Mapping and systematic appraisal of umbrella reviews in epidemiological research: a protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

Methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics: A cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

In endodontics, the number of umbrella reviews has increased significantly over the last few years, but there is no evidence that they were methodologically sound. The aim of the current study was to appraise the methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics, and to identify possible predictive factors associated with methodological quality.

METHODS

Umbrella reviews published in the discipline of endodontics until December 2023 were included. The methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated using a checklist consisting of 11 items. Each item in the checklist was evaluated by two independent assessors who assigned a score of '1' if it was fully addressed, '0.5' if it was partially ddressed, and '0' if it was not addressed. Bootstrapped multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the association between the total scores awarded and five predictor variables (a priori protocol registration, year of publication, number of authors, journal impact factor (IF) and continent of the corresponding author). The statistical significance level was set as 5%.

RESULTS

A total of 27 reviews were included. Ninety-six per cent of the reviews adequately reported: eligibility criteria for selecting the reviews, details of the reviews, techniques for assessing the risk of bias or methodological quality of the individual systematic reviews they included. Only 30% of the reviews adequately managed overlapping primary studies within individual systematic reviews. Among the five predictors analysed, a priori protocol registration and journals with IFs were associated with significantly greater total methodological quality scores.

DISCUSSION

Several methodological shortcomings in the umbrella reviews published within the field of endodontics were revealed. Umbrella reviews published in journals with IFs and those with protocols registered a priori had significantly superior methodological quality scores.

CONCLUSION

In endodontics, authors intending to publish umbrella reviews should consider the limitations revealed in this study and follow the appropriate rules to ensure their reviews comply with the highest standards and provide accurate and dependable information and conclusions.

Stress, anxiety, depression and sleep disturbance among healthcare professional during the COVID-19 pandemic: An umbrella review of 72 meta-analyses

The outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, has significantly impacted the psychological and physical health of a wide range of individuals, including healthcare professionals (HCPs). This umbrella review aims provide a quantitative summary of meta-analyses that have investigated the prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbance among HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic. An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses reviews was conducted. The search was performed using the EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar databases from 01st January 2020 to 15th January 2024. A random-effects model was then used to estimate prevalence with a 95% confidence interval. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analyses were then conducted to explore the heterogeneity of the sample. Seventy-two meta-analyses involved 2,308 primary studies were included after a full-text review. The umbrella review revealed that the pooled prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbance among HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic was 37% (95% CI 32.87-41.22), 31.8% (95% CI 29.2-34.61) 29.4% (95% CI 27.13-31.84) 36.9% (95% CI 33.78-40.05) respectively. In subgroup analyses the prevalence of anxiety and depression was higher among nurses than among physicians. Evidence from this umbrella review suggested that a significant proportion of HCPs experienced stress, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbance during the COVID-19 pandemic. This information will support authorities when implementing specific interventions that address mental health problems among HCPs during future pandemics or any other health crises. Such interventions may include the provision of mental health support services, such as counseling and peer support programs, as well as the implementation of organizational strategies to reduce workplace stressors.

Maternal health outcomes associated with ambient air pollution: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

A growing body of literature demonstrated an association between exposure to ambient air pollution and maternal health outcomes with mixed findings. The objective of this umbrella review was to systematically summarize the global evidence on the effects of air pollutants on maternal health outcomes. We adopted the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting standards for this umbrella review. We conducted a comprehensive search across six major electronic databases and other sources to identify relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) published from the inception of these databases up to June 30, 2023. Out of 2399 records, 20 citations matched all pre-determined eligibility criteria that include SRMAs focusing on exposure to air pollution and its impact on maternal health, reported quantitative measures or summary effects, and published in peer-reviewed journals in the English language. The risk of bias of included SRMAs was evaluated based on the JBI critical appraisal checklist. All SRMAs reported significant positive associations between ambient air pollution and several maternal health outcomes. Specifically, particulate matter (PM), SO2, and NO demonstrated positive associations with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Moreover, PM and NO2 showed a consistent positive relationship with hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (HDP) and preeclampsia (PE). Although limited, available evidence highlighted a positive correlation between PM and gestational hypertension (GH) and spontaneous abortion (SAB). Only one meta-analysis reported the effects of air pollution on maternal postpartum depression (PPD) where only PM10 showed a significant positive relationship. Limited studies were identified from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), suggesting evidence gap from the global south. This review necessitates further research on underrepresented regions and communities to strengthen evidence on this critical issue. Lastly, interdisciplinary policymaking and multilevel interventions are needed to alleviate ambient air pollution and associated maternal health disparities.

Global prevalence of perinatal depression and anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic: An umbrella review and meta-analytic synthesis

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms in pregnant and postpartum women during the COVID-19 pandemic was assessed by several systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses which provided contrasting and different results. We aimed to summarize the evidence relating to the global prevalence of anxiety and depression among pregnant and postpartum women during the COVID-19 pandemic.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An umbrella review of SRs and meta-analyses was performed. Searches were conducted in electronic databases up to April 2023. SRs and meta-analyses reporting the prevalence of perinatal anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic were selected for eligibility. Primary studies extracted from eligible meta-analyses were included in the quantitative synthesis. The research protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020173125).

RESULTS

A total of 25 SRs (198 primary studies) and 12 meta-analyses (129 primary studies) were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis, respectively. Studies involved data from five continents and 45 countries. The pooled prevalence of antenatal and postpartum depression was 29% (n = 55; 95% CI: 25%-33%) and 26% (n = 54; 95% CI: 23%-30%), respectively. In the case of anxiety, the pooled antenatal and postnatal prevalence was 31% (n = 44; 95% CI: 26%-37%; n = 16; 95% CI: 24%-39%). Differences emerged between continents, with Africa having the highest prevalence of perinatal depression and Oceania and Europe having the highest prevalence of antenatal and postnatal anxiety. The prevalence also varied depending on the assessment tools, especially for antenatal anxiety. A medium-high quality of the studies was observed. One SR assessed strength-of-evidence, reporting very low strength.

CONCLUSIONS

During the COVID-19 pandemic, depression and anxiety were common, affecting almost one in three perinatal women globally. A high heterogeneity and a risk of publication bias were found, partially due to the variety of assessment tools and cut-offs. The results may not be generalized to minorities. Studies on the prevalence of clinical diagnoses are needed. Based on our results it is not possible to firmly affirm that the COVID-19 pandemic was the main factor that directly increased perinatal depression and anxiety during the past few years. Future studies should study other factors' impact.