiple chronic conditions. Therefore, improving the HRQoL of LTC residents with pain is a priority goal. Understanding factors influencing HRQoL of LTC residents with pain is imperative to designing and evaluating targeted interventions that complement pain management to improve residents' HRQoL. However, these factors are poorly understood, and we lack syntheses of available research on this topic. This systematic review protocol outlines the methods to identify, synthesize, and evaluate the available evidence on these factors.

METHODS

This mixed methods review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We will systematically search Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and ProQuest Dissertation and Thesis Global from database inception. We will include primary studies and systematically conducted reviews without restrictions to language, publication date, and study design. We will also include gray literature (dissertation and reports) and search relevant reviews and reference lists of all included studies. Two reviewers will independently screen articles, conduct quality appraisal, and extract data. We will synthesize results thematically and conduct meta-analyses if statistical pooling is possible. Residents and family/friend caregivers will assist with interpreting the findings.

DISCUSSION

This proposed systematic review will address an important knowledge gap related to the available evidence on factors influencing HRQoL of LTC residents with pain. Findings will be crucial for researchers, LTC administrators, and policy makers in uncovering research needs and in planning, developing, and evaluating strategies in addition to and complementary with pain management to help improve HRQoL among LTC residents with pain.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023405425.

Reporting Bias is Highly Prevalent in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Platelet Rich Plasma Injections for Hip Osteoarthritis

Purpose

To describe the incidence and types of spin in systematic reviews of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for hip osteoarthritis (OA) and to determine whether patterns in study characteristics could be identified among studies with identifiable spin.

Methods

The PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases were queried. Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews or meta-analyses that included an assessment of intra-articular PRP injections as a stand-alone treatment for hip OA. Two authors independently assessed the presence of spin in the included studies and recorded general study characteristics. The prevalence of the 15 different categories of spin was quantified using descriptive statistics.

Results

Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria for this study. All studies contained at least two types of spin (range 2-9), with a median of 2. The most common type of spin was type 14 ("Failure to report a wide confidence interval of estimates"), which was observed in 10 studies. The second most common type of spin was type 13 ("Failure to specify the direction of the effect when it favors the control intervention"), found in 6 studies.

Conclusions

Spin is highly prevalent in abstracts of systematic reviews of PRP in the treatment of hip OA. Several associations were found between spin types and the study characteristics of AMSTAR 2 rating, Scopus CiteScore, journal impact factor, and PROSPERO preregistration. When present, spin in the abstracts of reviewed studies tended to favor the use of PRP in hip osteoarthritis.

Clinical Relevance

It is important to understand the prevalence of spin in published abstracts, especially in areas of great impact or interest, so authors and readers can have a greater awareness of this potential form of bias.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Reporting Bias in the Form of Positive Spin Is Highly Prevalent in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews on Primary Repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament

PURPOSE

To analyze reporting bias in the form of spin present in systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the topic of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair.

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed throughout this study. Peer-reviewed systematic reviews were collected from 3 databases (PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus), and their abstracts were assessed for the 15 most common types of spin. Articles were excluded if they were not published in English, had no evidence, were retracted, were published without an abstract, did not have full text available, or included cadaveric or nonhuman subjects. Full text quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews Version 2). Fisher exact tests were used to examine associations between the different types of spin and other study characteristics such as AMSTAR 2 confidence rating, study design, and level of evidence.

RESULTS

Spin was present in the abstracts of 13 of 15 articles (86.7%). There were significant associations between PRISMA adherence and lower incidences of spin types 3, 6, and 8 (P = .029 for each). A critically low AMSTAR 2 confidence rating was significantly associated with an increased incidence of spin type 9 (P = .01), and a higher AMSTAR 2 score was significantly associated with decreased spin type 4 and type 5 (P = .039 and P = .048, respectively). A more recent year of publication was correlated with a lower incidence of spin type 14 (P = .044).

CONCLUSIONS

Spin is present in most systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding primary repair of the ACL, with two-thirds of abstracts spinning evidence in favor of ACL repair. Standardized guidelines including the PRISMA guidelines and the AMSTAR 2 assessment tool were negatively correlated with spin. More recently published articles were found to contain significantly less spin, as were articles published in journals with higher Clarivate Impact Factors and Scopus CiteScores.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, systematic review of Level III through V studies.

Mobile application interventions to increase physical activity and their effect on kinanthropometrics, body composition and fitness variables in adolescent aged 12-16 years old: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

The aims of the present umbrella review were (a) to summarize the available evidence on the effectiveness of mobile applications aimed at increasing physical activity; (b) to analyse the effect of an increase in physical activity on kinanthropometric variables, body composition and physical fitness of adolescents aged 12-16 years old; and (c) to determine the strengths and limitations of the interventions carried out with adolescents aged 12-16 years old through the use of mobile applications, to provide recommendations for future research.

METHODS

The most relevant inclusion criteria were (a) adolescents aged 12-16 years old; (b) interventions carried out only with mobile apps; (c) pre-post measurements; (d) participants without illnesses or injuries; and (e) interventions lasting more than 8 weeks. The databases used to identify the systematic reviews were the Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed and Scopus. Two reviewers independently used the AMSTAR-2 scale to measure the methodological quality of the included reviews and also carried out an analysis of external validity, with a third reviewer participating in the cases in which consensus was not reached.

RESULTS

A total of 12 systematic reviews were included (these included a total of 273 articles that used electronic devices, of which 22 studies exclusively used mobile applications with adolescents aged 12-16). Regarding physical activity and its effect on body composition, kinanthropometric variables and physical fitness, no significant differences were found for any of the variables analysed, and the results were not sufficiently consistent to determine the influence of these interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to highlight that the scientific research conducted so far showed that mobile applications were not effective in increasing physical activity and changing the kinanthropometric variables, body composition or physical fitness of adolescents. Thus, future research with stronger methodological rigour and larger samples is needed to provide stronger evidence.

Methodological quality of systematic reviews in dentistry including animal studies: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews including animal models can be heterogeneous. We assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews including animal models in dentistry as well as the overall confidence in the results of those systematic reviews.

MATERIAL & METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for systematic reviews including animal studies in dentistry published later than January 2010 until 18th of July 2022. Overall confidence in the results was assessed using a modified version of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) checklist. Checklist items were rated as yes, partial yes, no and not applicable. Linear regression analysis was used to investigate associations between systematic review characteristics and the overall adherence to the AMSTAR-2 checklist. The overall confidence in the results was calculated based on the number of critical and non-critical weaknesses presented in the AMSTAR-2 items and rated as high, moderate, low and critical low.

RESULTS

Of initially 951 retrieved systematic reviews, 190 were included in the study. The overall confidence in the results was low in 43 (22.6%) and critically low in 133 (70.0%) systematic reviews. While some AMSTAR-2 items were regularly reported (e.g. conflict of interest, selection in duplicate), others were not (e.g.

FUNDING

n = 1; 0.5%). Multivariable linear regression analysis showed that the adherence scores of AMSTAR-2 was significantly associated with publication year, journal impact factor (IF), topic, and the use of tools to assess risk of bias (RoB) of the systematic reviews.

CONCLUSION

Although the methodological quality of dental systematic reviews of animal models improved over the years, it is still suboptimal. The overall confidence in the results was mostly low or critically low. Systematic reviews, which were published later, published in a journal with a higher IF, focused on non-surgery topics, and used at least one tool to assess RoB correlated with greater adherence to the AMSTAR-2 guidelines.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction

Purpose

To identify the quantity and types of spin present in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction (UCLR) outcomes and to characterize the studies with spin to determine if any patterns exist.

Methods

This study was conducted per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In August 2022, PubMed, Scopus, and SportDiscus databases were searched using the terms "ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction" AND "systematic review" OR "meta-analysis." Each abstract was assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin derived from a previously established methodology. General data that were extracted included study title, authors, publication year, journal, level of evidence, study design, funding source, reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines, preregistration of the study protocol, and methodologic quality per A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews Version 2 (AMSTAR 2).

Results

In total, 122 studies were identified during the preliminary search, of which 19 met the inclusion criteria. Each study had at least 1 form of spin. The most common type of spin identified was type 5 ("The conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies") (7/19, 36.8%). AMSTAR type 9 ("Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the RoB [risk of bias] in individual studies that were included in the review?") was associated with both a lower Clarivate Impact Factor (P = .001) and a lower Scopus CiteScore (P = .015). Studies receiving external funding were associated with the failure to satisfy AMSTAR type 3 ("Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?") (P = .047).

Conclusions

Spin is highly prevalent in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that investigate the outcomes of UCLR.

Clinical Relevance

Spin has been identified in peer-reviewed articles published on various topics, including many in orthopaedics. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses contain the most comprehensive evidence regarding a clinical question, so it is important to identify spin that may be included in these reports. Greater efforts are needed to ensure that the abstracts of papers accurately represent the results in the full text.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

The Evidence for Screening Older Adults for Nutrition Risk in Primary Care: An Umbrella Review

It is not known if nutrition risk screening of older adults should be a standard practice in primary care. The evidence in support of nutrition risk screening of older adults in primary care was examined and critically analyzed using an umbrella review. The peer reviewed and grey literature were searched for clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and systematic reviews (SRs). Titles and abstracts were independently screened by the two authors. Resources were excluded if they did not apply to older adults, did not discuss nutrition/malnutrition risk screening, or were in settings other than primary care. Full texts were independently screened by both authors, resulting in the identification of six CPGs and three SRs that met the review criteria. Guidelines were appraised with the AGREE II tool and SRs with the AMSTAR 2 tool. The quality of the CPGs was high, while the quality of the SRs was low. The CPGs and SRs acknowledged a lack of high-quality research on the benefits of regular nutrition risk screening for older adults in primary care; however, CPGs recommended annual screening for older adults in primary care practices or other community settings. High-quality research investigating nutrition risk screening of older adults in primary care is needed.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Gathering the Evidence on Diet and Depression: A Protocol for an Umbrella Review and Updated Meta-Analyses

Our objectives are to perform (1) an umbrella review on diet and depression, (2) a systematic review update on dietary patterns and depression, and (3) updated meta-analyses using studies from the previous two objectives. Systematic reviews examining the relationships between diet and depression and primary studies on the relationship between dietary patterns and depression will be systematically retrieved via several databases. All articles identified through the database searches will be imported into Covidence. Following duplicates removal, two authors will independently perform title and abstract screening and full-text assessment against eligibility criteria. Data will be extracted using tables developed for both systematic reviews and primary studies. The methodological quality of systematic reviews will be assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. The risk of bias in randomized trials, cohort and cross-sectional studies, as well as case-control studies, will be assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB-2) tool, the NHLBI Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies, and the NHLBI Quality Assessment Tool for Case-Control studies, respectively. For each dietary variable, data extracted will be used to produce: (1) a summary of systematic reviews' characteristics and results table, (2) a summary of the primary studies characteristics table, (3) a qualitative summary of results from the primary studies table, and (4) a quantitative summary of results in the form of forest plots. The certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Upon completion, this systematic review will be the most comprehensive and up-to-date synthesis of currently available evidence on the relationships between diet and depression. It will serve as a key reference to guide future research and as a resource for health professionals in the fields of nutrition and psychiatry. PROSPERO CRD42022343253.

