Dataset Information

Nature and reporting characteristics of UK health technology assessment systematic reviews.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:A recent study by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028) claimed that increasing numbers of reviews are being published and many are poorly-conducted and reported. The aim of the present study was to assess how well reporting standards of systematic reviews produced in a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) context compare with reporting in Cochrane and other 'non-Cochrane' systematic reviews from the same years (2004 and 2014), as reported by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028). METHODS:All relevant UK HTA programme systematic reviews published in 2004 and 2014 were identified. After piloting of the form, two reviewers each extracted relevant data on conduct and reporting from these reviews. These data were compared with data for Cochrane and "non-Cochrane" systematic reviews, as published by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028). All data were tabulated and summarized. RESULTS:There were 30 UK HTA programme systematic reviews and 300 other systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews (n?=?45). The percentage of HTA reviews with required elements of conduct and reporting was frequently very similar to Cochrane and much higher than all other systematic reviews, e.g. availability of protocols (90, 98 and 16% respectively); the specification of study design criteria (100, 100, 79%); the reporting of outcomes (100, 100, 78%), quality assessment (100, 100, 70%); the searching of trial registries for unpublished data (70, 62, 19%); reporting of reasons for excluding studies (91, 91 and 70%) and reporting of authors' conflicts of interests (100, 100, 87%). HTA reviews only compared less favourably with Cochrane and other reviews in assessments of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS:UK HTA systematic reviews are often produced within a specific policy-making context. This context has implications for timelines, tools and resources. However, UK HTA systematic reviews still tend to present standards of conduct and reporting equivalent to "gold standard" Cochrane reviews and superior to systematic reviews more generally.

SUBMITTER: Carroll C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5941703 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nature and reporting characteristics of UK health technology assessment systematic reviews.

Carroll Christopher C Kaltenthaler Eva E

BMC medical research methodology 20180508 1

<h4>Background</h4>A recent study by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028) claimed that increasing numbers of reviews are being published and many are poorly-conducted and reported. The aim of the present study was to assess how well reporting standards of systematic reviews produced in a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) context compare with reporting in Cochrane and other 'non-Cochrane' systematic reviews from the same years (2004 and 2014), as reported by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13 ...[more]

PMID: 29739352

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany systematic reviews (SRs) have been published about the various treatments for distal radius fractures (DRF). The heterogeneity of SRs results may come from the misuse of SR methods, and literature overviews have demonstrated that SRs should be considered with caution as they may not always be synonymous with high-quality standards. Our objective is to evaluate the quality of published SRs on the treatment of DRF through these tools.MethodsThe methods utilized in this review were previously published in the PROSPERO database. We considered SRs of surgical and nonsurgical interventions for acute DRF in adults. A comprehensive search strategy was performed in the MEDLINE database (inception to May 2017) and we manually searched the grey literature for non-indexed research. Data were independently extracted by two authors. We assessed SR internal validity and reporting using AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes). Scores were calculated as the sum of reported items. We also extracted article characteristics and provided Spearman's correlation measurements.ResultsForty-one articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The mean score for PRISMA was 15.90 (CI 95%, 13.9-17.89) and AMSTAR was 6.48 (CI 95% 5.72-7.23). SRs that considered only RCTs had better AMSTAR [7.56 (2.1) vs. 5.62 (2.3); p = 0.014] and PRISMA scores [18.61 (5.22) vs. 13.93 (6.47), p = 0.027]. The presence of meta-analysis on the SRs altered PRISMA scores [19.17 (4.75) vs. 10.21 (4.51), p = 0.001] and AMSTAR scores [7.68 (1.9) vs. 4.39 (1.66), p = 0.001]. Journal impact factor or declaration of conflict of interest did not change PRISMA and AMSTAR scores. We found substantial inter observer agreement for PRISMA (0.82, 95% CI 0.62-0.94; p = 0.01) and AMSTAR (0.65, 95% CI 0.43-0.81; p = 0.01), and moderate correlation between PRISMA and AMSTAR scores (0.83, 95% CI 0.62-0.92; p = 0.01).ConclusionsDRF RCT-only SRs have better PRISMA and AMSTAR scores. These tools have substantial inter-observer agreement and moderate inter-tool correlation. We exposed the current research panorama and pointed out some factors that can contribute to improvements on the topic.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) can help decision makers interpret the deluge of published biomedical literature. However, a SR may be of limited use if the methods used to conduct the SR are flawed, and reporting of the SR is incomplete. To our knowledge, since 2004 there has been no cross-sectional study of the prevalence, focus, and completeness of reporting of SRs across different specialties. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a more recent cross-section of SRs.Methods and findingsWe searched MEDLINE to identify potentially eligible SRs indexed during the month of February 2014. Citations were screened using prespecified eligibility criteria. Epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a random sample of 300 SRs were extracted by one reviewer, with a 10% sample extracted in duplicate. We compared characteristics of Cochrane versus non-Cochrane reviews, and the 2014 sample of SRs versus a 2004 sample of SRs. We identified 682 SRs, suggesting that more than 8,000 SRs are being indexed in MEDLINE annually, corresponding to a 3-fold increase over the last decade. The majority of SRs addressed a therapeutic question and were conducted by authors based in China, the UK, or the US; they included a median of 15 studies involving 2,072 participants. Meta-analysis was performed in 63% of SRs, mostly using standard pairwise methods. Study risk of bias/quality assessment was performed in 70% of SRs but was rarely incorporated into the analysis (16%). Few SRs (7%) searched sources of unpublished data, and the risk of publication bias was considered in less than half of SRs. Reporting quality was highly variable; at least a third of SRs did not report use of a SR protocol, eligibility criteria relating to publication status, years of coverage of the search, a full Boolean search logic for at least one database, methods for data extraction, methods for study risk of bias assessment, a primary outcome, an abstract conclusion that incorporated study limitations, or the funding source of the SR. Cochrane SRs, which accounted for 15% of the sample, had more complete reporting than all other types of SRs. Reporting has generally improved since 2004, but remains suboptimal for many characteristics.ConclusionsAn increasing number of SRs are being published, and many are poorly conducted and reported. Strategies are needed to help reduce this avoidable waste in research.

Project description:BackgroundMoxibustion is one of the major interventions of Chinese medicine (CM). The systematic reviews (SRs) are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of moxibustion interventions. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of these SRs, particularly whether necessary information related to moxibustion was adequately reported.MethodsSeven databases (including four English and three Chinese databases) were systematically searched for SRs of moxibustion that were published up to 31 December 2019. The primary analysis was to assess their reporting quality based on 27-item of the Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and 14-item of moxibustion-related information designed according to CM theory and the STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials Of Moxibustion (STRICTOM). Descriptive statistics were also used to analyze their baseline characteristics.ResultsA total of 97 SRs of moxibustion were identified from 2011 to 2019. For 27-item of PRISMA, except item 5, 8, 16 and 23, the remaining 23 items had the reporting compliances higher than 55%, of which 2 items (item 20 and 26) were fully reporting (100%). However, for moxibustion-related information, 69.1% (67/97) SRs did not provide the specific type of moxibustion, 39.2% (38/97) lacked details regarding the materials, procedure and technique used for moxibustion, 67.0% (65/97) did not report the selection criteria of acupoints for moxibustion, 28.9% (28/97) did not provide the number or duration of treatment sessions, 69.1% (67/97) did not provide any information about safety evaluation, and 94.8% (92/97) SRs did not report the treatment environment. For 51 (55.4%) of 92 SRs that included meta-analysis, it was impossible to assess whether meta-analysis had been properly conducted due to inadequate reporting of moxibustion interventions.ConclusionThe reporting quality of SRs of moxibustion need further improvements in terms of adequate reporting of moxibustion interventions and of moxibustion-related rationales. Reporting guideline of "PRISMA extension for moxibustion interventions" should be developed thus to improve their quality.

Project description:Strategies to identify and mitigate publication bias and outcome reporting bias are frequently adopted in systematic reviews of clinical interventions but it is not clear how often these are applied in systematic reviews relating to quantitative health services and delivery research (HSDR). We examined whether these biases are mentioned and/or otherwise assessed in HSDR systematic reviews, and evaluated associating factors to inform future practice. We randomly selected 200 quantitative HSDR systematic reviews published in the English language from 2007-2017 from the Health Systems Evidence database (www.healthsystemsevidence.org). We extracted data on factors that may influence whether or not authors mention and/or assess publication bias or outcome reporting bias. We found that 43% (n = 85) of the reviews mentioned publication bias and 10% (n = 19) formally assessed it. Outcome reporting bias was mentioned and assessed in 17% (n = 34) of all the systematic reviews. Insufficient number of studies, heterogeneity and lack of pre-registered protocols were the most commonly reported impediments to assessing the biases. In multivariable logistic regression models, both mentioning and formal assessment of publication bias were associated with: inclusion of a meta-analysis; being a review of intervention rather than association studies; higher journal impact factor, and; reporting the use of systematic review guidelines. Assessment of outcome reporting bias was associated with: being an intervention review; authors reporting the use of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE), and; inclusion of only controlled trials. Publication bias and outcome reporting bias are infrequently assessed in HSDR systematic reviews. This may reflect the inherent heterogeneity of HSDR evidence and different methodological approaches to synthesising the evidence, lack of awareness of such biases, limits of current tools and lack of pre-registered study protocols for assessing such biases. Strategies to help raise awareness of the biases, and methods to minimise their occurrence and mitigate their impacts on HSDR systematic reviews, are needed.

Dataset Information

Nature and reporting characteristics of UK health technology assessment systematic reviews.

Publications

Nature and reporting characteristics of UK health technology assessment systematic reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets