Dataset Information

Frequency of equivocation in surgical meta-evidence: a review of systematic reviews within IBD literature.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To assess the level of equivocation among level 1 evidence in ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease and determine whether any predisposing factors are present. METHOD:MEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL and Cochrane were searched from 2006 to 2017. Papers were scored using AMSTAR and categorised into surgical (S), medical (M) or medical and surgical (MS) groups. The ability of each paper to make a recommendation and conclusiveness in doing so was recorded. RESULTS:278 papers were assessed. 82% (n=227) could make a recommendation, 18% (n=51) could not. There was a significant difference in ability to provide a recommendation between S and M (P=0.003) but not MS and M (P=0.022) nor S and MS (P=0.79). Where a recommendation was made, S papers were more likely to be tempered than M papers (P=0.014) but not MS papers (P=0.987). CONCLUSIONS:Surgical meta-evidence within the inflammatory bowel disease domain is more than twice as likely as medical meta-evidence to be unable to provide a recommendation for clinical practice. Where a recommendation was made, surgical reviews were twice as likely to temper their conclusion.

SUBMITTER: Delaney JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5778281 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Frequency of equivocation in surgical meta-evidence: a review of systematic reviews within IBD literature.

Delaney John D JD Holbrook John T JT Dewar Robert K RK Laws Patrick J PJ Engel Alexander F AF

BMJ open 20171219 12

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the level of equivocation among level 1 evidence in ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease and determine whether any predisposing factors are present.<h4>Method</h4>MEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL and Cochrane were searched from 2006 to 2017. Papers were scored using AMSTAR and categorised into surgical (S), medical (M) or medical and surgical (MS) groups. The ability of each paper to make a recommendation and conclusiveness in doing so was recorded.<h4>Results</h4>278 papers ...[more]

PMID: 29259063

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn bioethics, especially nursing ethics, systematic reviews are increasingly popular. The overall aim of a systematic review is to provide an overview of the published discussions on a specific topic. While a meta-review on systematic reviews on normative bioethical literature has already been performed, there is no equivalent for systematic reviews of empirical literature on ethical topics.ObjectiveThis meta-review aims to present the general trends and characteristics of systematic reviews of empirical bioethical literature and to evaluate their reporting quality.Research designLiterature search was performed on PubMed and Google Scholar. Qualitative content analysis and quantitative approaches were used to evaluate the systematic reviews. Characteristics of systematic reviews were extracted and quantitatively analyzed. The reporting quality was measured using an adapted PRISMA checklist.FindingsSeventy-six reviews were selected for analysis. Most reviews came from the field of nursing (next to bioethics and medicine). Selected systematic reviews investigated issues related to clinical ethics (50%), followed by research ethics (36%) and public health ethics or organizational ethics (14%). In all, 72% of the systematic reviews included authors' ethical reflections on the findings and 59% provided ethical recommendations. Despite the heterogeneous reporting of the reviews, reviews using PRISMA tended to score better regarding reporting quality.DiscussionThe heterogeneity currently observed is due both to the interdisciplinary nature of nursing ethics and bioethics, and to the emerging nature of systematic review methods in these fields. These results confirm the findings of our previous review of systematic reviews on normative literature, thereby highlighting a recurring methodological gap in systematic reviews of bioethical literature. This also indicates the need to develop more robust methodological standards.ConclusionThrough its extensive overview of the characteristics of systematic reviews of empirical literature on ethical topics, this meta-review is expected to inform further discussions on minimal standards and reporting guidelines.

Project description:Adult social care continues to be a central policy concern in the UK. The Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework (ASCOF) is a range of measures nationally available to drive forward improvement on outcomes and quality in local councils. While there is an emphasis on improving transparency, quality and outcomes, drawing on research evidence to achieve these aims is often difficult because the evidence is not easily identifiable, is disparate or of variable quality. We conducted a meta-review to analyse and summarise systematic review-level evidence on the impact of interventions on the four outcomes set out in the ASCOF: quality of life, delaying and reducing the need for services, satisfaction with services and safeguarding of vulnerable adults. This paper focuses on the availability of review-level evidence and the presence of significant gaps in this evidence base. A range of health and social care databases were searched, including MEDLINE, ASSIA and The Cochrane Library in January and February 2012. All systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy of social care interventions for improving ASCOF outcomes for older people, people with long-term conditions, mental health problems or physical and/or learning disabilities were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened systematic reviews for quality and relevance and extracted data; 43 systematic reviews were included, the majority of which examined the impact of interventions on quality of life (n = 34) and delaying and reducing the need for support (n = 25). Limited systematic review-level evidence was found regarding satisfaction with services and safeguarding. There were also significant gaps in relation to key social care interventions and population groups. Research priorities include addressing these gaps and the collation of data on interventions, outcomes and populations more closely related to social care. Overall, a more relevant, comprehensive and robust evidence base is required to support improvement of outcomes for recipients of adult social care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence supports the benefits of exercise for patients with cancer; however, specific guidance for clinical decision making regarding exercise timing, frequency, duration, and intensity is lacking. Efforts are needed to optimize clinical recommendations for exercise in the cancer population. OBJECTIVES:To aggregate information regarding the benefit of exercise through a systematic review of existing systematic reviews in the cancer exercise literature. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the impact of movement-based exercise on the adult cancer population. METHODS:Two author teams reviewed 302 abstracts for inclusion with 93 selected for full-text review. A total of 53 studies were analyzed. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) was used as a quality measure of the reviews. Information was extracted using the PICO format (ie, participants, intervention, comparison, outcomes). Descriptive findings are reported. RESULTS:Mean AMSTAR score = 7.66/11 (±2.04) suggests moderate quality of the systematic reviews. Exercise is beneficial before, during, and after cancer treatment, across all cancer types, and for a variety of cancer-related impairments. Moderate-to-vigorous exercise is the best level of exercise intensity to improve physical function and mitigate cancer-related impairments. Therapeutic exercises are beneficial to manage treatment side effects, may enhance tolerance to cancer treatments, and improve functional outcomes. Supervised exercise yielded superior benefits versus unsupervised. Serious adverse events were not common. LIMITATIONS:Movement-based exercise intervention outcomes are reported. No analysis of pooled effects was calculated across reviews due to significant heterogeneity within the systematic reviews. Findings do not consider exercise in advanced cancers or pediatric populations. CONCLUSIONS:Exercise promotes significant improvements in clinical, functional, and in some populations, survival outcomes and can be recommended regardless of the type of cancer. Although generally safe, patients should be screened and appropriate precautions taken. Efforts to strengthen uniformity in clinical trial reporting, develop clinical practice guidelines, and integrate exercise and rehabilitation services into the cancer delivery system are needed.

Dataset Information

Frequency of equivocation in surgical meta-evidence: a review of systematic reviews within IBD literature.

Publications

Frequency of equivocation in surgical meta-evidence: a review of systematic reviews within IBD literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets