User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary

Digital technologies in nursing: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Digital technologies promise to reduce nurses' workload and increase quality of care. However, considering the plethora of single and review studies published to date, maintaining a comprehensive overview of digital technologies' impact on nursing and effectively utilizing available evidence is challenging.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims (i) to map published reviews on digital nursing technologies, based on their aims and the specific technologies investigated, to synthesize evidence on how these technologies' uses is associated with (ii) nurses' work-related and organizational factors, professional behavior, and health and work safety and (iii) ethically relevant outcomes for people in need of care.

DESIGN

Preregistered overview of reviews (PROSPERO-ID: CRD42023389751).

SETTING(S)

We searched for systematic reviews in eight databases, five key journals, and reference lists of included reviews published in English until May 21, 2024.

METHODS

We used the AMSTAR 2 checklist to assess the methodological quality of included reviews reporting associations with nursing outcomes. The extracted data were analyzed by their frequency and narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

We identified 213 reviews on digital technologies' uses in the nursing sector. Most of these focused on information and communication technologies. The most frequently reported research objectives encompass technology usage and/or general experiences with it and technology-related consequences for care recipients. Regarding work-related and organizational factors, beneficial impacts were found for the execution of nursing tasks, information management and job control. Depending on the technology type, reviews reported mixed effects for documentation activities, communication/collaboration and mainly negative effects on nurses' workload. Concerning occupational safety and health-related and further nurse outcomes, reviews reported mostly positive effects on nurses' job satisfaction and professional competence. Adverse effects related to mental and physical strain, such as increased frustration, fatigue, and burnout. Regarding ethically relevant outcomes, robotic and telecare technologies had the most reported findings. Most evidence concerned effects on the principles of beneficence/non-maleficence and respect for autonomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital nursing technologies' legitimacy hinges on their impact on patient outcomes and nurses' work, safety, and health. This review identifies a diverse array of these technologies, with both positive and negative effects. However, due to narrative limitations, meta-analysis was impractical. Future research should quantitatively assess the effects of various digital nursing technologies on work, safety, health, and ethical outcomes.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Research on digital tech in nursing lacks focus on key work factors, occupational health and ethical outcomes. #NursingTech #ResearchGaps.

Outpatient Medications Deimplemented by the AAP Bronchiolitis Guidelines: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses

BACKGROUND

The 2014 AAP Bronchiolitis Guidelines deimplemented or recommended against the routine therapeutic use of albuterol, hypertonic saline, and epinephrine for infants and children presenting in the outpatient setting. Our objective was to perform an umbrella review of all meta-analyses that included outpatient subanalyses or network meta-analyses with medication treatment comparisons to study the clinical benefits of these deimplemented medications in the outpatient (i.e., primary care, urgent care, and emergency department) setting.

METHODS

Searches were performed in the databases PubMed and Scopus and the Web search engine Google Scholar on the following three topics: albuterol and bronchiolitis, epinephrine and bronchiolitis, and hypertonic saline and bronchiolitis. Article types were limited to systematic reviews and meta-analyses with outpatient subanalyses, with English language and age restrictions. The search strategy was based on the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Studies (PICOS) framework. The studies were uploaded to Rayyan, a Web-based platform for managing articles of systematic reviews. Citation tracking and manual review of references were performed for the included studies. The meta-analyses and network meta-analyses were reviewed for outpatient subanalyses focused on clinical responses and risk of hospital admission.

RESULTS

A total of 6 meta-analyses for albuterol, 4 meta-analyses for epinephrine, and 11 meta-analyses for hypertonic saline were included. Our review identified evidence from predominantly low and moderate evidence meta-analyses (assessed using GRADE and AMSTAR 2) indicating that all three deimplemented medications exhibit one or more therapeutic effects and benefits for infants with the bronchiolitis syndrome in the outpatient setting. Effect sizes ranged from medium to near medium. These clinical benefits include decreased hospital admissions and lower clinical severity scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the heterogeneity of patients under the umbrella term "acute bronchiolitis" and the potential for some patients to respond clinically to albuterol, hypertonic saline, and epinephrine, current evidence supports conducting therapeutic trials in infants with acute bronchiolitis in outpatient settings. However, further well-designed and adequately powered randomized controlled trials and high-quality meta-analyses are still needed.

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.

A Systematic Literature Review on Inflammatory Markers in the Saliva of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: A Cause or a Consequence of Periodontal Diseases

Background and Objectives: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic neurodegenerative disease often linked with systemic conditions such as periodontal diseases (PDs). This systematic review aims to explore the association between inflammatory markers in saliva and PDs in MS patients, assessing the use of saliva as a non-invasive tool to monitor disease progression. Materials and Methods: 82 publications were examined after a thorough search of scholarly databases to determine whether inflammatory markers were present in MS patients and whether they were associated with periodontal disease (PD). Quality and bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, resulting in eight articles that were thoroughly analyzed. Results: The results point to a strong correlation between MS and periodontal disorders, which may point to the same pathophysiological mechanism. It does, however, underscore the necessity of additional study to determine a definitive causal association. Conclusions: The findings indicate a strong association between MS and PDs, likely mediated by systemic inflammatory responses detectable in saliva. The review highlights the importance of oral health in managing MS and supports the utility of saliva as a practical, non-invasive medium for monitoring systemic inflammation. Further research is necessary to confirm the causal relationships and to consider integrating salivary diagnostics into routine clinical management for MS patients.

The confidence in the results of physiotherapy systematic reviews in the musculoskeletal field is not increasing over time: a meta-epidemiological study using AMSTAR 2 tool

OBJECTIVES

To assess the confidence in the results of systematic reviews on the effectiveness of physiotherapy for musculoskeletal conditions in the past 10 years and to analyze trends and factors associated.

METHODS

This is a metaepidemiological study on systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and PEDro were searched for SRs of RCT on physiotherapy interventions for musculoskeletal disorders from December 2012 to December 2022. Two researchers independently screened the records based on the inclusion criteria; a random sample of 100 studies was selected, and each journal, author, and study variable was extracted. The methodological quality of SRs was independently assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool. Any disagreement was solved by consensus.

RESULTS

The confidence in SRs results was critically low in 90% of the studies, and it did not increase over time. Cochrane reviews are predominantly represented in the higher AMSTAR 2 confidence levels, with a statistically significant difference compared to non-Cochrane reviews. The last author's H-index is the only predictor of higher confidence among the variables analyzed (OR 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.06).

CONCLUSION

The confidence in SRs results is unacceptably low. Given the relevance of musculoskeletal disorders and the impact of evidence synthesis on the clinical decision-making process, there is an urgent need to improve the quality of secondary research by adopting more rigorous methods.

Most systematic reviews reporting adherence to AMSTAR 2 had critically low methodological quality: a cross-sectional meta-research study

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the methodological quality and characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) that reported they were conducted in line with the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a cross-sectional meta-research study. We searched MEDLINE and Embase. We included full reports of SRs reporting the study was conducted, prepared, or designed in line with the AMSTAR 2. Eligible SRs were those published from January 1, 2018, until May 3, 2022. We assessed the methodological quality of the included SRs using AMSTAR 2.

RESULTS

We included a total of 45 records. There were 43 SRs and 2 SR protocols. Among them, most were SRs of interventions that included primary studies on humans. More than half had a meta-analysis. According to our overall AMSTAR 2 assessments of included SRs, 35 SRs were of critically low confidence, 7 SRs were of low confidence, and one SR was of high confidence. There were no SRs of moderate confidence.

CONCLUSION

Even when authors indicate in their manuscripts that the SR was conducted/prepared/designed in line with the AMSTAR 2, it does not necessarily imply it is of high or even moderate confidence according to AMSTAR 2. A self-assessment with AMSTAR 2 could be required for submission and carefully checked by the editors/peer reviewers.

AMSTAR 2 is only partially applicable to systematic reviews of non-intervention studies: a meta-research study

OBJECTIVES

A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) was originally developed for systematic reviews (SRs) of health-care interventions. The aim of this study was to assess the applicability of AMSTAR 2 to SRs of non-intervention studies.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a meta-research study. We used 20 SRs for each of the following four types of SRs: Diagnostic Test Accuracy reviews, Etiology and/or Risk reviews, Prevalence and/or Incidence reviews, and Prognostic reviews (80 in total). Three authors applied AMSTAR 2 independently to each included SRs. Then, the authors assessed the applicability of each item to that SR type and any SR type.

RESULTS

Researchers unanimously indicated that 7 of 16 AMSTAR 2 items were applicable for all four specific SR types and any SR type (items 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14 and 16), but 8 of 16 items for any SR type. These items could cover generic SR methods that do not depend on a specific SR type.

CONCLUSION

AMSTAR 2 is only partially applicable for non-intervention SRs. There is a need to adapt/extend AMSTAR 2 for SRs of non-intervention studies. Our study can help to further define generic methodological aspects shared across SR types and methodological expectations for non-intervention SRs.