The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

Current risks of byssinosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in textile workers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The textile manufacturing sector is a major contributor to the economies of several emergent economies in the global South. Respiratory disease, including byssinosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), among textile workers appears to be common in this setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Notably, little or no contemporary research has been published from countries, which are major global producers of textiles. Most recent epidemiological studies are of a cross-sectional design, with deficiencies that repeat those of research in this area over the past 20 years and do little to advance the cause of prevention. Their estimates of disease prevalence vary wildly for reasons that are unclear. An important exception was the publication of a successful, randomized trial of a low-cost intervention, the first in this field.

SUMMARY

Research into the respiratory problems of textile work needs to embrace modern approaches to the understanding of (occupational) COPD and move beyond the estimation of disease prevalence. There is an important need for cheaper and simpler techniques for workplace dust measurement. Occupational health researchers should pool their skills, resources and protocols towards the prevention of a problem that is common to many low- and middle-income economies.

Search filters for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in sleep medicine

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are increasingly common in sleep research, although the methodological quality level has been a matter of concern. Efforts towards methodological standardization are needed to ensure the reliability of sleep-related systematic reviews. The development of search strategies is a critical step in a systematic review, which often lead to methodological biases. Standardized search filters have been used to facilitate the development of search strategies. However, such filters have not been developed for sleep medicine. The current study aimed at developing a list of PubMed search filters related to sleep medicine, including specific search strategies for different sleep disorders and sleep conditions. First, a list of sleep disorders and conditions was created for which search filters would be developed. This included most conditions listed in the International Classification of Sleep Disorders - 3rd edition. Additional search filters were developed for proposed disorders not recognized as independent clinical entities, and for other sleep-related conditions. All search strategies were designed specifically for PubMed, by combining relevant MeSH terms and free terms. Nine fully independent and unrelated MeSH terms related to sleep were identified. In total, 91 search filters were developed, related to 71 different sleep-related conditions. With the current work, we aimed to provide a list of reliable search filters organized to cover the field in a broad manner, therefore being useful for different types of systematic reviews within sleep medicine, ranging from narrow-focused meta-analyses to broader scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and meta-epidemiological studies.

Use of Digital Health Technologies for Dementia Care: Bibliometric Analysis and Report

BACKGROUND

Dementia is a syndrome that compromises neurocognitive functions of the individual and that is affecting 55 million individuals globally, as well as global health care systems, national economic systems, and family members.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the status quo of scientific production on use of digital health technologies (DHTs) to support (older) people living with dementia, their families, and care partners. In addition, our study aimed to map the current landscape of global research initiatives on DHTs on the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and support of people living with dementia and their caregivers.

METHODS

A bibliometric analysis was performed as part of a systematic review protocol using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Epistemonikos, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar for systematic and scoping reviews on DHTs and dementia up to February 21, 2024. Search terms included various forms of dementia and DHTs. Two independent reviewers conducted a 2-stage screening process with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Eligible reviews were then subjected to a bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer to evaluate document types, authorship, countries, institutions, journal sources, references, and keywords, creating social network maps to visualize emergent research trends.

RESULTS

A total of 704 records met the inclusion criteria for bibliometric analysis. Most reviews were systematic, with a substantial number covering mobile health, telehealth, and computer-based cognitive interventions. Bibliometric analysis revealed that the Journal of Medical Internet Research had the highest number of reviews and citations. Researchers from 66 countries contributed, with the United Kingdom and the United States as the most prolific. Overall, the number of publications covering the intersection of DHTs and dementia has increased steadily over time. However, the diversity of reviews conducted on a single topic has resulted in duplicated scientific efforts. Our assessment of contributions from countries, institutions, and key stakeholders reveals significant trends and knowledge gaps, particularly highlighting the dominance of high-income countries in this research domain. Furthermore, our findings emphasize the critical importance of interdisciplinary, collaborative teams and offer clear directions for future research, especially in underrepresented regions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows a steady increase in dementia- and DHT-related publications, particularly in areas such as mobile health, virtual reality, artificial intelligence, and sensor-based technologies interventions. This increase underscores the importance of systematic approaches and interdisciplinary collaborations, while identifying knowledge gaps, especially in lower-income regions. It is crucial that researchers worldwide adhere to evidence-based medicine principles to avoid duplication of efforts. This analysis offers a valuable foundation for policy makers and academics, emphasizing the need for an international collaborative task force to address knowledge gaps and advance dementia care globally.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42024511241; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=511241.

A boost to concentration or a distracting noise? A systematic review of surgeon and anaesthetist perspectives of the benefit of intra-operative music

BACKGROUND

The surgical team should be as harmonious and focussed as possible in the operating theatre. Whilst there is evidence of benefit for the use of music in the perioperative period for patient, little exists to inform of impact on those doing the surgery or anaesthesia. This review focuses on the perspectives of surgeons and anaesthetists, their views and opinions on the effect and impact of music during surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using narrative synthesis. The PRISMA guidelines were followed with the use of PICO and PRISMA guided search strategy. PubMed, CINAHL and Medline were searched but filtered to only published English language papers.

RESULTS

Of 329 papers identified 42 duplicates were removed. 287 were screened; of which 276 were excluded and 11 sought for retrieval. Of these, 8 were excluded for wrong population or study design, leaving 3 for analysis. Narrative synthesis revealed three themes to guide discussion: (1) Views of surgeons and anaesthetists and the effect on music; (2) effect of music on other staff members; and (3) differences in music choices and balance of power.

CONCLUSION

Music has an overall beneficial effect on surgeons and anaesthetists, especially with regards improved concentration. As an intervention, it has global generalisability and requires little resource. Investigation across different surgical specialities and use of flexible control models in terms of choosing music is a natural subsequent research question.

Connecting the dots in neuroscience research: The future of evidence synthesis

Making progress in neuroscience research involves learning from existing data. In this perspective piece, we explore the potential of a data-driven evidence ecosystem to connect all primary data streams, and synthesis efforts to inform evidence-based research and translational success from bench to bedside. To enable this transformation, we set out how we can produce evidence designed with evidence curation in mind. All data should be findable, understandable, and easily synthesisable, using a combination of human and machine effort. This will require shifts in research culture and tailored infrastructure to support rapid dissemination, data sharing, and transparency. We also discuss improvements in the way we can synthesise evidence to better inform primary research, including the potential of emerging technologies, big-data approaches, and breaking down research silos. Through a case study in stroke research, one of the most well-established areas for synthesis efforts, we demonstrate the progress in implementing elements of this ecosystem, with an emphasis on the need for coordinated efforts between laboratory researchers and synthesists.

Assessing methodological quality of systematic reviews with meta-analysis about clinical pharmacy services: A sensitivity analysis of AMSTAR-2

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are critical for evidence-based healthcare decisions, but their validity depends on the quality of conduct and reporting. AMSTAR-2, a widely used tool for assessing the quality of systematic reviews, identifies seven critical domains influencing review validity, although its developers recommend flexibility in prioritizing these domains. To date, no studies have analyzed the impact of this change on systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SRMAs) evaluating clinical pharmacy services.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality of SRMAs on clinical pharmacy services and the effect of modifying AMSTAR-2 domains criticality on quality assessment.

METHODS

Systematic searches (updated January 1, 2023) were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify SRMAs reporting the effects of clinical pharmacy services. Manual reference list searches of included studies were also performed. The methodological quality of SRMAs was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Changes in the overall classification of each SRMA were analyzed by hypothetically removing the critical designation for domains in the original tool.

RESULTS

Out of 153 eligible SRMAs, 138 (90.2 %) were classified as critically low quality, 13 (8.5 %) as low quality, and 2 (1.3 %) as moderate quality. Despite slight improvement in methodological quality over time, this change was not directly linked to the creation of various reporting and conducting guidelines and registries. Our analysis showed that the hypothetical removal of the criticality of each AMSTAR-2 domain did not significantly impact the overall quality assessment. Furthermore, all critical domains in AMSTAR-2 are considered essential in the field of pharmacy practice.

CONCLUSION

Most SRMAs on clinical pharmacy services were classified as low or critically low quality and modifying the AMSTAR-2 domain criticality did not improve these assessments. Researchers, journal editors, and peer reviewers must work to enhance SRMAs quality, which are crucial for providing robust evidence for pharmaceutical services.

Two decades of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in health research: a bibliometric analysis

Introduction: We conducted a twenty-year bibliometric analysis of scientific literature, focusing on the trends of The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) use in health research.

Methods: We retrieved 3'467 documents published between 2002 and 2022, sourced from the Web of Science Core Collection database. We used the Bibliometrix and VoSviewer tools for descriptive analyses and data visualization.

Results: Our findings indicate a significant increase in ICF application since 2011, with an average annual growth rate of 13.19%. Prominent contributions were observed globally, with notable outputs from the U.S., Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. The Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, Swiss Paraplegic Research, and McMaster University authored a quarter of the documents (24.6%). Collaboration networks of countries and institutions revealed robust partnerships, particularly between Germany and Switzerland. "Rehabilitation" was the most frequently occurring keyword, although a thematic shift towards epidemiology, aging, and health-related quality of life was observed post-2020. While rehabilitation remained the primary thematic focus, literature post-2020 highlighted epidemiology as a growing area of interest.

Conclusions: A steady increase in ICF-based research mirrors the rising interest in a biopsychosocial and person-centered approach to healthcare. However, the literature is primarily produced by high-resource countries, with underrepresentation from low and middle-resource countries, suggesting an area of future research to address this discrepancy.

Incomplete reporting of adverse events in duloxetine trials: a meta-research survey of randomized controlled trials vs placebo

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Relying on published data alone might be insufficient for meta-analyses to be reliable and trustworthy since selective outcome reporting is common, especially for adverse events (AEs). We investigated the existence of selective reporting and its potential for bias in a case study exploring AEs of duloxetine in adults.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We systematically searched all previous meta-analyses/pooled analyses on duloxetine published on PubMed for seven indications approved by the American and European health authorities. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) vs placebo. For each RCT, we extracted the number of serious adverse events (SAEs), AEs, drop-outs (DOs) and drop-outs for safety reasons (DOSRs) using four information sources: published articles, clinical study registries, clinical study reports and data available in meta-analyses/pooled analyses. To assess the range of differences resulting from these four extraction strategies, we performed 4 meta-analyses using random effect models as well as a complete meta-analysis combining all sources.

RESULTS

A total of 70 RCTs (including 24,330 patients) were included. Of those, SAEs were identified for 42 studies (61%) in published articles, 58 (84%) in study reports (8 study reports were not retrieved), 24 (34.7%) in registries, and 21 (30.4%) in meta-analyses/pooled analyses. For 2 (2.9%), 2 (2.9%), 2 (2.9%) and 1 (1.4%) studies, we found respectively no data on SAEs, AEs, DOs, and DOSRs in any sources. Discrepant results across sources were found in 24 (34.5%), 20 (28.5%), 13 (18.6%), and 9 (12.8%) studies, respectively for SAEs, AEs, DOs, and DOSRs. Despite variations in point estimates and their 95% confidence intervals, we did not find different results in the conclusions of meta-analyses depending on the different information sources used, except for DOs, for which no effect was found using results published in registries, in contrast to other information sources.

CONCLUSION

None of the four information sources provided complete retrieval of safety results for duloxetine in adults across various indications. However, we did not find strong evidence that this underreporting leads to different conclusions in meta-analyses. Nonetheless, this finding remains uncertain, as we were unable to obtain complete information for all studies despite extensive searches.

Quality, topics, and demographic trends of animal systematic reviews - an umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Animal systematic reviews are critical to inform translational research. Despite their growing popularity, there is a notable lack of information on their quality, scope, and geographical distribution over time. Addressing this gap is important to maintain their effectiveness in fostering medical advancements.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the quality and demographic trends of animal systematic reviews in neuroscience, including changes over time.

METHODS

We performed an umbrella review of animal systematic reviews, searching Medline and Embase for reviews until January 27, 2023. A data mining method was developed and validated to automatically evaluate the quality of these reviews.

RESULTS

From 18'065 records identified, we included 1'358 animal systematic reviews in our study. These reviews commonly focus on translational research but with notable topical gaps such as schizophrenia, other psychiatric disorders, and brain tumours. They originate from 64 countries, with the United States, China, the UK, Brazil, and Iran being the most prolific. The automated quality assessment indicated high reliability, with F1-scores over 80% for most criteria. Overall, the reviews were of high quality and the quality improved over time. However, many systematic reviews did not report a pre-registered study protocol. Reviews with a pre-registered protocol generally scored higher in quality. No significant differences in quality were observed between countries.

CONCLUSION

Animal systematic reviews in neuroscience are of overall of high quality. Our study highlights specific areas for enhancement such as the recommended pre-publication of study protocols. It also identifies under-represented topics that could benefit from further investigation to inform translational research. Such measures can contribute to the effective translation of animal research findings to clinical applications.

Quality assessment of critical and non-critical domains of systematic reviews on artificial intelligence in gliomas using AMSTAR II: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Gliomas are the most common primary malignant intraparenchymal brain tumors with a dismal prognosis. With growing advances in artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning models are being utilized for preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative neurological decision-making. We aimed to compile published literature in one format and evaluate the quality of level 1a evidence currently available.

METHODOLOGY

Using PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted within databases including Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, and records with the application of artificial intelligence in glioma management were included. The AMSTAR 2 tool was used to assess the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses by two independent researchers.

RESULTS

From 812 studies, 23 studies were included. AMSTAR II appraised most reviews as either low or critically low in quality. Most reviews failed to deliver in critical domains related to the exclusion of studies, appropriateness of meta-analytical methods, and assessment of publication bias. Similarly, compliance was lowest in non-critical areas related to study design selection and the disclosure of funding sources in individual records. Evidence is moderate to low in quality in reviews on multiple neuro-oncological applications, low quality in glioma diagnosis and individual molecular markers like MGMT promoter methylation status, IDH, and 1p19q identification, and critically low in tumor segmentation, glioma grading, and multiple molecular markers identification.

CONCLUSION

AMSTAR 2 is a robust tool to identify high-quality systematic reviews. There is a paucity of high-quality systematic reviews on the utility of artificial intelligence in glioma management, with some demonstrating critically low quality. Therefore, caution must be exercised when drawing inferences from these results.

Systematic review and meta-analysis use in the field of spinal cord injury research: A bibliometric analysis

OBJECTIVE

To subvert issues of low sample sizes and high attrition rates and generate epidemiologically-sound evidence, collaborative research-through international consortia and multi-centric studies-and meta-analysis approaches are encouraged in spinal cord injury (SCI) research. We investigated the use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMA) methodology in SCI research and evaluated the quality of evidence across publications we identified.

METHODS

We searched the Web of Science Core Collection database by topic without time or language restrictions through 16 December 2022. We identified additional relevant articles through Embase.com. SRMA including human and animal SCI populations were eligible for inclusion. We analyzed data using Bibliometrix and VOSviewer. We used the JBI tool (former Joanna Briggs Institute) to assess methodological quality of a subset of 50 randomly selected articles.

RESULTS

We based our analysis on data from 1'224 documents authored by 5'237 scholars and published in 424 sources between 1985 and 2022. The use of SRMA methodology in the field gained momentum in 2009 and a steady increase followed with an annual growth rate of ≈15%. Our findings indicate major research themes in the field include recovery, SCI management, rehabilitation, and quality of life. Over the past 30 years there has been a shift from SRMA concerning functional recovery, secondary health complications, and quality of life toward biomarkers and neuro-regeneration. The major methodological issues across articles we evaluated included opaquely described search strategies, poorly reported critical appraisals, and insufficiently addressing publication bias. In addition, only one-fifth of articles reported review protocol registration.

CONCLUSIONS

Our bibliometric analysis clearly shows a rapid increase of SRMA applications in SCI research. We discuss the most important methodological concerns we identified among a randomly selected set of articles and provide guidance for improving adherence to methodological and reporting SRMA guidelines.

Assessing Adherence to the PRISMA-DTA Guideline in Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Reviews: A Five-Year Follow-up Analysis

BACKGROUND

We evaluated reporting of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) systematic reviews using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-DTA and PRISMA-DTA for abstracts.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE for recent DTA systematic reviews (September 2023-Mar 2024) to achieve a sample size of 100. Analyses evaluated adherence to PRISMA-DTA (and abstracts), on a per-item basis. Association of reporting with journal, country, impact factor (IF), index-test type, subspecialty area, use of supplemental material, PRISMA citation, word count, and PRISMA adoption was evaluated. Comparison to the baseline evaluation from 2019 was done. Protocol: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/P25TE.

RESULTS

Overall adherence (n = 100) was 78% (20.3/26.0 items, SD = 2.0) for PRISMA-DTA and 52% (5.7/11.0 items, SD = 1.6) for abstracts. Infrequently reported items (<33% of studies): eligibility criteria, definitions for data extraction, synthesis of results, and characteristics of the included studies. Infrequently reported items in abstracts were characteristics of the included studies, strengths and limitations, and funding. Reporting completeness for full text was minimally higher in studies in higher IF journals [20.7 vs 19.8 items; 95% confidence interval (95%CI) (0.09; 1.77)], as well as studies that cited PRISMA [21.1 vs 20.1 items; 95%CI (0.04; 1.95)], or used supplemental material (20.7 vs 19.2 items; 95%CI (0.63; 2.35)]. Variability in reporting was not associated with author country, journal, abstract word count limitations, PRISMA adoption, structured abstracts, study design, subspecialty, open-access status, or index test. No association with word counts was observed among full text or abstracts. Compared to the baseline evaluation, reporting was improved for full texts [71% to 78%; 95%CI (1.18; 2.26)] but not for abstracts [50% to 52%; 95%CI (-0.20; 0.60)].

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the baseline evaluation published in 2019, we observed modest improved adherence to PRISMA-DTA and no improvement in PRISMA-DTA for abstracts reporting.

):

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become crucial for evidence-based decision-making in recent decades. However, it is common for the results of multiple reviews on the same topic to be inconsistent, and it is widely recognised that the results of the reviews are not always effectively communicated to healthcare professionals and the lay public. This manuscript proposes a strategy to summarise and communicate the findings of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses to wider audiences. The proposed approach couples the findings of umbrella reviews with the creation of open-access online platforms that present the results of these umbrella reviews in an accessible way to various stakeholders. The key potential methodological avenues of this approach are presented, and specific examples from the author's own works and those from other teams are provided. An accompanying website (https://u-reach.org/) has been designed to present this Umbrella-Review, Evaluation, Analysis, and Communication Hub (U-REACH) approach and to overcome the technical challenges associated with this type of project (by sharing the code used to build existing U-REACH projects). The present document is intended to serve as a methodological and technical guide for the creation of large-scale projects designed to synthesise and disseminate scientific information to a broad audience.

The first-person effect. A reconsideration of two meta-analyses

The third-person effect describes a tendency to estimate the influence of mass communication on others ("third persons") as being stronger than on oneself and this has been well documented in previous research. Though a first-person effect has also been postulated for desirable mass communication messages (for ex. non-profit advertisements or public service announcements (PSAs)), for which reporting more influenceability of the self as compared to others should be a means to self-enhance, it has not been found in the two named meta-analyses. One cause might have been ambiguities in the meaning of "impact" of desirable messages. For ex., whereas the content of the message might intend a desirable impact (for ex. a plead against violence), it can collide with low preferences for the respective message context (for ex. rap music) and thus a reported low impact of the message can result. We assume that this ambiguity with respect to the function of messages is considerably lower if only advertisements are considered because they have one main function: persuasion. We thus present reanalyses of data from two meta-analyses though restricted to studies on the impact of advertising. With data from the first meta-analysis, we not only replicate the well-known third-person-effect for undesirable messages (d = .83; 95%CI [0.72, 0.94]; k = 27), but we also find a first-person-effect for desirable messages (d = -.47; 95%CI [-0.70, -0.24]; k = 7). From the studies included in the second meta-analysis, we reanalyzed the results of studies with PSAs (all socially desirable messages). After the exclusion of some studies due to methodological problems, we find a first-person-effect for PSAs (d = -.16; 95%CI [-0.27, -0.04]; k = 33). Thus, contrary to the conclusions of both meta-analyses, we confirm the existence of a reliable first-person-effect. Replicability of meta-analytic results, the necessity to exclude studies due to methodological problems, and the meaning of "impact of socially desirable messages" are briefly discussed.

Assessment of publication time in Campbell Systematic Reviews: A cross-sectional survey

Delayed publication of systematic reviews increases the risk of presenting outdated data. To date, no studies have examined the time and review process from title registration and protocol publication to the final publication of Campbell systematic reviews. This study aims to examine the publication time from protocol to full review publication and the time gap between database searches and full review publication for Campbell systematic reviews. All Campbell systematic reviews in their first published version were included. We searched the Campbell systematic review journals on the Wiley Online Library website to identify all completed studies to date. We manually searched the table of contents of all Campbell systematic reviews to obtain the date of title registration from the journal's website. We used SPSS software to perform the statistical analysis. We used descriptive statistics to report publication times which were calculated stratified by characteristics, including year of review publication, type of reviews, number of authors, difference in authors between protocol and review, and Campbell Review Groups. Non-normal distributed data were reported as medians, interquartile range, and range, and normal distributed data will be reported as mean ± standard deviation. And we also visualized the overall publication time and the distribution of data. Approximately 18% of reviews were published within one to 2 years, faster than the aims set by Campbell systematic review policies and guidelines, which was 2 years. However, more than 40% of the reviews were published more than 2 years after protocol publication. Furthermore, over 50% of included reviews were published with a time gap of more than 2 years after database searches. There was no significant difference between Campbell coordinating groups' median publication times and time gap from searches of databases to full review publication existed. However, the methods group only published one full review with almost a 3-year time gap from searches of databases to review publication. And there was a major difference between specific types of review. Systematic reviews had the longest median publication time of 2.4 years, whereas evidence and gap maps had the lowest median publication time of 13 months. Half of Campbell reviews were published more than 2 years after protocol publication. Furthermore, the median time from protocol publication to review publication varied widely depending on the specific type of review.

An Overview of Reviews on the Association of Low Calorie Sweetener Consumption With Body Weight and Adiposity

BACKGROUND

Numerous systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) on low calorie sweeteners (LCS) have been published in recent years, concluding that LCS have beneficial, neutral, or detrimental effects on various health outcomes, depending on the review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this overview of reviews was to determine how the methodologies of SR investigating the association between LCS consumption and body weight (BW) influence their findings and whether MA results can provide a consistent estimated effect.

METHODS

Systematic searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were conducted in November 2022 to identify SR of randomized controlled trials (RCT) or non-randomized studies (NRS) investigating the association between LCS consumption and BW. The methods, MA results, and conclusions were extracted from each eligible SR.

RESULTS

Of the 985 search results, 20 SR evaluated the association between LCS and BW, drawing from publications of 75 RCT, 42 prospective cohort studies, and 10 cross-sectional studies. There was a considerable lack of overlap of studies included within each SR attributed, in part, to the inclusion of studies based on design; thus, each SR synthesized results from distinctly different studies. Evidence synthesis methods were heterogeneous and often opaque, making it difficult to determine why results from certain studies were excluded or why disparate results were observed between SR.

CONCLUSIONS

SR investigating the effect of LCS on BW implement different methodologies to answer allegedly the same question, drawing from a different set of heterogeneous studies, ignoring the basic assumptions required for MA, resulting in disparate results and conclusions. Previous MA show the large effects of study design, which results in inconsistent estimates of the effect of LCS on BW between MA of RCT and NRS. Given the availability of long-term RCT, these studies should be the basis of determining causal relationships (or lack thereof) between LCS and BW. This trial was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42022351200.

Methodological quality of systematic reviews on atopic dermatitis treatments: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) could offer the best evidence supporting interventions, but methodological flaws limit their trustworthiness in decision-making. This cross-sectional study appraised the methodological quality of SRs on atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Database for SRs on AD treatments published in 2019-2022. We extracted SRs' bibliographical data and appraised SRs' methodological quality with AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2. We explored associations between methodological quality and bibliographical characteristics.

RESULTS

Among the 52 appraised SRs, only one (1.9%) had high methodological quality, while 45 (86.5%) critically low. For critical domains, only five (9.6%) employed comprehensive search strategy, seven (13.5%) provided list of excluded studies, 17 (32.7%) considered risk of bias in primary studies, 21 (40.4%) contained registered protocol, and 24 (46.2%) investigated publication bias. Cochrane reviews, SR updates, SRs with European corresponding authors, and SRs funded by European institutions had better overall quality. Impact factor and author number positively associated with overall quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodological quality of SRs on AD treatments is unsatisfactory. Future reviewers should improve the above critical methodological aspects. Resources should be devolved into upscaling evidence synthesis infrastructure and improving critical appraisal skills of evidence users.

Appraisal of umbrella reviews on vaccines

Umbrella reviews are systematic reviews of all systematic reviews on a given question and can provide a higher-level view of current available evidence on broad research topics. Given the importance and possible consequences of the insights derived from umbrella reviews, it is fundamental to ensure accurate, comprehensive reporting and methodological rigor in these papers. Here, we present the potential and limitations of these evolving evidence synthesis tools by looking at umbrella reviews published on vaccine research. Vaccines are essential tools in modern medicine for preventing disease and promoting public health. The scientific literature on vaccines grows rapidly as researchers work to improve existing vaccines and develop new ones. More than half a million scientific papers on vaccines have already been published, including several thousands of systematic reviews that aim to appraise and summarize this growing literature. However, as the published systematic reviews are only able to cover a small proportion of the literature it is important to also provide higher-level evidence syntheses. and discuss further improvements that could be made to integrate evidence on vaccines.

Analysis of Current Evidence in the Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Aneurysms: A Systematic Review and Proposal for a Reporting Guideline to Enhance Reproducibility and Comparability of Surgical and Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Endovascular therapy (EVT) has recently become the most widely used treatment method for intracranial aneurysms (IAs). However, the literature on this topic is heterogeneous, with studies assessing and reporting surgical and clinical outcomes in different ways, lacking standardization. We aimed to evaluate the quality of these studies and propose a reporting guideline focusing on essential elements to ensure reproducibility and comparability.

METHODS

After Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Eligible studies were observational or randomized, reported clinical and/or surgical outcomes of EVTs for IAs, included over 200 patients, and were published in English between January 1, 2022, and January 1, 2024. Studies were assessed focusing on key domains: (1) reporting on the baseline characteristics of the patient sample, (2) assessment and reporting on imaging methods and aneurysm characteristics, (3) reporting on pivotal concepts definitions, (4) reporting on operator(s) and staff characteristics, (5) reporting on anesthetic protocol, (6) reporting on antiaggregant and anticoagulation therapy, (7) reporting on surgical details, (8) assessing and reporting clinical and surgical outcomes, and (9) reporting retreatment details.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies comprising 79 604 patients were included. Our assessment revealed substantial gaps in the literature on EVTs for IAs, including deficiencies across all domains. An EndoIAs Reporting Guideline was developed, consisting of 74 items distributed across 10 domains, focusing on key surgical and clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Substantial deficiencies were identified in data collection and outcomes reporting in the available literature on EVT for IAs, thereby impeding comparability and reproducibility and hindering the building of cumulative evidence. The aim of the proposed EndoIAs Reporting Guideline was to address these fundamental aspects and has the potential to enhance the reproducibility and comparability of future studies, thereby fostering the building of cumulative and reliable evidence of EVT for IAs.

Added Value of Medical Subject Headings Terms in Search Strategies of Systematic Reviews: Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

The massive increase in the number of published scientific articles enhances knowledge but makes it more complicated to summarize results. The Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) thesaurus was created in the mid-20th century with the aim of systematizing article indexing and facilitating their retrieval. Despite the advent of search engines, few studies have questioned the relevance of the MeSH thesaurus, and none have done so systematically.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to estimate the added value of using MeSH terms in PubMed queries for systematic reviews (SRs).

METHODS

SRs published in 4 high-impact medical journals in general medicine over the past 10 years were selected. Only SRs for which a PubMed query was provided were included. Each query was transformed to obtain 3 versions: the original query (V1), the query with free-text terms only (V2), and the query with MeSH terms only (V3). These 3 queries were compared with each other based on their sensitivity and positive predictive values.

RESULTS

In total, 59 SRs were included. The suppression of MeSH terms had an impact on the number of relevant articles retrieved for 24 (41%) out of 59 SRs. The median (IQR) sensitivities of queries V1 and V2 were 77.8% (62.1%-95.2%) and 71.4% (42.6%-90%), respectively. V1 queries provided an average of 2.62 additional relevant papers per SR compared with V2 queries. However, an additional 820.29 papers had to be screened. The cost of screening an additional collected paper was therefore 313.09, which was slightly more than triple the mean reading cost associated with V2 queries (88.67).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results revealed that removing MeSH terms from a query decreases sensitivity while slightly increasing the positive predictive value. Queries containing both MeSH and free-text terms yielded more relevant articles but required screening many additional papers. Despite this additional workload, MeSH terms remain indispensable for SRs.

How to Conduct and Publish Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Dentistry

OBJECTIVE

To provide a guide for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dentistry, with emphasis on translating research findings into clinical practice.

OVERVIEW

Systematic reviews are essential tools for synthesizing research findings and translating evidence into clinical practice. These reviews help to identify the most effective treatment options and to determine areas requiring further research. A structured approach, including defining a concise research question, conducting comprehensive literature searches, and assessing the risk of bias, is critical for ensuring the review's trustworthiness. The GRADE approach facilitates the assessment of the certainty of evidence, which is crucial for formulating conclusions and making informed clinical decisions.

CONCLUSION

Systematic reviews provide invaluable insights into clinical decision-making by compiling, analyzing, and synthesizing multiple primary studies. Following a rigorous methodology ensures that systematic reviews are comprehensive, unbiased, and clinically relevant, ultimately contributing to better patient care and achieving better clinical outcomes.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Methodologically sound systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide clinicians with high-quality, synthesized evidence, enabling informed clinical decisions and improved patient outcomes. They save time by consolidating research, informing treatment choices, and facilitating the translation of knowledge into clinical practice.

A Methodological Quality Assessment of Meta-Analyses on Sleep Disorder Treatments Using AMSTAR 2

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses (MAs) provide up-to-date, quantified evidence on treatment effects, which may be useful for clinical and policy decision-making. However, the quality of MAs varies, and methodological flaws can limit their reliability.

AIMS

This review evaluated the methodological quality of MAs on sleep disorder treatments.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for eligible MAs on randomized controlled trials of sleep disorder treatments published between 2018 and 2023. We extracted MAs' bibliographical characteristics with a predesigned form and appraised their methodological quality using AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) 2. We explored the associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality ratings using Kruskal-Wallis tests and Spearman's rank correlation coefficients.

RESULTS/OUTCOMES

Among the 104 MAs, the majority (n = 82; 78.9%) had critically low quality, 19 (18.3%) had low quality, and only 3 (2.9%) had high quality. Regarding AMSTAR 2 critical domains, 97 (93.3%) MAs did not provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions, 75 (72.1%) did not use a comprehensive literature search strategy, and 56 (53.9%) lacked a registered protocol and did not justify protocol deviations. Cochrane reviews (p = 0.018), MAs with European corresponding authors (p < 0.001), and MAs receiving European funding (p < 0.001) performed better than their counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

The methodological quality of recent MAs on sleep disorder treatments is unsatisfactory. Future reviewers should address the identified critical methodological issues. In addition, substantial resources and funding should be allocated to support training in evidence synthesis and critical appraisal for researchers and clinicians.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Anxiety- and Depressive-Like Behaviors in Rodent Models of Neuropathic Pain

Background

Epidemiological studies have frequently shown the concurrence of chronic pain with symptoms of anxiety and depression, particularly in women. Animal models are useful to understand the complex mechanisms underlying comorbidities, but the wide range of methods employed and the wealth of evidence sometimes impedes effective translation and reproducibility. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to synthesize the evidence regarding the influence of variables such as sex and species on anxiety- and depressive-like behaviors in rodent models of neuropathic pain.

Methods

Following PROSPERO registration, we searched EMBASE, Scopus, and the Web of Science from their inception to November 24, 2023, identifying 126 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The Hedges' g value for each experiment and study was calculated, and further subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed.

Results

Neuropathic pain significantly reduced the time that rats and mice spent in the open arms of the elevated plus and zero mazes (g = -1.14), time spent in the center of the open field (g = -1.12), sucrose consumption in the sucrose preference test (g = -1.43), and grooming time in the splash test (g = -1.37) while increasing latency to feed in the novelty-suppressed feeding test (g = 1.59) and immobility in the forced swimming (g = 1.85) and tail suspension (g = 1.91) tests. Sex differences were observed, with weaker effects in female than in male rodents for several behavioral paradigms, and funnel plots identified positive publication bias in the literature.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis emphasizes the effect of neuropathic pain on anxiety- and depressive-like behaviors in rodents, highlighting the importance of investigating sex differences in future experimental studies.

Middle meningeal artery embolization versus conventional management for patients with chronic subdural hematoma: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Conventional surgical modalities, including twist drill craniotomy, burr hole evacuation, and craniotomy, are the standard surgical interventions for chronic subdural hematomas (cSDH). More recently, treatment of cSDH with middle meningeal artery embolization (MMAE) is being explored. The comparative effectiveness of MMAE versus conventional surgical modalities remains controversial. The objective of this study is to analyze various postoperative outcomes in an umbrella review of existing meta-analysis comparing MMAE and conventional management in patients with cSDH.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was executed with defined criteria across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Data was analyzed utilizing the metaumbrella R package, employing equivalent Hedges' g values. The quality assessment of each meta-analysis was carried out using AMSTAR2, assigning scores within the range of 0-11. The credibility of the evidence was determined by applying the Ioannidis criteria.

RESULTS

This umbrella review study included five meta-analyses. Upon pooling the meta-analyses, MMAE was associated with fewer reoperations and recurrence, supported by a weak level of evidence (class IV). Conversely, findings related to other postoperative outcomes did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Our umbrella review offers a comprehensive summary investigating MMAE and conventional management for the treatment of cSDH. MMAE had fewer reoperations and recurrence, but they were classified as being of weak significance. These findings underscore insufficient evidence within the existing literature, emphasizing the imperative need for additional research in this area.

Meta-analysis: a tool for constructing theories or evaluating interventions or simply proving everyday assumptions?

After a brief consideration of the development of meta-analyses as a joint discussion of results from a research area across development stages 0, 1, 2, it is concluded that the present form 2.0 is unsuitable to serve as a basis for theory building. Further development of this tool into a meta-analysis 3.0 is necessary for this purpose which requires the validity of the independent variables in the primary studies, the reduction of the error variance of the dependent variables, a stability of the effects over the primary studies and a quantitative comparison between observed and predicted effects in the primary studies. In the current meta-analyses 2.0, a concrete single-case approach creates the impression that mainly everyday ideas are investigated, which one would like to generalize to a population of other conditions. Furthermore, the results of the existing meta-analyses are either homogeneous and very small or heterogeneous. Meta-analysis 2.0 searches for the instability of the measurements under a specific topic with methods of induction. The procedure of a meta-analysis 3.0 is described in general and carried out hypothetically and with an empirical example. It searches for the stability of quantitative reconstructions of data over different topics with the method of abduction. The conclusion can be summarized as that meta-analysis 3.0 is indispensable as a tool for theorizing, and theorizing presupposes meta-analysis 3.0. The link between this interdependence is abduction in contrast to induction as a research strategy.

Unveiling the Value of Meta-Analysis in Disease Prevention and Control: A Comprehensive Review

Given the plethora of studies today that focus on the same topic, clinicians and other healthcare professionals increasingly rely on meta-analysis to aid in their evidence-based decision-making. This research method, which combines data from multiple studies to produce a single, more precise estimate of effect size, is invaluable for synthesizing evidence, resolving inconsistencies and guiding clinical practice and public health policies. Especially in disease prevention and control, meta-analysis has emerged as a critical tool. Meta-analysis is particularly valuable in assessing the effectiveness of preventive interventions such as vaccines, lifestyle modifications and screening programs. It provides robust evidence that supports the implementation of effective preventive measures and the discontinuation of ineffective or harmful ones. Furthermore, meta-analysis provides evidence to develop clinical practice guidelines, ensuring patients receive evidence-based treatments. In addition, public health policies aimed at disease prevention and control often rely on evidence from meta-analyses, which provide the data needed to justify and design large-scale public health initiatives. This comprehensive review delves into the role of meta-analysis in disease prevention and control, exploring its advantages, applications, challenges and overall impact on guiding clinical practice and public health policies. Through case studies and an examination of future directions, this paper underscores the pivotal role of meta-analysis in disease prevention and control.

Challenges and limitations in meta-analyses of complications in neurosurgery: Systematic review with proposed approach and checklist to mitigate errors and improve the assessment of the real-world experience

Meta-analyses are highly valued in medical science, yet accurately reporting complications in neurosurgical studies remains challenging. Examples include inconsistencies in defining and classifying complications and variations in reporting methods. This lack of reproducibility and comparability, along with other issues related to biases, hinders the ability of meta-analyses to yield significant advancements. This systematic review investigated the challenges and limitations inherent in meta-analyses of complications in neurosurgery. Based on the identified challenges and our group's experience, we developed a practical checklist to mitigate and avoid common errors in meta-analyses of complications in neurosurgery.We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies addressing challenges in assessing complications in neurosurgery. The main findings were qualitatively synthesized to identify common challenges and limitations. The proposed checklist was developed using a modified Delphi technique. Eleven studies were included, uncovering heterogeneity and a lack of standardization regarding the classification of complications in neurosurgery across various authors and institutions. They suggested solutions such as implementing a more uniform classification system. Additionally, the NeuroComp Meta-Analysis Checklist was developed, comprising 23 items divided into 5 domains, with a practical approach and suggestions on how to deal with the challenges when meta-analyzing.We identified numerous challenges and concerns when assessing complications in the neurosurgical field. The NeuroComp Meta-Analysis Checklist incorporated methodologies and approaches we utilized in several previously published meta-analyses. While we acknowledge that the proposal cannot solve all the issues involved in comparing and meta-analyzing complications in neurosurgery, it has the potential to enhance the informativeness of future meta-analyses and help authors mitigate common errors. Ultimately, this tool has the potential to contribute to the advancement of accumulating real-world evidence in neurosurgical science.

APAQ at Forty: Publication Trends

The purpose of the present study was to analyze Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly (APAQ) publications over the journal's fourth decade (2014-2023) and compare them with previous documentary analyses of the first 3 decades. Consistent with prior documentary analyses, publications were coded and analyzed based on the use of theory, research participants, topic, whether the study was an intervention, first-author country affiliation, and research method. The total number of published research papers increased substantially (n = 61) from the third to the fourth decade. Similar to prior documentary analyses, most of the research was quantitative (n = 140; 57.5%), followed by qualitative research (n = 96; 39.5%). There were far more qualitative-research publications in the fourth decade compared with the third decade (n = 34). This may reflect the continued acceptance and growth of qualitative research compared with 10-20 years ago. It may also reflect the value of rich in-depth exploratory research using small samples. Additional trends included more review papers and meta-analyses, possibly reflecting the increased knowledge base in particular areas requiring synthesis. The diversity of topics also increased, with papers on dignity, classification, coaching, and the Paralympics playing more prominent roles. The number of international publications also grew substantially. In brief, the current paper outlines both similarities and differences in APAQ's published research over the 4 decades of its existence.

A living critical interpretive synthesis to yield a framework on the production and dissemination of living evidence syntheses for decision-making

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact in the global research production and has also increased research waste. Living evidence syntheses (LESs) seek to regularly update a body of evidence addressing a specific question. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the production and dissemination of LESs emerged as a cornerstone of the evidence infrastructure. This critical interpretive synthesis answers the questions: What constitutes an LES to support decision-making?; when should one be produced, updated, and discontinued?; and how should one be disseminated?

METHODS

Searches included the Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Ovid), Health Systems Evidence, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, and Web of Science up to 23 April 2024 and included articles that provide any insights on addressing the compass questions on LESs. Articles were selected and appraised, and their insights extracted. An interpretive and iterative coding process was used to identify relevant thematic categories and create a conceptual framework.

RESULTS

Among the 16,630 non-duplicate records identified, 208 publications proved eligible. Most were non-empirical articles, followed by actual LESs. Approximately one in three articles were published in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The conceptual framework addresses six thematic categories: (1) what is an LES; (2) what methodological approaches facilitate LESs production; (3) when to produce an LES; (4) when to update an LES; (5) how to make available the findings of an LES; and (6) when to discontinue LES updates.

CONCLUSION

LESs can play a critical role in reducing research waste and ensuring alignment with advisory and decision-making processes. This critical interpretive synthesis provides relevant insights on how to better organize the global evidence architecture to support their production.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration: CRD42021241875.

Vibration of effects resulting from treatment selection in mixed-treatment comparisons: a multiverse analysis on network meta-analyses of antidepressants in major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

It is frequent to find overlapping network meta-analyses (NMAs) on the same topic with differences in terms of both treatments included and effect estimates. We aimed to evaluate the impact on effect estimates of selecting different treatment combinations (ie, network geometries) for inclusion in NMAs.

DESIGN

Multiverse analysis, covering all possible NMAs on different combinations of treatments.

SETTING

Data from a previously published NMA exploring the comparative effectiveness of 22 treatments (21 antidepressants and a placebo) for the treatment of acute major depressive disorder.

PARTICIPANTS

Cipriani et al explored a dataset of 116 477 patients included in 522 randomised controlled trials.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

For each possible treatment selection, we performed an NMA to estimate comparative effectiveness on treatment response and treatment discontinuation for the treatments included (231 between-treatment comparisons). The distribution of effect estimates of between-treatment comparisons across NMAs was computed, and the direction, magnitude and statistical significance of the 1st and 99th percentiles were compared.

RESULTS

4 116 254 different NMAs concerned treatment response. Among possible network geometries, 172/231 (74%) pairwise comparisons exhibited opposite effects between the 1st and 99th percentiles, 57/231 (25%) comparisons exhibited statistically significant results in opposite directions, 118 of 231 (51%) comparisons derived results that were both significant and non-significant at 5% risk and 56/231 (24%) treatment pairs obtained consistent results with only significant differences (or only non-significant differences) at 5% risk. Comparisons based on indirect evidence only were associated with greater variability in effect estimates. Comparisons with small absolute values observed in the complete NMA more frequently obtained statistically significant results in opposite directions. Similar results were observed for treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

In this multiverse analysis, we observed that the selection of treatments to be included in an NMA could have considerable consequences on treatment effect estimations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/mb5dy.

Major mistakes or errors in the use of trial sequential analysis in systematic reviews or meta-analyses - the METSA systematic review

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews and data synthesis of randomised clinical trials play a crucial role in clinical practice, research, and health policy. Trial sequential analysis can be used in systematic reviews to control type I and type II errors, but methodological errors including lack of protocols and transparency are cause for concern. We assessed the reporting of trial sequential analysis.

METHODS

We searched Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2021 for systematic reviews and meta-analysis reports that include a trial sequential analysis. Only studies with at least two randomised clinical trials analysed in a forest plot and a trial sequential analysis were included. Two independent investigators assessed the studies. We evaluated protocolisation, reporting, and interpretation of the analyses, including their effect on any GRADE evaluation of imprecision.

RESULTS

We included 270 systematic reviews and 274 meta-analysis reports and extracted data from 624 trial sequential analyses. Only 134/270 (50%) systematic reviews planned the trial sequential analysis in the protocol. For analyses on dichotomous outcomes, the proportion of events in the control group was missing in 181/439 (41%), relative risk reduction in 105/439 (24%), alpha in 30/439 (7%), beta in 128/439 (29%), and heterogeneity in 232/439 (53%). For analyses on continuous outcomes, the minimally relevant difference was missing in 125/185 (68%), variance (or standard deviation) in 144/185 (78%), alpha in 23/185 (12%), beta in 63/185 (34%), and heterogeneity in 105/185 (57%). Graphical illustration of the trial sequential analysis was present in 93% of the analyses, however, the Z-curve was wrongly displayed in 135/624 (22%) and 227/624 (36%) did not include futility boundaries. The overall transparency of all 624 analyses was very poor in 236 (38%) and poor in 173 (28%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of trial sequential analyses are not transparent when preparing or presenting the required parameters, partly due to missing or poorly conducted protocols. This hampers interpretation, reproducibility, and validity.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021273811.

How comparative studies can inform treatment decisions for Crohn's disease

INTRODUCTION

As new therapies for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD) are approved, there is an increasing need for evidence that clarifies their positioning and sequencing.

AREAS COVERED

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) aims to inform physicians' decisions when they choose which intervention (drug or treatment strategy) to administer to their patients. Pragmatic head-to-head trials represent the best tools for CER, but only a few have been published in the IBD field. Network meta-analyses can point toward the superiority of one drug over another, but they do not reflect everyday clinical practice. Finally, real-world evidence complements that coming from head-to-head trials and network meta-analyses, assessing the real-life effectiveness of therapeutic interventions.

EXPERT OPINION

There is insufficient evidence to create a definitive therapeutic algorithm for CD, but some general considerations can be made. Anti-TNF-α agents seemingly represent the most 'sustainable' first-line choice, considering benefit-harm ratio and costs; vedolizumab, ustekinumab, and risankizumab may be considered as first-line choice when safety issues become prominent. In the event of pharmacodynamic failure, out-of-class swap is to be preferred - possibly with anti-IL23p19 as the best option, with unclear data regarding upadacitinib positioning; a second anti-TNF-α could be considered, as a second choice, after pharmacokinetic failure.

Cutting-Edge Methodological Guidance for Authors in Conducting the Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The landscape of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMA) in biomedicine has expanded exponentially, driven by the growing demand for evidence-based healthcare decision-making. However, the rapid increase of SRMAs has often outpaced the development of rigorous methodological standards, resulting in variability in quality and potentially limiting their effectiveness in informing healthcare practices. This gap highlights the critical need for advanced methodological guidance to enhance the quality and impact of SRMAs. Our contribution aims to provide comprehensive methodological direction for authors to conduct robust SRMAs. By effectively integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence, SRMAs can address complex healthcare questions more thoroughly than traditional reviews. Furthermore, these step-by-step guidelines will help researchers to address the challenges of synthesizing diverse types of evidence, thereby improving the rigor, relevance, and applicability of their findings in healthcare decision-making processes.

Evaluating the impact of the global evidence, local adaptation (GELA) project for enhancing evidence-informed guideline recommendations for newborn and young child health in three African countries: a mixed-methods protocol

BACKGROUND

Poverty-related diseases (PRD) remain amongst the leading causes of death in children under-5 years in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) based on the best available evidence are key to strengthening health systems and helping to enhance equitable health access for children under five. However, the CPG development process is complex and resource-intensive, with substantial scope for improving the process in SSA, which is the goal of the Global Evidence, Local Adaptation (GELA) project. The impact of research on PRD will be maximized through enhancing researchers and decision makers' capacity to use global research to develop locally relevant CPGs in the field of newborn and child health. The project will be implemented in three SSA countries, Malawi, South Africa and Nigeria, over a 3-year period. This research protocol is for the monitoring and evaluation work package of the project. The aim of this work package is to monitor the various GELA project activities and evaluate the influence these may have on evidence-informed decision-making and guideline adaptation capacities and processes. The specific project activities we will monitor include (1) our ongoing engagement with local stakeholders, (2) their capacity needs and development, (3) their understanding and use of evidence from reviews of qualitative research and, (4) their overall views and experiences of the project.

METHODS

We will use a longitudinal, mixed-methods study design, informed by an overarching project Theory of Change. A series of interconnected qualitative and quantitative data collections methods will be used, including knowledge translation tracking sheets and case studies, capacity assessment online surveys, user testing and in-depth interviews, and non-participant observations of project activities. Participants will comprise of project staff, members of the CPG panels and steering committees in Malawi, South Africa and Nigeria, as well as other local stakeholders in these three African countries.

DISCUSSION

Ongoing monitoring and evaluation will help ensure the relationship between researchers and stakeholders is supported from the project start. This can facilitate achievement of common goals and enable researchers in South Africa, Malawi and Nigeria to make adjustments to project activities to maximize stakeholder engagement and research utilization. Ethical approval has been provided by South African Medical Research Council Human Research Ethics Committee (EC015-7/2022); The College of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee, Malawi (P.07/22/3687); National Health Research Ethics Committee of Nigeria (01/01/2007).

Patient profiled data for treatment decision-making: valuable as an add-on to hepatitis C clinical guidelines?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Systematic reviews and medical guidelines are widely used in clinical practice. However, these are often not up-to-date and focussed on the average patient. We therefore aimed to evaluate a guideline add-on, TherapySelector (TS), which is based on monthly updated data of all available high-quality studies, classified in specific patient profiles.

METHODS

We evaluated the TS for the treatment of hepatitis C (HCV) in an international cohort of patients treated with direct-acting antivirals between 2015 and 2020. The primary outcome was the number of patients receiving one of the two preferred treatment options of the HCV TS, based on the highest level of evidence, cure rate, absence of ribavirin-associated adverse effects, and treatment duration.

RESULTS

We enrolled 567 patients. The number of patients treated with one of the two preferred treatment options according to the HCV TS ranged between 27% (2015) and 60% (2020; p < 0.001). Most of the patients received a regimen with a longer treatment-duration (up to 34%) and/or addition of ribavirin (up to 14%). The effect on the expected cure-rate was minimal (1-6% higher) when the first preferred TherapySelector option was given compared to the actual treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical decision-making can be optimised by a guideline add-on; in HCV its use appears to minimise adverse effects and cost. The use of such an add-on might have a greater impact in diseases with suboptimal cure-rates, high costs or adverse effects, for which treatment options rely on specific patient characteristics.

Quantifying the association of sperm DNA fragmentation with assisted reproductive technology outcomes: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are instrumental in shaping clinical practice. However, their findings can sometimes be marred by discrepancies and potential biases, thereby diluting the strength of the evidence presented. Umbrella reviews serve to comprehensively assess and synthesise these reviews, offering a clearer insight into the quality of the evidence presented. In the context of the relationship between sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) and assisted conception outcomes, there is a divergence in the literature. Some reviews suggest a clear cause-and-effect linkage, whereas others present conflicting or inconclusive results.

OBJECTIVES

In this umbrella review we aimed to synthesise the evidence collated in systematic reviews and meta-analyses summarising the association of SDF with assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

After preregistration (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6JHDP), we performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Embase databases. We conducted a search for systematic reviews on the association between SDF and ART without any restrictions on language or publication date.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses assessing the association between SDF and ART outcomes were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed the quality of the included reviews using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS, and determined the degree of overlap of primary studies between reviews estimating the corrected covered area (CCA), adjusted for structural missingness. We evaluated the most recent reviews assessing the association of SDF with live birth, pregnancy, miscarriage, implantation, blastulation and fertilisation. The synthesis of evidence was harmonised across all included quantitative syntheses, re-estimating the odds ratio (eOR) in random-effects meta-analyses with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and 95% prediction intervals (95% PIs). We categorised the evidence strength into convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak or nonsignificant, according to the meta-analysis re-estimated P-value, total sample size, I2 statistic for heterogeneity, small study effect, excess significance bias and the largest study significance.

MAIN RESULTS

We initially captured and screened 49 332 records. After excluding duplicate and ineligible articles, 22 systematic reviews, 15 of which were meta-analyses, were selected. The 22 reviews showed a moderate degree of overlap (adjusted CCA 9.2%) in their included studies (overall n = 428, with 180 unique studies). The 15 meta-analyses exhibited a high degree of overlap (adjusted CCA = 13.6%) in their included studies (overall n = 274, with 118 unique studies). AMSTAR 2 categorised the quality of evidence in 18 reviews as critically low and the quality of evidence in four reviews as low. ROBIS categorised all the reviews as having a high risk of bias. The re-estimated results showed that the association of SDF with live birth was weak in one and nonsignificant in four meta-analyses. Similarly, the association of SDF with pregnancy, miscarriage, implantation, blastulation and fertilisation was also weak or nonsignificant. The association of high SDF with different ART outcomes was also weak or nonsignificant for different interventions (IVF, ICSI and IUI) and tests.

CONCLUSIONS

This umbrella review did not find convincing or suggestive evidence linking SDF with ART outcomes. Caution should be exercised in making any claims, policies or recommendations concerning SDF.

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.

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.

Comparative Effectiveness of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses

STUDY DESIGN

Umbrella review of meta-analyses.

OBJECTIVE

To compile existing meta-analyses to provide analysis of the multiple postoperative outcomes in a comparison of open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (O-TLIFs) versus minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusions (MI-TLIFs).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

TLIF is the standard surgical intervention for spinal fusion in degenerative spinal diseases. The comparative effectiveness of MI-TLIFs and O-TLIFs remains controversial.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Titles and abstracts were initially screened, followed by a full-text review based on the inclusion criteria. Twenty articles were deemed eligible for the umbrella review. Data extraction and quality assessment using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews were performed. Effect sizes of the outcomes of interest from primary studies included in the meta-analyses were repooled. Repooling and stratification of the credibility of the evidence were performed using the R package metaumbrella . The pooled effect sizes were compared and interpreted using equivalent Hedges' g values.

RESULTS

When the meta-analyses were pooled, MI-TLIF was found to have a shorter length of stay, less blood loss, and a higher radiation exposure time, with a highly suggestive level of evidence. Data regarding less postoperative drainage, infections, and Oswestry disability index for MI-TLIF were supported by weak evidence. Conversely, data regarding other postoperative outcomes were nonsignificant to draw any conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Our umbrella review provides a comprehensive overview of the relevant strengths and weaknesses of each surgical technique. This overview revealed that MI-TLIF had better outcomes in terms of length of stay, blood loss, postoperative drainage, infections, and Oswestry disability index when compared with those of O-TLIF. However, O-TLIF had a better outcome for radiation exposure when compared with MI-TLIF.

