Dataset Information

Concordance between systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproduction: an overview.

ABSTRACT:

Study question

Are systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on interventions in ART concordant in their conclusions?

Summary answer

The majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period in the field of assisted reproduction on the same topic had discordant conclusions.

What is known already

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have now replaced individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at the top of the evidence pyramid. There has been a proliferation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, many of which suffer from methodological issues and provide varying conclusions.

Study design size duration

We assessed nine interventions in women undergoing ART with at least three systematic reviews each, published from January 2015 to December 2017.

Participants/materials setting methods

The systematic reviews which included RCTs were considered eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was extent of concordance between systematic reviews on the same topic. Secondary outcomes included assessment of quality of systematic reviews, differences in included studies in meta-analyses covering the same search period, selective reporting and reporting the quality of evidence.

Main results and the role of chance

Concordant results and conclusions were found in only one topic, with reviews in the remaining eight topics displaying partial discordance. The AMSTAR grading for the majority of the non-Cochrane reviews was critically low whilst it was categorized as high for all of the Cochrane reviews. For three of the nine topics, none of the included systematic reviews assessed the quality of evidence. We were unable to assess selective reporting as most of the reviews did not have a pre-specified published protocol.

Limitations reasons for caution

We were limited by the high proportion of reviews lacking a pre-specified protocol, which made it impossible to assess for selective reporting. Furthermore, many reviews did not specify primary and secondary outcomes which made it difficult to assess reporting bias. All the authors of this review were Cochrane review authors which may introduce some assessment bias. The categorization of the review's conclusions as beneficial, harmful or neutral was subjective, depending on the tone and wording of the conclusion section of the review.

Wider implications of the findings

The majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on the same topic in the field of assisted reproduction revealed discordant conclusions and suffered from serious methodological issues, hindering the process of informed healthcare decision-making.

Study funding/competing interests

All the authors are Cochrane authors. M.S.K. is an editorial board member of Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. No grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors was obtained.

SUBMITTER: Mascarenhas M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7753002 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Concordance between systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproduction: an overview.

Mascarenhas Mariano M Kalampokas Theodoros T Sunkara Sesh Kamal SK Kamath Mohan S MS

Human reproduction open 20201222 4

<h4>Study question</h4>Are systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on interventions in ART concordant in their conclusions?<h4>Summary answer</h4>The majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period in the field of assisted reproduction on the same topic had discordant conclusions.<h4>What is known already</h4>Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have now replaced individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at the top of the evidence pyramid. There has been a pr ...[more]

PMID: 33381658

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesRandomization, allocation concealment, and blind outcome assessment have been shown to reduce bias in human studies. Authors from the Collaborative Approach to Meta Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies (CAMARADES) collaboration recently found that these features protect against bias in animal stroke studies. We extended the scope the work from CAMARADES to include investigations of treatments for any condition.MethodsWe conducted an overview of systematic reviews. We searched Medline and Embase for systematic reviews of animal studies testing any intervention (against any control) and we included any disease area and outcome. We included reviews comparing randomized versus not randomized (but otherwise controlled), concealed versus unconcealed treatment allocation, or blinded versus unblinded outcome assessment.ResultsThirty-one systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria: 20 investigated treatments for experimental stroke, 4 reviews investigated treatments for spinal cord diseases, while 1 review each investigated treatments for bone cancer, intracerebral hemorrhage, glioma, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, and treatments used in emergency medicine. In our sample 29% of studies reported randomization, 15% of studies reported allocation concealment, and 35% of studies reported blinded outcome assessment. We pooled the results in a meta-analysis, and in our primary analysis found that failure to randomize significantly increased effect sizes, whereas allocation concealment and blinding did not. In our secondary analyses we found that randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding reduced effect sizes, especially where outcomes were subjective.ConclusionsOur study demonstrates the need for randomization, allocation concealment, and blind outcome assessment in animal research across a wide range of outcomes and disease areas. Since human studies are often justified based on results from animal studies, our results suggest that unduly biased animal studies should not be allowed to constitute part of the rationale for human trials.

Project description:BackgroundThis overview summarizes the best available systematic review (SR) evidence on the health effects of Tai Chi.MethodsNine databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), Sino-Med, and Wanfang Database) were searched for SRs of controlled clinical trials of Tai Chi interventions published between Jan 2010 and Dec 2020 in any language. Effect estimates were extracted from the most recent, comprehensive, highest-quality SR for each population, condition, and outcome. SR quality was appraised with AMSTAR 2 and overall certainty of effect estimates with the GRADE method.ResultsOf the 210 included SRs, 193 only included randomized controlled trials, one only included non-randomized studies of interventions, and 16 included both. Common conditions were neurological (18.6%), falls/balance (14.7%), cardiovascular (14.7%), musculoskeletal (11.0%), cancer (7.1%), and diabetes mellitus (6.7%). Except for stroke, no evidence for disease prevention was found; however, multiple proxy-outcomes/risks factors were evaluated. One hundred and fourteen effect estimates were extracted from 37 SRs (2 high, 6 moderate, 18 low, and 11 critically low quality), representing 59,306 adults. Compared to active and/or inactive controls, 66 of the 114 effect estimates reported clinically important benefits from Tai Chi, 53 reported an equivalent or marginal benefit, and 6 an equivalent risk of adverse events. Eight of the 114 effect estimates (7.0%) were rated as high, 43 (37.7%) moderate, 36 (31.6%) low, and 27 (23.7%) very low certainty evidence due to concerns with risk of bias (92/114, 80.7%), imprecision (43/114, 37.7%), inconsistency (37/114, 32.5%), and publication bias (3/114, 2.6%). SR quality was often limited by the search strategies, language bias, inadequate consideration of clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity, poor reporting standards, and/or no registered SR protocol.ConclusionsThe findings suggest Tai Chi has multidimensional effects, including physical, psychological and quality of life benefits for a wide range of conditions, as well as multimorbidity. Clinically important benefits were most consistently reported for Parkinson's disease, falls risk, knee osteoarthritis, low back pain, cerebrovascular, and cardiovascular diseases including hypertension. For most conditions, higher-quality SRs with rigorous primary studies are required.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021225708.

Project description:BackgroundAcquired brain injury (ABI) is the leading cause of disability worldwide yet there is little information regarding the most effective way to organise ABI health care services. The aim of this review was to identify the most up-to-date high quality evidence to answer specific questions regarding the organisation of health care services for people with an ABI.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of English papers using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. We included the most recently published high quality systematic reviews and any randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before after studies or interrupted time series studies published subsequent to the systematic review. We searched for papers that evaluated pre-defined organisational interventions for adults with an ABI. Organisational interventions of interest included fee-for-service care, integrated care, integrated care pathways, continuity of care, consumer engagement in governance and quality monitoring interventions. Data extraction and appraisal of included reviews and studies was completed independently by two reviewers.ResultsA total of five systematic reviews and 21 studies were included in the review; eight of the papers (31%) included people with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) or ABI and the remaining papers (69%) included only participants with a diagnosis of stroke. We found evidence supporting the use of integrated care to improve functional outcome and reduce length of stay and evidence supporting early supported discharge teams for reducing morbidity and mortality and reducing length of stay for stroke survivors. There was little evidence to support case management or the use of integrated care pathways for people with ABI. We found evidence that a quality monitoring intervention can lead to improvements in process outcomes in acute and rehabilitation settings. We were unable to find any studies meeting our inclusion criteria regarding fee-for-service care or engaging consumers in the governance of the health care organisation.ConclusionsThe review found evidence to support integrated care, early supported discharge and quality monitoring interventions however, this evidence was based on studies conducted with people following stroke and may not be appropriate for all people with an ABI.

Project description:ImportanceSystematic reviews can help to justify a new randomized clinical trial (RCT), inform its design, and interpret its results in the context of prior evidence.ObjectiveTo assess trends and factors associated with citing (a marker of the use of) prior systematic reviews in RCT reports.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study investigated 737 Cochrane reviews assessing health interventions to identify 4003 eligible RCTs, defined as those included in an updated version but not in the first version of a Cochrane review and published 2 years after the first version of the Cochrane review was published.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the citation of prior systematic reviews, Cochrane or others, as determined by screening references of eligible RCTs. Factors that may be associated with the citation of prior systematic reviews were also examined.ResultsAmong 4003 eligible RCTs, 1241 studies (31.0%) cited Cochrane reviews, 1698 studies (42.4%) cited prior non-Cochrane reviews, and 2265 studies (56.6%) cited either type of systematic review or both; 1738 RCTs (43.4%) cited no systematic reviews. The percentage of RCTs citing prior Cochrane reviews, non-Cochrane reviews, and either or both types of review increased from 28 studies (15.3%), 46 studies (25.1%), and 65 studies (35.5%) of 183 RCTs before 2008 to 42 studies (40.8%), 65 studies (64.1%), and 73 studies (71.8%) of 102 RCTs since 2020, respectively; the annual increases were 1.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.3%), 3.3% (95% CI, 2.9%-3.7%), and 3.0% (95% CI, 2.5%-3.5%), respectively. The proportion of RCTs citating prior systematic reviews varied considerably across clinical specialties, ranging from 28 of 106 RCTs (26.4%) in ophthalmology to 386 of 553 RCTs (69.8%) in psychiatry (P < .001). RCTs with 100 participants or more (risk ratio [RR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.30), nonindustry funding (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.27-1.61), and authors from high-income countries (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17) were more likely to cite systematic reviews than those with fewer than 100 participants, industry funding, and authors from low- and middle-income countries, respectively. A journal requirement to cite systematic reviews was not associated with the likelihood of citing a systematic review.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that the citation of prior systematic reviews in RCT reports improved over time, but approximately 40% of RCTs failed to do so. These findings suggest that reference to prior evidence for initiating, designing, and reporting RCTs should be further emphasized to assure clinical relevance, improve methodological quality, and facilitate interpretation of new results.

Project description:BackgroundTrial participants in placebo groups report experiencing adverse events (AEs). Existing systematic reviews have not been synthesized, leaving questions about why these events occur as well as their prevalence across different conditions unanswered.Objectives(1) To synthesize the evidence of prevalence of AEs in trial placebo groups across different conditions. (2) To compare AEs in trial placebo groups with AEs reported in untreated groups within a subset of randomized trials.Search methodsWe searched PubMed for records with the word "nocebo" in the title and "systematic" in any field. We also contacted experts and hand-searched references of included studies.Study eligibilityWe included any systematic review of randomized trials where nocebo effects were reported. We excluded systematic reviews of non-randomized studies.Participants and interventionsWe included studies in any disease area.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsWe appraised the quality of the studies using a shortened version of the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (AMSTAR) tool. We reported medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs) of AEs. Among the trials within the review that included untreated groups, we compared the prevalence of AEs in untreated groups with the prevalence of AEs in placebo groups.ResultsWe identified 20 systematic reviews. These included 1271 randomized trials and 250,726 placebo-treated patients. The median prevalence of AEs in trial placebo groups was 49.1% (IQR 25.7-64.4%). The median rate of dropouts due to AEs was 5% (IQR 2.28-8.4%). Within the 15 of trials that reported AEs in untreated groups, we found that the AE rate in placebo groups (6.51%) was higher than that reported in untreated groups (4.25%).LimitationsThis study was limited by the quality of included reviews and the small number of trials that included untreated groups.Conclusions and implications of key findingsAEs in trial placebo groups are common and cannot be attributed entirely to natural history. Trial methodologies that reduce AEs in placebo groups while satisfying the requirement of informed consent should be developed and implemented.

Dataset Information

Concordance between systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproduction: an overview.

Study question

Summary answer

What is known already

Study design size duration

Participants/materials setting methods

Main results and the role of chance

Limitations reasons for caution

Wider implications of the findings

Study funding/competing interests

Publications

Concordance between systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproduction: an overview.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets