Dataset Information

How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:There is a notable lack of methodological and reporting guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data. This information void has the potential to result in reviews that are inconsistent and inadequate to inform healthcare policy and decision making. The aim of this meta-epidemiological study is to describe the methodology of recently published prevalence systematic reviews. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from February 2017 to February 2018 for systematic reviews of prevalence studies. We included systematic reviews assessing the prevalence of any clinical condition using patients as the unit of measurement and we summarized data related to reporting and methodology of the reviews. RESULTS:A total of 235 systematic reviews of prevalence were analyzed. The median number of authors was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7), the median number of databases searched was 4 (3-6) and the median number of studies included in each review was 24 (IQR 15-41.5). Search strategies were presented for 68% of reviews. Forty five percent of reviews received external funding, and 24% did not provide funding information. Twenty three percent of included reviews had published or registered the systematic review protocol. Reporting guidelines were used in 72% of reviews. The quality of included studies was assessed in 80% of reviews. Nine reviews assessed the overall quality of evidence (4 using GRADE). Meta-analysis was conducted in 65% of reviews; 1% used Bayesian methods. Random effect meta-analysis was used in 94% of reviews; among them, 75% did not report the variance estimator used. Among the reviews with meta-analysis, 70% did not report how data was transformed; 59% percent conducted subgroup analysis, 38% conducted meta-regression and 2% estimated prediction interval; I2 was estimated in 95% of analysis. Publication bias was examined in 48%. The most common software used was STATA (55%). CONCLUSIONS:Our results indicate that there are significant inconsistencies regarding how these reviews are conducted. Many of these differences arose in the assessment of methodological quality and the formal synthesis of comparable data. This variability indicates the need for clearer reporting standards and consensus on methodological guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data.

SUBMITTER: Borges Migliavaca C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7184711 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study.

Borges Migliavaca Celina C Stein Cinara C Colpani Verônica V Barker Timothy Hugh TH Munn Zachary Z Falavigna Maicon M

BMC medical research methodology 20200426 1

<h4>Background</h4>There is a notable lack of methodological and reporting guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data. This information void has the potential to result in reviews that are inconsistent and inadequate to inform healthcare policy and decision making. The aim of this meta-epidemiological study is to describe the methodology of recently published prevalence systematic reviews.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from February 2017 to February 2018 for systematic ...[more]

PMID: 32336279

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) with or without meta-analyses (MAs) are widely used in resolving questions in various healthcare areas (such as, traditional Chinese medicine, public health and surgery), and they are the cornerstone of evidence-based healthcare. However, the reliability of SRs is typically influenced by their methodological quality. AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) and AMSTAR-2 tools can assess the methodological quality of SRs, and the use of AMSTAR has been investigated. However, AMSTAR-2 is now widely used to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs, but the use of AMSTAR-2 for determining the methodological quality of SRs has not yet been investigated and assessed thoroughly. Thus, we designed the present study to investigate the use of AMSTAR-2 in studies that assessed the methodological quality of a sample of SRs with the AMSTAR-2 and provide references to potential users of AMSTAR-2 tool.MethodsFour commonly used electronic databases including PubMed, EmBase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science will be searched following a comprehensive search strategy to identify and retrieve studies that have used AMSTAR-2 tool for evaluating the methodological quality of SRs. Two independent authors will retrieve bibliometric information and methodological data, including all author names, time of publication, and journal names, whether a specific score value was given for each item, and whether overall quality assessment was performed. Descriptive statistical analyses will be used to present the study results, e.g., frequencies and percentages, mean and standard deviation (SD) or median and interquartile range (IQR). In addition, subgroup analyses will be performed to identify the methodological differences (e.g., the reporting of study designs included in SRs) between overviews and methodological studies. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) will be calculated to measure the methodological differences. Cytoscape 3.7.1 software tool will be used to construct collaboration network maps. Further, Microsoft Office Excel 2016 and Stata 12.0 will be used to manage and analyze data.DiscussionThe results of this study will identify any gaps in the use of AMSTAR-2 and important bibliometric features, such as active researchers and journals, provide guidance to researchers in various healthcare areas (such as, traditional Chinese medicine and public health) for using AMSTAR-2 tool and help them in developing cooperation and submitting their manuscripts.

