Dataset Information

Analysis of the systematic reviews process in reports of network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine whether network meta-analyses, increasingly used to assess comparative effectiveness of healthcare interventions, follow the key methodological recommendations for reporting and conduct of systematic reviews.

Design

Methodological systematic review of reports of network meta-analyses.

Data sources

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Medline, and Embase, searched from inception to 12 July 2012.

Review methods

All network meta-analyses comparing clinical efficacy of three or more interventions based on randomised controlled trials, excluding meta-analyses with an open loop network of three interventions. We assessed the reporting of general characteristics and key methodological components of the systematic review process using two composite outcomes. For some components, if reporting was adequate, we assessed their conduct quality.

Results

Of 121 network meta-analyses covering a wide range of medical areas, 100 (83%) assessed pharmacological interventions and 11 (9%) non-pharmacological interventions; 56 (46%) were published in journals with a high impact factor. The electronic search strategy for each database was not reported in 88 (73%) network meta-analyses; for 36 (30%), the primary outcome was not clearly identified. Overall, 61 (50%) network meta-analyses did not report any information regarding the assessment of risk of bias of individual studies, and 103 (85%) did not report any methods to assess the likelihood of publication bias. Overall, 87 (72%) network meta-analyses did not report the literature search, searched only one database, did not search other sources, or did not report an assessment of risk of bias of individual studies. These methodological components did not differ by publication in a general or specialty journal or by public or private funding.

Conclusions

Essential methodological components of the systematic review process-conducting a literature search and assessing risk of bias of individual studies-are frequently lacking in reports of network meta-analyses, even when published in journals with high impact factors.

SUBMITTER: Bafeta A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3697418 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Moderate-to-severe psoriasis is associated with significant comorbidity, an impaired quality of life, and increased medical costs, including those associated with treatments. Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized clinical trials are considered two of the best approaches to the summarization of high-quality evidence. However, methodological bias can reduce the validity of conclusions from these types of studies and subsequently impair the quality of decision making. As co-authorship is among the most well-documented forms of research collaboration, the present study aimed to explore whether authors' collaboration methods might influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs of psoriasis. Methodological quality was assessed by two raters who extracted information from full articles. After calculating total and per-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores, reviews were classified as low (0-4), medium (5-8), or high (9-11) quality. Article metadata and journal-related bibliometric indices were also obtained. A total of 741 authors from 520 different institutions and 32 countries published 220 reviews that were classified as high (17.2%), moderate (55%), or low (27.7%) methodological quality. The high methodological quality subnetwork was larger but had a lower connection density than the low and moderate methodological quality subnetworks; specifically, the former contained relatively fewer nodes (authors and reviews), reviews by authors, and collaborators per author. Furthermore, the high methodological quality subnetwork was highly compartmentalized, with several modules representing few poorly interconnected communities. In conclusion, structural differences in author-paper affiliation network may influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs on psoriasis. As the author-paper affiliation network structure affects study quality in this research field, authors who maintain an appropriate balance between scientific quality and productivity are more likely to develop higher quality reviews.

Project description:Rationale, aims, and objectivesCOVID-19 has caused an ongoing public health crisis. Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been performed to synthesize evidence for better understanding this new disease. However, some concerns have been raised about rapid COVID-19 research. This meta-epidemiological study aims to methodologically assess the current systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19.MethodsWe searched in various databases for systematic reviews with meta-analyses published between 1 January 2020 and 31 October 2020. We extracted their basic characteristics, data analyses, evidence appraisal, and assessment of publication bias and heterogeneity.ResultsWe identified 295 systematic reviews on COVID-19. The median time from submission to acceptance was 33 days. Among these systematic reviews, 73.9% evaluated clinical manifestations or comorbidities of COVID-19. Stata was the most used software programme (43.39%). The odds ratio was the most used effect measure (34.24%). Moreover, 28.14% of the systematic reviews did not present evidence appraisal. Among those reporting the risk of bias results, 14.64% of studies had a high risk of bias. Egger's test was the most used method for assessing publication bias (38.31%), while 38.66% of the systematic reviews did not assess publication bias. The I2 statistic was widely used for assessing heterogeneity (92.20%); many meta-analyses had high values of I2 . Among the meta-analyses using the random-effects model, 75.82% did not report the methods for model implementation; among those meta-analyses reporting implementation methods, the DerSimonian-Laird method was the most used one.ConclusionsThe current systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19 might suffer from low transparency, high heterogeneity, and suboptimal statistical methods. It is recommended that future systematic reviews on COVID-19 strictly follow well-developed guidelines. Sensitivity analyses may be performed to examine how the synthesized evidence might depend on different methods for appraising evidence, assessing publication bias, and implementing meta-analysis models.

Project description:Objective To evaluate the impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews.Design Methodological systematic review and reanalyses of meta-analyses.Data sources Medline was searched to identify systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing pharmaceutical treatments published between June 2014 and January 2015. For all systematic reviews that did not report a trial registry search but reported the information to perform it, the World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP search portal) was searched for completed or terminated RCTs not originally included in the systematic review.Data extraction For each systematic review, two researchers independently extracted the outcomes analysed, the number of patients included, and the treatment effect estimated. For each RCT identified, two researchers independently determined whether the results were available (ie, posted, published, or available on the sponsor website) and extracted the data. When additional data were retrieved, we reanalysed meta-analyses and calculated the weight of the additional RCTs and the change in summary statistics by comparison with the original meta-analysis.Results Among 223 selected systematic reviews, 116 (52%) did not report a search of trial registries; 21 of these did not report the information to perform the search (key words, search date). A search was performed for 95 systematic reviews; for 54 (57%), no additional RCTs were found and for 41 (43%) 122 additional RCTs were identified. The search allowed for increasing the number of patients by more than 10% in 19 systematic reviews, 20% in 10, 30% in seven, and 50% in four. Moreover, 63 RCTs had results available; the results for 45 could be included in a meta-analysis. 14 systematic reviews including 45 RCTs were reanalysed. The weight of the additional RCTs in the recalculated meta-analyses ranged from 0% to 58% and was greater than 10% in five of 14 systematic reviews, 20% in three, and 50% in one. The change in summary statistics ranged from 0% to 29% and was greater than 10% for five of 14 systematic reviews and greater than 20% for two. However, none of the changes to summary effect estimates led to a qualitative change in the interpretation of the results once the new trials were added.Conclusions Trial registries are an important source for identifying additional RCTs. The additional number of RCTs and patients included if a search were performed varied across systematic reviews.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews with or without meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are strongly encouraged to work from a protocol to facilitate high quality, transparent methodology. The completeness of reporting of a protocol (PRISMA-P) and manuscript (PRISMA) is essential to the quality appraisal (AMSTAR-2) and appropriate use of SR/MAs in making treatment decisions.ObjectivesThe objectives of this study were to describe the completeness of reporting and quality of SR/MAs, assess the correlations between PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2, and to identify reporting characteristics between similar items of PRISMA-P and PRISMA.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus SR/MAs of hypoglycemic agents with publicly available protocols. Cochrane reviews, guidelines, and specific types of MA were excluded. Two reviewers independently, (i) searched PubMed and Embase between 1/1/2015 to 20/3/2019; (ii) identified protocols of included studies by searching the manuscript bibliography, supplementary material, PROSPERO, and Google; (iii) completed PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2 tools. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multivariable linear regression.ResultsOf 357 relevant SR/MAs, 51 had available protocols and were included. The average score for PRISMA-P was 15.8±3.3 (66%; maximum 24) and 25.2±1.1 (93%; maximum 27) for PRISMA. The quality of SR/MAs assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool identified an overall poor quality (63% critically low, 18% low, 8% moderate, 12% high). The correlation between the PRISMA-P and PRISMA was not significant (r = 0.264; p = 0.06). Correlation was significant between PRISMA-P and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.333; p = 0.02) and PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.555; p<0.01). Discrepancies in reporting were common between similar PRISMA-P and PRISMA items.ConclusionAdherence to protocol reporting guidance was poor while manuscript reporting was comprehensive. Protocol completeness is not associated with a completely reported manuscript. Independently, PRISMA-P and PRISMA scores were weakly associated with higher quality assessments but insufficient as a surrogate for quality. Critical areas for quality improvement include protocol description, investigating causes of heterogeneity, and the impact of risk of bias on the evidence synthesis.

Project description:To identify and critically assess the extent to which systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery differ in their methodology and reported estimates of effect.Review of published systematic reviews. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database from 1990 to March 2013. Systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery were eligible for inclusion.The primary outcome was length of hospital stay. We assessed changes in pooled estimates of treatment effect over time and how these might have been influenced by decisions taken by researchers as well as by the availability of new trials. The quality of systematic reviews was assessed using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) DARE critical appraisal process.10 systematic reviews were included. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials have consistently shown a reduction in length of hospital stay with enhanced recovery compared with traditional care. The estimated effect tended to increase from 2006 to 2010 as more trials were published but has not altered significantly in the most recent review, despite the inclusion of several unique trials. The best estimate appears to be an average reduction of around 2.5?days in primary postoperative length of stay. Differences between reviews reflected differences in interpretation of inclusion criteria, searching and analytical methods or software.Systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes show a high level of research waste, with multiple reviews covering identical or very similar groups of trials. Where multiple reviews exist on a topic, interpretation may require careful attention to apparently minor differences between reviews. Researchers can help readers by acknowledging existing reviews and through clear reporting of key decisions, especially on inclusion/exclusion and on statistical pooling.

Project description:BackgroundMatch analysis has evolved exponentially over the past decades in team sports resulting in a significant number of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses. An umbrella review of the available literature is needed to provide an integrated overview of current knowledge and contribute to more robust theoretical explanations of team performance.MethodsThe Web of Science (all databases), PubMed, Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases were searched for relevant publications prior to 19 February 2021. Appraisal of the methodological quality of included articles was undertaken using the tool for Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). Twenty-four studies were reviewed that met the following criteria: (1) contained relevant data from match analyses in team ball sports; (2) were defined as systematic reviews or/and meta-analyses; and (3) were written in the English language.ResultsThe overall methodological quality of the 24 included reviews, obtained through the AMSTAR-2, revealed very low confidence ratings (Critically Low, n = 12) for the results of most systematic reviews of match analyses in team ball sports. Additionally, the results showed that research is focused mainly on four levels of analysis: (1) dyadic (microlevel); (2) individual (molecular level; predominant); (3) group (mesolevel), and (4) team dynamics (macrolevel). These levels of analysis included tactical, technical, physical, and psychosocial variables. Team performance was contextualized at two levels, with reference to: (1) match context (e.g. match status, match location, match period, quality of opposition) and (2) sociodemographic and environmental constraints (sex, age groups, competitive level, altitude, temperature, pitch surface).ConclusionsThe evolution of methods for match analysis in team ball sports indicates that: (1) an individual-level performance analysis was predominant; (2) the focus on intermediate levels of analysis, observing performance in dyadic and group interactions, has received less attention from researchers; (3) neglected areas of research include psychosocial aspects of team sports and women's performance; and (4) analyses of match contexts need greater depth.RegistrationThe protocol was registered in the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols with the number 202080067 and the DOI number https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2020.8.0067 .