Dataset Information

Systematic reviews: guidance relevant for studies of older people.

ABSTRACT: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are increasingly common. This article aims to provide guidance for people conducting systematic reviews relevant to the healthcare of older people. An awareness of these issues will also help people reading systematic reviews to determine whether the results will influence their clinical practice. It is essential that systematic reviews are performed by a team which includes the required technical and clinical expertise. Those performing reviews for the first time should ensure they have appropriate training and support. They must be planned and performed in a transparent and methodologically robust way: guidelines are available. The protocol should be written-and if possible published-before starting the review. Geriatricians will be interested in a table of baseline characteristics, which will help to determine if the studied samples or populations are similar to their patients. Reviews of studies of older people should consider how they will manage issues such as different age cut-offs; non-specific presentations; multiple predictors and outcomes; potential biases and confounders. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses may provide evidence to improve older people's care, or determine where new evidence is required. Newer methodologies, such as meta-analyses of individual level data, network meta-analyses and umbrella reviews, and realist synthesis, may improve the reliability and clinical utility of systematic reviews.

SUBMITTER: Shenkin SD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5860219 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Older people have the highest rates of suicide, yet the evidence base on effective suicide preventions in late-life is limited. This systematic review of reviews aims to synthesize data from existing reviews on the prevention and/or reduction of suicide behavior in late-life and evidence for effectiveness of interventions. A systematic database search was conducted in eight electronic databases from inception to 4/2020 for reviews targeting interventions among adults ≥ 60 to prevent and/or reduce suicide, suicide attempt, self-harm and suicidal ideation. Four high quality reviews were included and interventions categorized as pharmacological (antidepressant use: 239 RCTs, seven observational studies) and behavioral (physical activity: three observational studies, and multifaceted primary-care-based collaborative care for depression screening and management: four RCTs). The 2009 antidepressant use review found significant risk reduction for suicide attempt/self-harm (OR = 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.58) and suicide ideation (OR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.78) versus placebo. The 2015 review found an increased risk of attempts with antidepressants versus no treatment (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.27) and no statistically significant change in suicides versus no treatment (RR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.68-1.66) or ideation versus placebo (OR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.14-1.94). Protective effects were found for physical activity on ideation in 2 out of 3 studies when comparing active versus inactive older people. Collaborative care demonstrated significantly less attempts/ideation (OR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.94) in intervention group versus usual care. The results of this review of reviews find the evidence inconclusive towards use of antidepressants for the prevention of suicidal behavior in older people, thus monitoring is required prior to start, dosage change or cessation of antidepressants. Evidence to date supports physical activity and collaborative management for reduction of suicide ideation, but additional trials are required for a meta-analysis. To build on these findings, continued high-quality research is warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in late life.

Project description:Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Project description:Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-023-08304-x.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic literature searching is recognised as a critical component of the systematic review process. It involves a systematic search for studies and aims for a transparent report of study identification, leaving readers clear about what was done to identify studies, and how the findings of the review are situated in the relevant evidence. Information specialists and review teams appear to work from a shared and tacit model of the literature search process. How this tacit model has developed and evolved is unclear, and it has not been explicitly examined before. The purpose of this review is to determine if a shared model of the literature searching process can be detected across systematic review guidance documents and, if so, how this process is reported in the guidance and supported by published studies.MethodA literature review. Two types of literature were reviewed: guidance and published studies. Nine guidance documents were identified, including: The Cochrane and Campbell Handbooks. Published studies were identified through 'pearl growing', citation chasing, a search of PubMed using the systematic review methods filter, and the authors' topic knowledge. The relevant sections within each guidance document were then read and re-read, with the aim of determining key methodological stages. Methodological stages were identified and defined. This data was reviewed to identify agreements and areas of unique guidance between guidance documents. Consensus across multiple guidance documents was used to inform selection of 'key stages' in the process of literature searching.ResultsEight key stages were determined relating specifically to literature searching in systematic reviews. They were: who should literature search, aims and purpose of literature searching, preparation, the search strategy, searching databases, supplementary searching, managing references and reporting the search process.ConclusionsEight key stages to the process of literature searching in systematic reviews were identified. These key stages are consistently reported in the nine guidance documents, suggesting consensus on the key stages of literature searching, and therefore the process of literature searching as a whole, in systematic reviews. Further research to determine the suitability of using the same process of literature searching for all types of systematic review is indicated.

Project description:BackgroundMultimorbidity and polypharmacy are common in older people. Assessment tools or lists of criteria aimed at supporting prescription decisions for older people exist, but have often been based on expert opinion with insufficient consideration of the evidence available. The present paper describes the methods we are using to systematically review the existing evidence on the efficacy and safety of the most commonly prescribed drugs for older people in the management of their chronic medical conditions and to develop recommendations to reduce inappropriate prescriptions for incorporation into the Comprehensive Medication Review (CMR) tool developed by the PRIMA-eDS European project.MethodsWe selected the 20 most relevant drugs/drug classes in terms of prescription volumes and risk of hospitalisation for older people and the most relevant indications for the most common chronic conditions among older people and a total of 35 distinct drug-indication pairs were chosen. Based on clinical considerations we collapsed some indications together, reducing the 35 pairs to a final total of 22 separate systematic reviews (SR). A common methodology will be used for each individual SR, based on the methodological manuals of the Cochrane collaboration and the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews. Our search strategy will have a staged approach where we initially search for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, but if relevant reviews are not found, then search for individual studies (controlled intervention and observational studies). Our pilot work and initial scoping of the literature suggested that very few, relevant individual trials or existing systematic reviews have researched or reported exclusively on older people. Therefore, sufficient data might not be available to perform meta-analysis but we will provide a narrative synthesis describing characteristics and findings of included studies. The collected evidence will be used to construct recommendations on when not to use or to discontinue a drug, or when to reduce its dose. Recommendations will be developed in team meetings using the GRADE methodology to reflect the strength of the recommendation and the quality of the evidence. Recommendations will be built into the CMR tool.DiscussionThis protocol has been prepared for a series of systematic reviews which will provide research-based evidence to develop recommendations to reduce inappropriate polypharmacy in older people as part of the CMR tool of the PRIMA-eDS project.

Project description:BackgroundThe promotion and maintenance of higher physical activity (PA) levels in the older population is an imperative for cognitive and healthy ageing but it is unclear what approaches are best suited to achieve this for the increasing number of older people living in the community. Effective policies should be informed by robust, multi-disciplinary and multi-dimensional evidence, which not only seeks what works, but in 'what context? In addition to evidence on the efficacy and effectiveness of PA for maintaining cognitive health, social contexts such as 'how do we actually get older people to partake in PA?' and 'how do we sustain that activity long-term?' also need highlighting. This review is part of a comprehensive evidence synthesis of preventive interventions in older age, with a focus on healthy behaviours to identify evidence gaps and inform policy relating to ageing well and cognitive health. An overview of systematic reviews of PA was conducted to explore three topics: (1) PA efficacy or effectiveness for primary prevention of cognitive decline in 55+; (2) Interventions efficacious or effective for increasing PA uptake and maintenance in 55+; (3) barriers and facilitators to PA in 55+.MethodsMultiple databases were searched for studies in English from OECD countries between 2000 and 2016. Quality of included reviews in questions (1) and (2) were assessed using AMSTAR. Review protocols were registered on PROSPERO (CRD42014015554, 42014015584, CRD42014015557) and reviews follow PRISMA guideline.FindingsOverall, 40 systematic reviews were included. Question 1 (n = 14). 8,360 participants. Evidence suggests that PA confer mild positive effects on cognition in older adults with and without previous cognitive impairment. However, there is insufficient evidence of a dose-response relationship. Evidence on the effects of PA on delay of dementia onset is inconclusive. Question 2 (n = 17). 79,650 participants. Evidence supports the effectiveness of a variety of interventions, including group delivered, centre-based and cognitive approaches on short-term uptake of PA behaviour. Question 3 (n = 9). 22,413 participants. Barriers include health status, previous PA habits and experiences, and cultural sensitivity, while facilitators include enjoyable activities and convenient scheduling.ConclusionPA can offer small benefits to brain health, but evidence on how much activity is required to produce this effect is lacking. Evidence on the effectiveness of PA for preventing dementia and cognitive decline is lacking. Behavioural (walking, exercise) and cognitive (counselling and motivational interviews) interventions are effective for short-term uptake of physical activity in older people. In order to maintain long-term participation in PA, individualised interventions modelled using behavioural theories may be required. Public health messages should be aimed at promoting acceptable levels of PA above normal daily activities in older people. Policy and strategies aimed at increasing PA in older people should be encouraged while considering barriers and facilitators to behaviour change.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Consumers, clinicians, policymakers and researchers require high quality evidence to guide decision-making in child health. Though Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) are a well-established source of evidence, little is known about the characteristics of non-Cochrane child-relevant SRs. To complement published descriptions of Cochrane SRs, we aimed to characterize the epidemiologic, methodological, and reporting qualities of non-Cochrane child-relevant SRs published in 2014. METHODS:English-language child-relevant SRs of quantitative primary research published outside the Cochrane Library in 2014 were eligible for this descriptive analysis. A research librarian searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PubMed in August 2015. A single reviewer screened articles for inclusion; a second verified the excluded studies. Reviewers extracted: general characteristics of the review; included study characteristics; methodological approaches. We performed univariate analyses and presented the findings narratively. RESULTS:We identified 1598 child-relevant SRs containing a median (IQR) 19 (11, 33) studies. These originated primarily from high-income countries (n?=?1247, 78.0%) and spanned 47 of the 53 Cochrane Review Groups. Most synthesized therapeutic (n?=?753, 47.1%) or epidemiologic (n?=?701, 43.8%) evidence. Though 39.3% (n?=?628) of SRs included evidence related to children only, few were published in pediatric-specific journals (n?=?283, 17.7%). Reporting quality seemed poor based on the items we assessed; few reviews mentioned an a-priori protocol (n?=?246, 15.4%) or registration (n?=?111, 6.9%), and only 23.4% (n?=?374) specified a primary outcome. Many SRs relied solely on evidence from non-RCTs (n?=?796, 49.8%). Less than two-thirds (n?=?953, 59.6%) appraised the quality of included studies and assessments of the certainty of the body of evidence were rare (n?=?102, 6.4%). CONCLUSIONS:Child-relevant Cochrane SRs are a known source of high quality evidence in pediatrics. There exists, however, an abundance of evidence from non-Cochrane SRs that may be complementary. Our findings show that high-quality non-Cochrane SRs may not be practical nor easy for knowledge users to find. Improvements are needed to ensure that evidence syntheses published outside of the Cochrane Library adhere to the high standard of conduct and reporting characteristic of Cochrane SRs.

Dataset Information

Systematic reviews: guidance relevant for studies of older people.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets