Methodological quality of systematic reviews on interventions for osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study

Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews led by Peruvian authors: A scoping review

Background

Systematic reviews (SRs) worldwide suffer from methodological deficiencies, potentially biasing intervention decisions, and Peruvian SRs are no exception. Evaluating SRs led by Peruvian researchers is a crucial step to enhance quality and transparency in decision-making and to identify topics where SRs are either scarce or prioritized for research.

Objective

To describe the characteristics and assess the methodological quality of SRs with Peruvian first authors.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review within the Scopus database on January 5, 2023. We aimed to identify published SRs of interventions in which the first author had a Peruvian affiliation, published between 2013 and 2022. We evaluated the methodological quality of these SRs using the AMSTAR 2 tool. We assessed the factors associated with the AMSTAR 2 score using adjusted mean differences (aMD), including their 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI).

Results

We identified 95 eligible SRs, with a clear upward trend. SRs were primarily published in Q1 (43.2 %) and Q2 (23.2 %) journals, predominantly affiliated with institutions in Lima (90.5 %). Areas like infectious diseases (20.0 %) and dentistry (18.9 %) were most frequent. AMSTAR 2 assessments highlighted deficiencies, with few SRs reporting prior protocols (37.9 %), comprehensive search strategies (23.2 %), explanations for excluded studies (20.0 %), adequate descriptions of included studies (38.3 %), or funding sources (19.1 %). Notably, SRs in Q4 journals (aMD: -19.7, 95 % CI: -33.8 to -5.5) and those on surgical interventions (aMD: -22.6, 95 % CI: -34.7 to -10.4) had lower AMSTAR 2 scores.

Conclusions

Although Peruvian-led SRs are increasingly being published, critical deficiencies are common, especially in reporting protocols, search strategies, study descriptions, and funding sources. Addressing these gaps is pivotal for enhancing the credibility and utility of these SRs in informing decision-making.

Global, regional, and national trends in osteoarthritis disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from 1990 to 2019: a comprehensive analysis of the global burden of disease study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate global, regional, and national trends in osteoarthritis disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from 1990 to 2019, identify the burden of osteoarthritis in different age groups, and assess age, period, and cohort effects on osteoarthritis DALYs.

STUDY DESIGN

A comprehensive analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 data, covering 204 countries and territories.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive analysis using data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019, encompassing 204 countries and territories. Age-standardized DALY rates were calculated, and the age-period-cohort model was employed to examine the age, period, and cohort effects on osteoarthritis DALYs. The annual percentage change (APC) and average annual percentage change (AAPC) were estimated to evaluate trends in DALYs.

RESULTS

Globally, osteoarthritis DALYs increased by 114.48 % between 1990 and 2019, with an age-standardized DALY rate growth of 3.3 %. The largest relative growth in DALYs occurred in Middle and Low-middle Socio-Demographic Index (SDI) regions. DALYs increased significantly in almost all age-specific groups, particularly among 45-74 years old age groups. Age, period, and cohort effects analysis revealed a general increase in osteoarthritis DALYs risk over time, with some variations by SDI quintiles and sex. The steepest increase in DALYs occurred in the 30-34 years age group, and the trend attenuated with increasing age. Males showed significantly slower DALYs growth than females in age groups with non-overlapping 95 % confidence intervals. Age effects were consistently higher in females, especially in high-SDI countries. Period and cohort effects generally demonstrated a climbing risk of osteoarthritis DALYs across different SDI quintiles, with more pronounced increases in lower-SDI regions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the substantial and increasing burden of osteoarthritis at global, regional, and national levels from 1990 to 2019, with significant variations by age, period, and cohort. These results underscore the importance of developing targeted public health strategies and interventions to address the growing impact of osteoarthritis, particularly in lower-SDI regions and among older populations.

Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for Alzheimer's disease: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Carefully conducted systematic reviews (SRs) can provide reliable evidence on the effectiveness of treatment strategies for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Nevertheless, the reliability of SR results can be limited by methodological flaws. This cross-sectional study aimed to examine the methodological quality of SRs on AD treatments, along with potentially relevant factors.

METHODS

To identify eligible SRs on AD treatments, four databases including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched. The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 instrument was used for quality appraisal of SRs. Multivariable regression analyses were used to examine factors related to methodological quality.

RESULTS

A total of 102 SRs were appraised. Four (3.90%) SRs were considered as high quality; 14 (13.7%), 48 (47.1%), and 36 (35.3%) were as moderate, low, and critically low quality, respectively. The following significant methodological limitations were identified: only 22.5% of SRs registered protocols a priori, 6.9% discussed the rationales of chosen study designs, 21.6% gave a list of excluded studies with reasons, and 23.5% documented funding sources of primary studies. Cochrane SRs (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 31.9, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.81-266.9) and SRs of pharmacological treatments (AOR: 3.96, 95%CI: 1.27-12.3) were related to the higher overall methodological quality of SRs.

CONCLUSION

Methodological quality of SRs on AD treatments is unsatisfactory, especially among non-Cochrane SRs and SRs of non-pharmacological interventions. Improvement in the following methodological domains requires particular attention due to poor performance: registering and publishing protocols a priori, justifying study design selection, providing a list of excluded studies, and reporting funding sources of primary studies.

Methodological quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on stem cells for knee osteoarthritis: A cross-sectional survey

Clinical guidelines need high-quality studies to support clinical decision-making, in which the evidence often was collected from systematic reviews (SRs) and/or meta-analyses (MAs). At present, the methodological quality and risk of bias (RoB) of SRs/MAs on stem cell therapy for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) has been poorly investigated. This study aims to strictly evaluate the methodological quality and RoB in SRs/MAs of stem cell therapy for KOA. Four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases) were searched, from inception to October 5th, 2021. SRs/MAs involving randomized control trials (RCTs) or cohort studies on stem cell therapy for the treatment of KOA were included. The methodological quality and RoB were assessed using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tool respectively. In total, 22 SRs/MAs were included. According to the results obtained by AMSTAR 2 tool, all SRs/MAs were rated as "Critically low". Main methodological weaknesses were as follows: up to 81.82% did not meet protocol registration requirements, only 13.64% provided a list of excluded studies and justification, and 13.64% investigated and discussed the publication bias.. ROBIS-based RoB assessment showed that all the SRs/MAs were rated as "High". Besides, the lack of following the implementation of the PRISMA reporting guideline seems to reduce the methodological quality of the studies. The overall methodological quality of the SRs/MAs concerning the application of stem cell therapy in treating KOA is "Critically low", while the RoB is high. It is difficult to provide effective evidence for the formulation of guidelines for KOA treatment. We suggest that the relevant methodological quality assessment should be carried out in the future before the SRs/MAs are used as clinical evidence. In addition, it may be necessary for many journals to include the checklist with a submitted manuscript.

Low methodological quality of systematic reviews on acupuncture: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

While well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs) can provide the best evidence on the potential effectiveness of acupuncture, limitations on the methodological rigour of SRs may impact the trustworthiness of their conclusions. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on acupuncture effectiveness.

METHODS

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for SRs focusing on the treatment effect of manual acupuncture or electro-acupuncture published during January 2018 and March 2020. Eligible SRs must contain at least one meta-analysis and be published in English language. Two independent reviewers extracted the bibliographical characteristics of the included SRs with a pre-designed questionnaire and appraised the methodological quality of the studies with the validated AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2). The associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality ratings were explored using Kruskal-Wallis rank tests and Spearman's rank correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

A total of 106 SRs were appraised. Only one (0.9%) SR was of high overall methodological quality, zero (0%) was of moderate-quality, six (5.7%) and 99 (93.4%) were of low-quality and critically low-quality respectively. Among appraised SRs, only ten (9.4%) provided an a priori protocol, four (3.8%) conducted a comprehensive literature search, five (4.7%) provided a list of excluded studies, and six (5.7%) performed meta-analysis appropriately. Cochrane SRs, updated SRs, and SRs that did not search non-English databases had relatively higher overall quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodological quality of SRs on acupuncture is unsatisfactory. Future reviewers should improve critical methodological aspects of publishing protocols, performing comprehensive search, providing a list of excluded studies with justifications for exclusion, and conducting appropriate meta-analyses. These recommendations can be implemented via enhancing the technical competency of reviewers in SR methodology through established education approaches as well as quality gatekeeping by journal editors and reviewers. Finally, for evidence users, skills in SR critical appraisal remain to be essential as relevant evidence may not be available in pre-appraised formats.

The methodological quality of individual participant data meta-analysis on intervention effects: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the methodological quality of individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis and to identify areas for improvement.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Systematic reviews with IPD meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials on intervention effects published in English.

RESULTS

323 IPD meta-analyses covering 21 clinical areas and published between 1991 and 2019 were included: 270 (84%) were non-Cochrane reviews and 269 (84%) were published in journals with a high impact factor (top quarter). The IPD meta-analyses showed low compliance in using a satisfactory technique to assess the risk of bias of the included randomised controlled trials (43%, 95% confidence interval 38% to 48%), accounting for risk of bias when interpreting results (40%, 34% to 45%), providing a list of excluded studies with justifications (32%, 27% to 37%), establishing an a priori protocol (31%, 26% to 36%), prespecifying methods for assessing both the overall effects (44%, 39% to 50%) and the participant-intervention interactions (31%, 26% to 36%), assessing and considering the potential of publication bias (31%, 26% to 36%), and conducting a comprehensive literature search (19%, 15% to 23%). Up to 126 (39%) IPD meta-analyses failed to obtain IPD from 90% or more of eligible participants or trials, among which only 60 (48%) provided reasons and 21 (17%) undertook certain strategies to account for the unavailable IPD.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodological quality of IPD meta-analyses is unsatisfactory. Future IPD meta-analyses need to establish an a priori protocol with prespecified data syntheses plan, comprehensively search the literature, critically appraise included randomised controlled trials with appropriate technique, account for risk of bias during data analyses and interpretation, and account for unavailable IPD.