Methodological quality of Campbell Systematic Reviews has improved over the past decade.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Li Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10520616 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Methodological quality of Campbell Systematic Reviews has improved over the past decade.
Li Yanfei Y Dewidar Omar O Wang Xiaoqin X Ghogomu Elizabeth E Wadhwani Arpana A Guo Ke K Ma Mina M Barbeau Victoria V Pan Bei B Abdelrazeq Leenah L Li Zijun Z Alghamyan Amjad A Guo Liping L Jahel Fatima F Ren Junjie J Madani Mohamad Tarek MT Allam Sarah S Hussain Tarannum T Yang Minyan M Kojan Waleed W Li Xiuxia X Yang Kehu K Welch Vivian V
Campbell systematic reviews 20230926 4
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8356304 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChanges in surgical technique and postoperative care that target improvements in functional outcomes are widespread in the literature. Radical prostatectomy (RP) is one such procedure that has seen multiple advances over the past decade. The objective of this study was to leverage RP as an index case to determine whether practice changes over time produced observable improvements in patient-reported outcomes.MethodsThis study analyzed patients undergoing RP by experienced surgeons at a tertiary care center with prospectively maintained patient-reported outcome data from 2008 to 2019. Four patient-reported urinary function outcomes at 6 and 12 months after RP were defined with a validated instrument: good urinary function (domain score ≥ 17), no incontinence (0 pads per day), social continence (≤1 pad per day), and severe incontinence (≥3 pads per day). Multivariable logistic regressions evaluated changes in outcomes based on the surgical date.ResultsAmong 3945 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, excellent urinary outcomes were reported throughout the decade but without consistent observable improvements over time. Specifically, there were no improvements in good urinary function at 12 months (P = .087) based on the surgical date, and there were countervailing effects on no incontinence (worsening; P = .005) versus severe incontinence (improving; P = .003). Neither approach (open, laparoscopic, or robotic), nor nerve sparing, nor membranous urethral length mediated changes in outcomes.ConclusionsIn a decade with multiple advances in surgical and postoperative care, there was evidence of improvements in severe incontinence, but no measurable improvements across 3 other urinary outcomes. Although worsening disease factors could contribute to the stable observed outcomes, a more systematic approach to evaluating techniques and implementing patient selection and postoperative care advances is needed.Lay summaryAlthough there have been advances in radical prostatectomy over the past decade, consistent observable improvements in postoperative incontinence were not reported by patients. To improve urinary function outcomes beyond the current high standard, the approach to studying innovations in surgical technique needs to be changed, and further development of other aspects of prostatectomy care is needed.
| S-EPMC8837675 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews, and to analyze trends and gaps in the quality, clinical topics, author countries, and populations of the reviews using an evidence mapping approach.Study design and settingA structured search for systematic reviews concerning COVID-19 was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Campbell Library, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI, and CQVIP from inception until June 2020. The quality of each review was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist.ResultsIn total, 243 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, over 50% of which (128, 52.7%) were from 14 developing countries, with China contributing the most reviews (76, 31.3%). In terms of methodological quality of the studies, 30 (12.3%) were of moderate quality, 63 (25.9%) were of low quality, and 150 (61.7%) were of critically low quality. In terms of reporting quality, the median (interquartile range) PRISMA score was 14 (10-18). Regarding the topics of the reviews, 24 (9.9%) focused on the prevalence of COVID-19, 69 (28.4%) focused on the clinical manifestations, 30 (12.3%) focused on etiology, 43 (17.7%) focused on diagnosis, 65 (26.7%) focused on treatment, 104 (42.8%) focused on prognosis, and 25 (10.3%) focused on prevention. These studies mainly focused on general patients with COVID-19 (161, 66.3%), followed by children (22, 9.1%) and pregnant patients (18, 7.4%).ConclusionThis study systematically evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews of COVID-19, summarizing and analyzing trends in their clinical topics, author countries, and study populations.
| S-EPMC8313077 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) synthesise the best evidence of effectiveness and safety on Chinese herbal medicine (CHM). Decision-making should be supported by the high-quality evidence of prudently conducted SRs, but the trustworthiness of conclusions may be limited by poor methodological rigour.MethodsThis survey aimed to examine the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on CHM published during January 2018 to March 2020. We conducted literature search in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE via Ovid, and EMBASE via Ovid. Eligible SRs must be in Chinese or English with at least one meta-analysis on the treatment effect of any CHM documented in the 2015 Chinese Pharmacopoeia. Two reviewers extracted the bibliographical characteristics of SRs and appraised their methodological quality using AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2). The associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality were investigated using Kruskal-Wallis tests and Spearman's rank correlation coefficients.ResultsWe sampled and appraised one hundred forty-eight SRs. Overall, one (0.7%) was of high methodological quality; zero (0%), four (2.7%), and one-hundred forty-three (96.6%) SRs were of moderate, low, and critically-low quality. Only thirteen SRs (8.8%) provided a pre-defined protocol; none (0%) provided justifications for including particular primary study designs; six (4.1%) conducted a comprehensive literature search; two (1.4%) provided a list of excluded studies; nine (6.1%) undertook meta-analysis with appropriate methods; and seven (4.7%) reported funding sources of included primary studies. Cochrane reviews had higher overall quality than non-Cochrane reviews (P < 0.001). SRs with European funding support were less likely to have critically-low quality when compared with their counterparts (P = 0.020). SRs conducted by more authors (rs = 0.23; P = 0.006) and published in higher impact factor journals (rs = 0.20; P = 0.044) were associated with higher methodological quality.ConclusionsOur results indicated that the methodological quality of SRs on CHM is low. Future authors should enhance the methodological quality through registering a priori protocols, justifying selection of study designs, conducting comprehensive literature search, providing a list of excluded studies with rationales, using appropriate method for meta-analyses, and reporting funding sources among primary studies.
| S-EPMC8867833 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review of the measures designed to assess sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT) since the first SCT scale using careful test-construction procedures was published in 2009.MethodMEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, PsychINFO, and Web of Science databases were searched from September 2009 through December 2019. Articles reporting on reliability (internal consistency, test-retest, and interrater reliability), structural validity (an aspect of construct validity focused on items' convergent and discriminant validity), concurrent and longitudinal external validity, invariance, or intervention/experimental findings were included.ResultsFull criteria for data extraction and inclusion were met by 76 studies. Nine measures for assessing SCT were identified (7 assessing parent report, teacher report, and/or self-report in children and 2 assessing self-report and/or collateral informant report in adults). Each measure demonstrated acceptable to excellent reliability. All or at least the majority of SCT items on each measure also had structural validity (high loadings on an SCT factor and low loadings on an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD] inattention factor). Studies have supported the invariance of SCT across sex and time, and there is initial evidence of invariance across informants, youths with ADHD and youths without ADHD, and ADHD presentations. The Child and Adolescent Behavior Inventory (CABI), Child Concentration Inventory, Second Edition (CCI-2), and Barkley Adult ADHD Rating Scale-IV (BAARS-IV) have particularly strong support for assessing parent/teacher-reported, youth self-reported, and adult self-reported SCT, respectively.ConclusionThe SCT measures included in this review share numerous positive properties, have promising psychometric support, and have proven useful for examining the external correlates of SCT across the life span. Although substantial progress has been made over the last decade, work remains to be done to further improve the assessment of SCT and key directions for future research are provided.
| S-EPMC8099929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) must be of high quality. The purpose of our research was to compare the methodological and reporting quality of original versus updated Cochrane SRs to determine whether updating had improved these two quality dimensions.MethodsWe identified updated Cochrane SRs published in issue 4, 2002 of the Cochrane Library. We assessed the updated and original versions of the SRs using two instruments: the 10 item enhanced Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), and an 18-item reporting quality checklist and flow chart based upon the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) statement. At least two reviewers extracted data and assessed quality. We calculated the percentage (with a 95% confidence interval) of 'yes' answers to each question. We calculated mean differences in percentage, 95% confidence intervals and p-values for each of the individual items and the overall methodological quality score of the updated and pre-updated versions using OQAQ.ResultsWe assessed 53 SRs. There was no significant improvement in the global quality score of the OQAQ (mean difference 0.11 (-0.28; 0.70 p = 0.52)). Updated reviews showed a significant improvement of 18.9 (7.2; 30.6 p < .01) on the OQAQ item assessing whether the conclusions drawn by the author(s) were supported by the data and/or analysis presented in the SR. The QUOROM statement showed that the quality of reporting of Cochrane reviews improved in some areas with updating. Improvements were seen on the items relating to data sources reported in the abstract, with a significant difference of 17.0 (9.8; 28.7 p = 0.01), review methods, reported in the abstract 35 (24.1; 49.1 p = 0.00), searching methods 18.9 (9.7; 31.6 p = 0.01), and data abstraction 18.9 (11.7; 30.9 p = 0.00).ConclusionThe overall quality of Cochrane SRs is fair-to-good. Although reporting quality improved on certain individual items there was no overall improvement seen with updating and methodological quality remained unchanged. Further improvement of quality of reporting is possible. There is room for improvement of methodological quality as well. Authors updating reviews should address identified methodological or reporting weaknesses. We recommend to give full attention to both quality domains when updating SRs.
| S-EPMC1569863 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed to assess and evaluate the prevalence and methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published in major Korean medical journals (KMJs). The top 15 journals with the highest Korean Medical Citation Index, published between 2018 to 2021, were selected. We assessed the methodological quality of SRs using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). In total, 126 SRs were included, with an average of 32 SRs being reported annually. The overall prevalence of SRs in KMJs was 2.8%, with an increase from 2.6% in 2018 to 3.4% in 2021. Overall, the methodological quality of SRs was low (9.5% low, 90.5% critically low). More than 80% of the studies adhered to critical domain items such as a comprehensive literature search and risk of bias assessment, but for items such as protocol registration and listing excluded studies and the justification for exclusion, the adherence rate was less than 15%. While the number of SRs in KMJs steadily increased, the overall confidence in the methodological quality was low to critically low. Therefore, in order to provide the best evidence for decision-making in clinical and public health areas, editors, reviewers, and authors need to pay more attention to improving the quality of SRs.
| S-EPMC10266932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews can serve as a tool in translation of basic life sciences research from laboratory to human research and healthcare. The extent to which reviews of animal research are systematic and unbiased is not known.MethodsWe searched, without language restrictions, Medline, Embase, bibliographies of known reviews (1996-2004) and contacted experts to identify citations of reviews of basic science literature which, as a minimum, performed search of a publicly available resource. From these we identified reviews of animal studies where laboratory variables were measured or where treatments were administered to live animals to examine their effects, and compared them with reviews of bench studies in which human or animal tissues, cell systems or organ preparations were examined in laboratories to better understand mechanisms of diseases.ResultsSystematic reviews of animal studies often lacked methodological features such as specification of a testable hypothesis (9/30, 30%); literature search without language restriction (8/30, 26.6%); assessment of publication bias (5/30, 16.6%), study validity (15/30, 50%) and heterogeneity (10/30, 33.3%); and meta-analysis for quantitative synthesis (12/30, 40%). Compared to reviews of bench studies, they were less prone to bias as they specified the question (96.6% vs. 80%, p = 0.04), searched multiple databases (60% vs. 26.6%, p = 0.01), assessed study quality (50% vs. 20%, p = 0.01), and explored heterogeneity (33.3% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.001) more often.ConclusionThere seems to be a gradient of frequency of methodological weaknesses among reviews: Attempted systematic reviews of whole animal research tend to be better than those of bench studies, though compared to systematic reviews of human clinical trials they are apparently poorer. There is a need for rigour when reviewing animal research.
| S-EPMC1435907 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With an improved median survival of 6.2 years, lung transplantation has become an increasingly acceptable treatment option for end-stage lung disease. Besides survival benefit, improvement of quality of life is achieved in the vast majority of patients. Many developments have taken place in the field of lung transplantation over the past decade. Broadened indication criteria and bridging techniques for patients awaiting lung transplantation have led to increased waiting lists and changes in allocation schemes worldwide. Moreover, the use of previously unacceptable donor lungs for lung transplantation has increased, with donations from donors after cardiac death, donors with increasing age and donors with positive smoking status extending the donor pool substantially. Use of ex vivo lung perfusion further increased the number of lungs suitable for lung transplantation. Nonetheless, the use of these previously unacceptable lungs did not have detrimental effects on survival and long-term graft outcomes, and has decreased waiting list mortality. To further improve long-term outcomes, strategies have been proposed to modify chronic lung allograft dysfunction progression and minimise toxic immunosuppressive effects. This review summarises the developments in clinical lung transplantation over the past decade.
| S-EPMC9489139 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs) can provide the best evidence on the potential effectiveness of acupuncture, limitations on the methodological rigour of SRs may impact the trustworthiness of their conclusions. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on acupuncture effectiveness.MethodsCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for SRs focusing on the treatment effect of manual acupuncture or electro-acupuncture published during January 2018 and March 2020. Eligible SRs must contain at least one meta-analysis and be published in English language. Two independent reviewers extracted the bibliographical characteristics of the included SRs with a pre-designed questionnaire and appraised the methodological quality of the studies with the validated AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2). The associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality ratings were explored using Kruskal-Wallis rank tests and Spearman's rank correlation coefficients.ResultsA total of 106 SRs were appraised. Only one (0.9%) SR was of high overall methodological quality, zero (0%) was of moderate-quality, six (5.7%) and 99 (93.4%) were of low-quality and critically low-quality respectively. Among appraised SRs, only ten (9.4%) provided an a priori protocol, four (3.8%) conducted a comprehensive literature search, five (4.7%) provided a list of excluded studies, and six (5.7%) performed meta-analysis appropriately. Cochrane SRs, updated SRs, and SRs that did not search non-English databases had relatively higher overall quality.ConclusionsMethodological quality of SRs on acupuncture is unsatisfactory. Future reviewers should improve critical methodological aspects of publishing protocols, performing comprehensive search, providing a list of excluded studies with justifications for exclusion, and conducting appropriate meta-analyses. These recommendations can be implemented via enhancing the technical competency of reviewers in SR methodology through established education approaches as well as quality gatekeeping by journal editors and reviewers. Finally, for evidence users, skills in SR critical appraisal remain to be essential as relevant evidence may not be available in pre-appraised formats.
| S-EPMC8557536 | biostudies-literature