Project description:BackgroundWhile well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs) can provide the best evidence on the potential effectiveness of acupuncture, limitations on the methodological rigour of SRs may impact the trustworthiness of their conclusions. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on acupuncture effectiveness.MethodsCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for SRs focusing on the treatment effect of manual acupuncture or electro-acupuncture published during January 2018 and March 2020. Eligible SRs must contain at least one meta-analysis and be published in English language. Two independent reviewers extracted the bibliographical characteristics of the included SRs with a pre-designed questionnaire and appraised the methodological quality of the studies with the validated AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2). The associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality ratings were explored using Kruskal-Wallis rank tests and Spearman's rank correlation coefficients.ResultsA total of 106 SRs were appraised. Only one (0.9%) SR was of high overall methodological quality, zero (0%) was of moderate-quality, six (5.7%) and 99 (93.4%) were of low-quality and critically low-quality respectively. Among appraised SRs, only ten (9.4%) provided an a priori protocol, four (3.8%) conducted a comprehensive literature search, five (4.7%) provided a list of excluded studies, and six (5.7%) performed meta-analysis appropriately. Cochrane SRs, updated SRs, and SRs that did not search non-English databases had relatively higher overall quality.ConclusionsMethodological quality of SRs on acupuncture is unsatisfactory. Future reviewers should improve critical methodological aspects of publishing protocols, performing comprehensive search, providing a list of excluded studies with justifications for exclusion, and conducting appropriate meta-analyses. These recommendations can be implemented via enhancing the technical competency of reviewers in SR methodology through established education approaches as well as quality gatekeeping by journal editors and reviewers. Finally, for evidence users, skills in SR critical appraisal remain to be essential as relevant evidence may not be available in pre-appraised formats.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare providers need reliable evidence for supporting the adoption of new interventions, of which the source of evidence often originates from systematic reviews (SRs). However, little assessment on the rigor of SRs related to osteoarthritis interventions has been conducted. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality and predictors among SRs on osteoarthritis interventions.MethodsFour electronic databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO) were searched, from 1 January 2008 to 10 October 2019. An SR was eligible if it focused on osteoarthritis interventions, and we performed at least one meta-analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the validated AMSTAR 2 instrument. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to assess predictors of methodological quality.ResultsIn total, 167 SRs were included. The most SRs were non-Cochrane reviews (88.6%), and 54.5% investigated non-pharmacological interventions. Only seven (4.2%) had high methodological quality. Respectively, eight (4.8%), 25 (15.0%), and 127 (76.0%) SRs had moderate, low, and critically low quality. Main methodological weaknesses were as follows: only 16.8% registered protocol a priori, 4.2% searched literature comprehensively, 25.7% included lists of excluded studies with justifications, and 30.5% assessed risk of bias appropriately by considering allocation concealment, blinding of patients and assessors, random sequence generation and selective reported outcomes. Cochrane reviews [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 251.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 35.5-1782.6], being updates of previous SRs (AOR 3.9, 95% CI 1.1-13.7), and SRs published after 2017 (AOR 7.7, 95% CI 2.8-21.5) were positively related to higher methodological quality.ConclusionDespite signs of improvement in recent years, most of the SRs on osteoarthritis interventions have critically low methodological quality, especially among non-Cochrane reviews. Future SRs should be improved by conducting comprehensive literature search, justifying excluded studies, publishing a protocol, and assessing the risk of bias of included studies appropriately.

Project description:BackgroundThe screening process for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in medical research is a labor-intensive and time-consuming task. While machine learning and deep learning have been applied to facilitate this process, these methods often require training data and user annotation. This study aims to assess the efficacy of ChatGPT, a large language model based on the Generative Pretrained Transformers (GPT) architecture, in automating the screening process for systematic reviews in radiology without the need for training data.MethodsA prospective simulation study was conducted between May 2nd and 24th, 2023, comparing ChatGPT's performance in screening abstracts against that of general physicians (GPs). A total of 1198 abstracts across three subfields of radiology were evaluated. Metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), workload saving, and others were employed. Statistical analyses included the Kappa coefficient for inter-rater agreement, ROC curve plotting, AUC calculation, and bootstrapping for p-values and confidence intervals.ResultsChatGPT completed the screening process within an hour, while GPs took an average of 7-10 days. The AI model achieved a sensitivity of 95% and an NPV of 99%, slightly outperforming the GPs' sensitive consensus (i.e., including records if at least one person includes them). It also exhibited remarkably low false negative counts and high workload savings, ranging from 40 to 83%. However, ChatGPT had lower specificity and PPV compared to human raters. The average Kappa agreement between ChatGPT and other raters was 0.27.ConclusionsChatGPT shows promise in automating the article screening phase of systematic reviews, achieving high sensitivity and workload savings. While not entirely replacing human expertise, it could serve as an efficient first-line screening tool, particularly in reducing the burden on human resources. Further studies are needed to fine-tune its capabilities and validate its utility across different medical subfields.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Stringent requirements exist regarding the transparency of the study selection process and the reliability of results. A 2-step selection process is generally recommended; this is conducted by 2 reviewers independently of each other (conventional double-screening). However, the approach is resource intensive, which can be a problem, as systematic reviews generally need to be completed within a defined period with a limited budget. The aim of the following methodological systematic review was to analyse the evidence available on whether single screening is equivalent to double screening in the screening process conducted in systematic reviews. METHODS:We searched Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane Methodology Register (last search 10/2018). We also used supplementary search techniques and sources ("similar articles" function in PubMed, conference abstracts and reference lists). We included all evaluations comparing single with double screening. Data were summarized in a structured, narrative way. RESULTS:The 4 evaluations included investigated a total of 23 single screenings (12 sets for screening involving 9 reviewers). The median proportion of missed studies was 5% (range 0 to 58%). The median proportion of missed studies was 3% for the 6 experienced reviewers (range: 0 to 21%) and 13% for the 3 reviewers with less experience (range: 0 to 58%). The impact of missing studies on the findings of meta-analyses had been reported in 2 evaluations for 7 single screenings including a total of 18,148 references. In 3 of these 7 single screenings - all conducted by the same reviewer (with less experience) - the findings would have changed substantially. The remaining 4 of these 7 screenings were conducted by experienced reviewers and the missing studies had no impact or a negligible on the findings of the meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS:Single screening of the titles and abstracts of studies retrieved in bibliographic searches is not equivalent to double screening, as substantially more studies are missed. However, in our opinion such an approach could still represent an appropriate methodological shortcut in rapid reviews, as long as it is conducted by an experienced reviewer. Further research on single screening is required, for instance, regarding factors influencing the number of studies missed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The methodological quality and completeness of reporting of the systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental to optimal implementation of evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. Methods exist to appraise SRs yet little is known about how they are used in SRs or where there are potential gaps in research best-practice guidance materials. The aims of this study are to identify reports assessing the methodological quality (MQ) and/or reporting quality (RQ) of a cohort of SRs and to assess their number, general characteristics, and approaches to 'quality' assessment over time. METHODS:The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® were searched from January 1990 to October 16, 2014, for reports assessing MQ and/or RQ of SRs. Title, abstract, and full-text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the MQ and/or RQ of a cohort of ten or more SRs of interventions were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports. RESULTS:Of 20,765 unique records retrieved, 1189 of them were reviewed for full-text review, of which 76 reports were included. Eight previously published approaches to assessing MQ or reporting guidelines used as proxy to assess RQ were used in 80% (61/76) of identified reports. These included two reporting guidelines (PRISMA and QUOROM) and five quality assessment tools (AMSTAR, R-AMSTAR, OQAQ, Mulrow, Sacks) and GRADE criteria. The remaining 24% (18/76) of reports developed their own criteria. PRISMA, OQAQ, and AMSTAR were the most commonly used published tools to assess MQ or RQ. In conjunction with other approaches, published tools were used in 29% (22/76) of reports, with 36% (8/22) assessing adherence to both PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria and 26% (6/22) using QUOROM and OQAQ. CONCLUSIONS:The methods used to assess quality of SRs are diverse, and none has become universally accepted. The most commonly used quality assessment tools are AMSTAR, OQAQ, and PRISMA. As new tools and guidelines are developed to improve both the MQ and RQ of SRs, authors of methodological studies are encouraged to put thoughtful consideration into the use of appropriate tools to assess quality and reporting.

Dataset Information

How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study.

Publications

How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets