Dataset Information

Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies are frequently performed, but no widely accepted guidance is available at present. We performed a systematic scoping review of published methodological recommendations on how to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies.

Methods

We searched online databases and websites and contacted experts in the field to locate potentially eligible articles. We included articles that provided any type of recommendation on how to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. We extracted and summarised recommendations on pre-defined key items: protocol development, research question, search strategy, study eligibility, data extraction, dealing with different study designs, risk of bias assessment, publication bias, heterogeneity, statistical analysis. We summarised recommendations by key item, identifying areas of agreement and disagreement as well as areas where recommendations were missing or scarce.

Results

The searches identified 2461 articles of which 93 were eligible. Many recommendations for reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies were transferred from guidance developed for reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs. Although there was substantial agreement in some methodological areas there was also considerable disagreement on how evidence synthesis of observational studies should be conducted. Conflicting recommendations were seen on topics such as the inclusion of different study designs in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the use of quality scales to assess the risk of bias, and the choice of model (e.g. fixed vs. random effects) for meta-analysis.

Conclusion

There is a need for sound methodological guidance on how to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies, which critically considers areas in which there are conflicting recommendations.

SUBMITTER: Mueller M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5963098 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials in patients with influenza suggest a lack of evidence about the effects of antiviral therapy on several patient-important outcomes of influenza. PURPOSE:To systematically review observational studies for benefits and harms of oseltamivir, zanamivir, amantadine, or rimantadine in the treatment of influenza. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, SIGLE, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Panteleimon, and LILACS up to November 2010; contact with pharmaceutical companies; and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION:Observational studies in any language that compared single antiviral therapy with no therapy or other antiviral therapy, or that had no comparator, for influenza or influenza-like illness. DATA EXTRACTION:Two independent investigators extracted data. Confidence in the estimates of the obtained effects (quality of evidence) was assessed by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. DATA SYNTHESIS:74 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses of the few studies providing effects with adjustment for confounders suggest that, in high-risk populations, oral oseltamivir may reduce mortality (odds ratio, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.43]; low-quality evidence), hospitalization (odds ratio, 0.75 [CI, 0.66 to 0.89]; low-quality evidence), and duration of symptoms (33 hours [CI, 21 to 45 hours]; very low-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. Earlier treatment with oseltamivir was generally associated with better outcomes. Inhaled zanamivir may lead to shorter symptom duration (23 hours [CI, 17 to 28 hours]; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer hospitalizations (odds ratio, 0.66 [CI, 0.37 to 1.18]) but more complications than no treatment. Direct comparison of oral oseltamivir and inhaled zanamivir suggests no important differences in key outcomes. Data from 1 study suggest that oral amantadine may reduce mortality and pneumonia associated with influenza A. No included study evaluated rimantadine. LIMITATIONS:Mortality was assessed in high-risk patients, and generalizability is limited. The overall body of evidence is limited by risk for confounding and selection, reporting, and publication bias. CONCLUSION:Therapy with oral oseltamivir and inhaled zanamivir may provide a net benefit over no treatment of influenza. However, as with the randomized trials, the confidence in the estimates of the effects for decision making is low to very low. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCES: World Health Organization and McMaster University.

Project description:BackgroundAntipsychotic agents are the basis for the pharmacological management of acute and chronic schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, mood disorders with psychotic feature, and other psychotic disorders. Antipsychotic medication use is frequently associated with unfavorable adverse effects such as extrapyramidal side effects (EPSEs). Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to determine the magnitude of antipsychotic-induced EPSEs.MethodA literature search was conducted using legitimate databases, indexing services, and directories including PubMed/MEDLINE (Ovid®), EMBASE (Ovid®), google scholar and WorldCat to retrieve studies. Following screening and eligibility, the relevant data were extracted from the included studies using an Excel sheet and exported to STATA 15.0 software for analyses. The Random effects pooling model was used to analyze outcome measures at a 95% confidence interval. Besides, publication bias analysis was conducted. The protocol has been registered on PROSPERO with ID: CRD42020175168.ResultIn total, 15 original articles were included for the systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of antipsychotic-induced EPSEs among patient taking antipsychotic medications was 37% (95% CI: 18-55%, before sensitivity) and 31% (95% CI: 19-44%, after sensitivity). The prevalence of antipsychotic-induced parkinsonism, akathisia, and tardive dyskinesia was 20% (95% CI: 11-28%), 11% (95% CI: 6-17%), and 7% (95% CI: 4-9%), respectively. To confirm a small-study effect, Egger's regression test accompanied by funnel plot asymmetry demonstrated that there was a sort of publication bias in studies reporting akathisia and tardive dyskinesia.ConclusionThe prevalence of antipsychotic-induced EPSEs was considerably high. One in five and more than one in ten patients experienced parkinsonism and akathisia, respectively. Appropriate prevention and early management of these effects can enhance the net benefits of antipsychotics.