Dataset Information

GRADE Use in Evidence Syntheses Published in High-Impact-Factor Gynecology and Obstetrics Journals: A Methodological Survey.

ABSTRACT: Objective: To identify and describe the certainty of evidence of gynecology and obstetrics systematic reviews (SRs) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Method: Database searches of SRs using GRADE, published between 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2020, in the 10 "gynecology and obstetrics" journals with the highest impact factor, according to the Journal Citation Report 2019. Selected studies included those SRs using the GRADE approach, used to determine the certainty of evidence. Results: Out of 952 SRs, ninety-six SRs of randomized control trials (RCTs) and/or nonrandomized studies (NRSs) used GRADE. Sixty-seven SRs (7.04%) rated the certainty of evidence for specific outcomes. In total, we identified 946 certainty of evidence outcome ratings (n = 614 RCT ratings), ranging from very-low (42.28%) to low (28.44%), moderate (17.65%), and high (11.63%). High and very low certainty of evidence ratings accounted for 2.16% and 71.60% in the SRs of NRSs, respectively, compared with 16.78% and 26.55% in the SRs of RCTs. In the SRs of RCTs and NRSs, certainty of evidence was mainly downgraded due to imprecision and bias risks. Conclusions: More attention needs to be paid to strengthening GRADE acceptance and building knowledge of GRADE methods in gynecology and obstetrics evidence synthesis.

SUBMITTER: Yang HJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9866985 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

GRADE Use in Evidence Syntheses Published in High-Impact-Factor Gynecology and Obstetrics Journals: A Methodological Survey.

Yang Hui-Juan HJ Zhang De-Yu DY Hao Ying-Ying YY Xu He-Li HL Li Yi-Zi YZ Zhang Shuang S Li Xin-Yu XY Gong Ting-Ting TT Wu Qi-Jun QJ

Journal of clinical medicine 20230105 2

<b>Objective:</b> To identify and describe the certainty of evidence of gynecology and obstetrics systematic reviews (SRs) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. <b>Method:</b> Database searches of SRs using GRADE, published between 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2020, in the 10 "gynecology and obstetrics" journals with the highest impact factor, according to the Journal Citation Report 2019. Selected studies included those SRs using the GRA ...[more]

PMID: 36675377

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe applications of artificial intelligence (AI) processes have grown significantly in all medical disciplines during the last decades. Two main types of AI have been applied in medicine: symbolic AI (eg, knowledge base and ontologies) and nonsymbolic AI (eg, machine learning and artificial neural networks). Consequently, AI has also been applied across most obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) domains, including general obstetrics, gynecology surgery, fetal ultrasound, and assisted reproductive medicine, among others.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to provide a systematic review to establish the actual contributions of AI reported in OB/GYN discipline journals.MethodsThe PubMed database was searched for citations indexed with "artificial intelligence" and at least one of the following medical subject heading (MeSH) terms between January 1, 2000, and April 30, 2020: "obstetrics"; "gynecology"; "reproductive techniques, assisted"; or "pregnancy." All publications in OB/GYN core disciplines journals were considered. The selection of journals was based on disciplines defined in Web of Science. The publications were excluded if no AI process was used in the study. Review, editorial, and commentary articles were also excluded. The study analysis comprised (1) classification of publications into OB/GYN domains, (2) description of AI methods, (3) description of AI algorithms, (4) description of data sets, (5) description of AI contributions, and (6) description of the validation of the AI process.ResultsThe PubMed search retrieved 579 citations and 66 publications met the selection criteria. All OB/GYN subdomains were covered: obstetrics (41%, 27/66), gynecology (3%, 2/66), assisted reproductive medicine (33%, 22/66), early pregnancy (2%, 1/66), and fetal medicine (21%, 14/66). Both machine learning methods (39/66) and knowledge base methods (25/66) were represented. Machine learning used imaging, numerical, and clinical data sets. Knowledge base methods used mostly omics data sets. The actual contributions of AI were method/algorithm development (53%, 35/66), hypothesis generation (42%, 28/66), or software development (3%, 2/66). Validation was performed on one data set (86%, 57/66) and no external validation was reported. We observed a general rising trend in publications related to AI in OB/GYN over the last two decades. Most of these publications (82%, 54/66) remain out of the scope of the usual OB/GYN journals.ConclusionsIn OB/GYN discipline journals, mostly preliminary work (eg, proof-of-concept algorithm or method) in AI applied to this discipline is reported and clinical validation remains an unmet prerequisite. Improvement driven by new AI research guidelines is expected. However, these guidelines are covering only a part of AI approaches (nonsymbolic) reported in this review; hence, updates need to be considered.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To analyse the completeness of reporting of blinding in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions in anaesthesiology, the actual blinding status of various persons associated with an RCT and trial authors' interpretation of blinding terminology related to RCTs. METHODS:This was a methodological study and a cross-sectional survey. We analysed reporting related to blinding in published RCTs of interventions published in seven highly cited anaesthesiology journals from 2014 to 2016 and registered protocols in ClinicalTrials.gov. We surveyed corresponding authors of included RCTs about their definitions of blinding. The primary outcome was the number of RCTs that explicitly described who was blinded in a trial. Secondary outcomes were definitions of blinding terminology in the trials; trial authors' interpretation of blinding terminology; discrepancies in the blinding description within registered protocols and between registered protocols and publications. RESULTS:Out of 622 analysed RCTs, 38% were not explicitly described as either open label or blinded studies and 10% did not report any information about blinding or lack of blinding. Only one manuscript fully reported the status of blinding for various individuals that may be involved with a trial. The most common descriptor was that a trial was double-blind. We found discrepant information regarding blinding in the majority of registered protocols. Even when there were no discrepancies in the registration, we found discrepancies in the reporting of blinding between the majority of registered protocols and published manuscripts. The survey of authors (40 responses from 231 eligible authors; 17% response rate) of analysed RCTs showed that they differed in how they defined different levels of blinding in trials. CONCLUSIONS:Reporting of the blinding status of key individuals involved in analysed anaesthesiology RCTs was insufficient. For reporting guidelines, peer reviewers and editors should insist on clear information on who was blinded in a trial instead of using the term 'double-blind' for different blinding practices.

