Quality assessment of systematic reviews on periodontal regeneration in humans

Tailoring Cu2+-loaded electrospun membranes with antibacterial ability for guided bone regeneration

Copper (Cu)-loaded electrospun membranes were tailored for guided bone regeneration (GBR), targeting the stimulation of innate cells active in bone growth and the prevention of bacterial infections. Functional GBR membranes were produced via an electrospinning set-up using a silk-based solution associated with polyethylene oxide (Silk/PEO - control). Experimental groups were loaded with copper oxide using varying weight percentages (0.05 % to 1 % of CuO). The morphological, structural, chemical, and mechanical properties of membranes were evaluated. Direct and indirect in vitro cytocompatibility experiments were performed with primary human bone mesenchymal stem cells and primary human umbilical vein endothelial cells. The antibacterial potential of membranes was tested with Staphylococcus aureus and Fusobacterium nucleatum biofilm. CuO was successfully incorporated into membranes as clusters without compromising their mechanical properties for clinical applicability. Increased Cu concentrations generated membranes with thinner nanofibers, greater pore areas, and stronger antimicrobial effect (p < 0.01). Cu²⁺ ion was released from the nanofiber membranes during 1 week, showing higher release in acidic conditions. CuO 0.1 % and CuO 0.05 % membranes were able to support and stimulate cell adhesion and proliferation (p < 0.05), and favor angiogenic responses of vascular cells. In addition, detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis determined that amount of the attached biofilm was reduced on the tailored functional Cu²⁺-loaded GBR membrane. Importantly, these qualities represent a valuable strategy to improve the bone regeneration process and diminish the risk of bacterial infections.

Characteristics, trend, and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nuclear medicine: A bibliometric analysis of studies published between 2005 and 2016

To evaluate the characteristics, trend, and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nuclear medicine.We performed a PubMed search to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2005 and 2016 in the field of nuclear medicine. The following data were extracted: journal name, impact factor, type of study, topics with cancer type, imaging modalities, authors (number, country, affiliation, presence of nuclear medicine specialists and statisticians, discordance between the first and corresponding authors), funding, methodological quality, methods used for quality assessment, and statistical methods.We included 185 nuclear medicine articles. Meta-analyses (n = 164; 88.6%) were published about 7 times more frequently than systematic reviews. Oncology was the most commonly studied topic (n = 125, 67.6%). The first authors were most frequently located in China (n = 73; 39.5%). PET was the most commonly used modality (n = 150; 81.1%). Both the number of authors and the ratio of discordance between the first and corresponding authors tended to progressively increase over time.The mean AMSTAR score increased over time (5.77 in 2005-2008, 6.71 in 2009-2012, and 7.44 in 2013-2016). The proportion of articles with quality assessment increased significantly (20/26 in 2005-2008, 54/65 in 2009-2012, and 79/94 in 2013-2016). The most commonly used assessment tool was quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (n = 85; 54.9%).The number and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nuclear medicine have significantly increased over the review period; however, the quality of these articles varies. Efforts to overcome specific weaknesses of the methodologies can provide opportunities for quality improvement.

Methodological Quality Assessment of Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews of the Relationship Between Periodontal and Systemic Diseases

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this article are to identify all the published systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) that studied the relationship between periodontal and systemic diseases and to assess their quality using 2 scales (the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire [OQAQ] and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews [AMSTAR] checklist).

METHODS

For SRs and MAs to be included, they should have investigated one of the following systemic diseases: pulmonary conditions, cardiac conditions, endocrine conditions, cancer, blood disorders, psychological conditions, anxiety, depression, mood disorders, and several other diseases. Two investigators screened MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The tools used to evaluate quality were the AMSTAR scale and OQAQ. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018102208).

RESULTS

The search strategy found 691 unique articles, 42 of which met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Diabetes mellitus was the most investigated disease (14 out of 42 studies), followed by obesity (11 studies) and cardiovascular diseases (5 studies). A total of 40 reviews reported on the characteristics of included studies, and, as per the AMSTAR scale, 39 reviews had an a priori design. The number of reviews that fulfilled the status of publication criterion was the lowest (7 reviews only), followed by the number used in the assessment of publication bias (11 reviews). The number of high-quality reviews was higher with the OQAQ than with the AMSTAR checklist (33 vs 25 studies), but the AMSTAR showed a higher number of medium-quality reviews than the OQAQ (14 vs 6 studies). Both showed the same number of low-quality reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality SRs and MAs are crucial to understanding the relationship between systemic and periodontal diseases. Medical practitioners must be able to inform patients about oral health and specific periodontal health concerns.

Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Endodontics

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the quality of SRs and meta-analyses (MAs) in endodontics.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify relevant articles in the electronic databases from January 2000 to June 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed the articles for eligibility and data extraction. SRs and MAs on interventional studies with a minimum of 2 therapeutic strategies in endodontics were included in this SR. Methodologic and reporting quality were assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), respectively. The interobserver reliability was calculated using the Cohen kappa statistic. Statistical analysis with the level of significance at P < .05 was performed using Kruskal-Wallis tests and simple linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 30 articles were selected for the current SR. Using AMSTAR, the item related to the scientific quality of studies used in conclusion was adhered by less than 40% of studies. Using PRISMA, 3 items were reported by less than 40% of studies, which were on objectives, protocol registration, and funding. No association was evident comparing the number of authors and country with quality. Statistical significance was observed when quality was compared among journals, with studies published as Cochrane reviews superior to those published in other journals. AMSTAR and PRISMA scores were significantly related.

CONCLUSIONS

SRs in endodontics showed variability in both methodologic and reporting quality.

"Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews in radiation oncology: A systematic review"

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in Radiation Oncology.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for all eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses in Radiation Oncology from 1966 to 2015. Methodological characteristics were abstracted from all works that satisfied the inclusion criteria and quality was assessed using the critical appraisal tool, AMSTAR. Regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with a higher score of quality.

RESULTS

Following exclusion based on a priori criteria, 410 studies (157 systematic reviews and 253 meta-analyses) satisfied the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were found to be of fair to good quality while systematic reviews were found to be of less than fair quality. Factors associated with higher scores of quality in the multivariable analysis were including primary studies consisting of randomized control trials, performing a meta-analysis, and applying a recommended guideline related to establishing a systematic review protocol and/or reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses may introduce a high risk of bias if applied to inform decision-making based on AMSTAR. We recommend that decision-makers in Radiation Oncology scrutinize the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses prior to assessing their utility to inform evidence-based medicine and researchers adhere to methodological standards outlined in validated guidelines when embarking on a systematic review.

Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) were developed to contribute to implementing evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. As SRs assessing a cohort of SRs is becoming more prevalent in the literature and with the increased uptake of SR evidence for decision-making, methodological quality and standard of reporting of SRs is of interest. The objective of this study is to evaluate SR adherence to the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) and PRISMA reporting guidelines and the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) quality assessment tools as evaluated in methodological overviews.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® databases were searched from January 1990 to October 2014. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the quality or reporting of a cohort of SRs of interventions using PRISMA, QUOROM, OQAQ, or AMSTAR were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports and SRs respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 20,765 independent records retrieved from electronic searching, 1189 reports were reviewed for eligibility at full text, of which 56 reports (5371 SRs in total) evaluating the PRISMA, QUOROM, AMSTAR, and/or OQAQ tools were included. Notable items include the following: of the SRs using PRISMA, over 85% (1532/1741) provided a rationale for the review and less than 6% (102/1741) provided protocol information. For reports using QUOROM, only 9% (40/449) of SRs provided a trial flow diagram. However, 90% (402/449) described the explicit clinical problem and review rationale in the introduction section. Of reports using AMSTAR, 30% (534/1794) used duplicate study selection and data extraction. Conversely, 80% (1439/1794) of SRs provided study characteristics of included studies. In terms of OQAQ, 37% (499/1367) of the SRs assessed risk of bias (validity) in the included studies, while 80% (1112/1387) reported the criteria for study selection.

CONCLUSIONS

Although reporting guidelines and quality assessment tools exist, reporting and methodological quality of SRs are inconsistent. Mechanisms to improve adherence to established reporting guidelines and methodological assessment tools are needed to improve the quality of SRs.

Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

The methodological quality and completeness of reporting of the systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental to optimal implementation of evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. Methods exist to appraise SRs yet little is known about how they are used in SRs or where there are potential gaps in research best-practice guidance materials. The aims of this study are to identify reports assessing the methodological quality (MQ) and/or reporting quality (RQ) of a cohort of SRs and to assess their number, general characteristics, and approaches to 'quality' assessment over time.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® were searched from January 1990 to October 16, 2014, for reports assessing MQ and/or RQ of SRs. Title, abstract, and full-text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the MQ and/or RQ of a cohort of ten or more SRs of interventions were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports.

RESULTS

Of 20,765 unique records retrieved, 1189 of them were reviewed for full-text review, of which 76 reports were included. Eight previously published approaches to assessing MQ or reporting guidelines used as proxy to assess RQ were used in 80% (61/76) of identified reports. These included two reporting guidelines (PRISMA and QUOROM) and five quality assessment tools (AMSTAR, R-AMSTAR, OQAQ, Mulrow, Sacks) and GRADE criteria. The remaining 24% (18/76) of reports developed their own criteria. PRISMA, OQAQ, and AMSTAR were the most commonly used published tools to assess MQ or RQ. In conjunction with other approaches, published tools were used in 29% (22/76) of reports, with 36% (8/22) assessing adherence to both PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria and 26% (6/22) using QUOROM and OQAQ.

CONCLUSIONS

The methods used to assess quality of SRs are diverse, and none has become universally accepted. The most commonly used quality assessment tools are AMSTAR, OQAQ, and PRISMA. As new tools and guidelines are developed to improve both the MQ and RQ of SRs, authors of methodological studies are encouraged to put thoughtful consideration into the use of appropriate tools to assess quality and reporting.

Systematic reviews in oral health: a quality imperative

Systematic reviews must be conducted responsibly, eliminating any scope for error and bias. The reporting quality of a systematic review should follow and conform to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. AMSTAR (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) is an assessment tool, which has been developed specifically to assess the quality of the process used in conducting the review. There has been a significant increase in the number of systematic reviews in oral health and several reports have been published stating low AMSTAR ratings of systematic reviews in dentistry. Systematic reviews answer key clinical questions objectively, and are often used to underpin clinical guidelines in oral health. If the quality of these reviews is compromised, this can result in inadequate or inappropriate clinical guidelines. Consequently, ensuring consistent high quality is a key imperative for systematic reviews in oral health.

Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement

A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) is a commonly used tool to assess the quality of systematic reviews; however, modifications are needed to improve its usability, reliability, and validity. In this commentary, we summarize our experience and the experiences of others who have used AMSTAR and provide suggestions for its improvement. We propose that AMSTAR should modify a number of individual items and their instructions and responses to make them more congruent with an assessment of the methodologic quality of systematic reviews. We recommend adding new items and modifying existing items to assess the quality of the body of evidence and to address subgroup and sensitivity analyses. More detailed instructions are needed for scoring individual items across multiple reviewers, and we recommend that a total score should not be calculated. These suggestions need to be empirically tested prior to implementation.

Quality assessment of systematic reviews on alveolar socket preservation

The aim of this overview was to evaluate and compare the quality of systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, that have evaluated studies on techniques or biomaterials used for the preservation of alveolar sockets post tooth extraction in humans. An electronic search was conducted without date restrictions using the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases up to April 2015. Eligibility criteria included systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, focused on the preservation of post-extraction alveolar sockets in humans. Two independent authors assessed the quality of the included reviews using AMSTAR and the checklist proposed by Glenny et al. in 2003. After the selection process, 12 systematic reviews were included. None of these reviews obtained the maximum score using the quality assessment tools implemented, and the results of the analyses were highly variable. A significant statistical correlation was observed between the scores of the two checklists. A wide structural and methodological variability was observed between the systematic reviews published on the preservation of alveolar sockets post tooth extraction. None of the reviews evaluated obtained the maximum score using the two quality assessment tools implemented.

Quality assessment of systematic reviews on alveolar ridge preservation

BACKGROUND

The authors conducted a study to assess the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published on the topic of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP).

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors conducted a search for SRs on ARP on the basis of a set of eligibility criteria (only SRs involving ARP, with or without meta-analyses, written in English). The authors assessed the quality of the SRs independently of one another by using two established checklists.

RESULTS

The authors selected eight SRs. The results of all of the SRs indicated that ARP was effective in preserving the ridge volume as compared with extraction alone, but it did not fully prevent bone-resorptive events. None of the SRs, however, received the highest possible score in either of the checklists. One SR that had a score of 5 (of a possible 11) using one checklist and 5 (of a possible 14) using the other checklist had the lowest overall score. The results of this assessment revealed that a significant proportion of the investigators in the SRs did not include non-English language articles, perform hand searching of published literature or evaluate the gray literature. Assessment of publication bias and reporting of conflicts of interest also was lacking in some studies. Practical Implications. Although ARP appears to be an effective approach to preventing resorption after tooth extraction, significant structural and methodological variability exists among SRs on this topic. Future SRs on ARP should consider the use of quality assessment checklists to minimize methodological shortcomings for better dissemination of scientific evidence.

A practitioner's guide to developing critical appraisal skills: reviews of research

BACKGROUND

and overview. This article describes the different types of reviews of research that are available in the literature: systematic reviews and traditional reviews. Systematic reviews have become the reference standard for evidence to inform clinical practice. In this article, the authors set out guidance on appraising the quality and relevance of systematic reviews to help readers make decisions about their clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

and practical implications. Systematic reviews are of variable quality, although evaluations of reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration generally are of the highest quality. An assessment tool described in this article appears currently to be the most useful tool to guide clinicians to assess systematic reviews and therefore to decide whether the evidence is appropriate to change practice.