Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality

A Bibliometric Analysis on Adherence to Reporting Standards for Endovascular Treatment of Chronic Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

The treatment of chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) involves a broad spectrum of therapies including many new and emerging techniques. To standardize the results of studies examining this pathology and to allow critical analysis and comparison between studies, the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) recommended reporting standard guidelines for the endovascular management of CLTI in 2016. Research studies that do not adhere to complete reporting standards are often more ambiguous in impact and external validity, leading to bias and misinformation that has potentially damaging effects on clinical decision-making. We thus sought to examine adherence to and factors associated with noncompliance with these recommended guidelines.

METHODS

A literature database search was conducted to include all clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and retrospective comparative studies written in English examining the endovascular treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD)/CLTI from January 2020 to August 2022. Systematic reviews, case reports, and meta-analysis were excluded. The manuscripts were reviewed for adherence with the SVS guidelines (overall and by guideline subcategories based on demographics, treatment methods, and outcomes), and factors associated with this adherence were determined. These data were used to calculate descriptive and comparative statistics.

RESULTS

Fifty-four manuscripts were identified from this time frame. On average, articles reviewed reported on 42.0% of the SVS reporting standards (range, 25.0-65.2%, Fig 1) with 74.1% of articles (n = 40) not adhering to at least 50.0% of the standards. Manuscripts most completely followed guidelines regarding "patient factors" and were least likely to demonstrate adherence to the description of CLTI and study complications. Within the guideline subcategories, complete adherence to guidelines was not demonstrated in any manuscript in stent trials, disease outcome measures, technical outcome measures, patient factors and critical limb ischemia description, and complete adherence rates within the other subcategories was low (range, 5.6-18.6%). Studies conducted within the United States and those with industry sponsorship were more likely to adhere to >50% of the reporting standards (P < 0.05). Journal impact factor, year of publication, and number of authors had no correlation to the percent adherence to guidelines in specific categories or adherence overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to reporting standard guidelines for endovascular treatment of lower extremity PAD specifically outlined by the SVS is suboptimal regardless of the quality of the journal the research is published in. Increasing adherence to reporting standards to provide a framework for comparison of studies across techniques used should be prioritized by authors, journal editors, and vascular societies.

Building living systematic reviews and reporting standards for comparative microscopic analysis of white diseases in hard corals

Over the last 4 decades, coral disease research has continued to provide reports of diseases, the occurrence and severity of disease outbreaks and associated disease signs. Histology using systematic protocols is a gold standard for the microscopic assessment of diseases in veterinary and medical research, while also providing valuable information on host condition. However, uptake of histological analysis for coral disease remains limited. Increasing disease outbreaks on coral reefs as human impacts intensify highlights a need to understand the use of histology to date in coral disease research. Here, we apply a systematic approach to collating, mapping and reviewing histological methods used to study coral diseases with 'white' signs (i.e., white diseases) in hard coral taxa and map research effort in this field spanning study design, sample processing and analysis in the 33 publications identified between 1984 and 2022. We find that studies to date have not uniformly detailed methodologies, and terminology associated with reporting and disease description is inconsistent between studies. Combined these limitations reduce study repeatability, limiting the capacity for researchers to compare disease reports. A primary outcome of this study is the provision of transparent and repeatable protocols for systematically reviewing literature associated with white diseases of hard coral taxa, and development of recommendations for standardised reporting procedures with the aim of increasing uptake of histology in addition to allowing for ongoing comparative analysis through living systematic reviews for the coral disease field.

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.

Effectiveness of mind-body exercises in chronic respiratory diseases: an overview of systematic reviews with meta-analyses

PURPOSE

To gather evidence on the effectiveness and safety of qigong, tai chi, and yoga to modulate symptoms associated with chronic respiratory diseases.

METHODS

A search of systematic reviews was conducted in CINHAL, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and the Cochrane Library from inception to November 2022. Systematic reviews with meta-analyses investigating physical and psychological measures were eligible. The methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR-2), the spin of information in abstracts, and the overlap of primary studies were explored.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven systematic reviews involving 37 000 participants, 146 studies, and 150 meta-analyses were included. Reviews investigated asthma (n = 4) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (n = 23). Most reviews discussed their findings without considering the risk of bias of primary studies. The overlap ranged between slight (5%) and very high (35%). Yoga was better than control interventions to improve symptoms related with asthma. In adults with COPD, qigong improved dyspnoea, exercise endurance, lung function, and quality of life, while tai chi and yoga increased exercise endurance.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of yoga on symptoms associated with asthma varied depending on the lung function parameter and the control group. Qigong, tai chi, and yoga could be effective to improve COPD-related symptoms, especially exercise endurance.

Systematic overview of intraosseous access versus intravenous delivery for emergency resuscitation: Efficacy and quality of existing evidence

BACKGROUND

The impact of intraosseous (IO) access on resuscitation outcomes, as compared to intravenous (IV) administration, is subject to ongoing debate. This review aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the methodological, reporting, and evidence quality of existing Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses (SRs/MAs) on IO use during resuscitation.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted a strategic literature search to identify pertinent SRs/MAs published up until May 6th, 2023. After an extensive screening process, 4 SRs/MAs were included for review. We used the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 tool for assessing methodological quality, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist for evaluating reporting quality, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework for examining the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

The assessment revealed high methodological quality across all the included SRs/MAs but showed significant variability in the quality of evidence. The studies offered conflicting findings on the impact of IO access on resuscitation outcomes such as return of spontaneous circulation, survival rates at hospital discharge, and favorable neurological outcomes. Some studies suggested an association of IO access with poorer outcomes, while others indicated no significant difference between IO and IV routes.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the perceived utility of IO access when IV access is unachievable, the impact of IO on survival, return of spontaneous circulation, and neurological outcomes remains ambiguous due to the inconsistency in the existing evidence. This review underscores the critical need for more rigorous and consistent primary research in this area to strengthen clinical guidelines and improve patient outcomes.

Polarization and health-related behaviours and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review protocol

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic affected people's health behaviours and health outcomes. Political or affective polarization could be associated with health behaviours such as mask-wearing or vaccine uptake and with health outcomes, e.g., infection or mortality rate. Political polarization relates to divergence or spread of ideological beliefs and affective polarization is about dislike between people of different political groups, such as ideologies or parties. The objectives of this study are to investigate and synthesize evidence about associations between both forms of polarization and COVID-19 health behaviours and outcomes.

Methods

In this systematic review, we will include quantitative studies that assess the relationship between political or affective polarization and COVID-19-related behaviours and outcomes, including adherence to mask mandates, vaccine uptake, infection and mortality rate. We will use a predetermined strategy to search EMBASE, Medline (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Global Health (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL, EconLit (EBSCOhost), WHO COVID-19 Database, iSearch COVID-19 Portfolio (NIH) and Google Scholar from 2019 to September 8 2023. One reviewer will screen unique records according to eligibility criteria. A second reviewer will verify the selection. Data extraction, using pre-piloted electronic forms, will follow a similar process. The risk of bias of the included studies will be assessed using the JBI checklist for analytical cross sectional studies. We will summarise the included studies descriptively and examine the heterogeneity between studies. Quantitative data pooling might not be feasible due to variations in measurement methods used to evaluate exposure, affective and political polarization. If there are enough relevant studies for statistical data synthesis, we will conduct a meta-analysis.

Discussion

This review will help to better understand the concept of polarization in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and might inform decision making for future pandemics.

Protocol registration

PROSPERO ID: CRD42023475828.

The quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews during the coronavirus 2019 pandemic: an exploratory comparison

BACKGROUND

The unprecedented volume and speed at which COVID-19-related systematic reviews (SRs) may have been produced has raised questions regarding the quality of this evidence. It is feasible that pandemic-related factors may have led to an impairment in quality (reduced internal validity, increased risk of bias [RoB]). This may have serious implications for decision-making related to public health and individual healthcare.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to compare the quality of SRs published during the pandemic that were related to COVID-19 with SRs published during the pandemic that were unrelated to COVID-19 (all of which were fully appraised in the KSR Evidence database of SRs in healthcare). Our secondary objective was to compare the quality of SRs published during the pandemic (regardless of research topic), with SRs published pre-pandemic.

METHODS

We compared all SRs related to COVID-19 to all SRs unrelated to COVID-19 that (i) were published during the pandemic (between 1st March 2020 and September 14, 2022), (ii) were included in KSR Evidence, and (iii) had been appraised using the ROBIS tool. We then compared all SRs published during the pandemic (regardless of research topic) with a pre-pandemic sample of SRs.

RESULTS

For SRs published during the pandemic, we found there was no statistically significant difference in quality between those SRs tagged as being related to COVID-19 and those that were not [relative risk (RR) of low RoB for COVID-19 versus COVID-19-unrelated reviews: 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66 to 1.34]. Generally, COVID-19 SRs and COVID-19-unrelated SRs were both of low quality with only 10% of COVID-19 reviews and 11% of COVID-19-unrelated reviews rated as low RoB. However, SRs (regardless of topic) published during the pandemic were of lower quality than those published pre-pandemic (RR for low RoB for 'during pandemic' versus 'pre-pandemic': 0.30; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.34) with 11% of pandemic and 36% of pre-pandemic SRs rated as low RoB.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest COVID-19 and COVID-19-unrelated SRs published during the pandemic are equally of low quality. SRs published during the pandemic were generally lower quality compared with SRs published pre-pandemic irrespective of COVID-19 focus. Moreover, SR quality in general is seriously lacking, and considerable efforts need to be made to substantially improve the quality and rigour of the SR process.

A study of search strategy availability statements and sharing practices for systematic reviews: Ask and you might receive

The literature search underpins data collection for all systematic reviews (SRs). The SR reporting guideline PRISMA, and its extensions, aim to facilitate research transparency and reproducibility, and ultimately improve the quality of research, by instructing authors to provide specific research materials and data upon publication of the manuscript. Search strategies are one item of data that are explicitly included in PRISMA and the critical appraisal tool AMSTAR2. Yet some authors use search availability statements implying that the search strategies are available upon request instead of providing strategies up front. We sought out reviews with search availability statements, characterized them, and requested the search strategies from authors via email. Over half of the included reviews cited PRISMA but less than a third included any search strategies. After requesting the strategies via email as instructed, we received replies from 46% of authors, and eventually received at least one search strategy from 36% of authors. Requesting search strategies via email has a low chance of success. Ask and you might receive-but you probably will not. SRs that do not make search strategies available are low quality at best according to AMSTAR2; Journal editors can and should enforce the requirement for authors to include their search strategies alongside their SR manuscripts.

Treatment Fidelity in 94 Randomized Controlled Trials of Physical Rehabilitation in the ICU: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

Recent reviews demonstrated discordant effects of ICU-based physical rehabilitation on physical function. These inconsistencies may be related to differences in treatment fidelity-the extent to which a protocol is delivered as planned. Before evaluating the association of fidelity with outcomes, we must first understand the extent of treatment fidelity reporting in ICU-based physical rehabilitation randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA SOURCES

Six electronic databases from inception to December 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

We included RCTs enrolling adults or children admitted to the ICU, if greater than or equal to 50% were invasively mechanically ventilated greater than 24 hours, and underwent an ICU-based physical rehabilitation intervention, with no limitation to comparators or outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION

We screened and extracted data independently and in duplicate, with a third reviewer as needed. Extracted data included study characteristics, treatment descriptions, and the presence of National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change Consortium (NIH-BCC) treatment fidelity tool components. Treatment fidelity scores were calculated as the proportion of reported (numerator) out of total NIH-BCC components (denominator). We calculated scores across studies and by treatment group (intervention vs. comparator). We used linear regression to assess for a time trend in study treatment fidelity scores.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 20,433 citations, 94 studies met inclusion criteria. Authors reported a median (first-third quartiles) of 19% (14-26%) of treatment fidelity components across studies. Intervention group scores were higher than comparator groups (24% [19-33%] vs. 14% [5-24%], p < 0.01). We found a mean increase in study treatment fidelity scores by 0.7% (0.3 points) per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 19% of treatment fidelity components were reported across studies, with comparator groups more poorly reported. Future research could investigate ways to optimize treatment fidelity reporting and determine characteristics associated with treatment fidelity conduct in ICU-based physical rehabilitation RCTs.

Reducing the residue of retractions in evidence synthesis: ways to minimise inappropriate citation and use of retracted data

The incorporation of publications that have been retracted is a risk in reliable evidence synthesis. Retraction is an important mechanism for correcting the literature and protecting its integrity. Within the medical literature, the continued citation of retracted publications occurs for a variety of reasons. Recent evidence suggests that systematic reviews and meta-analyses often unwittingly cite retracted publications which, at least in some cases, may significantly impact quantitative effect estimates in meta-analyses. There is strong evidence that authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses may be unaware of the retracted status of publications and treat them as if they are not retracted. These problems are difficult to address for several reasons: identifying retracted publications is important but logistically challenging; publications may be retracted while a review is in preparation or in press and problems with a publication may also be discovered after the evidence synthesis is published. We propose a set of concrete actions that stakeholders (eg, scientists, peer-reviewers, journal editors) might take in the near-term, and that research funders, citation management systems, and databases and search engines might take in the longer term to limit the impact of retracted primary studies on evidence syntheses.

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy for stable coronary artery disease: An umbrella review

Background

Invasive management of stable coronary artery disease is still a controversial topic. The purpose of this umbrella review was to synthesize systematic reviews (SRs) that evaluate the benefits and harms of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with stable coronary artery disease.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from 2018 to August 7, 2022. We included SRs with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the question of interest. We assessed the methodological quality of the SRs with the AMSTAR-2 tool. We summarized the results of the outcomes for each SR. We calculated the degree of overlap of the RCTs included in the SRs using the corrected covered area (CCA).

Results

We found 10 SRs with meta-analyses. The SRs included 3 to 15 RCTs. The degree of overlap among the SRs was very high (CCA > 15%). No SR evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE system and 9 out of 10 had critically low methodological quality. The SRs reported heterogeneous results for the outcomes of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and angina. On the other hand, for the outcomes of cardiovascular mortality and stroke, all SRs agreed that there were no differences between PCI and OMT alone.

Conclusions

We found 10 SRs on the use of PCI compared to OMT alone for patients with stable coronary artery disease. However, none had high methodological quality, none evaluated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach, and the results were inconsistent for several outcomes. This variability in evidence may result in divergent clinical decisions for the management of stable coronary artery disease among healthcare professionals. It is necessary to perform a high-quality SR using the GRADE approach to clarify the balance of benefits and harms of PCI.

Investigate the relationship between the retraction reasons and the quality of methodology in non-Cochrane retracted systematic reviews: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

This systematic review aimed to investigate the relationship between retraction status and the methodology quality in the retracted non-Cochrane systematic review.

METHOD

PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched with keywords including systematic review, meta-analysis, and retraction or retracted as a type of publication until September 2023. There were no time or language restrictions. Non-Cochrane medical systematic review studies that were retracted were included in the present study. The data related to the retraction status of the articles were extracted from the retraction notice and Retraction Watch, and the quality of the methodology was evaluated with the AMSTAR-2 checklist by two independent researchers. Data were analyzed in the Excel 2019 and SPSS 21 software.

RESULT

Of the 282 systematic reviews, the corresponding authors of 208 (73.75%) articles were from China. The average interval between publish and retraction of the article was about 23 months and about half of the non-Cochrane systematic reviews were retracted in the last 4 years. The most common reasons for retractions were fake peer reviews and unreliable data, respectively. Editors and publishers were the most retractors or requestors for retractions. More than 86% of the retracted non-Cochrane SRs were published in journals with an impact factor above two and had a critically low quality. Items 7, 9, and 13 among the critical items of the AMSTAR-2 checklist received the lowest scores.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

There was a significant relationship between the reasons of retraction and the quality of the methodology (P-value < 0.05). Plagiarism software and using the Cope guidelines may decrease the time of retraction. In some countries, strict rules for promoting researchers increase the risk of misconduct. To avoid scientific errors and improve the quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), it is better to create protocol registration and retraction guidelines in each journal for SRs/MAs.

Quality of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of resveratrol: A methodological systematic review

Recently, several meta-analyses (MAs) have focused on the health effects of resveratrol. However, the methodological and reporting quality of these MAs has not yet been fully evaluated so far. Therefore, the present study evaluated the quality of these MAs through a methodological systematic review. Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception until May 20, 2022, and PubMed was used to update the search until September 6, 2023. The methodological and reporting quality of the selected MAs was evaluated using AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA 2009. Fifty-one MAs published during 2013-2023 were included. In each review, the number of primary studies ranged from 3 to 37, and the number of participants ranged from 50 to 2114. Among the first-listed primary outcomes, only 23 (45.10%) were "positive." As for the methodological quality, most MAs (44, 86.27%) on resveratrol were rated critically low. Inadequate reporting of the included MAs mainly involved items 2 ("Structured summary"), 5 ("Protocol and registration"), 8 ("Search"), 9 ("Study selection"), 10 ("Data collection process"), 12 ("Risk of bias in individual studies"), and 24 ("Summary of evidence") based on the PRISMA 2009. Additionally, journal's impact factor, number of authors, and funding support were positively associated with the overall methodological quality but were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Future MAs on resveratrol require better design, implementation, and reporting by following the Cochrane Handbook, AMSTAR-2, and PRISMA.

Surgical lymphedema models in the mice hindlimb-A systematic review and quality assessment

BACKGROUND

Lymphedema constitutes a major unsolved problem in plastic surgery. To identify novel lymphedema treatments, preclinical studies are vital. The surgical mouse lymphedema model is popular and cost-effective; nonetheless, a synthesis and overview of the literature with evidence-based guidelines is needed. The aim of this review was to perform a systematic review to establish best practice and support future high-quality animal studies exploring lymphedema treatments.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, searching four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus) from inception-September 2022. The Animals in Research Reporting In Vivo Experiments 2.0 (ARRIVE 2.0) guidelines were used to evaluate reporting quality. Studies claiming to surgically induce lymphedema in the hindlimb of mice were included.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies were included. Four main models were used. (1) Irradiation+surgery. (2) A variation of the surgery used by (1) + irradiation. (3) Surgery only (SPDF-model). (4) Surgery only (PLND-model). Remaining studies used other techniques. The most common measurement modality was the caliper. Mean quality coefficient was 0.57. Eighteen studies (49%) successfully induced sustained lymphedema. Combination of methods seemed to yield the best results, with an overrepresentation of irradiation, the removal of two lymph nodes, and the disruption of both the deep and superficial lymph vessels in the 18 studies.

CONCLUSION

Surgical mouse hindlimb lymphedema models are challenged by two related problems: (1) retaining lymphedema for an extended period, that is, establishing a (chronic) lymphedema model (2) distinguishing lymphedema from post-operative edema. Most studies failed to induce lymphedema and used error-prone measurements. We provide an overview of studies claiming to induce lymphedema and advocate improved research via five evidence-based recommendations to use: (1) a proven lymphedema model; (2) sufficient follow-up time, (3) validated measurement methods; (4) ARRIVE-guidelines; (5) contralateral hindlimb as control.

Studying Adherence to Reporting Standards in Kinesiology: A Post-publication Peer Review Brief Report

To demonstrate how post-publication peer reviews-using journal article reporting standards-could improve the design and write-up of kinesiology research, the authors performed a post-publication peer review on one systematic literature review published in 2020. Two raters (1st & 2nd authors) critically appraised the case article between April and May 2021. The latest Journal Article Reporting Standards by the American Psychological Association relevant to the review were used: i.e., Table 1 (quantitative research standards) and Table 9 (research synthesis standards). A standard fully met was deemed satisfactory. Per Krippendorff's alpha-coefficient, inter-rater agreement was moderate for Table 1 (k-alpha = .57, raw-agreement = 72.2%) and poor for Table 9 (k-alpha = .09, raw-agreement = 53.6%). A 100% consensus was reached on all discrepancies. Results suggest the case article's Abstract, Methods, and Discussion sections required clarification or more detail. Per Table 9 standards, four sections were largely incomplete: i.e., Abstract (100%-incomplete), Introduction (66%-incomplete), Methods (75%-incomplete), and Discussion (66%-incomplete). Case article strengths included tabular summary of studies analyzed in the systematic review and a cautionary comment about the review's generalizability. The article's write-up gave detail to help the reader understand the scope of the study and decisions made by the authors. However, adequate detail was not provided to assess the credibility of all claims made in the article. This could affect readers' ability to obtain critical and nuanced understanding of the article's topics. The results of this critique should encourage (continuing) education on journal article reporting standards for diverse stakeholders (e.g., authors, reviewers).

Effect of PRISMA 2009 on reporting quality in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in high-impact dental medicine journals between 1993-2018

INTRODUCTION

The PRISMA guidelines were published in 2009 to address inadequate reporting of key methodological details in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs). This study sought to assess the impact of PRISMA on the quality of reporting in the full text of dental medicine journals.

METHODS

This study assessed the impact of PRISMA (2009) on thirteen methodological details in SRs/MAs published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals between 1993-2009 (n = 211) and 2012-2018 (n = 618). The study further examined the rate of described use of PRISMA in the abstract or full text of included studies published post- PRISMA and the impact of described use of PRISMA on level of reporting. This study also examined potential effects of inclusion of PRISMA in Instructions for Authors, along with study team characteristics.

RESULTS

The number of items reported in SRs/MAs increased following the publication of PRISMA (pre-PRISMA: M = 7.83, SD = 3.267; post-PRISMA: M = 10.55, SD = 1.4). Post-PRISMA, authors rarely mention PRISMA in abstracts (8.9%) and describe the use of PRISMA in the full text in 59.87% of SRs/MAs. The described use of PRISMA within the full text indicates that its intent (guidance for reporting) is not well understood, with over a third of SRs/MAs (35.6%) describing PRISMA as guiding the conduct of the review. However, any described use of PRISMA was associated with improved reporting. Among author team characteristics examined, only author team size had a positive relationship with improved reporting.

CONCLUSION

Following the 2009 publication of PRISMA, the level of reporting of key methodological details improved for systematic reviews/meta-analyses published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals. The positive relationship between reference to PRISMA in the full text and level of reporting provides further evidence of the impact of PRISMA on improving transparent reporting in dental medicine SRs/MAs.

Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Orthopedic Journals: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Systematic reviews (SRs) with complete reporting or rigorous methods can lead to less biased recommendations and decisions. A comprehensive analysis of the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of SRs in orthopedics is lacking. We evaluated 360 SRs, including 165 and 195 published in orthopedic journals in 2012 and 2022. According to the established reporting guidelines, we examined these SRs for key epidemiological characteristics, including focus areas, type of meta-analysis (MA), and reporting characteristics. Most SRs (71%) were therapy-related, with a significant proportion originating from authors in the USA, UK, and China. Pairwise MA was performed on half of the SRs. The proportion of protocol registrations improved by 2022 but remained low (33%). Despite a formal declaration of adherence to the reporting guidelines (68%), they were often not used and reported enough. Only 10% of the studies used full search strategies, including trial registries. Publication bias assessments, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses were not even planned. The risk of bias assessment improved in 2022; however, the certainty of the evidence remained largely unassessed (8%). The use and reporting of standard methods in orthopedic SRs have remained suboptimal. Thus, authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and readers should criticize the results more.

Effects of Tai chi in knee osteoarthritis patients: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

Tai Chi (TC) is a complementary therapy for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Although systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (Mas) of efficacy studies have been published, the results remain uncertain, and their quality has not yet been fully evaluated. Here, we summarize the existing SRs/Mas, evaluate their quality and level of evidence, and provide a reference for the effectiveness of TC.

METHODS

SRs/Mas of TC therapy for KOA published before February 2023 were retrieved from eight databases in Chinese and English. The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020, and the Risk of Bias in Systematic (ROBIS) scale were used to assess methodological quality, reporting quality, and risk of bias.

RESULTS

Seven SRs/Mas were finally included. One was deemed high quality by AMASTAR-2, while the rest were of critically low quality. In the PRISMA2020 assessment, the response rate of "Yes" for Q7, Q15, Q22, Q24, and Q27 was less than 50%. In the ROBIS assessment, three reports in Phase 3 were high risk and four were low risk. In the efficacy assessment, TC has shown varying degrees of improvement in physical function, pain, stiffness, 6-minute walk test, mental quality of life, TUG, and balance in patients with KOA.

CONCLUSION

TC effectively treats KOA-associated pain, stiffness, body function, and mental quality of life. However, the low methodological quality of the studies and the high risk of migration reduced their reliability. Therefore, these conclusions should be taken with caution. High-quality, large-sample research is needed to provide stronger and more scientific evidence.

Magnetic stimulation in the treatment of female urgency urinary incontinence: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

This systematic review analyzes published studies about magnetic stimulation (MS) treatment for UUI and determines whether this treatment is effective and non-invasive.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase. The international standard for reporting results of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) was used to guide the methodology of this systematic review. The key search terms were as follows: "magnetic stimulation" and "urinary incontinence." We limited the time frame to articles published from 1998, when the FDA approved MS as a conservative treatment option for UI. The last search was performed on 5 August 2022.

RESULTS

Two authors independently reviewed 234 article titles and abstracts, of which only 5 fitted the inclusion criteria. All 5 studies included women with UUI, but every study had different diagnostic and entry criteria for patients. They also differed in their treatment regimens and methodological approaches to assessing the efficacy of treating UUI with MS, which made it impossible to compare the results. Nonetheless, all five studies established that MS is an effective and non-invasive way of treating UUI.

CONCLUSIONS

The systematic literature review led to the conclusion that MS is an effective and conservative way of treating UUI. Despite this, literature in this area is lacking. Further randomized controlled trials are needed, with standardized entry criteria, UUI diagnostics, MS programs, and standardized protocols to measure the efficacy of MS in UUI treatment, with a longer follow-up period for post-treatment patients.

Methods and results of studies on reporting guideline adherence are poorly reported: a meta-research study

OBJECTIVES

We investigated recent meta-research studies on adherence to four reporting guidelines to determine the proportion that provided (1) an explanation for how adherence to guideline items was rated and (2) results from all included individual studies. We examined conclusions of each meta-research study to evaluate possible repetitive and similar findings.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A cross-sectional meta-research study. MEDLINE (Ovid) was searched on July 5, 2022 for studies that used any version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, or Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guidelines or their extensions to evaluate reporting.

RESULTS

Of 148 included meta-research studies published between August 2020 and June 2022, 14 (10%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6%-15%) provided a fully replicable explanation of how they coded the adherence ratings and 49 (33%, 95% CI 26%-41%) completely reported individual study results. Of 90 studies that classified reporting as adequate or inadequate in the study abstract, six (7%, 95% CI 3%-14%) concluded that reporting was adequate, but none of those six studies provided information on how items were coded or provided item-level results for included studies.

CONCLUSION

Almost all included meta-research studies found that reporting in health research is suboptimal. However, few of these reported enough information for verification or replication.

Effectiveness of interventions to address different types of vulnerabilities in community-dwelling older adults: An umbrella review

Background

Frailty, social isolation, loneliness, and poverty may render older adults vulnerable to social or health stressors. It is imperative to identify effective interventions to address them especially in the context of COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective

To identify effective community-based interventions to address frailty, social isolation, loneliness, and poverty among community-dwelling older adults.

Design

Umbrella review.

Data Source

We systematically searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, EBM-Reviews, CINAHL via EBSCO, and APA PsycInfo via Ovid from January 2009 to December 2022.

Eligibility Criteria

We included systematic reviews or quantitative reviews of non-pharmacologic interventions targeting community-dwelling older adults.

Data Selection Extraction and Management

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts, performed data extraction and appraised the methodological quality of the reviews. We used a narrative synthesis approach to summarize and interpret the findings. We assessed the methodological quality of the studies using AMSTAR 2.0 tool.

Results

We identified 27 reviews incorporating 372 unique primary studies that met our inclusion criteria. Ten of the reviews included studies conducted in low-middle-income countries. Twelve reviews (46%, 12/26) included interventions that addressed frailty. Seventeen reviews (65%, 17/26) included interventions that addressed either social isolation or loneliness. Eighteen reviews included studies with single component interventions, while 23 reviews included studies with multi-component interventions. Interventions including protein supplementation combined with physical activity may improve outcomes including frailty status, grip strength, and body weight. Physical activity alone or in combination with diet may prevent frailty. Additionally, physical activity may improve social functioning and interventions using digital technologies may decrease social isolation and loneliness. We did not find any review of interventions addressing poverty among older adults. We also noted that few reviews addressed multiple vulnerabilities within the same study, specifically addressed vulnerability among ethnic and sexual minority groups, or examined interventions that engaged communities and adapted programs to local needs.

Conclusion

Evidence from reviews support diets, physical activity, and digital technologies to improve frailty, social isolation or loneliness. However, interventions examined were primarily conducted under optimal conditions. There is a need for further interventions in community settings and conducted under real world settings in older adults living with multiple vulnerabilities.

Authors arbitrarily used methodological approaches to analyze the quality of reporting in research reports: a meta-research study

OBJECTIVES

Many authors used reporting checklists as an assessment tool to analyze the reporting quality of diverse types of evidence. We aimed to analyze methodological approaches used by researchers assessing reporting quality of evidence in randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and observational studies.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We analyzed articles reporting quality assessment of evidence with Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), or the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklists published up to 18 July 2021. We analyzed methods used for assessing reporting quality.

RESULTS

Among 356 analyzed articles, 293 (88%) investigated a specific thematic field. The CONSORT checklist (N = 225; 67%) was most often used, in its original, modified, partial form, or its extension. Numerical scores were given for adherence to checklist items in 252 articles (75%), of which 36 articles (11%) used various reporting quality thresholds. In 158 (47%) articles, predictors of adherence to reporting checklist were analyzed. The most studied factor associated with adherence to reporting checklist was the year of article publication (N = 82; 52%).

CONCLUSION

The methodology used for assessing reporting quality of evidence varied considerably. The research community needs a consensus on a consistent methodology for assessing the quality of reporting.

Reporting standards for child health research were few and poorly implemented

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to identify existing reporting standards for child health research, assess the robustness of the standards development process, and evaluate the dissemination of these standards.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched MEDLINE, the EQUATOR Network Library, and Google to identify reporting standards for child health research studies. We assessed the adherence of the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines (GDHRG) by the identified reporting standards. We also assessed the use of the identified reporting standards by primary research studies, and the endorsement of the included reporting standards by journals.

RESULTS

We identified six reporting standards for child health research, including two under development. Among the four available standards their median adherence to the 18 main steps of the GDHRG was 58.35% (range: 27.8%-83.3%). None of these four reporting standards had been endorsed by pediatric journals indexed by the Science Citation Index. Only 26 primary research studies declared that they followed one of the reporting standards.

CONCLUSION

There is a quantitative and qualitative paucity of well-developed reporting standards for child health research. The available standards are also poorly implemented. This situation demands an urgent need to develop robust standards and ensure their implementation.

The Effectiveness of Intraosseous Basivertebral Nerve Ablation in the Treatment of Nonradiating Vertebrogenic Pain: A Systematic Review

Intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation has shown sustained efficacy in treating chronic axial low back pain (LBP) in patients with type 1 or 2 Modic changes. This systematic review aims to determine the efficacy of intraosseous basivertebral nerve radiofrequency ablation in treating nonradiating axial chronic LBP compared to standard therapy, sham, or without contrast. The population of interest is individuals greater than or equal to 18 years old with chronic nonradiating vertebrogenic pain. The key outcome was the percentage of patients with greater than or equal to 50% pain reduction, greater than or equal to 10-point improvement in function and disability measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), greater than or equal to two-point pain reduction in the visual analog scale (VAS) or numerical pain rating scale, and a decrease in opioid utilization by 10 morphine milligram equivalents. Three databases, PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar, were used to retrieve the studies for the review. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies for inclusion using the validated tools for quality appraisal. There were 286 articles in total; however, only 11 publications with extensive data on 413 participants matched the inclusion criteria and were used for this review. At three months, a majority of the participants reported greater than or equal to 10-point improvement in the ODI, a measure of functional and disability improvement on a 10-point scale, and greater than or equal to two-point improvement in the VAS. A good number of patients in the basivertebral nerve ablation (BVNA) arm reported complete pain resolution demonstrating therapy success and the superiority of BVNA over sham and standard treatment.  Basivertebral nerve radiofrequency ablation, among other criteria, is a safe and minimally invasive therapy that significantly lowers pain and impairment in individuals with vertebrogenic pain with distinct Modic type 1 and 2 changes at lumbar vertebra three-sacral vertebra one (L3-S1) vertebral levels. Proper patient selection and exact procedural methods are essential to the success of basivertebral nerve neurotomy. The findings of the existing investigations require confirmation by nonindustry-funded, large-scale, high-quality trials using generalizable study participants.

TFOS Lifestyle - Evidence quality report: Advancing the evaluation and synthesis of research evidence

Evidence-based practice is a dominant paradigm in healthcare that emphasizes the importance of ensuring the translation of the best available, relevant research evidence into practice. An Evidence Quality Subcommittee was established to provide specialized methodological support and expertise to promote rigorous and evidence-based approaches for the Tear Film and Ocular Surface Society (TFOS) Lifestyle Epidemic reports. The present report describes the purpose, scope, and activity of the Evidence Quality Subcommittee in the undertaking of high-quality narrative-style literature reviews, and leading prospectively registered, reliable systematic reviews of high priority research questions, using standardized methods for each topic area report. Identification of predominantly low or very low certainty evidence across the eight systematic reviews highlights a need for further research to define the efficacy and/or safety of specific lifestyle interventions on the ocular surface, and to clarify relationships between certain lifestyle factors and ocular surface disease. To support the citation of reliable systematic review evidence in the narrative review sections of each report, the Evidence Quality Subcommittee curated topic-specific systematic review databases and relevant systematic reviews underwent standardized reliability assessment. Inconsistent methodological rigor was noted in the published systematic review literature, emphasizing the importance of internal validity assessment. Based on the experience of implementing the Evidence Quality Subcommittee, this report makes suggestions for incorporation of such initiatives in future international taskforces and working groups. Content areas broadly relevant to the activity of the Evidence Quality Subcommittee, including the critical appraisal of research, clinical evidence hierarchies (levels of evidence), and risk of bias assessment, are also outlined.

A comprehensive systematic review of colorectal cancer screening clinical practices guidelines and consensus statements

High-quality clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) are essential for evidence-based medicine. The purpose of this systematic review was to appraise the quality and reporting of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening CPGs and CSs. After prospective registration (Prospero no: CRD42021286156), a systematic review searched CRC guidances in duplicate without language restrictions in ten databases, 20 society websites, and grey literature from 2018 to 2021. We appraised quality with AGREE II (% of maximum score) and reporting with RIGHT (% of total 35 items) tools. Twenty-four CPGs and 5 CSs were analysed. The median overall quality and reporting were 54.0% (IQR 45.7-75.0) and 42.0% (IQR 31.4-68.6). The applicability had low quality (AGREE II score <50%) in 83% of guidances (24/29). Recommendations and conflict of interest were low-reported (RIGHT score <50%) in 62% guidances (18/29) and 69% (20/29). CPGs that deployed systematic reviews had better quality and reporting than CSs (AGREE: 68.5% vs. 35.5%; p = 0.001; RIGHT: 74.6% vs. 41.4%; p  =  0.001). In summary, CRC screening CPGs and CSs achieved low quality and reporting. It is necessary a revision and an improvement of the current guidances. Their development should apply a robust methodology using proper guideline development tools to obtain high-quality evidence-based documents.

Reporting quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) for NMA checklist.

METHODS

The current investigation extends a recently published study in the International Endodontic Journal (Nagendrababu V, Faggion Jr CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PM Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics. International Endodontic Journal 2022;55:393-404) that assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. In the present study, the PRISMA for NMA checklist with 32 items was used to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews with NMAs (n = 12). Two independent assessors assigned '1' when an item was completely addressed, '0.5' when it was partially addressed, and '0' when it was not addressed. Disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion until consensus was reached. If conflicts persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The PRISMA for NMA scores were shared with the relevant authors of the individual reviews to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and verify the scores assigned. The results for each individual item of the PRISMA-NMA items were calculated by summing the individual scores awarded; the maximum score for each item was 12.

RESULTS

All the systematic reviews with NMAs adequately reported the following items: Title, Introduction section (Objectives), Methods section (Eligibility criteria and Information sources), Results section (Study selection, Study characteristics and Risk of bias within studies), and Discussion section (Summary of evidence). The items that were reported least often were the "geometry of the network" and "the summary of network geometry" with only 2 manuscripts (17%) including these items.

CONCLUSION

A number of the items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist were adequately addressed in the NMAs; however, none adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. The inadequacies of published NMAs that have been identified should be taken into consideration by authors of NMAs in Endodontics and by editors when managing the peer review process. In future, researchers who are writing systematic reviews with NMAs should comply with the PRISMA-NMA checklist.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

None of the included systematic reviews with NMA adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. Inadequate reporting of a systematic review with NMA increases the possibility that it will provide invalid results. Therefore, authors should follow the PRISMA-NMA guidelines when reporting systematic reviews with NMA in Endodontics.

The quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses assessing the effects of ankle-foot orthosis on clinical outcomes in stroke patients: A methodological systematic review

Background and Aims

Given the importance of systematic reviews (SRs) for practitioners, researchers, and policymakers, it is essential to assess them to ensure robust methodology and reliable results before applying them. The purpose of this methodological study was to assess the methodological and reporting quality of recently published SRs and/or meta-analyses (MAs) evaluating the effects of ankle-foot orthoses (AFOs) on clinical outcomes in stroke survivors.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, ProQuest, CENTRAL, REHABDATA, and PEDro were searched. The research team applied A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist for evaluating the reporting and methodological quality, respectively, and the ROBIS tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias (RoB) in the included reviews. The quality of the evidence was also judged using the (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) GRADE method.

Results

In final, 14 SRs/MAs met inclusion criteria. Evaluation of methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 tool demonstrated that the overall quality of included reviews was mostly "critically low" or "low," except for two studies that were "high." In addition, the findings showed that the mean score of the reporting quality of the included reviews based on the PRISMA criteria was 24.9, down from 42. In accordance with the overall evaluation applying the ROBIS tool, 14.3% of the review studies were evaluated as high RoB, 64.3% were evaluated as unclear RoB, and 21.4% were evaluated as low RoB. Regarding the level of evidence quality, the GRADE results indicated that the evidence quality of the included reviews was unsatisfactory.

Conclusion

This study showed that although the reporting quality of recently published SR/MAs evaluating the clinical effects of AFOs in stroke survivors was moderate, the methodological quality of almost all reviews was suboptimal. Therefore, reviewers must consider a number of criteria in designing, conducting, and reporting their studies to move toward transparent and conclusive results.

Pre-clinical efficacy of African medicinal plants used in the treatment of snakebite envenoming: A systematic review

The World Health Organization has listed Snakebite Envenoming (SBE) as a priority neglected tropical disease, with a worldwide annual snakebite affecting 5.4 million people and injuring 2.7 million lives. In many parts of rural areas of Africa and Asia, medicinal plants have been used as alternatives to conventional antisnake venom (ASV) due in part to inaccessibility to hospitals. Systemic reviews (SR) of laboratory-based preclinical studies play an essential role in drug discovery. We conducted an SR to evaluate the relationship between interventional medicinal plants and their observed effects on venom-induced experiments. This SR was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The Modified collaborative approach to meta-analysis and review of animal data from experimental studies (CAMARADES) and SYRCLE's risk of bias tools were used to appraise the included studies. Data were searched online in Medline via PubMed, Embase via OVID, and Scopus. Studies reporting in vivo and in vitro pharmacological activities of African medicinal plants/extracts/constituents against venom-induced pathologies were identified and included for screening. Data from the included studies were extracted and synthesized. Ten studies reported statistically significant percentage protection (40-100%) of animals against venom-induced lethality compared with control groups that received no medicinal plant intervention. Sixteen studies reported significant effects (p ≤ 0.05) against venom-induced pathologies compared with the control group; these include hemolytic, histopathologic, necrotic, and anti-enzymatic effects. The plant family Fabaceae has the highest number of studies reporting its efficacy, followed by Annonaceae, Malvaceae, Combretaceae, Sterculiaceae, and Olacaceae. Some African medicinal plants are preclinically effective against venom-induced lethality, hematotoxicity, and cytotoxicity. The evidence was extracted from three in vitro studies, nine in vivo studies, and five studies that combined both in vivo and in vitro models. The effective plants belong to the Fabaceae family, followed by Malvaceae, and Annonaceae.

Critical Appraisal of the Quality of Publications in Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Research Using the American College of Surgeons NSQIP Database

BACKGROUND

The use of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) NSQIP has increased in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery (HPB) research as it provides access to high-quality surgical outcome data on a national scale. Using the ACS NSQIP database, this study examined the methodologic reporting of HPB publications.

STUDY DESIGN

Web of Science core collection (all editions) was queried for all HPB studies using the ACS NSQIP database published between 2004 and 2022. In addition, a critical appraisal was performed using the JAMA Surgery checklist, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement, and Reporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely-Collected Health Data (RECORD) statement.

RESULTS

In total, 276 studies were included in the analysis. The median scores for the JAMA Surgery checklist, RECORD statement, and STROBE statement were 4 of 7 (interquartile range [IQR] 3 to 5), 3 of 10 (IQR 2 to 4), and 15 of 21 (IQR 13 to 17), respectively. The criteria with the highest rates of nonadherence were discussing competing risks, clear definitions of inclusion and exclusion criteria, unadjusted and adjusted outcomes, provision of supplementary data, and performing subgroup analyses. Additionally, when examining checklist fulfillment of hepatobiliary studies and pancreatic studies separately, pancreatic studies demonstrated significantly greater fulfillment of the STROBE statement checklist items.

CONCLUSIONS

Satisfactory reporting of methodology is present among HPB studies utilizing the ACS NSQIP database, with multiple opportunities for improvement. Areas for improved adherence include discussing competing risks, providing supplementary information, and performing appropriate subgroup analysis. Given the increasing role of large-scale databases in surgical research, enhanced commitment to reporting guidelines may advance HPB research and ensure quality reporting.

Reporting quality and risk of bias in JBI systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of interventions: a methodological review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this methodological review is to evaluate the adherence of systematic reviews of effectiveness published in JBI Evidence Synthesis to reporting guidelines and methodological quality.

INTRODUCTION

Systematic reviews of effectiveness are essential tools for health practitioners and policy-makers. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool are used to ensure maintenance of high reporting standards and methodological quality, respectively. This review will utilize these tools to identify strengths and shortfalls in the reporting quality of JBI systematic reviews of effectiveness.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review will include the 20 most recent systematic reviews of effectiveness published in JBI Evidence Synthesis .

METHODS

This review will search MEDLINE (PubMed) for effectiveness reviews published in JBI Evidence Synthesis . Abstract and full-text screening will be performed by 2 independent reviewers, and the most recent 20 studies will be selected for inclusion. Data regarding adherence to PRISMA 2020 and ROBIS will be extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Data will be presented descriptively with tables and synthesized narratively.

One-Third of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation Applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) System to Evaluate Certainty of Evidence: A Meta-Research Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine how many systematic reviews (SRs) of the literature in rehabilitation assess the certainty of evidence (CoE) and how many apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to do this.

DATA SOURCES

For this meta-research study, we searched PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases for SRs on rehabilitation published in 2020.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently selected the SRs and extracted the data. Reporting characteristics and appropriate use of the GRADE system were assessed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The search retrieved 827 records: 29% (239/827) SRs evaluated CoE, 68% (163/239) of which applied the GRADE system. GRADE was used by SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs, 88%; 144/163), non-randomized intervention studies (NRIS, 2%; 3/163), and both RCT and NRIS (10%; 16/163). In the latter case, a separate GRADE assessment according to the study design was not provided in 75% (12/16). The reasons for GRADE judgment were reported in 82% (134/163) of SRs.

CONCLUSIONS

One-third of SRs in rehabilitation assessed CoE with the GRADE system. GRADE assessment was presented transparently by most SRs. Journal editors and funders should encourage the uptake of the GRADE system when considering SRs in rehabilitation for publication. The authors should pre-define GRADE assessment in a registered and/or published protocol.

From standard systematic reviews to living systematic reviews

Systematic reviews (SRs) have become a central tool for evidence-based health care over the last 30 years. The number of SRs being published has increased steadily. However, concerns have been raised regarding the duplication of work, methodological flaws and the currency of many systematic reviews, also in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Living systematic reviews (LSRs) offer a new approach to updating systematic reviews, particularly in high-priority research fields that face the challenge of dynamically evolving and sometimes uncertain evidence. Continual updates serve to ensure that LSRs remain current and methodologically rigorous. As a new element of the evidence ecosystem, LSRs can inform living guidelines and recommendations, user-adapted formats, decisions at the patient and system level as well as gaps in primary research.

Effectiveness and safety of Inclisiran in hyperlipidemia treatment: An overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

This paper aimed to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Inclisiran in treating hyperlipidemia through an overview of systematic reviews (SRs).

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, CNKI, WANGFANG database, VIP database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICRT were searched electronically to collect SRs and meta-analysis of Inclisiran in hyperlipidemia treatment from the establishment of the database till May 2022. Two researchers independently screened the relevant literature, then the assessment of multiple systematic reviews tool was made into assess the methodological quality of the included studies. Data extracted were used to perform the study through RevMan5.3 software. The grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation tool was used to grade the quality of the evidence of the outcomes included in the SRs. Prospero ID: CRD 42022326845.

RESULTS

A total of 10 relevant SRs were included, involving 7 randomized controlled trials. The assessment results of the assessment of multiple systematic reviews tool suggested that the quality of the SRs included needed to be improved. The reduced level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol of the experimental group was lower than the control group, and the difference in the amount of effectiveness was statistically significant (MD = -50.13, 95%CI: -56.2 to -44.06, P < .00001). The grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation results showed that out of 27 outcomes, 8 were high-quality, 3 were of medium quality, 6 were of low quality, and 10 were of the most inferior quality.

CONCLUSION

300mg Inclisiran with 2 injections a year has the best therapeutic effect, which can significantly reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol, and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in patients with hyperlipidemia. Inclisiran has a favorable safety profile, with no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions compared to a placebo. Most of the adverse effects were associated with the reaction on the injection site.

Author's Reply

This is an author's reply and does not contain an abstract. Please download the article PDF or view it in HTML.

GRADE Use in Evidence Syntheses Published in High-Impact-Factor Gynecology and Obstetrics Journals: A Methodological Survey

Objective: To identify and describe the certainty of evidence of gynecology and obstetrics systematic reviews (SRs) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Method: Database searches of SRs using GRADE, published between 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2020, in the 10 "gynecology and obstetrics" journals with the highest impact factor, according to the Journal Citation Report 2019. Selected studies included those SRs using the GRADE approach, used to determine the certainty of evidence. Results: Out of 952 SRs, ninety-six SRs of randomized control trials (RCTs) and/or nonrandomized studies (NRSs) used GRADE. Sixty-seven SRs (7.04%) rated the certainty of evidence for specific outcomes. In total, we identified 946 certainty of evidence outcome ratings (n = 614 RCT ratings), ranging from very-low (42.28%) to low (28.44%), moderate (17.65%), and high (11.63%). High and very low certainty of evidence ratings accounted for 2.16% and 71.60% in the SRs of NRSs, respectively, compared with 16.78% and 26.55% in the SRs of RCTs. In the SRs of RCTs and NRSs, certainty of evidence was mainly downgraded due to imprecision and bias risks. Conclusions: More attention needs to be paid to strengthening GRADE acceptance and building knowledge of GRADE methods in gynecology and obstetrics evidence synthesis.

Effectiveness and Safety of Immunosuppressive Drug Therapy for Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorders: An Overview of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to provide an overview of meta-analyses and systematic reviews on the effectiveness and safety of immunosuppressive drug therapy for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) by evaluating the methodological quality and reporting quality of reviews.

METHODS

The Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang Data, China Science and Technology Journal Database, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched to collect systematic reviews or meta-analyses on the effectiveness and safety of immunosuppressive therapy for NMOSD from inception to December 2, 2021. Two researchers independently screened reviews and extracted data. Any differences in the procession of review assessment between the two researchers were re-evaluated, and the disagreement was resolved by discussion with other researchers. The following data were extracted: author, year of publication, the country where the study was conducted, study type, the number of included studies, sample size, risk bias tools, medication of immunosuppressive therapy, and main outcomes. Then, the AMSTAR-2, which is a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews (2nd edition), and Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were used to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of evidence. A comprehensive analysis was conducted on the outcomes for all included reviews.

RESULTS

A total of 15 reviews were included. Of the included reviews, 3 were systematic reviews, 7 were meta-analyses, and 5 were systematic reviews and meta-analyses. According to the AMSTAR-2 criteria, 6 studies had high quality, 1 study had moderate quality, 4 studies had low quality, and 4 studies had critically low quality. Based on the GRADE, neither evidence quality for effectiveness nor safety was high.

CONCLUSION

Immunosuppressive drug therapy is effective for patients with NMOSD, but its safety is controversial. Due to the poor quality of evidence, reliability needs to be considered. Thus, large sample, multi-center, double-blind, randomized controlled studies are still needed in the future.

An appraisal of the methodology and quality of evidence of systematic reviews on the efficacy of prone positional ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: an umbrella review

The objective of the study was to evaluate all available systematic reviews on the use of prone positional ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). An umbrella review on the efficacy of prone positional ventilation in adult patients ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome was conducted. We performed a systematic search in the database of Medline (Pubmed), Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Epistemonikos. The ROBIS tools and GRADE methodology were used to assess the risk of bias and certainty of evidence. We estimated the necessary number of patients to be treated to have benefit. For the synthesis of the result, we selected the review with the lowest risk of bias. Sixteen systematic reviews including 64 randomized clinical trials and evaluating the effect of prone positional ventilation, with or without other ventilation strategies were included. Aoyama 2019 observed prone positioning, without complementary ventilation strategies, leading to a reduction in the 28-day mortality only when compared to high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.39-0.95) and lung-protective ventilation in the supine position (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.98), with an ARR of 9.32% and 14.94%, an NNTB of 5.89 and 8.04, and a low and moderate certainty of evidence, respectively. Most reviews had severe methodological flaws that led to results with very low certainty of evidence. The review with the lowest risk of bias presented results in favor of prone positional ventilation compared with high-frequency oscillatory ventilation and lung-protective ventilation. There is a need to update the available reviews to obtain more accurate results.

The impact of funding on the quality and interpretation of systematic reviews of mechanical thrombectomy in stroke patients

BACKGROUND

Funding may impact the quality and findings of systematic reviews (SRs). We aimed to compare the methodological quality of funded and non-funded SRs that investigated the outcomes in ischemic stroke patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search strategy in different databases, including Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline (including epub ahead of print, in-process & other non-indexed citations), PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection to retrieve all relevant SRs. Random sequence generation matched each funded SR with a non-funded one. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-2 tool was used to assess the bias and quality of the included SRs. We also used uni- and multivariate analysis to perform our analysis, and results were expressed in odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

We retrieved 150 articles, which were randomized and matched into 100 SRs, including 50 funded and 50 non-funded studies. By multivariate analysis, we found that including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (OR: 5.7; 95% CI: 1.8-17.8; p = 0.003) and reporting conflict of interests (OR: 5.2; 95 CI: 1.1-24; p = 0.036) were the only significant differences between funded and non-funded SRs. No significant differences were found regarding the overall confidence for low-quality (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.09-3.2; p = 0.49) and moderate/high-quality SRs (OR: 0.17; 95% CI: 0.02-1.87; p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

Funded studies tend to include RCTs more often and report conflict of interests with no significant impact on overall confidence.

Effects of exercise interventions on cancer-related fatigue in breast cancer patients: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

This overview of systematic reviews aims to critically appraise and consolidate evidence from current systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses on the effects of exercise interventions on cancer-related fatigue (CRF) in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

SRs/meta-analyses that explored the effects of exercise interventions on CRF in breast cancer patients compared with the routine methods of treatment and care were retrieved from nine databases. The methodological quality of the included SRs was appraised using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews II (AMSTAR II). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to calculate the grading of outcomes in the included SRs. The exercise type, frequency, duration, and inclusion/absence of supervision were further evaluated with subgroup analyses. The Stata 16.0 software was utilized for data analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine reviews were included. The overall methodological quality and level of evidence of the included reviews were unsatisfactory, with only three reviews rated as high methodological quality and no review identified as high-quality evidence. Moderate certainty evidence indicated that exercise could improve fatigue in breast cancer patients (SMD = - 0.40 [95%CI - 0.58, - 0.22]; P = 0.0001). Subgroup analysis based on the types of exercise showed that yoga (SMD = - 0.30 [95%CI - 0.56, - 0.05]; I2 = 28.7%) and aerobic exercise (SMD = - 0.29 [95%CI - 0.56, - 0.02]; I2 = 16%) had a significantly better effect on CRF in breast cancer patients; exercising for over 6 months (SMD = - 0.88 [95%CI - 1.59, - 0.17]; I2 = 42.7%; P = 0.0001), three times per week (SMD = - 0.77 [95%CI - 1.04, - 0.05]; I2 = 0%; P = 0.0001), and for 30 to 60 min per session (SMD = - 0.81 [95%CI - 1.15, - 0.47]; I2 = 42.3%; P = 0.0001) can contribute to a moderate improvement of CRF. Supervised exercise (SMD = - 0.48 [95%CI - 0.77, - 0.18]; I2 = 87%; P = 0.001) was shown to relieve CRF.

CONCLUSION

Exercise played a favorable role in alleviating CRF in breast cancer. Yoga was recommended as a promising exercise modality for CRF management in the majority of the included studies. Exercising for at least three times per week with 30 to 60 min per session could be recommended as a suitable dosage for achieving improvement in CRF. Supervised exercise was found to be more effective in alleviating CRF than unsupervised exercise. More rigorously designed clinical studies are needed to specify the exact exercise type, duration, frequency, and intensity to have an optimal effect on CRF in breast cancer patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: CRD42020219866.

Effectiveness of reminiscence therapy interventions for older people: Evidence mapping and qualitative evaluation

WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Reminiscence therapy is a common psychosocial intervention in mental health nursing. Numerous secondary studies have explored the effects of reminiscence therapy interventions in older adults, and while the effects are significant, conflicting results remain. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: To date, research on reminiscence therapy has examined different disorders in isolation from one another. By illustrating the evidence gaps between studies, this paper highlights the need for a new evidence-based summary overview of reminiscence therapy research. The results suggest that reminiscence therapy can be beneficial to the improvement of mental health and quality of life for older people. However, we found that the secondary studies were not of high quality and that further high-quality literature supporting the evidence is still needed. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE?: Reminiscence therapy may be considered a useful non-pharmacological intervention for older people with mental and psychological problems. However, there is a lack of normative guidelines for reminiscence therapy in terms of intervention time, frequency, and form. The development of a global standard protocol for the application of reminiscence therapy may be necessary for future randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Reminiscence therapy is an alternative to pharmaceutical intervention provided during long-term care, especially for older people with mental and psychological problems. However, the effects of reminiscence therapy remain inconclusive.

AIM

The present study aimed to systematically identify, synthesize and describe the research evidence and quality of systematic reviews (SRs) related to reminiscence interventions for older people through an evidence-mapping approach.

METHODS

Commonly used English and Chinese databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WANFANG, VIP and SinoMed, were searched from inception till 31 March 2022. The study type was restricted to SRs with or without meta-analysis. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). The Microsoft Excel 2019 tool was used for data extraction and coding, and bubble charts were used to synthesize information on the study population, intervention category, original study sample size and classification of findings.

RESULTS

A total of 28 SRs were enrolled, including 514 original studies, 91.4% of which were randomized controlled trials. The main participants of the study were depressed older people (7 publications), older people with dementia (10 publications) and ordinary older people (8 publications). The findings of 26 (92.8%) publications were categorized as either "beneficial" or "potentially beneficial." The primary outcome indicators of the effectiveness of the reminiscence intervention for older people are mental and psychological problems (especially depressive symptoms and cognitive functioning), quality of life and categories of positive psychology (e.g., life satisfaction, happiness and self-esteem). The main factors influencing the intervention effect were the intervention period, residential setting, intervention format (group/individual) and intervention intensity. The intervention settings/contexts were mainly community and long-term care facilities. However, the methodological quality of 27 (96.4%) of the SRs was scored as either "Low" or "Critically Low."

DISCUSSION

Reminiscence therapy has been used to study the mental health and quality of life of older people in various conditions, with significant results. However, due to the limited evidence included in the studies and the low methodological quality, there is still a need to focus on the issue of effectiveness and evidence gaps for different interventions in the field of recall in the future, in addition to efforts to improve the methodological quality and standardize the reporting process for the evaluation of reminiscence intervention systems.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Reminiscence therapy may be considered a useful non-pharmacological intervention for older people with mental and psychological problems. A standard protocol for reminiscence therapy may be necessary for future studies.

Publishing clinical prActice GuidelinEs (PAGE): Recommendations from editors and reviewers

Transparency Ecosystem for Research and Journals in Medicine (TERM) working group summarized the essential recommendations that should be considered to review and publish a high-quality guideline. These recommendations from editors and reviewers included 10 components of essential requirements: systematic review of existing relevant guidelines, guideline registration, guideline protocol, stakeholders, conflicts of interest, clinical questions, systematic reviews, recommendation consensus, guideline reporting and external review. TERM working group abbreviates them as PAGE (essential requirements for Publishing clinical prActice GuidelinEs), and recommends guideline authors, editors, and peer reviewers to use them for high-quality guidelines.

Quality of systematic reviews of COVID-19 in people with diabetes: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the methodological quality of published systematic reviews of factors associated with COVID-19 in people with diabetes.