Protocol for the development of a reporting guideline for umbrella reviews on epidemiological associations using cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies: the Preferred Reporting Items for Umbrella Reviews of Cross-sectional, Case-control and Cohort studies (PRIUR-CCC)

INTRODUCTION

Observational studies are fraught with several biases including reverse causation and residual confounding. Overview of reviews of observational studies (ie, umbrella reviews) synthesise systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses of cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies, and may also aid in the grading of the credibility of reported associations. The number of published umbrella reviews has been increasing. Recently, a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions (Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR)) was published, but the field lacks reporting guidelines for umbrella reviews of observational studies. Our aim is to develop a reporting guideline for umbrella reviews on cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies assessing epidemiological associations.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will adhere to established guidance and prepare a PRIOR extension for systematic reviews of cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies testing epidemiological associations between an exposure and an outcome, namely Preferred Reporting Items for Umbrella Reviews of Cross-sectional, Case-control and Cohort studies (PRIUR-CCC). Step 1 will be the project launch to identify stakeholders. Step 2 will be a literature review of available guidance to conduct umbrella reviews. Step 3 will be an online Delphi study sampling 100 participants among authors and editors of umbrella reviews. Step 4 will encompass the finalisation of PRIUR-CCC statement, including a checklist, a flow diagram, explanation and elaboration document. Deliverables will be (i) identifying stakeholders to involve according to relevant expertise and end-user groups, with an equity, diversity and inclusion lens; (ii) completing a narrative review of methodological guidance on how to conduct umbrella reviews, a narrative review of methodology and reporting in published umbrella reviews and preparing an initial PRIUR-CCC checklist for Delphi study round 1; (iii) preparing a PRIUR-CCC checklist with guidance after Delphi study; (iv) publishing and disseminating PRIUR-CCC statement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

PRIUR-CCC has been approved by The Ottawa Health Science Network Research Ethics Board and has obtained consent (20220639-01H). Participants to step 3 will give informed consent. PRIUR-CCC steps will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will guide reporting of umbrella reviews on epidemiological associations.

Only half of the authors of overviews of exercise-related interventions use some strategy to manage overlapping primary studies-a metaresearch study

OBJECTIVES

The conduct of systematic reviews (SRs) and overviews share several similarities. However, because the unit of analysis for overviews is the SRs, there are some unique challenges. One of the most critical issues to manage when conducting an overview is the overlap of data across the primary studies included in the SRs. This metaresearch study aimed to describe the frequency of strategies to manage the overlap in overviews of exercise-related interventions.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic search in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and other sources was conducted from inception to June 2022. We included overviews of SRs that considered primary studies and evaluated the effectiveness of exercise-related interventions for any health condition. The overviews were screened by two authors independently, and the extraction was performed by one author and checked by a second. We found 353 overviews published between 2005 and 2022 that met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-four overviews (46%) used at least one strategy to visualize, quantify, or resolve overlap, with a matrix (32/164; 20%), absolute frequency (34/164; 21%), and authors' algorithms (24/164; 15%) being the most used methods, respectively. From 2016 onwards, there has been a trend toward increasing the use of some strategies to manage overlap. Of the 108 overviews that used some strategy to resolve the overlap, ie, avoiding double or multiple counting of primary study data, 79 (73%) succeeded. In overviews where no strategies to manage overlap were reported (n = 189/353; 54%), 16 overview authors (8%) recognized this as a study limitation.

CONCLUSION

Although there is a trend toward increasing its use, only half of the authors of the overviews of exercise-related interventions used a strategy to visualize, quantify, or resolve overlap in the primary studies' data. In the future, authors should report such strategies to communicate more valid results.

Reporting quality of acupuncture overviews: A methodological investigation based on the PRIOR statement

OBJECTIVE

Acupuncture overviews are increasing rapidly; however, their reporting quality is yet unclear. We aimed to investigate the reporting quality of relevant overviews according to the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed from inception to August 16, 2022 for overviews on acupuncture therapies. Reporting quality of included overviews was evaluated using the PRIOR statement, and the results were cross-checked. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to assess the predictors of the reporting completeness. GraphPad 9.4 was utilized to generate an evidence map, Excel 2019 was used to extract and manage data, and R 4.2.3 was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 49 overviews published from 2006 to 2022 were included, of which China ranked first with 38 overviews. The most frequently searched database was PubMed/ Medline (n = 48, 98%), and commonly used methodological quality assessment tool was AMSTAR-2 (n = 14, 29%). The overarching themes centered on acupuncture for obstetrics, gynecology, reproductive diseases, as well as depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Reporting quality needs to be improved involving the definition of systematic reviews (SRs), overlap of primary studies and SRs, methods for managing discrepant data across SRs, risk of bias in primary studies, heterogeneity, and sensitivity analysis of synthesized results, reporting bias assessment, and registration and protocol. Moreover, publication in recent years and receiving funding support were significantly associated with higher overall reporting quality score (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Based on the PRIOR statement, this methodological study indicates that the reporting quality of the included acupuncture overviews is poor. In the future, authors of overviews are encouraged to use the PRIOR statement for standardized reporting. Furthermore, it is recommended that journal editors mandate the inclusion of this statement in authors' reports and require a complete PRIOR checklist.

Can mindfulness-based interventions reduce PTSD symptoms? An umbrella review

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a debilitating, often chronic condition with substantial cross-national lifetime prevalence. Although mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) may help reduce PTSD symptoms, efficacy results are inconsistent. Despite many systematic reviews (SRs) examining MBIs for PTSD, SR quality has been neither evaluated nor synthesized. We conducted an umbrella review to summarize and evaluate existing evidence regarding MBIs for PTSD, identifying 69 SRs (27 meta-analyses), consisting of 83 primary studies. Using AMSTAR2 (a valid SR quality assessment tool), we evaluated each SR on key domains relevant to methodological rigor and rated the confidence of inferences. Results found SRs were 65.2% non-rigorous, 27.5% likely rigorous, and 7.2% rigorous; common limitations included inadequate risk of bias assessment, extractions not completed in duplicate, and lack of pre-registration, highlighting the need for higher quality SRs. We then performed a meta-meta-analysis to estimate the efficacy of MBIs to reduce PTSD symptoms, yielding a medium effect size (SMD=0.41, p < .001), derived from 22 meta-analyses (with replicable data) and 35 unique articles. Analyses were consistent across control conditions and MBI type (first-generation/narrow [i.e., MBIs with well-established protocols]) versus broad (i.e., other MBI types), comparable with second-line treatments (e.g., pharmacotherapy). Findings were narratively synthesized; areas for methodological improvements in MBI research were identified.

The Statistical Fragility of Trials Comparing Cervical Disc Arthroplasty and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the robustness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative cervical pathology by using fragility indices.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

RCTs comparing these surgical approaches have shown that CDA may be equivalent or even superior to ACDF due to better preservation of normal spinal kinematics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RCTs reporting clinical outcomes after CDA versus ACDF for degenerative cervical disc disease were evaluated. Data for outcome measures were classified as continuous or dichotomous. Continuous outcomes included: Neck Disability Index, overall pain, neck pain, radicular arm pain, and modified Japanese Orthopedic Association scores. Dichotomous outcomes included: any adjacent segment disease (ASD), superior-level ASD, and inferior-level ASD. The fragility index (FI) and continuous FI (CFI) were determined for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. The corresponding fragility quotient (FQ) and continuous FQ were calculated by dividing FI/CFI by sample size.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies (78 outcome events) were included. Thirteen dichotomous events had a median FI of 7 [interquartile range (IQR): 3-10], and the median FQ was 0.043 (IQR: 0.035-0.066). Sixty-five continuous events had a median CFI of 14 (IQR: 9-22) and a median continuous FQ of 0.145 (IQR: 0.074-0.188). This indicates that, on average, altering the outcome of 4.3 patients out of 100 for the dichotomous outcomes and 14.5 out of 100 for continuous outcomes would reverse trial significance. Of the 13 dichotomous events that included a loss to follow-up data, 8 (61.5%) represented ≥7 patients lost. Of the 65 continuous events reporting the loss to follow-up data, 22 (33.8%) represented ≥14 patients lost.

CONCLUSION

RCTs comparing ACDF and CDA have fair to moderate statistical robustness and do not suffer from statistical fragility.