Quality and Reporting Completeness of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Dermatology

How to Prevent Atopic Dermatitis (Eczema) in 2024: Theory and Evidence

Atopic dermatitis (AD) or eczema is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by dry, itchy, and inflamed skin. We review emerging concepts and clinical evidence addressing the pathogenesis and prevention of AD. We examine several interventions ranging from skin barrier enhancement strategies to probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics; and conversely, from antimicrobial exposure to vitamin D and omega fatty acid supplementation; breastfeeding and hydrolyzed formula; and house dust mite avoidance and immunotherapy. We appraise the available evidence base within the context of the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We also contextualize our findings in relation to concepts relating AD and individual-patient allergic life trajectories versus a linear concept of the atopic march and provide insights into future knowledge gaps and clinical trial design considerations that must be addressed in forthcoming research. Finally, we provide implementation considerations to detect population-level differences in AD risk. Major international efforts are required to provide definitive evidence regarding what works and what does not for preventing AD.

The Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines Focused on the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma: Cross-Sectional Analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) inform evidence-based decision-making in the clinical setting; however, systematic reviews (SRs) that inform these CPGs may vary in terms of reporting and methodological quality, which affects confidence in summary effect estimates.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to appraise the methodological and reporting quality of the SRs used in CPGs for cutaneous melanoma and evaluate differences in these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis by searching PubMed for cutaneous melanoma guidelines published between January 1, 2015, and May 21, 2021. Next, we extracted SRs composing these guidelines and appraised their reporting and methodological rigor using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) checklists. Lastly, we compared these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs. All screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion.

RESULTS

Of the SRs appraised, the mean completion rate was 66.5% (SD 12.29%) for the PRISMA checklist and 44.5% (SD 21.05%) for AMSTAR. The majority of SRs (19/50, 53%) were of critically low methodological quality, with no SRs being appraised as high quality. There was a statistically significant association (P<.001) between AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. Cochrane SRs had higher PRISMA mean completion rates and higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane SRs.

CONCLUSIONS

SRs supporting CPGs focused on the management of cutaneous melanoma vary in reporting and methodological quality, with the majority of SRs being of low quality. Increasing adherence to PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists will likely increase the quality of SRs, thereby increasing the level of evidence supporting cutaneous melanoma CPGs.

How to critically appraise a systematic review: an aide for the reader and reviewer

The number of published systematic reviews has soared rapidly in recent years. Sadly, the quality of most systematic reviews in dermatology is substandard. With the continued increase in exposure to systematic reviews, and their potential to influence clinical practice, we sought to describe a sequence of useful tips for the busy clinician reader to determine study quality and clinical utility. Important factors to consider when assessing systematic reviews include: determining the motivation to performing the study, establishing if the study protocol was prepublished, assessing quality of reporting using the PRISMA checklist, assessing study quality using the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal checklist, assessing for evidence of spin, and summarizing the main strengths and limitations of the study to determine if it could change clinical practice. Having a set of heuristics to consider when reading systematic reviews serves to save time, enabling assessment of quality in a structured way, and come to a prompt conclusion of the merits of a review article in order to inform the care of dermatology patients.

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 .

A systematic evaluation of methodological and reporting quality of meta-analysis published in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of published meta-analyses (MAs) in four major gastrointestinal endoscopic journals, and identify the predicted factors for high quality.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed to identify MAs from 1, January, 2016 to 31, December, 2020 in four major gastrointestinal endoscopic journals (including Digestive Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Surgical Endoscopy, and Endoscopy). We collected the characteristics of MAs after filtering unqualified articles, and assessed methodological and reporting qualities for eligible articles by AMSTAR tool and PRISMA checklist, respectively. Logistic regression was used for identifying predictive factors for high quality.

RESULTS

A total of 289 MAs were identified after screening by predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The scores (mean ± SD) of AMSTAR and PRISMA were 7.73 ± 1.11 and 22.90 ± 1.85, respectively. In PRISMA checklist, some items had less than 50% complete adherence, including item 2 (structured summary), items 5 (protocol and registration), items 12 and 19 (risk of bias in studies), item 27 (funding support). Item 1 (a priori design), item 4 (gray literature research), item 5 (list of included and excluded) were inferior to 50% adherence in AMSTAR tool. We found the predictive factors for high quality through logistic regression analysis: a priori design and funding support were associated with methodological quality. Protocol and registration influenced the methodological and reporting quality closely.

CONCLUSION

In general, qualities on the methodology and the reporting of MAs published in the gastrointestinal endoscopic journals are good, but both of which still potentially need further improvement.