METHOD

Systematic review with registration protocol in PROSPERO, under the number CRD42020222418. Searches were carried out from October to November 2020 in the databases of the MedLine, Web of Science, Scopus, Lilacs, Embase and Cochrane libraries, in addition to searching the reference list of the selected studies. Systematic review studies with or without meta-analysis and without date and language restrictions were included. Data were extracted in a standardized way and the quality of the studies was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews scale.

RESULTS

Twelve reviews, published between 2020 and 2021, with a predominance of the English language, systematic reviews of observational studies with meta-analysis with a sample ranging from six to 83 studies, were included. Regarding financing, most of the study reported did not receive this type of support. Regarding to the assessment of the methodological quality of the studies, three were of moderate quality, five were classified as low quality and three with critically low quality.

CONCLUSIONS

The analyzed articles presented a bias in the preparation of reports on their studies, suggesting the need to use mechanisms to improve adherence to the established reporting guidelines and methodological evaluation tools.

[Quality of systematic reviews of COVID-19 in people with diabetes: A systematic review]

Objective

To investigate the methodological quality of published systematic reviews of factors associated with COVID-19 in people with diabetes.

Method

Systematic review with registration protocol in PROSPERO, under the number CRD42020222418. Searches were carried out from October to November 2020 in the databases of the Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, Embase and Cochrane Library, in addition to searching the reference list of the selected studies. Systematic review studies with or without meta-analysis and without date and language restrictions were included. Data were extracted in a standardized way and the quality of the studies was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews scale.

Results

Twelve reviews, published between 2020 and 2021, with a predominance of the English language, systematic reviews of observational studies with meta-analysis with a sample ranging from 6 to 83 studies, were included. Regarding financing, most of the study reported did not receive this type of support. Regarding to the assessment of the methodological quality of the studies, 3 were of moderate quality, 5 were classified as low quality and 3 with critically low quality.

Conclusions

The analyzed articles presented a bias in the preparation of reports on their studies, suggesting the need to use mechanisms to improve adherence to the established reporting guidelines and methodological evaluation tools.

[Extensions of guidelines for reporting types of study in medicine]

The use of different guides to report types of study in the medical field has been widely disseminated for decades, however, their adherence and use by an important part of researchers is still limited, this has negatively impacted the dissemination of new findings, which has generated criticism regarding how medical research is designed, conducted and reported. Parallel to this, there are extensions to these guidelines which are little known and used by the personnel involved in research work, they focus on more specific approaches to report different types of studies, among which are: meta-analysis, systematic reviews, clinical trials randomized, diagnostic accuracy studies, observational studies, among others; for this reason, its promotion, knowledge, and use is of vital importance. The objective of this review is to synthesize the main extensions of the guidelines used in medical research; for this purpose, its main characteristics were reviewed, as well as application scenarios according to the level of evidence; Its adequate adherence will allow health personnel involved in research work to increase the transparency and quality of their findings, contemplate potential sources of bias, as well as the development of good practices for the presentation of their results according to the type of study selected.

Restrictions and their reporting in systematic reviews of effectiveness: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Restrictions in systematic reviews (SRs) can lead to bias and may affect conclusions. Therefore, it is important to report whether and which restrictions were used. This study aims to examine the use of restrictions regarding language, publication period, and study type, as well as the transparency of reporting in SRs of effectiveness.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted with a random sample of 535 SRs of effectiveness indexed in PubMed between 2000 and 2019. The use of restrictions and their reporting were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the total 535 SRs included, four out of every ten (41.3%) lacked information on at least one of the three restrictions considered (language, publication period, or study type). Overall, 14.6% of SRs did not provide information on restrictions regarding publication period, 19.1% regarding study type, and 18.3% regarding language. Of all included SRs, language was restricted in 46.4%, and in more than half of the SRs with restricted language (130/248), it was unclear whether the restriction was applied during either the search or the screening process, or both. The restrictions were justified for publication period in 22.2% of the respective SRs (33/149), study type in 6.5% (28/433), and language in 3.2% (8/248). Differences in reporting were found between countries as well as between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that there is a lack of transparency in reporting on restrictions in SRs. Authors as well as editors and reviewers should be encouraged to improve the reporting and justification of restrictions to increase the transparency of SRs.

Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement

OBJECTIVE

To develop a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.

DESIGN

Development of the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement.

PARTICIPANTS

Core team (seven individuals) led day-to-day operations, and an expert advisory group (three individuals) provided methodological advice. A panel of 100 experts (authors, editors, readers including members of the public or patients) was invited to participate in a modified Delphi exercise. 11 expert panellists (chosen on the basis of expertise, and representing relevant stakeholder groups) were invited to take part in a virtual face-to-face meeting to reach agreement (≥70%) on final checklist items. 21 authors of recently published overviews were invited to pilot test the checklist.

SETTING

International consensus.

INTERVENTION

Four stage process established by the EQUATOR Network for developing reporting guidelines in health research: project launch (establish a core team and expert advisory group, register intent), evidence reviews (systematic review of published overviews to describe reporting quality, scoping review of methodological guidance and author reported challenges related to undertaking overviews of reviews), modified Delphi exercise (two online Delphi surveys to reach agreement (≥70%) on relevant reporting items followed by a virtual face-to-face meeting), and development of the reporting guideline.

RESULTS

From the evidence reviews, we drafted an initial list of 47 potentially relevant reporting items. An international group of 52 experts participated in the first Delphi survey (52% participation rate); agreement was reached for inclusion of 43 (91%) items. 44 experts (85% retention rate) completed the second Delphi survey, which included the four items lacking agreement from the first survey and five new items based on respondent comments. During the second round, agreement was not reached for the inclusion or exclusion of the nine remaining items. 19 individuals (6 core team and 3 expert advisory group members, and 10 expert panellists) attended the virtual face-to-face meeting. Among the nine items discussed, high agreement was reached for the inclusion of three and exclusion of six. Six authors participated in pilot testing, resulting in minor wording changes. The final checklist includes 27 main items (with 19 sub-items) across all stages of an overview of reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

PRIOR fills an important gap in reporting guidance for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. The checklist, along with rationale and example for each item, provides guidance for authors that will facilitate complete and transparent reporting. This will allow readers to assess the methods used in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions and understand the trustworthiness and applicability of their findings.

Critically Appraising the Quality of Reporting of American College of Surgeons TQIP Studies in the Era of Large Data Research

BACKGROUND

The American College of Surgeons-Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS-TQIP) database is one of the most widely used databases for trauma research. We aimed to critically appraise the quality of the methodological reporting of ACS-TQIP studies.

STUDY DESIGN

The ACS-TQIP bibliography was queried for all studies published between January 2018 and January 2021. The quality of data reporting was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology-Reporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely Collected Health Data (STROBE-RECORD) statement and the JAMA Surgery checklist. Three items from each tool were not applicable and thus excluded. The quality of reporting was compared between high- and low-impact factor (IF) journals (cutoff for high IF is >90th percentile of all surgical journals).

RESULTS

A total of 118 eligible studies were included; 12 (10%) were published in high-IF journals. The median (interquartile range) number of criteria fulfilled was 5 (4-6) for the STROBE-RECORD statement (of 10 items) and 5 (5-6) for the JAMA Surgery checklist (of 7 items). Specifically, 73% of studies did not describe the patient population selection process, 61% did not address data cleaning or the implications of missing values, and 76% did not properly state inclusion/exclusion criteria and/or outcome variables. Studies published in high-IF journals had remarkably higher quality of reporting than those in low-IF journals.

CONCLUSION

The methodological reporting quality of ACS-TQIP studies remains suboptimal. Future efforts should focus on improving adherence to standard reporting guidelines to mitigate potential bias and improve the reproducibility of published studies.

Publishing clinical prActice GuidelinEs (PAGE): Recommendations from editors and reviewers

Transparency Ecosystem for Research and Journals in Medicine (TERM) Working Group summarized the essential recommendations that should be considered to review and publish a high-quality guideline. These recommendations from editors and reviewers included the ten components of essential requirements: systematic review of existing relevant guidelines, guideline registration, guideline protocol, stakeholders, conflicts of interest, clinical questions, systematic reviews, recommendation consensus, guideline reporting, and external review. TERM Working Group abbreviates them as PAGE (essential requirements for Publishing clinical prActice GuidelinEs), recommends guideline authors, editors, and peer reviewers use them for high-quality guidelines.