Dataset Information

Methodological issues and recommendations for systematic reviews of prognostic studies: an example from cardiovascular disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prognostic factors are associated with the risk of future health outcomes in individuals with a particular health condition. The prognostic ability of such factors is increasingly being assessed in both primary research and systematic reviews. Systematic review methodology in this area is continuing to evolve, reflected in variable approaches to key methodological aspects. The aim of this article was to (i) explore and compare the methodology of systematic reviews of prognostic factors undertaken for the same clinical question, (ii) to discuss implications for review findings, and (iii) to present recommendations on what might be considered to be 'good practice' approaches.

Methods

The sample was comprised of eight systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question, namely whether 'aspirin resistance' (a potential prognostic factor) has prognostic utility relative to future vascular events in patients on aspirin therapy for secondary prevention. A detailed comparison of methods around study identification, study selection, quality assessment, approaches to analysis, and reporting of findings was undertaken and the implications discussed. These were summarised into key considerations that may be transferable to future systematic reviews of prognostic factors.

Results

Across systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question, there were considerable differences in the numbers of studies identified and overlap between included studies, which could only partially be explained by different study eligibility criteria. Incomplete reporting and differences in terminology within primary studies hampered study identification and selection process across reviews. Quality assessment was highly variable and only one systematic review considered a checklist for studies of prognostic questions. There was inconsistency between reviews in approaches towards analysis, synthesis, addressing heterogeneity and reporting of results.

Conclusions

Different methodological approaches may ultimately affect the findings and interpretation of systematic reviews of prognostic research, with implications for clinical decision-making.

SUBMITTER: Dretzke J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4265412 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Methodological issues and recommendations for systematic reviews of prognostic studies: an example from cardiovascular disease.

Dretzke Janine J Ensor Joie J Bayliss Sue S Hodgkinson James J Lordkipanidzé Marie M Riley Richard D RD Fitzmaurice David D Moore David D

Systematic reviews 20141203

<h4>Background</h4>Prognostic factors are associated with the risk of future health outcomes in individuals with a particular health condition. The prognostic ability of such factors is increasingly being assessed in both primary research and systematic reviews. Systematic review methodology in this area is continuing to evolve, reflected in variable approaches to key methodological aspects. The aim of this article was to (i) explore and compare the methodology of systematic reviews of prognosti ...[more]

PMID: 25466903

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of methodological challenges in economic evaluations of disease prevention and health promotion (DPHP)-measures.MethodsWe conducted an overview of reviews searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DOPHER) (from their inception to October 2021). We included both systematic and scoping reviews of economic evaluations in DPHP addressing following methodological aspects: (i) attribution of effects, (ii) outcomes, (iii) inter-sectoral (accruing to non-health sectors of society) costs and consequences and (iv) equity. Data were extracted according to the associated sub-criteria of the four methodological aspects including study design economic evaluation (e.g. model-based), type/scope of the outcomes (e.g. outcomes beyond health), perspective, cost categories related to non-health sectors of society, and consideration of equity (method of inclusion). Two reviewers independently screened all citations, full-text articles, and extracted data. A narrative synthesis without a meta-analysis or other statistical synthesis methods was conducted.ResultsThe reviewing process resulted in ten systematic and one scoping review summarizing 494 health economic evaluations. A lifelong time horizon was adopted in about 23% of DPHP evaluations, while 64% of trial-based evaluations had a time horizon up to 2 years. Preference-based outcomes (36%) and non-health outcomes (8%) were only applied in a minority of studies. Although the inclusion of inter-sectoral costs (i.e. costs accruing to non-health sectors of society) has increased in recent years, these were often neglected (between 6 and 23% depending on the cost category). Consideration to equity was barely given in economic evaluations, and only addressed in six of the eleven reviews.ConclusionsEconomic evaluations of DPHP measures give only little attention to the specific methodological challenges related to this area. For future economic DPHP evaluations a tool with structured guidance should be developed. This overview of reviews was not registered and a published protocol does not exist.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews of in-vitro studies, like any other study, can be of heterogeneous quality. The present study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies.MethodsWe searched for systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases published up to January 2022. We assessed the methodological quality of the systematic reviews using a modified "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR-2) instrument. The 16 items, in the form of questions, were answered with yes, no, or py (partial yes). Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to examine the association between systematic review characteristics and AMSTAR-2 percent score. Overall confidence in the results of the systematic reviews was rated, based on weaknesses identified in critical and non-critical AMSTAR-2 items.ResultsThe search retrieved 908 potential documents, and after following the eligibility criteria, 185 systematic reviews were included. The most researched topics were ceramics and dental bonding. The overall rating for the confidence in the results was critically low in 126 (68%) systematic reviews. There was high variability in the response among the AMSTAR-2 items (0% to 75% positively answered). The univariable analyses indicated dental specialty (p = 0.03), number of authors (coef: 1.87, 95% CI: 0.26, 3.47, p = 0.02), and year of publication (coef: 2.64, 95% CI: 1.90, 3.38, p < 0.01) were significantly associated with the AMSTAR-2 percent score. Whereas, in the multivariable analysis only specialty (p = 0.01) and year of publication (coef: 2.60, 95% CI: 1.84, 3.35, p < 0.001) remained significant. Among specialties, endodontics achieved the highest AMSTAR-2 percent score.ConclusionsThe methods of systematic reviews of in vitro dental studies were suboptimal. Year of publication and dental specialty were associated with AMSTAR-2 scores. The overall rating of the confidence in the results was low and critically low for most systematic reviews.

Project description:To identify, critically appraise and summarise existing systematic reviews on the impact of global cardiovascular risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in adults.Systematic review of systematic reviews published between January 2005 and October 2016 in The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE or CINAHL databases, and post hoc analysis of primary trials.Systematic reviews of interventions involving global cardiovascular risk assessment relative to no formal risk assessment in adults with no history of CVD. The primary outcomes of interest were CVD-related morbidity and mortality and all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), cholesterol and smoking.We identified six systematic reviews of variable but generally of low quality (mean Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 4.2/11, range 0/11 to 7/11). No studies identified by the systematic reviews reported CVD-related morbidity or mortality or all-cause mortality. Meta-analysis of reported randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed small reductions in SBP (mean difference (MD) -2.22?mm?Hg (95% CI -3.49 to -0.95); I2=66%; n=9; GRADE: very low), total cholesterol (MD -0.11?mmol/L (95% CI -0.20 to -0.02); I2=72%; n=5; GRADE: very low), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD -0.15?mmol/L (95% CI -0.26 to -0.05), I2=47%; n=4; GRADE: very low) and smoking cessation (RR 1.62 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.43); I2=17%; n=7; GRADE: low). The median follow-up time of reported RCTs was 12?months (range 2-36?months).The quality of existing systematic reviews was generally poor and there is currently no evidence reported in these reviews that the prospective use of global cardiovascular risk assessment translates to reductions in CVD morbidity or mortality. There are reductions in SBP, cholesterol and smoking but they may not be clinically significant given their small effect size and short duration. Resources need to be directed to conduct high-quality systematic reviews focusing on hard patient outcomes, and likely further primary RCTs.CRD42015019821.

Dataset Information

Methodological issues and recommendations for systematic reviews of prognostic studies: an example from cardiovascular disease.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Methodological issues and recommendations for systematic reviews of prognostic studies: an example from cardiovascular disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets