Critical quality evaluation of network meta-analyses in dental care

Methodological quality of network meta-analysis in dentistry: a meta-research

This meta-research aimed to provide an overview of the methodological quality and risk of bias of network meta-analyses (NMA) in dentistry. Searches for NMA of randomized clinical trials with clinical outcomes in dentistry were performed in databases up to January 2022. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts, selected full texts, and extracted the data. The adherence to PRISMA-NMA reporting guideline, the AMSTAR-2 methodological quality tool, and the ROBIS risk of bias tool were assessed in the studies. Correlation between the PRISMA-NMA adherence and the AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS results was also investigated. Sixty-two NMA studies were included and presented varied methodological quality. According to AMSTAR-2, half of the NMA presented moderate quality (n = 32; 51.6%). The adherence to PRISMA-NMA also varied. Only 36 studies (58.1%) prospectively registered the protocol. Other issues lacking of reporting were data related were data related to the NMA geometry and the assessment of results consistency, and the evaluation of risk of bias across the studies. ROBIS assessment showed a high risk of bias mainly for domains 1 (study eligibility criteria) and 2 (identification and selection of studies). Correlation coefficients between the PRISMA-NMA adherence and the AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS results showed moderate correlation (rho < 0.6). Overall, NMA studies in dentistry were of moderate quality and at high risk of bias in several domains, especially study selection. Future reviews should be better planned and conducted and have higher compliance with reporting and quality assessment tools.

Reporting quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) for NMA checklist.

METHODS

The current investigation extends a recently published study in the International Endodontic Journal (Nagendrababu V, Faggion Jr CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PM Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics. International Endodontic Journal 2022;55:393-404) that assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. In the present study, the PRISMA for NMA checklist with 32 items was used to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews with NMAs (n = 12). Two independent assessors assigned '1' when an item was completely addressed, '0.5' when it was partially addressed, and '0' when it was not addressed. Disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion until consensus was reached. If conflicts persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The PRISMA for NMA scores were shared with the relevant authors of the individual reviews to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and verify the scores assigned. The results for each individual item of the PRISMA-NMA items were calculated by summing the individual scores awarded; the maximum score for each item was 12.

RESULTS

All the systematic reviews with NMAs adequately reported the following items: Title, Introduction section (Objectives), Methods section (Eligibility criteria and Information sources), Results section (Study selection, Study characteristics and Risk of bias within studies), and Discussion section (Summary of evidence). The items that were reported least often were the "geometry of the network" and "the summary of network geometry" with only 2 manuscripts (17%) including these items.

CONCLUSION

A number of the items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist were adequately addressed in the NMAs; however, none adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. The inadequacies of published NMAs that have been identified should be taken into consideration by authors of NMAs in Endodontics and by editors when managing the peer review process. In future, researchers who are writing systematic reviews with NMAs should comply with the PRISMA-NMA checklist.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

None of the included systematic reviews with NMA adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. Inadequate reporting of a systematic review with NMA increases the possibility that it will provide invalid results. Therefore, authors should follow the PRISMA-NMA guidelines when reporting systematic reviews with NMA in Endodontics.

Evaluation of the Reporting Standard Guidelines of Network Meta-Analyses in Physical Therapy: A Systematic Review

The concept of network meta-analyses (NMA) has been introduced to the field of physical therapy. However, the reporting standard guidelines of these studies have not been evaluated. In this systematic review, we included all published NMA physical therapy studies that compared the clinical efficacy of three or more interventions to evaluate whether NMAs in physical therapy exhibit adequate reporting recommendations. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to 30 June 2022. Among the 252 identified articles, 19 NMAs including 805 randomized controlled trials were included. We applied both preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) and PRISMA-NMA checklists, which are 27- and 32-item reporting standard guidelines assessment tools, respectively. Protocol registrations (68.4%), risk of bias across studies (63.2%), additional analysis (57.9%), and funding (31.6%) were problematic items considering the PRISMA guidelines. Four studies reported all five new NMA-reporting items, and 15 (78.9%) did not address items S1-5 from the PRISMA-NMA guidelines. The median score (interquartile range) of the reporting standard guidelines was 27.0 (25.8-28.0). The identified shortcomings of published NMAs should be addressed while training researchers, and they should be encouraged to apply PRISMA-NMA, as a recognized tool for assessing NMA reporting guidelines is required.

Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics

AIM

The aims of the study were to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR 2) tool, and to evaluate the overall confidence in the results of the individual reviews included in the analysis.

METHODOLOGY

Systematic reviews with NMAs within the specialty of Endodontics published in English were identified from the PubMed, EbBSCOhost and SCOPUS databases from inception to July 2021. Two reviewers were involved independently in the selection of the reviews, data extraction, methodological quality assessment and overall confidence rating. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the reviewers to achieve consensus; if disagreements persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The methodological quality of the included NMAs was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, which contains 16 items. The reviewers scored each item - 'Yes' - when the item was fully addressed, 'Partial Yes' - when the item was not fully addressed, or 'No' - when the item was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low' or 'Critically low' based on the criteria reported by the AMSTAR 2 developers.

RESULTS

Twelve systematic reviews with NMAs were included. All the NMAs adequately reported Item 1 ("Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?"), Item 8 ("Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?"), Item 9 ("Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?") and Item 16 ("Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?") , whereas only one NMA reported Item 10 adequately ("Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?"). The overall confidence in the results of eight reviews was categorised as "Critically low", one review was "Low", two reviews were "Moderate" and one review was "High".

CONCLUSION

The overall confidence in the results for the majority of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics was judged to be 'Critically low' as their methodological quality was below the necessary standard. AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA for NMA guidelines are available to guide authors to produce high quality systematic reviews with NMAs and for Editors and peer-reviewers when assessing submissions to journals.

Do reporting guidelines have an impact? Empirical assessment of changes in reporting before and after the PRISMA extension statement for network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for network meta-analysis (NMA) published in 2015 promotes comprehensive reporting in published systematic reviews with NMA. PRISMA-NMA includes 32 items: 27 core items as indicated in the 2009 PRISMA Statement and five items specific to the reporting of NMAs. Although NMA reporting is improving, it is unclear whether PRISMA-NMA has accelerated this improvement. We aimed to investigate the impact of PRISMA-NMA and highlight key items that require attention and improvement.

METHODS

We updated our previous collection of NMAs with articles published between April 2015 and July 2018. We assessed the completeness of reporting for each NMA, including main manuscript and online supplements, using the PRISMA-NMA checklist. The PRISMA-NMA checklist originally includes 32 total items (i.e. a 32-point scale original PRISMA-NMA score). We also prepared a modified version of the PRISMA-NMA checklist with 49 items to evaluate separately at a more granular level all multiple-content items (i.e. a 49-point scale modified PRISMA-NMA score). We compared average reporting scores of articles published until and after 2015.

RESULTS

In the 1144 included NMAs the mean modified PRISMA-NMA score was 32.1 (95% CI 31.8-32.4) of a possible 49-excellence-score. For 1-year increase, the mean modified score increased by 0.96 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.59) for 389 NMAs published until 2015 and by 0.53 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.04) for 755 NMAs published after 2015. The mean modified PRISMA-NMA score for NMAs published after 2015 was higher by 0.81 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.39) compared to before 2015 when adjusting for journal impact factor, type of review, funding, and treatment category. Description of summary effect sizes to be used, presentation of individual study data, sources of funding for the systematic review, and role of funders dropped in frequency after 2015 by 6-16%.

CONCLUSIONS

NMAs published after 2015 more frequently reported the five items associated with NMA compared to those published until 2015. However, improvement in reporting after 2015 is compatible with that observed on a yearly basis until 2015, and hence, it could not be attributed solely to the publication of the PRISMA-NMA.

