Dataset Information

Systematic reviews of prognosis studies: a critical appraisal of five core clinical journals.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Prognosis research refers to the investigation of association between a baseline health state, patient characteristic and future outcomes. The findings of several prognostic studies can be summarized in systematic reviews (SRs), but some characteristics of prognostic studies may result in difficulties when performing the analyses. This study aimed to investigate trends in the volume and quality of SRs of prognostic studies in the literature.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review in five high-impact clinical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Circulation, JAMA, and Stroke) to identify SRs of prognosis studies focused on fundamental prognosis research and prognostic factor research published between 2000 and 2012. We excluded studies of clinical prediction guides or implementation studies. The quality of the SRs was rated based on the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and the PRISMA checklists.

Results

Over the 13-year period, 1065 SRs were published. Of these, 198 were SRs of prognosis studies. The proportion of all SRs to published articles increased from 0.86% in 2000 to 4.2% in 2012. Likewise, the proportion of prognosis SRs to all SRs increased from 10.3% in 2000 to 17.7% in 2012. MOOSE and PRISMA mean summary scores consistently increased over time for all journals, indicating that the quality of reporting in these SRs has steadily improved. However, several items were not consistently well reported by investigators.

Conclusions

This study shows that there is a growing number of SRs of prognosis studies. However, the quality is suboptimal when assessed with the generic reporting guidelines for observational studies. New reporting guidelines and risk of bias tools for prognosis studies are needed to improve the quality of future research in this field.

SUBMITTER: Matino D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6460771 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionOver the last years, the number of systematic reviews published is steadily increasing due to the global interest in this type of evidence synthesis. However, little is known about the characteristics of this research published in Portuguese medical journals. This study aims to evaluate the publication trends and overall quality of these systematic reviews.Material and methodsThis was a methodological study. We aimed the most visible Portuguese medical journals indexed in MEDLINE. Systematic reviews were identified through an electronic search (through PUBMED). We included systematic reviews published up to August 2020. Systematic reviews selection and data extraction were done independently by three authors. The overall quality critical appraisal using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) was independently assessed by three authors. Disagreements were solved by consensus.ResultsSixty-six systematic reviews published in 5 Portuguese medical journals were included. Most (n = 53; 80.3%) were systematic reviews without meta-analysis. Up to 2010 there was a steady increase in the number of systematic reviews published, followed by a period of great variability of publication, ranging from 1 to 10 in a given year. According to the systematic reviews' typology, most have been predominantly conducted to assess the effectiveness/efficacy of health interventions (n = 27; 40.9%). General and Internal Medicine (n = 20; 30.3%) was the most addressed field. Most systematic reviews (n = 46; 69.7%) were rated as being of "critically low-quality".ConclusionsThere were consistent flaws in the methodological quality report of the systematic reviews included, particularly in establishing a prior protocol and not assessing the potential impact of the risk of bias on the results. Through the years, the number of systematic reviews published increased, yet their quality is suboptimal. There is a need to improve the reporting of systematic reviews in Portuguese medical journals, which can be achieved by better adherence to quality checklists/tools.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews may provide less biased evidence than narrative reviews because they observe a strict methodology, similarly to primary studies. Hence, for clinical research questions, systematic reviews should be the study design of choice. It would be important to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of narrative and systematic reviews published in prominent medical journals. Researchers and clinicians give great value to articles published in such scientific journals. This study sought to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of narrative and systematic reviews in the five highest-ranked general medical journals and investigate the associations among type of review, number of citations, and impact factor (IF).MethodsWe surveyed the five highest-ranked medical journals (The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association, The BMJ, and Annals of Internal Medicine) for narrative and systematic reviews published between June 2015 and June 2016. We independently selected and extracted the data from the reviews by strictly following the pre-determined eligibility criteria (Systematic and narrative reviews that focused on the management of diseases). We conducted regression analyses to investigate the associations among review type, number of citations, and IF. We also descriptively reported narrative reviews containing some methodology that might be reproducible.ResultsTwo hundred seventy-five reviews were included: 75 (27%) systematic; 126 (46%) narrative with some methodology reported, and 74 (27%) narrative reviews. In comparison to systematic reviews, narrative reviews were more frequently published in journals with higher IF (risk ratio [RR]?=?1.114 (95% CI 1.080 to 1.149). Systematic reviews received more citations than narrative reviews (group formed by narrative and narrative with some methodology reported (RR?=?0.985 95% CI 0.978 to 0.991).ConclusionsNon-systematic evidence is the most prevalent type of evidence in reviews published in the five highest-ranked general medical journals. Narrative reviews were more frequently published in journals with higher IF. We recommend that journals limit their space for narrative information, and to address clinical research questions, these journals consider publishing systematic evidence exclusively.

Project description:BackgroundCancer-related anorexia remains one of the most prevalent and troublesome clinical problems experienced by patients with cancer during and after therapy. To ensure high-quality care, systematic reviews (SRs) are seen as the best guide. Considering the methodology quality of SRs varies, we undertook a comprehensive overview, and critical appraisal of pertinent SRs.MethodsEight databases (between the inception of each database and September 1, 2017) were searched for SRs on the management of cancer-related anorexia. Two researchers evaluated the methodological quality of each SR by using the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) checklist. Characteristics of the "high quality" SRs were abstracted, included information on relevant studies numbers, study design, population, intervention, control, outcome and result.ResultsEighteen SRs met the inclusion criteria. The R-AMSTAR scores of methodological quality ranged from 18 to 41 out of 44, with an average score of 30. Totally eight SRs scored ≥31 points, which showed high methodological quality, and would be used for data extraction to make summaries. Anamorelin had some positive effects to relieve cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome (CACS) and improve the quality of life (QoL). Megestrol Acetate (MA) could improve appetite, and was associated with slight weight gain for CACS. Oral nutritional interventions were effective in increasing nutritional intake and improving some aspects of QoL in patients with cancer who were malnourished or at nutritional risk. The use of thalidomide, Eicosapentaenoic Acid, and minerals, vitamins, proteins, or other supplements for the treatment of cachexia in cancer were uncertain, and there was inadequate evidence to recommend it to clinical practices, the same situation in Chinese Herb Medicine and acupuncture (acupuncture and related therapies were effective in improving QoL) for treating anorexia in cancer patients, warranting further RCTs in these areas.ConclusionsAnamorelin, MA, oral nutrition interventions, and acupuncture could be considered to be applied in patients with cancer-related anorexia. Future RCTs and SRs with high quality on the pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical interventions of anorexia in cancer patients are warranted.

Project description:Objective: This work aims to systematically identify, describe, and appraise all prognostic models for cervical cancer and provide a reference for clinical practice and future research. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases up to December 2020 and included studies developing, validating, or updating a prognostic model for cervical cancer. Two reviewers extracted information based on the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modeling Studies checklist and assessed the risk of bias using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool. Results: Fifty-six eligible articles were identified, describing the development of 77 prognostic models and 27 external validation efforts. The 77 prognostic models focused on three types of cervical cancer patients at different stages, i.e., patients with early-stage cervical cancer (n = 29; 38%), patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (n = 27; 35%), and all-stage cervical cancer patients (n = 21; 27%). Among the 77 models, the most frequently used predictors were lymph node status (n = 57; 74%), the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage (n = 42; 55%), histological types (n = 38; 49%), and tumor size (n = 37; 48%). The number of models that applied internal validation, presented a full equation, and assessed model calibration was 52 (68%), 16 (21%), and 45 (58%), respectively. Twenty-four models were externally validated, among which three were validated twice. None of the models were assessed with an overall low risk of bias. The Prediction Model of Failure in Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer model was externally validated twice, with acceptable performance, and seemed to be the most reliable. Conclusions: Methodological details including internal validation, sample size, and handling of missing data need to be emphasized on, and external validation is needed to facilitate the application and generalization of models for cervical cancer.