Opioid prescribing for acute postoperative pain: an overview of systematic reviews related to two consensus statements relevant at patient, prescriber, system and public health levels

BACKGROUND

National guidelines for rational opioid prescribing for acute postoperative pain are needed to optimise postoperative pain control and function whilst minimising opioid-related harm.

OBJECTIVES

This overview of systematic reviews aims to summarise and critically assess the quality of systematic reviews related to the 20 recommendations from two previously published consensus guideline papers (ten relevant at patient and prescriber levels and ten at a system / Public Health level). It also aims to identify gaps in research that require further efforts to fill these in order to augment the evidence behind creating national guidelines for rational opioid prescribing for acute postoperative pain.

METHODS

A systematic database search using PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane was conducted in November 2022. Furthermore, reference lists were reviewed. All identified systematic reviews were assessed for eligibility. Data from each study was extracted using a pre-standardised data extraction form. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed by two independent reviewers using the AMSTAR 2 checklist. Descriptive synthesis of the results was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 12 papers were eligible for analysis. Only eight out of the total 20 prioritised recommendations had systematic reviews that provided evidence related to them. These systematic reviews were most commonly of critically low quality.

CONCLUSION

The consensus papers provide guidance and recommendations based on the consensus of expert opinion that is based on the best available evidence. However, there is a lack of evidence supporting many of these consensus statements. Efforts to further analyse interventions that aim to reduce the rates of opioid prescribing and their adverse effects should therefore continue.

Consumers' longitudinal health information needs and seeking: a scoping review

Needing and seeking health information often is a longitudinal everyday life information behavior that involves the use of technology. However, no reviews of consumers' longitudinal health information needs (HIN) and health information-seeking (HIS) behavior have been conducted. We performed a scoping review to address this gap. Specifically, we surveyed the characteristics, timeline construction and research findings of studies investigating consumers' longitudinal HIN and HIS. Initial searches were conducted in November 2019 and updated in July 2022. A total of 128 papers were identified, reviewed and analyzed using content and thematic analyses. Results showed that most papers were quantitative, conducted in the USA, related to cancer, conducted during the diagnosis and treatment phases, and followed preset time intervals. Findings concerning the development patterns of consumers' HIN degrees and HIS effort were mixed (i.e. increasing, decreasing or being consistent over time). They seemed to be shaped by factors such as health conditions, data collection methods and the length of data collection. Consumers' use of sources changes depending on health status and source accessibility; their medical terminologies seem to expand over time. HIS has a strong emotional dimension which may lead to adaptive or maladaptive information behaviors (e.g. information avoidance). Overall, the results revealed a lack of understanding of HIN and HIS from a longitudinal perspective, particularly along health condition progression and coping trajectories. There is also a lack of understanding of the role of technologies in the longitudinal HIS process.

Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

METHODS

Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

RESULTS

A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.

Evaluation of Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Abstracts for Pediatric Strabismus Therapies

PURPOSE

This study investigates the quality of systematic review abstracts through evaluation of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) abstract guideline adherence, Assessment for Multiple Systematic Reviews Tool (AMSTAR) quality rating, spin, abstract word count, and abstract structure.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the CEV@US database for articles related to pediatric strabismus. Inclusion criteria regarding pediatric strabismus studies were required to be in English, systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, and patients less than eighteen years of age. From the search records, two investigators independently screened titles and abstracts to locate eligible reviews and extract study characteristics using AMSTAR-2 and pilot-tested Google forms.

RESULTS

Searches retrieved 545 studies, of which 14 were eligible for data extraction. We found one form of spin in 1 abstract (of 14, 7.14%) of our included studies. 11/13 (84.62%) of studies failed to mention risk of bias assessment. There was no significant association between abstract characteristics and quality of the study. We found a significant correlation between AMSTAR-2 rating and PRISMA completion.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, a positive finding was that no spin was found within the abstracts of articles for pediatric strabismus therapies. PRISMA-A adherence was strongly associated with higher quality studies and should be considered for all systematic reviews in ophthalmology. Clinical research of pediatric strabismus is significantly limited in the number of studies present, as evidenced by our data. To improve the quality of abstract reporting, efforts from authors and journals are needed.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Is the quality of systematic reviews influenced by prospective registration: a methods review of systematic musculoskeletal physical therapy reviews

INTRODUCTION

It is unknown if verified prospective registration of systematic reviews (SRs) and the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that they use affect an SR's methodological quality on A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2).

METHODS

Data originated from interventional SRs published in International Society of Physiotherapy Journals Editors (ISPJE) member journals, indexed in MEDLINE, between 1 January 2018 and 18 August 2021. Blinded reviewers identified the SRs and extracted the data for the variables of interest for the SRs and the RCTs.

RESULTS

Two of 14 ISPJE member journals required prospective SR registration. Twenty SRs were identified, and 169 unique, retrievable RCTs were included within those SRs. One (5.0%) of the 20 SRs and 15 of the 169 (8.9%) RCTs were prospectively registered and published consistent with this intent. Nineteen (95.0%) of the 20 identified SRs was categorized as 'critically low' on the AMSTAR 2.

DISCUSSION

SRs and the RCTs identified within them were infrequently prospectively registered, prospectively verifiable, or prospectively verified based on the established research record.

CONCLUSIONS

Ensuring that SRs and RCTs have fidelity with the research record from conception to publication may help rule out low-value interventions, decrease variability in physical therapy practice, and solidify evidence-based physical therapy practice.

Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews

» Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.» A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.» Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Gwet's AC1 is not a substitute for Cohen's kappa - A comparison of basic properties

Gwet's AC1 has been proposed as an alternative to Cohen's kappa in evaluating the agreement between two binary ratings. This approach is becoming increasingly popular, and researchers have been criticized for still using Cohen's kappa. However, a rigorous discussion of properties of Gwet's AC1 is still missing. In this paper several basic properties of Gwet's AC1 are investigated and compared with those of Cohen's kappa, in particular the dependence on the prevalence of positive ratings for a given agreement rate and the behaviour in case of no association or maximal disagreement. Both approaches compare the observed agreement rate with a comparative number. Cohen's kappa uses an expected agreement rate as comparator, whereas Gwet's AC1 uses an expected disagreement rate. Consequently, for a fixed agreement rate, Gwet's AC1 increases with increasing difference of the prevalence of positive ratings from 0.5. In contrast, Cohen's kappa decreases. Gwet's AC1 can take positive and negative values in the case of no association between the two raters, whereas Cohen's kappa is 0. Due to these fundamental differences, Gwet's AC1 should not be seen as a substitute for Cohen's kappa. In particular, the verbal classification of kappa values by Landis & Koch should not be applied to Gwet's AC1.

Quality assessment of systematic reviews with meta-analysis in undergraduate nursing education

BACKGROUND

Little attention has been given to the methodological quality of meta-analyses in nursing education. This warrants further improvements in meta-analyses in nursing education.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the methodological quality of meta-analysis in the field of undergraduate nursing education.

DESIGN

This was a methodological study to review the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analysis.

METHODS

Exhaustive literature searches were performed using five comprehensive databases. Between 1994 and 2022, 11,827 studies were identified, and 41 full-text articles met the inclusion criteria. Two researchers extracted data using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-2. The Chi-square test was conducted to make comparisons before and after 2017, the year AMSTAR-2 was released.

RESULTS

A comprehensive literature retrieval strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, literature selection, and data extraction were observed in nursing education more than in other disciplines. Improvements to be made include pre-specifying the protocol, providing a list of excluded studies with their exclusion reasons, reporting the source of funding for the included studies, assessing and discussing the potential impact of risk of bias, as well as investigating and discussing publication bias and its impact.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of SRs with meta-analyses in nursing education is increasing. This warrants efforts to improve the quality of research. In addition, guidelines for reporting SRs in the field of nursing education should be constantly updated.

Efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulants for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: protocol for an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

INTRODUCTION

Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have been used in antithrombotic therapy in patients with cancer, and their efficacy and safety have been evaluated in several meta-analyses. Although a large body of findings has accumulated to support the benefit of NOACs for the treatment and prevention of cancer-associated thromboembolism, there is no convincing evidence because of inconsistent results across studies and questionable data quality. Its efficacy and safety remain controversial, especially with regard to the risk of bleeding.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search PubMed, Embase and Web of science, Cochrane Library on 19 April 2022 (searches will be updated until complete) to identify systematic reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses of the efficacy and safety of NOACs for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. The quality of eligible systematic evaluations will be measured by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. For each outcome, if a random effects model is not used, we will extract the data and estimate a 95% CI using the random effects model approach. For each random effects estimate, a 95% prediction interval is calculated. Heterogeneity between studies will be quantified using the I² metric. In addition, if an assessment contains at least three articles, we will reanalyse the assessment using Egger's asymmetry test to detect and visualise possible publication bias in the articles.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No formal ethical approval is required since we will use publicly available data. We will disseminate the findings of the umbrella review through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022342053.

Quality of systematic reviews on timing of complementary feeding for early childhood allergy prevention

BACKGROUND

Only rigorously prepared analyses can provide the highest level of evidence to inform decision-making. Several recent systematic reviews (SRs) examined the hypothesis that the early introduction of specific allergenic complementary foods (CFs) to infants may lead to a lower incidence of one or more allergic outcomes. However, the methodological rigour and quality of reporting of SRs in this area has not yet been systematically evaluated.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched PubMed, Medline (Ovid), and Web of Science Core Collection on 13th January 2022, using a pre-specified and tested search syntax for SRs with RCT evidence on the early introduction of allergenic CFs as a means for allergy prevention in infants and children. We examined the quality and risk of bias (RoB) using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools, examined adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and checked whether certainty of the evidence was assessed.

RESULTS

Twelve SRs were included. Application of both tools resulted in similar overall judgements in terms of direction and extent for nine of the 12 SRs. Nine SRs were found to be of critically low to low quality according to AMSTAR-2 and to be at high RoB according to ROBIS. One SR received a moderate quality rating (AMSTAR-2) and high RoB rating (ROBIS). However, for two SRs, judgements between AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS were at stark variance. Only two SRs fully adhered to the PRISMA checklist. Six SRs evaluated the certainty of the body of RCT evidence. Several SRs failed to consider unpublished studies either by an explicit a priori exclusion or by inadequate search strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Well-conducted SRs are important for decision-making and informing guideline development, the quality of their methodology should therefore be considered. The methodological rigour and the reporting quality of SRs on the timing of CF for allergy prevention must be improved.

REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/7cs4b .

Evaluation of Spin in the Clinical Literature of Suture Tape Augmentation for Ankle Instability

Background

Spin is defined as the use of specific reporting strategies to highlight the beneficial effect of a treatment despite nonsignificant results. The presence of spin in peer-reviewed literature can negatively impact clinical and research practices. The purpose of this study was to identify the quantity and types of spin present in primary studies and systematic reviews using suture tape augmentation for ankle instability as a model.

Methods

This study was conducted per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Each abstract was assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin. Extracted data included study title, authors, publication year, journal, level of evidence, study design, funding, reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and PROSPERO registration. Full texts of systematic reviews were used in the assessment of study quality per A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews Version 2 (AMSTAR 2).

Results

Nineteen studies were included in the final sample. At least 1 type of spin was identified in each study except one (18 of 19, 94.7%). The most common type of spin observed was type 3 ("selective reporting or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention") (6 of 19, 31.6%), The second most reported category of spin was type 4 ("the conclusion claims safety based on non-statistically significant results with a wide confidence interval") (4 of 19, 21.1%). Among systematic reviews, we identified type 5 ("the conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies") in 4 out of 6 (66.7%) of the articles that were included. No significant associations were found between study characteristics and type of spin.

Conclusion

In this exploration of the introduction of a new technology, we identified spin to be highly present in the abstracts of primary studies and systematic reviews concerning suture tape augmentation for ankle instability. Steps should be taken by scientific journals to ensure that spin is minimized in the abstract to accurately reflect the quality of the intervention.

User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary

BACKGROUND

'A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2' (AMSTAR 2) is a validated 16-item scale designed to appraise systematic reviews (SRs) of healthcare interventions and to rate the overall confidence in their results. This commentary aims to describe the challenges with rating of the individual items and the application of AMSTAR 2 from the user perspective.

DISCUSSION

A group of six experienced users (methodologists working in different clinical fields for at least 10 years) identified and discussed the challenges in rating of each item and the general use of AMSTAR 2 to appraise SRs. A group discussion was used to develop recommendations on how users could deal with the identified challenges. We identified various challenges with the content of items 2-16 and with the derivation of the overall confidence ratings on AMSTAR 2. These challenges include the need (1) to provide additional definitions (e.g., what constitutes major deviations from SR protocol on item 2), (2) to choose a rating strategy for multiple conditions on single items (e.g., how to rate item 5 if studies were selected in duplicate, but consensus between two authors was not reported), and (3) to determine rules for deriving the confidence ratings (e.g., what items are critical for such ratings). Based on these challenges we formulated specific recommendations for items 2-16 that AMSTAR 2 users could consider before applying the tool. Our commentary adds to the existing literature by providing the first in-depth examination of the AMSTAR 2 tool from the user perspective. The identified challenges could be addressed by additional decision rules including definitions for ambiguous items and guidance for rating of complex items and derivation of confidence ratings. We recommend that a team consensus regarding such decision rules is required before appraisal procedure begins.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Different Approaches to Appraising Systematic Reviews of Digital Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion Using AMSTAR 2 Tool: Cross-Sectional Study

High-quality systematic reviews (SRs) can strengthen the evidence base for prevention and health promotion. A 16-item AMSTAR 2 tool allows the appraisal of SRs by deriving a confidence rating in their results. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to assess and compare two approaches to appraising 30 SRs of digital interventions for physical activity (PA) promotion using AMSTAR 2. Approach 1 (appraisals with 2/16 items) was used to identify SRs with critically low confidence ratings. Approach 2 (appraisals with all 16 items) was used (1) to derive the confidence ratings, (2) to identify SR strengths and weaknesses, and (3) to compare SR strengths among subgroups of SRs. The appraisal outcomes were summarized and compared using descriptive statistics. Approach 1 was quick (mean of 5 min/SR) at identifying SRs with critically low confidence ratings. Approach 2 was slower (mean of 20 min/SR), but allowed to identify SR strengths and weaknesses. Approach 2 showed that confidence ratings were low to critically low in 29/30 SRs. More strengths were identified in SRs with review protocols relative to SRs without review protocols and in newer SRs (published after AMSTAR 2 release) relative to older SRs. Only two items on AMSTAR 2 can quickly identify SRs with critical weaknesses. Although most SRs received low to critically low confidence ratings, SRs with review protocols and newer SRs tended to have more strengths. Future SRs require review protocols and better adherence to reporting guidelines to improve the confidence in their results.

Metanalyses on metformin's role in pancreatic cancer suffer from severe bias and low data quality - An umbrella review

AIMS

Discrepancies in the preclinical evidence, retrospective studies, and randomized trials evaluating metformin's role in pancreatic cancer are difficult to disentangle. We aimed to critically and systematically examine the quality and sources of heterogeneity between meta-analyses investigating the association between metformin intake and the prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a literature search on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus on October 31, 2021 to identify meta-analyses investigating the impact of metformin treatment on the prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer. Meta-analyses quality was assessed using according to the AMSTAR 2 criteria. We assessed bias in individual studies included in the meta-analyses, with particular attention to immortal time bias and quality of reporting.

RESULTS

Eleven meta-analyses describing 24 individual studies were included. All meta-analyses were rated low (n = 5) or critically low (n = 6) quality. Only 4 followed PRISMA reporting guidelines and only in 5 presented data were sufficient to replicate the analyses. Most meta-analyses combined results from clinical trials and retrospective studies (n = 6); patients with different cancer stages (resectable vs advanced) and from studies with different control group definitions. Immortal time bias was present and not accounted for in most (65.2%) of the individual retrospective studies; almost all (n = 9) meta-analyses failed to identify and correct for this source of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analyses describing the association of metformin use in patients with pancreatic cancer are plagued by various types of bias inherent in retrospective studies. The quality of evidence linking metformin to decreased pancreatic cancer mortality is generally low.

Identifying transdiagnostically relevant risk and protective factors for internalizing psychopathology: An umbrella review of longitudinal meta-analyses

Internalizing mental disorders are highly comorbid with one another, and evidence suggests that etiological processes contributing to these disorders often overlap. This systematic umbrella review aimed to synthesize meta-analytic evidence from observational longitudinal studies to provide a comprehensive overview of potentially modifiable risk and protective factors across the depressive, anxiety, and eating disorder psychopathology domains. Six databases were searched from inception to August 2022. Only meta-analyses of longitudinal studies that accounted for baseline psychopathology (either via exclusion of baseline cases or statistical adjustment for baseline symptoms) were included. Methodological quality of meta-analyses was evaluated using the AMSTAR 2, and quality of evidence for each analysis was rated using GRADE. Study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were conducted in duplicate by independent reviewers. The protocol for this review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020185575). Sixty-one meta-analyses were included, corresponding to 137 meta-analytic estimates for unique risk/protective factor-psychopathology relationships. Most potential risk/protective factors, however, were examined only in relation to depressive psychopathology. Concern over mistakes and self-esteem were the only risk and protective factors, respectively, identified as statistically significant across depressive, anxiety, and eating disorder psychopathology domains. Eight risk factors and four protective factors also emerged as having transdiagnostic relevance across depressive and anxiety domains. Results suggest intervention targets that may be valuable for preventing/treating the spectrum of internalizing psychopathology and reducing comorbidity. However, few factors were identified as transdiagnostically relevant across all three internalizing domains, highlighting the need for more research investigating similar sets of potential risk/protective factors across internalizing domains.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Digital Biomarker-Based Interventions: Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

The introduction of new medical technologies such as sensors has accelerated the process of collecting patient data for relevant clinical decisions, which has led to the introduction of a new technology known as digital biomarkers.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the methodological quality and quality of evidence from meta-analyses of digital biomarker-based interventions.

METHODS

This study follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline for reporting systematic reviews, including original English publications of systematic reviews reporting meta-analyses of clinical outcomes (efficacy and safety endpoints) of digital biomarker-based interventions compared with alternative interventions without digital biomarkers. Imaging or other technologies that do not measure objective physiological or behavioral data were excluded from this study. A literature search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library was conducted, limited to 2019-2020. The quality of the methodology and evidence synthesis of the meta-analyses were assessed using AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations), respectively. This study was funded by the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund of Hungary.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies with 91 reported outcomes were included in the final analysis; 1 (4%), 1 (4%), and 23 (92%) studies had high, low, and critically low methodologic quality, respectively. As many as 6 clinical outcomes (7%) had high-quality evidence and 80 outcomes (88%) had moderate-quality evidence; 5 outcomes (5%) were rated with a low level of certainty, mainly due to risk of bias (85/91, 93%), inconsistency (27/91, 30%), and imprecision (27/91, 30%). There is high-quality evidence of improvements in mortality, transplant risk, cardiac arrhythmia detection, and stroke incidence with cardiac devices, albeit with low reporting quality. High-quality reviews of pedometers reported moderate-quality evidence, including effects on physical activity and BMI. No reports with high-quality evidence and high methodological quality were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers in this field should consider the AMSTAR-2 criteria and GRADE to produce high-quality studies in the future. In addition, patients, clinicians, and policymakers are advised to consider the results of this study before making clinical decisions regarding digital biomarkers to be informed of the degree of certainty of the various interventions investigated in this study. The results of this study should be considered with its limitations, such as the narrow time frame.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/28204.

The impact of funding on the quality and interpretation of systematic reviews of mechanical thrombectomy in stroke patients

BACKGROUND

Funding may impact the quality and findings of systematic reviews (SRs). We aimed to compare the methodological quality of funded and non-funded SRs that investigated the outcomes in ischemic stroke patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search strategy in different databases, including Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline (including epub ahead of print, in-process & other non-indexed citations), PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection to retrieve all relevant SRs. Random sequence generation matched each funded SR with a non-funded one. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-2 tool was used to assess the bias and quality of the included SRs. We also used uni- and multivariate analysis to perform our analysis, and results were expressed in odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

We retrieved 150 articles, which were randomized and matched into 100 SRs, including 50 funded and 50 non-funded studies. By multivariate analysis, we found that including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (OR: 5.7; 95% CI: 1.8-17.8; p = 0.003) and reporting conflict of interests (OR: 5.2; 95 CI: 1.1-24; p = 0.036) were the only significant differences between funded and non-funded SRs. No significant differences were found regarding the overall confidence for low-quality (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.09-3.2; p = 0.49) and moderate/high-quality SRs (OR: 0.17; 95% CI: 0.02-1.87; p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

Funded studies tend to include RCTs more often and report conflict of interests with no significant impact on overall confidence.

Does physical exercise improve the capacity for independent living in people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

To summarise existing systematic reviews which assessed the effects of physical exercise on activities of daily living, walking, balance and visual processing in people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment.

METHODS

In this overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, seven electronic databases were searched to identify eligible reviews published between January 2015 and April 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 30 systematic reviews were identified and included in the overview. The most frequent type of exercise for the intervention group was multimodal exercises. Mind-body exercises, exergames, dance intervention and aerobic exercise were other exercise types. Most of the reviews reported that exercise is significantly effective for improving activities of daily living (SMD 95%CI, from 0.27 to 1.44), walking (SMD 95%CI, from 0.08 to 2.23), balance (SMD 95%CI, from 0.37 to 2.24) and visuospatial function (SMD 95%CI, from 0.16 to 0.51), which are among the most leading determinants of independent living in individuals with dementia or mild cognitive impairment.

CONCLUSION

Evidence has shown that exercise (especially multicomponent exercise programmes including cognitive, physical and multitasking exercises) with sufficient intensity improves the activities of daily living skills. Exercise also improves walking, balance and visual processing, which can provide a more independent life for people with dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Cognitively impaired people should therefore be encouraged to exercise regularly in order to be more independent.

Supplemental data for this article is available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2021.2019192.

The Influence of Sex, Gender, or Age on Outcomes of Digital Technologies for Treatment and Monitoring of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Protocol for an Overview of Systematic Reviews

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common chronic disease that can be treated and monitored with various digital technologies. Digital technologies offer unique opportunities for treating and monitoring people with chronic diseases, but little is known about whether the outcomes of such technologies depend on sex, gender, or age in people with COPD.

Objective

The general objective of this study is to assess the possible influence of sex, gender, or age on outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD through an overview of systematic reviews.

Methods

The study is planned as an overview of systematic reviews. Study reporting is based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines because guidelines for overviews are not available as of this writing. The information sources for the overview will include 4 bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and Web of Science) as well as the bibliographies of the included systematic reviews. The electronic search strategy will be developed and conducted in collaboration with an experienced database specialist. The search results will be presented in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The eligibility of studies is based on the population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) criteria: (1) people with COPD (population), (2) digital technology intervention for treatment or monitoring (intervention), (3) any control group or no control group (comparison), (4) any outcome, and (5) systematic review of randomized controlled trials or non–randomized controlled trials with or without a meta-analysis (study design). Critical appraisal of the included systematic reviews will be performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2). Data will be extracted using a standardized data extraction sheet.

Results

The literature search is scheduled for June 2022. We expect to select the relevant systematic reviews, code the data, and appraise the systematic reviews by December 2022.

Conclusions

There is a growing recognition that the influence of sex, gender, or age should be considered in research design and outcome reporting in the context of health care interventions. Our overview will identify systematic reviews of various digital technologies for treatment or monitoring of COPD. The most interesting aspect of the overview will be to investigate if any systematic reviews considered the influence of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of such digital technologies in COPD. Evidence from the overview could be used to guide more individualized (sex, gender, or age-based) recommendations for the use of digital technologies among people with COPD.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022322924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=322924

Review and Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses on the Management of Pediatric Inguinal Hernias: A Descriptive Study

INTRODUCTION

Research quality in pediatric surgery has been challenged by multiple factors, including the low incidence of some congenital pathologies and rare event rates. With the rapid increase of pediatric surgical literature, there is a need for systematic reviews to synthesize evidence. It is important to assess the quality of these systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to examine the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, using inguinal hernia repair as an index diagnosis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of interventions on inguinal hernia in the pediatric population. The quality reporting was assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tools.

RESULTS

Of 1449 unique reports, 21 studies were included (15 meta-analyses and six systematic reviews). Median percent reported items for PRISMA and AMSTAR 2 were 72.2% and 70.5%, respectively. The least reported items in PRISMA were protocol registration (27.6%), synthesis of results (13.0%), and a risk of bias across studies (20.6%). For AMSTAR 2, the least reported items were reporting of source of funding (14.3%), appropriate methods for statistical combination of results (25.0%), and pre-establishment of protocol (28.6%). All critical items were completely or partially fulfilled in 5/21 (23.8%) of the studies and completely absent in 1/21 (4.8%) studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study highlight relatively good reporting quality, yet a poor methodological quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses in the pediatric surgery literature on inguinal hernia management.

Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the highest level of evidence and inform evidence-based decision making in health care. Earlier studies found association with industry to be negatively associated with methodological quality of SRs. However, this has not been investigated in SRs on vaccines.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE and EMBASE in March 2020. The results were restricted to those published between 2016 and 2019 with no language restrictions. Study characteristics were extracted by one person and checked by an experienced reviewer. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool by multiple reviewers after a calibration exercise was performed. A summary score for each SR was calculated. The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test were performed to compare both groups.

RESULTS

Out of 185 SRs that met all inclusion criteria, 27 SRs were industry funded. Those were matched with 30 non-industry funded SRs resulting in a total sample size of 57. The mean AMSTAR 2 summary score across all SRs was 0.49. Overall, the median AMSTAR 2 summary score was higher for the non-industry funded SRs than for the industry-funded SRs (0.62 vs. 0.36; p < .00001). Lower ratings for industry funded SRs were consistent across all but one AMSTAR 2 item, though significantly lower only for three specific items.

CONCLUSION

The methodological quality of SRs in vaccination is comparable to SRs in other fields, while it is still suboptimal. We are not able to provide a satisfactory explanation why industry funded SRs had a lower methodological quality than non-industry funded SRs over recent years. Industry funding is an important indicator of methodological quality for vaccine SRs and should be carefully considered when appraising SR quality.

Spin within systematic review abstracts on antiplatelet therapies after acute coronary syndrome: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Spin is a reporting practice in which study results are misrepresented by overestimating efficacy or underestimating harm. Prevalence of spin varies between clinical specialties, and estimates are based almost entirely on clinical trials. Little is known about spin in systematic reviews.

DESIGN

We performed a cross-sectional analysis searching MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses pertaining to antiplatelet therapies following acute coronary syndrome on 2 June 2020. Data were extracted evaluating the presence of spin and study characteristics, including methodological quality as rated by A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). All data extraction was conducted in a masked, duplicate manner from 2 June 2020 to 26 June 2020.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Not applicable.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

We assessed abstracts of systematic reviews on antiplatelet therapy following acute coronary syndrome and evaluated the prevalence of the nine most severe types of spin. We additionally explored associations between spin and certain study characteristics, including quality.

RESULTS

Our searches returned 15 263 articles, and 185 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. Of these 185 reviews, 31.9% (59/185) contained some form of spin in the abstract. Seven forms of spin (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9) among the nine most severe were identified. No instances of types 6 or 8 were found. There were no statistically significant relationships between spin and the evaluated study characteristics or AMSTAR-2 appraisals.

CONCLUSIONS

Spin was present in abstracts for systematic reviews and meta-analyses; subsequent studies are needed to identify correlations between spin and specific study characteristics. There were no statistically significant associations between spin and study characteristics or AMSTAR-2 ratings; however, implementing changes will ensure that spin is reduced in the field of cardiology as well as other fields of medicine.

Evaluation of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of superior capsular reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Small, preliminary studies and the systematic reviews on superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) that collate data are at increased risk spin. This study's primary objective was to identify, describe, and account for the incidence of spin in systematic reviews of SCR. This study's secondary objective was to characterize the studies in which spin was identified to determine whether identifiable patterns of characteristics exist among studies with spin.

METHODS

This study was conducted per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a predetermined protocol. A search was conducted on the PubMed and Embase databases for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on SCR. Screening and data extraction were conducted independently by 2 authors. Each included study's abstract was assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin, with full texts reviewed during cases of disagreement or for clarification. General data that were extracted included study title, authors, publication year, journal, level of evidence, study design, funding source, reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines, preregistration of the study protocol, and primary and secondary outcome measures. Full texts were used in the assessment of study quality per AMSTAR 2.

RESULTS

We identified 53 studies during our search, of which 17 met the inclusion criteria. At least 1 form of spin was observed in all 17 studies. The most common types of spin were type 5 ("The conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies") and type 9 ("Conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite reporting bias"), both of which were observed in 11 studies (11 of 17, 65%). A statistically significant association between lower level of evidence and type 5 ("The conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies") was observed (P = .0175). A statistically significant association was also found between more recent year of publication and the spin category misleading interpretation (P = .0398), and between lower AMSTAR 2 score and type 13 ("Failure to specify the direction of the effect when it favors the control intervention") (P = .0260). No other statistical associations between other study characteristics were observed.

CONCLUSION

Spin is highly prevalent in abstracts of SCR systematic reviews and meta-analyses. An association was found between the presence of spin and lower level of evidence, year of publication, and AMSTAR 2 ratings.

New technologies promoting active upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: an overview and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The primary aim of this work was to summarize and compare the effects of active rehabilitation assisted by new technologies (virtual reality [VR], robot-assisted therapy [RAT] and telerehabilitation [TR)) on upper limb motor function and everyday living activity during the subacute and chronic phases of stroke. The secondary aims were to compare the effects of these technologies according to the intervention design (in addition to or in substitution of conventional therapy), the duration of active rehabilitation and the severity of patients' motor impairments.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Several databases, namely PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane Library, were searched. Studies were included if they were meta-analyses with a moderate to high level of confidence (assessed with AMSTAR-2) that compared the effects of a new technology promoting active rehabilitation to that of a conventional therapy program among patients with stroke. Network meta-analyses were conducted to compare the effects of the new technologies.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Eighteen different meta-analyses were selected and fifteen included in the quantitative analysis. In total these 15 meta-analyses were based on 189 different randomized controlled trials. VR (SMD≥0.25; P<0.05), RAT (SMD≥0.29; P≤0.29) and TR (SMD≥-0.08; P≤0.64) were found to be at least as effective as conventional therapy. During the subacute phase, RAT's greatest effect was observed for patients with severe-moderate impairments whereas VR and TR's greatest effects were observed for patients with mild impairments. During the chronic phase, the highest effects were observed for patients with mild impairments, for all studies technologies. Network meta-analyses showed that VR and RAT were both significantly superior to TR in improving motor function during the chronic phase but revealed no significant difference between VR, RAT and TR effectiveness on both motor function (during the subacute phase) and activity (during both chronic and subacute phase).

CONCLUSIONS

This overview provides low-to-moderate evidence that rehabilitation assisted with technologies are at least as effective as conventional therapy for patients with stroke. While VR and RAT seem to be more efficient during the subacute phase, all technologies seem to be as efficient as one another in the chronic phase.

Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Endometrial Cancer - A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment of Meta-Analyses

OBJECTIVE

 To assess the quality of recent meta-analyses reviewing the diagnostic utility of sentinel node biopsy in endometrial cancer.

METHODS

 With the MeSH terms endometrial neoplasms and sentinel lymph node biopsy, PubMed and Embase databases were searched on October 21, 2020, and again on November 10, 2021, with meta-analysis and publication date filters set to since 2015. The articles included were classified with the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) assessment tool.

RESULTS

 The database searches found 17, 7 of which, after the screening, were selected for full review by the author, finally extracting six meta-analyzes for quality analysis. The rating with the AMSTAR 2 assessment tool found that overall confidence in their results was critically low.

CONCLUSION

 This study found that the quality of recent meta-analyses on the utility of the staging of endometrial cancer with sentinel node biopsy, evaluated by the AMSTAR 2 assessment tool, is classified as critically low, and, therefore, these meta-analyses are not reliable in the summary of their studies.

Implementation of a biopsychosocial approach into physiotherapists' practice: a review of systematic reviews to map barriers and facilitators and identify specific behavior change techniques

PURPOSE

Our first objective was to map the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a biopsychosocial approach into physiotherapists' practice within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Our second objective was to identify the specific behavior change techniques (BCT) that could facilitate this implementation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a review of systematic reviews to identify barriers and facilitators to the use of a biopsychosocial approach by physiotherapists and we mapped them within the TDF domains. We then analyzed these domains using the Theory and Techniques tool (TaTT) to identify the most appropriate BCTs for the implementation of a biopsychosocial approach into physiotherapists' practice.

RESULTS

The barriers and facilitators to the use of a biopsychosocial approach by physiotherapists were mapped to 10 domains of the TDF (Knowledge; skills; professional role; beliefs about capabilities; beliefs about consequences; intentions; memory, attention and decision processes; environmental context; social influences; emotion). The inclusion of these domains within the TaTT resulted in the identification of 33 BCTs that could foster the use of this approach by physiotherapists.

CONCLUSIONS

Investigating the implementation of a biopsychosocial approach into physiotherapists' practice from a behavior change perspective provides new strategies that can contribute to successfully implement this approach.Implications for RehabilitationThe implementation of a biopsychosocial approach into physiotherapists' practice is a complex process which involves behavior changes influenced by several barriers and facilitators.Barriers and facilitators reported by physiotherapists when implementing a biopsychosocial approach can be mapped within 10 domains of the Theoretical Domain Framework.Thirty-three behavior change techniques (e.g., verbal persuasion about capability, problem solving, restructuring the physical environment, etc.) were identified to foster the implementation of a biopsychosocial approach and specifically target barriers and facilitators.By using a behavior change perspective, this study highlights new strategies and avenues that can support current efforts to successfully implement the use of a biopsychosocial approach into physiotherapists' practice.