Characteristics and Methodological Quality of Meta-Analyses on Hypertension Treatments-A Cross-Sectional Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wu XY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8030759 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMeta-analysis (MA) of randomised trials is considered to be one of the best approaches for summarising high-quality evidence on the efficacy and safety of treatments. However, methodological flaws in MAs can reduce the validity of conclusions, subsequently impairing the quality of decision making.AimsTo assess the methodological quality of MAs on COPD treatments.MethodsA cross-sectional study on MAs of COPD trials. MAs published during 2000-2013 were sampled from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect. Methodological quality was assessed using the validated AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool.ResultsSeventy-nine MAs were sampled. Only 18% considered the scientific quality of primary studies when formulating conclusions and 49% used appropriate meta-analytic methods to combine findings. The problems were particularly acute among MAs on pharmacological treatments. In 48% of MAs the authors did not report conflict of interest. Fifty-eight percent reported harmful effects of treatment. Publication bias was not assessed in 65% of MAs, and only 10% had searched non-English databases.ConclusionsThe methodological quality of the included MAs was disappointing. Consideration of scientific quality when formulating conclusions should be made explicit. Future MAs should improve on reporting conflict of interest and harm, assessment of publication bias, prevention of language bias and use of appropriate meta-analytic methods.
| S-EPMC4498191 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AbstractDuring the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, convenient accessibility and rapid publication of studies related to the ongoing pandemic prompted shorter preparation time for studies. Whether the methodological quality and reporting characteristics of published systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses are affected during the specific pandemic condition is yet to be clarified. This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiology, methodological quality, and reporting characteristics of published SRs/meta-analyses related to COVID-19.The Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched to identify published SRs/meta-analyses related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Study screening, data extraction, and methodology quality assessment were performed independently by 2 authors. The methodology quality of included SRs/meta-analyses was evaluated using revised version of a measurement tool to assess SRs, and the reporting characteristics were assessed based on the preferred reporting items for SRs and meta-analyses guidelines.A total of 47 SRs/meta-analyses were included with a low to critically low methodological quality. The median number of days from the date of literature retrieval to the date that the study was first available online was 21 days; due to the limited time, only 7 studies had study protocols, and the studies focused on a wide range of COVID-19 topics. The rate of compliance to the preferred reporting items for SRs and meta-analyses checklists of reporting characteristics ranged from 14.9% to 100%. The rate of compliance to the items of protocol and registration, detailed search strategy, and assessment of publication bias was less than 50%.SRs/meta-analyses on COVID-19 were poorly conducted and reported, and thus, need to be substantially improved.
| S-EPMC8615445 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MAs) depends on the extent of the methods used. We investigated the methodological steps used by authors of SR/MAs of clinical trials via an author survey.MethodsWe conducted an email-based cross-sectional study by contacting corresponding authors of SR/MAs that were published in 2015 and 2016 and retrieved through the PubMed database. The 27-item questionnaire was developed to study the methodological steps used by authors when conducting a SR/MA and the demographic characteristics of the respondent. Besides the demographic characteristics, methodological questions regarding the source, extraction and synthesis of data were included.ResultsFrom 10,292 emails sent, 384 authors responded and were included in the final analysis. Manual searches were carried out by 69.2% of authors, while 87.3% do updated searches, 49.2% search grey literature, 74.9% use the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment, 69.8% assign more than two reviewers for data extraction, 20.5% use digital software to extract data from graphs, 57.9% use raw data in the meta-analysis, and 43.8% meta-analyze both adjusted and non-adjusted data. There was a positive correlation of years of experience in conducting of SR/MAs with both searching grey literature (P?=?0.0003) and use of adjusted and non-adjusted data (P?=?0.006).ConclusionsMany authors still do not carry out many of the vital methodological steps to be taken when performing any SR/MA. The experience of the authors in SR/MAs is highly correlated with use of the recommended tips for SR/MA conduct. The optimal methodological approach for researchers conducting a SR/MA should be standardized.
| S-EPMC6659247 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNetwork meta-analyses using individual participant data (IPD-NMAs) have been increasingly used to compare the effects of multiple interventions. Although there have been many studies on statistical methods for IPD-NMAs, it is unclear whether there are statistical defects in published IPD-NMAs and whether the reporting of statistical analyses has improved. This study aimed to investigate statistical methods used and assess the reporting and methodological quality of IPD-NMAs.MethodsWe searched four bibliographic databases to identify published IPD-NMAs. The methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2 and reporting quality assessed based on PRISMA-IPD and PRISMA-NMA. We performed stratified analyses and correlation analyses to explore the factors that might affect quality.ResultsWe identified 21 IPD-NMAs. Only 23.8% of the included IPD-NMAs reported statistical techniques used for missing participant data, 42.9% assessed the consistency, and none assessed the transitivity. None of the included IPD-NMAs reported sources of funding for trials included, only 9.5% stated pre-registration of protocols, and 28.6% assessed the risk of bias in individual studies. For reporting quality, compliance rates were lower than 50.0% for more than half of the items. Less than 15.0% of the IPD-NMAs reported data integrity, presented the network geometry, or clarified risk of bias across studies. IPD-NMAs with statistical or epidemiological authors often better assessed the inconsistency (P?=?0.017). IPD-NMAs with a priori protocol were associated with higher reporting quality in terms of search (P?=?0.046), data collection process (P?=?0.031), and syntheses of results (P?=?0.006).ConclusionsThe reporting of statistical methods and compliance rates of methodological and reporting items of IPD-NMAs were suboptimal. Authors of future IPD-NMAs should address the identified flaws and strictly adhere to methodological and reporting guidelines.
| S-EPMC7262764 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8557536 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Meta-analyses (MAs) are often used because they are lauded to provide robust evidence that synthesises information from multiple studies. However, the validity of MA conclusions relies on the procedural rigour applied by the authors. Therefore, this meta-research study aims to characterise the methodological quality and meta-analytic practices of MAs indexed in PsycINFO. DESIGN:A meta-epidemiological study. PARTICIPANTS:We evaluated a random sample of 206 MAs indexed in the PsycINFO database in 2016. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES:Two authors independently extracted the methodological characteristics of all MAs and checked their quality according to the 16 items of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) tool for MA critical appraisal. Moreover, we investigated the effect of mentioning Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) on the methodological quality of MAs. RESULTS:According to AMSTAR2 criteria, 95% of the 206 MAs were rated as critically low quality. Statistical methods were appropriate and publication bias was well evaluated in 87% and 70% of the MAs, respectively. However, much improvement is needed in data collection and analysis: only 11% of MAs published a research protocol, 44% had a comprehensive literature search strategy, 37% assessed and 29% interpreted the risk of bias in the individual included studies, and 11% presented a list of excluded studies. Interestingly, the explicit mentioning of PRISMA suggested a positive influence on the methodological quality of MAs. CONCLUSION:The methodological quality of MAs in our sample was critically low according to the AMSTAR2 criteria. Some efforts to tremendously improve the methodological quality of MAs could increase their robustness and reliability.
| S-EPMC7402002 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7518002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Hypertension is one of the most common metabolic diseases in the elderly and its pathogenesis is associated with microbiota dysbiosis. Recent evidence suggests that oral microbiota dysbiosis is also an important factor in the development of hypertension. However, the relationship between hypertension and oral flora in the elderly has not been adequately investigated. Objective: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the structure of the oral microbiota and its correlation with hypertension in elderly hypertensive patients. To provide new ideas for the prevention and treatment of hypertension. Methods: 206 subjects aged 60 ~ 89 years were selected and divided into normal (CON) and hypertensive (HTN) groups, according to the 2018 Chinese Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension. The oral microbiome composition of saliva samples was determined by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Results: Although there was no significant difference in α and β diversity between the two groups, systolic and diastolic blood pressure were the most important factors influencing the structure of the oral microbiota. At the phylum level, the relative abundance of the spirochete phylum and the mutualistic bacterial phylum was higher in the HT group than in the CON group (p < 0.05). Diastolic blood pressure was negatively correlated with Streptococcus. Furthermore, we analyzed HTN patients with 120 mmHg<systolic blood pressure<160 mmHg and systolic blood pressure>160 mmHg separately and found that the abundance of Saccharibacteria_(TM7) was significantly increased in the HTN_2 group. Conclusions: Our study identified specific oral microbiota in elderly hypertensive patients, confirming the relationship between oral microbiota and hypertension. This enhances our understanding of the important role of oral microbiota in the pathogenesis of hypertension and accumulates more evidence for microbial involvement in the development of hypertension.
2024-09-17 | GSE277296 | GEO
Project description:PURPOSE:To assess the overall quality of published urological meta-analyses and identify predictive factors for high quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We systematically searched PubMed to identify meta-analyses published from January 1st, 2011 to December 31st, 2015 in 10 predetermined major paper-based urology journals. The characteristics of the included meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting and methodological qualities were assessed by the PRISMA checklist (27 items) and AMSTAR tool (11 items), respectively. Descriptive statistics were used for individual items as a measure of overall compliance, and PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were calculated as the sum of adequately reported domains. Logistic regression was used to identify predictive factors for high qualities. RESULTS:A total of 183 meta-analyses were included. The mean PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were 22.74 ± 2.04 and 7.57 ± 1.41, respectively. PRISMA item 5, protocol and registration, items 15 and 22, risk of bias across studies, items 16 and 23, additional analysis had less than 50% adherence. AMSTAR item 1, "a priori" design, item 5, list of studies and item 10, publication bias had less than 50% adherence. Logistic regression analyses showed that funding support and "a priori" design were associated with superior reporting quality, following PRISMA guideline and "a priori" design were associated with superior methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS:Reporting and methodological qualities of recently published meta-analyses in major paper-based urology journals are generally good. Further improvement could potentially be achieved by strictly adhering to PRISMA guideline and having "a priori" protocol.
| S-EPMC5399869 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo describe how the methodological quality of primary studies is assessed in systematic reviews and whether the quality assessment is taken into account in the interpretation of results.Data sourcesCochrane systematic reviews and systematic reviews in paper based journals.Study selection965 systematic reviews (809 Cochrane reviews and 156 paper based reviews) published between 1995 and 2002.Data synthesisThe methodological quality of primary studies was assessed in 854 of the 965 systematic reviews (88.5%). This occurred more often in Cochrane reviews than in paper based reviews (93.9% v 60.3%, P < 0.0001). Overall, only 496 (51.4%) used the quality assessment in the analysis and interpretation of the results or in their discussion, with no significant differences between Cochrane reviews and paper based reviews (52% v 49%, P = 0.58). The tools and methods used for quality assessment varied widely.ConclusionsCochrane reviews fared better than systematic reviews published in paper based journals in terms of assessment of methodological quality of primary studies, although they both largely failed to take it into account in the interpretation of results. Methods for assessment of methodological quality by systematic reviews are still in their infancy and there is substantial room for improvement.
| S-EPMC557223 | biostudies-literature