Similarities, reliability and gaps in assessing the quality of conduct of systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS: systematic survey of nutrition reviews

Role of diet in the risks of esophageal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma: an updated umbrella review

PURPOSE

This updated umbrella review aimed to evaluate the evidence regarding the associations between dietary factors and the risks of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify relevant studies. The quality of the included meta-analyses was evaluated using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). For each association, the number of cases, random effects pooled effect size, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), heterogeneity, 95% prediction interval (PrI), small-study effect, and excess significance bias were recalculated to determine the evidence level.

RESULTS

We identified 33 meta-analyses describing 58 dietary factors associated with ESCC and 29 meta-analyses describing 38 dietary factors associated with EAC. There was convincing evidence regarding the association of 2 dietary factors (areca nut and high alcohol) with the risk of ESCC. There was highly suggestive evidence regarding the association of only 1 dietary factor (healthy pattern) with the risk of ESCC. There was suggestive evidence regarding the association of 11 dietary factors with the risk of ESCC, including fruit, citrus fruit, vegetables, pickled vegetables, maté tea, moderate alcohol, hot beverages and foods, hot tea, salt, folate, and vitamin B6. There was convincing evidence regarding the association of one dietary factor (vitamin B6) with the risk of EAC. There was suggestive evidence regarding the association of 4 dietary factors with the risk of EAC, including processed meat, dietary fibre, carbohydrate, and vitamin B12. The convincing evidence regarding the associations between dietary factors and the risks of ESCC and EAC remained robust in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This umbrella review highlighted convincing evidence regarding the associations of areca nut and high alcohol with a higher risk of ESCC. Additionally, an association between vitamin B6 and a decreased risk of EAC was observed. Further research is needed to examine the dietary factors with weak evidence regarding their associations with ESCC and EAC.

The association between air pollution and obesity: an umbrella review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews

The objective of this umbrella review was to investigate comprehensive and synthesized evidence of the association between ambient air pollution and obesity based on the current systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Related studies from databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, published before July 16, 2023, were considered in the analysis. All selected systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The risk of bias and the methodological quality were evaluated using the AMSTAR 2 tool. The protocol for this umbrella review was documented in PROSPERO with the registration number: CRD42023450191. This umbrella review identified 7 studies, including 5 meta-analyses and 2 systematic reviews, to assess the impacts of air pollutants on obesity. Commonly examined air pollutants included PM1, PM2.5, PM10, NO2, SO2, O3. Most of the included studies presented that air pollution exposure was positively associated with the increased risk of obesity. The impact of air pollution on obesity varied by different ambient air pollutants. This study provided compelling evidence that exposure to air pollution had a positive association with the risk of obesity. These findings further indicate the importance of strengthening air pollution prevention and control. Future studies should elucidate the possible mechanisms and pathways linking air pollution to obesity.

Positive and negative factors of parents vaccinating their children against COVID-19: An umbrella review

Purpose

This umbrella review summarized the factors influencing parents' hesitancy to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 and the evidence to reduce it.

Methods

The analysis included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus articles published before March 22, 2024. It considered all meta-analyses that investigated parental COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

Results

Eight studies were included. Hesitancy rate of parents from five continents to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 was between 0.69 % and 95.0 %. The comprehensive synthesis in this review shows that the influencing factors originate from four aspects: Parents' attitudes, including their trust in the scientific community, concerns about COVID-19 complications, perceptions of children's susceptibility, and support from the social environment, including government incentives, low vaccination costs, and specific sociodemographic characteristics, were positive factors that reduced parental vaccine hesitancy in children. Conversely, negative aspects, including vaccine distrust, the spread of misinformation, poor economic status, and concern about unprecedentedly short development time, were associated with increased hesitancy.

Conclusion

Our study identified positive and negative factors for parental COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in children and highlighted that parental attitude was the most important determinant.

The relationship between the price and demand of alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food, sugar-sweetened beverages, and gambling: an umbrella review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

The WHO highlight alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food, and sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes as one of the most effective policies for preventing and reducing the burden of non-communicable diseases. This umbrella review aimed to identify and summarise evidence from systematic reviews that report the relationship between price and demand or price and disease/death for alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food, and SSBs. Given the recent recognition as gambling as a public health problem, we also included gambling.

METHODS

The protocol for this umbrella review was pre-registered (PROSPERO CRD42023447429). Seven electronic databases were searched between 2000-2023. Eligible systematic reviews were those published in any country, including adults or children, and which quantitatively examined the relationship between alcohol, tobacco, gambling, unhealthy food, or SSB price/tax and demand (sales/consumption) or disease/death. Two researchers undertook screening, eligibility, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the ROBIS tool.

RESULTS

We identified 50 reviews from 5,185 records, of which 31 reported on unhealthy food or SSBs, nine reported on tobacco, nine on alcohol, and one on multiple outcomes (alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food, and SSBs). We did not identify any reviews on gambling. Higher prices were consistently associated with lower demand, notwithstanding variation in the size of effect across commodities or populations. Reductions in demand were large enough to be considered meaningful for policy.

CONCLUSIONS

Increases in the price of alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food, and SSBs are consistently associated with decreases in demand. Moreover, increasing taxes can be expected to increase tax revenue. There may be potential in joining up approaches to taxation across the harm-causing commodities.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

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

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

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

Saturated fat, the estimated absolute risk and certainty of risk for mortality and major cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of reducing saturated fat or fatty foods, or replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, carbohydrate or protein, on the risk of mortality and major cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes in adults.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and references of included studies for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies in adults published in the past 10 years. Eligible reviews investigated reducing saturated fat or fatty foods or replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, carbohydrate or protein, on the risk of cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using, for example, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach. We assessed the quality of SRMAs using a modified version of AMSTAR-2. Results were summarized as absolute estimates of effect together with the certainty of effects using a narrative synthesis approach.

RESULTS

We included 17 SRMAs (13 reviews of observational studies with follow-up 1 to 34 years; 4 reviews of RCTs with follow-up 1 to 17 years). The quality of two-thirds of the SRMAs was critically low to moderate; the main limitations included deficient reporting of study selection, absolute effect estimates, sources of funding, and a priori subgroups to explore heterogeneity. Our included reviews reported > 100 estimates of effect across 11 critically important cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes. High quality SRMAs consistently and predominantly reported low to very low certainty evidence that reducing or replacing saturated fat was associated with a very small risk reduction in cancer and cardiometabolic endpoints. The risk reductions where approximately divided, some being statistically significant and some being not statistically significant. However, based on 2 moderate to high quality reviews, we found moderate certainty evidence for a small but important effect that was statistically significant for two outcomes (total mortality events [20 fewer events per 1000 followed] and combined cardiovascular events [16 fewer per 1000 followed]). Conversely, 4 moderate to high quality reviews showed very small effects on total mortality, with 3 of these reviews showing non-statistically significant mortality effects.

CONCLUSION

Systematic reviews investigating the impact of SFA on mortality and major cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes almost universally suggest very small absolute changes in risk, and the data is based primarily on low and very low certainty evidence.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020172141.

Association between COVID-19 and sexual health: an umbrella review

PURPOSE

We conducted this umbrella review to review the current evidence on the relationship between COVID-19 and sexual health in both men and women.

METHODS

We conducted searches in Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane dataset for meta-analyses that met our pre-set inclusion criteria. We included studies with detailed information investigating the link between COVID-19 and sexual health in men/women. We did not limit the language.

RESULTS

The results of the included studies frequently relied on the Female Sexual Function Index to assess sexual health in women. For men, the International Index of Male Function and hospital diagnoses were commonly used to assess sexual health. Currently, there is conflicting evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on sexual health. However, since most studies were observational in nature, additional study designs are necessary to draw definitive conclusions across different contexts.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the importance of sexual health among COVID-19 patients and people affected due to COVID-19. Further critical studies should investigate the mechanism underlying the association between COVID-19 and sexual health.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

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

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

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

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/7cs4b .

Efficacy of Surgical Masks Versus N95 Respirators for the Prevention of COVID-19 in Dental Settings: A Systematic Review

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. (SARS-CoV-2). It spreads mainly through saliva droplets or nasal discharge. Dentists are among the professionals with the greatest risk of contracting and transmitting COVID-19. We compared the efficacy of surgical masks versus N95 respirators in preventing COVID-19 infection in dental settings. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Search terms corresponded to a predefined PICOS (patient/population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) question. The risk of bias was evaluated using AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2), ROBIS (Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews), and Health Evidence tools. A total of 191 articles were screened, and nine of them were further evaluated for eligibility, of which five articles (fulfilled the selection criteria) and were included in this study. Two studies concluded that surgical masks could provide equivalent protection to N95 respirators. Another study found that N95 respirators were superior to surgical masks. The fourth study found that better protection can be achieved when using surgical masks by the aerosol source than when the recipient uses an N95 respirator, while the last study concluded that surgical masks or N95 respirators alone do not provide full protection. Thus, according to this systematic review, N95 respirators provide better protection against COVID-19 infection compared to surgical masks.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1

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

Association between dry eye disease and depression: An umbrella review

Purpose

This umbrella review aimed to summarize the available evidence on the association between dry eye disease and depression.

Methods

We searched the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases using the search string "(Dry eye syndrome OR Keratoconjunctivitis sicca OR KCS OR Aqueous tear deficiency OR Sjogren syndrome) AND (depression OR depressive symptoms) AND (meta-analysis OR systematic review)" from inception to 20 July 2022. We considered all meta-analyses investigating the association between dry eye disease and depression.

Results

After summarizing the included meta-analyses, it was concluded that dry eye disease is associated with depression. The symptoms of dry eye disease affect the daily lives of patients, thus affecting their mood. However, further evidence is required to confirm this association.

Conclusion

This finding highlights the importance of psychological support for patients with dry eye disease. Future clinical studies should investigate the mechanism underlying the association between dry eye disease and depression.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022320619.

The Effects of Mind-Body Exercises on Chronic Spinal Pain Outcomes: A Synthesis Based on 72 Meta-Analyses

An umbrella review of systematic reviews with a meta-analysis was developed to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of qigong, tai chi, and yoga in chronic spinal pain outcomes. The CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed and SPORTDiscus databases were searched. Pain, psychological factors, and quality of life (QOL) were the outcomes of interest. The methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated using the AMSTAR-2 tool. The overlap was calculated using the corrected covered area. A total of 72 meta-analyses drawn from 20 systematic reviews were included and often were rated at a critically low quality. The effects of qigong on chronic low back and neck pain (CLBP and CNP, respectively) were inconsistent, although it improved the physical component of QOL after 12 weeks for CNP. Tai chi was superior to the controls in reducing CLBP; no reviews of interest were found on CNP. Yoga was superior to multiple controls in reducing CLBP, but no relevant effects on depression or QOL were found. QOL, anxiety, depression, and general mood improved with yoga for CNP. Inconsistencies arose related to yoga and CNP. Our findings mainly supported the potential effects of yoga and tai chi on pain-related outcomes, psychological factors, and QOL in populations with CLBP and NP. Clinical and methodological considerations were discussed.

What do cochrane systematic reviews say about interventions for enuresis in children and adolescents? An overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews about treatment alternatives for children and/or adolescents with enuresis.

SOURCES

An overview of Cochrane systematic reviews about interventions for enuresis in children/adolescents was developed between September/2021 and December/2021. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO and the search was conducted only in the Cochrane Library database without any restriction. Reviews involving any type of intervention for the treatment of enuresis in children/adolescents were included. The risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) and the quality of reviews was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2).

SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS

Seven systematic reviews were identified. Based on the ROBIS assessment, all reviews were classified as low risk of bias. According to the AMSTAR-2 assessment, the three oldest systematic reviews were rated as critically low quality, one review was moderate quality, and the three most recent systematic reviews were rated as high quality. No difference was shown between alarm and desmopressin for a complete response to therapy after treatment (RR = 1.30; 95%CI: 0.92 to 1.84), but alarm use is related to a lower risk of adverse events (RR = 0.38; 95%CI: 0.20 to 0.71). There is a moderate certainty that the association between imipramine and oxybutynin is better than placebo to reduce the risk of children who do not achieve 14 consecutive dry nights after treatment (RR = 0.43; 95%CI: 0.23 to 0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference between alarm and desmopressin for enuresis treatment. However, alarm therapy had fewer adverse events than desmopressin. Moreover, combination therapy between imipramine and oxybutynin is better than placebo.