Critical evaluation of reporting quality of network meta-analyses assessing the effectiveness of acupuncture

BACKGROUND

and purpose: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) comparing the effectiveness of multiple acupuncture have been published but the key concepts underlying NMAs have not been properly reported. This critical evaluation aims to assess the completeness of reporting for NMAs of acupuncture to enhance the validity of findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five databases were searched. The characteristics and reporting quality based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension Statement for reporting of NMA (PRISMA-NMA) were evaluated. NMAs were categorized into two groups according to the publication date, reporting guideline, and intervention. The group differences and correlation coefficients were calculated.

RESULTS

Forty-two NMAs of acupuncture were evaluated. The reporting quality for new items in the key concepts of NMAs was low (median 70.0 % (interquartile range 60.0-80.0)). While the issue of consistency was well reported, the assumption of transitivity and network geometry showed poor reporting. Seventeen studies that followed the PRISMA-NMA guideline showed a higher reporting rate for essential concepts of NMA. The recency of publication did not guarantee clear reporting.

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of NMAs of acupuncture was low. The researchers should follow the guidelines on the reporting of NMAs.

The efficacy of novel metabolic targeted agents and natural plant drugs for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease treatment: A PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a highly prevalent chronic liver disease characterized by excess accumulation of fat in hepatocytes. Because no drug has been approved for NAFLD treatment, this work analyzed the effects of agents resulting from 2 research hotspots, metabolic target agents, and natural plant drugs, on NAFLD with network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Public databases were searched through August 14, 2020. Randomized controlled trials that compared obeticholic acid, elafibranor, cenicriviroc, selonsertib, curcumin, silymarin, and resveratrol to placebo were included. Liver pathology improvement, hepatic biochemical indicators, and lipid metabolism indicators were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were included in the meta-analysis. Obeticholic acid was found to significantly increase the frequency of liver biopsy improvement compared to placebo (OR: 2.10; 95% CI: 1.60, 2.77). The ranking results among the hepatic biochemical indicators showed that obeticholic acid (94.9%) and elafibranor (86.3%) have a relative advantage in reducing alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, and obeticholic acid also had an advantage (95.4%) in reducing aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels. Considering lipid metabolic indicators, elafibranor (expSMD: 0.01; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.05; SUCRA: 100%), and obeticholic acid (expSMD: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.28,0.84; SUCRA: 75.6%) significantly reduced triglyceride (TG) levels compared with placebo; moreover, obeticholic acid, but not elafibranor, caused a serious increase in total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and a decrease in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel metabolic targeted agents generally have better effects than natural plant drugs, especially obeticholic acid, and elafibranor. However, obeticholic acid showed serious adverse effects such as increasing LDL-C levels and decreasing HDL-C levels. Curcumin showed potential advantages for NAFLD but lacked statistical significance.

Treatment options for large posterior restorations: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The best treatment option for large caries in permanent posterior teeth is still a matter of uncertainty in dental literature. The authors conducted a network meta-analysis to address the challenges related to rehabilitation of these teeth.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors selected prospective and retrospective studies that compared at least 2 different treatment alternatives for permanent teeth with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up. The authors searched databases from MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science in October 2019 without language or year of publication restrictions.

RESULTS

From 11,263 studies identified, 43 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. Only 13 studies were randomized controlled trials and were classified as low risk of bias. Gold (annual failure rate of 0.29%) and metal ceramic (annual failure rate of 0.52%) crowns performed better for indirect restorations and direct resin composite performed better for direct restorations (annual failure rate of 2.19%). The most substantial comparisons were between feldspathic and glass ceramics, followed by direct resin composite and amalgam; there were no statistically significant differences between these interventions. Results of the pairwise meta-analysis showed mainly glass ionomer as significantly more prone to failure than amalgam and direct composite resin.

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Reference standard direct and indirect materials except for glass ionomer can be used for restorations of large posterior caries.