Project description:BackgroundMost researchers in Uzbekistan prefer to publish their reports in journals of their home country. Moreover, the proportion of healthcare practitioners who prefer to use these national sources of information also remains high. However, the quality of publications from national journals, in post-Soviet countries, has not been systematically evaluated until now. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials' (RCTs) reports published in medical journals from Uzbekistan. We supposed that reports had at least minimal quality to contribute to the higher quality of healthcare.MethodsTo evaluate the quality of RCTs, we selected two journals from the list of national medical journals for which background information was provided. We decided to select articles from journals that had the highest subscription rate and were likely to have the highest impact on clinical decisions. The journals were Medical Journal of Uzbekistan and Paediatrics. Only issues published in 2007-2017 were considered for evaluation. Two evaluators independently scored RCTs and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) reported in the journals. The 5-point scale developed by Jadad et al. was used to evaluate the quality of reports. Consensus-based decision was made about the final score of each report.ResultsWe reviewed 1311 studies in the two journals and found 380 clinical trials reports for the final evaluation. Our main finding was that none of the reports received a final score of more than 1, with an absolute agreement between evaluators. A median score of the studied reports was equal to 0, predicting a very low quality of controlled trials reported in the national journals (Wilcoxon signed-rank test p = 1.0; 95% CI = 0-0).ConclusionsWe believe that quality of reports about controlled trials, in Uzbekistan, can be considered insufficient to contribute to the higher quality of care and patients' safety. In the worst case, such condition can cause serious damage to the public health and lead to ineffective use of resources in the country. Therefore, the better reporting and organization of RCTs and CCTs should become a main goal of all stakeholders interested in the effective and safe healthcare in the country.

Project description:BackgroundIn the United States (US), many obstetrics & gynecology (OB-GYN) trainees feel unprepared to care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) individuals, but interest in this topic is rising. Residency program websites are one way that directors can advertise whether this training is offered within their program. We aimed to describe the extent to which LGBTQI content is currently featured on OB-GYN residency websites across the country.MethodsWe identified all OB-GYN residency programs in the United States using a publicly available database. We systematically searched for select LGBTQI keywords on program websites. We collected data on mentions of LGBTQI didactics and rotations. We also searched whether LGTBQI keywords were included in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare the characteristics of programs that do and do not include this content. We used STATA SE Version 16.0 for all analyses and set the level of significance at 5%.ResultsWe included 287/295 US OB-GYN residency programs in our analysis (97.3%) and excluded 8 that did not have websites. We identified any LGBTQI content on 50 program websites (17.4%), and specific mention of didactics or rotations on 8 websites (2.8%). On multivariable analysis, programs in the West were more likely to include any LGBTQI content compared to programs in the South (OR 2.81, 95%CI 1.04-7.63), as were programs with 1 or 2 fellowships (OR 3.41, 95%CI 1.43-8.14) or 3 or more fellowships (OR 4.85, 95%CI 2.03-11.57) compared to those without fellowships. Programs in departments led by female chairs were also more likely to include LBTQI content (OR 3.18, 95%CI 1.55-6.51).ConclusionsAcademic programs, West Coast programs, and those with departments led by female chairs are more likely to mention LGBTQI keywords on their websites. Given the increasing interest in LGBTQI education for OB-GYN trainees, program directors should consider providing training opportunities and including this content on their websites.

Dataset Information

GRADE Use in Evidence Syntheses Published in High-Impact-Factor Gynecology and Obstetrics Journals: A Methodological Survey.

Publications

GRADE Use in Evidence Syntheses Published in High-Impact-Factor Gynecology and Obstetrics Journals: A Methodological Survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets