A Measurement Tool To Assess Systematic Reviews Research Articles

State of reporting of primary biomedical research: a scoping review protocol

IntroductionIncomplete or inconsistent reporting remains a major concern in the biomedical literature. Incomplete or inconsistent reporting may yield the published findings unreliable, irreproducible or sometimes misleading. In this study based...

Interventional Radiology Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations for Neurovascular Disorders Are Not Based on High-Quality Systematic Reviews.

In recent years, clinical practice guidelines have been criticized for biased interpretations of research evidence, and interventional radiology is no exception. Our aim was to evaluate the methodologic quality and transparency of reporting in systematic reviews used as evidence in interventional radiology clinical practice guidelines for neurovascular disorders from the Society of Interventional Radiology. Our sources were 9 neurovascular disorder clinical practice guidelines from the Society of Interventional Radiology. We selected 65 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) tools were used to assess the methodologic quality and reporting transparency of systematic reviews. Radial plots were created on the basis of average scores for PRISMA and AMSTAR items. On the basis of AMSTAR scores, 3 (4.62%) reviews were high-quality, 28 reviews (43.08%) were moderate-quality, and 34 reviews (52.31%) were low-quality, with an average quality score of 3.66 (34.32%; minimum, 0%; maximum, 81.82%). The average PRISMA score was 18.18 (69.41%). We were unable to obtain previous versions for 8 reviews, 7 of which were from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodologic quality of systematic reviews needs to be improved. Although reporting clarity was much better than the methodologic quality, it still has room for improvement. The methodologic quality and transparency of reporting did not vary much among clinical practice guidelines. This study can also be applied to other medical specialties to examine the quality of studies used as evidence in their own clinical practice guidelines.

Methodological quality, completeness of reporting and use of systematic reviews as evidence in clinical practice guidelines for paediatric overweight and obesity.

Paediatric obesity rates remain high despite extensive efforts to prevent and treat obesity in children. We investigated the quality of the methodology and reporting within systematic reviews (SRs) underpinning paediatric content in US clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). In June 2016 we searched guideline clearinghouses and professional organization websites for guidelines published by national or professional organizations in the United States from January 2007 onwards. In our primary, a priori analysis, we used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) instruments to score SRs and meta-analyses that included paediatric populations and were cited by included CPGs. In a secondary, post hoc analysis, we determined the extent to which US CPGs use available, relevant SRs and meta-analyses compared with non-US CPGs. Eight US-based CPGs with 27 references to 22 unique SRs were found. AMSTAR and PRISMA scores were low overall, with only three SRs having 'high' methodological quality. Items dealing with bias assessments and search strategies had especially low scores. US CPGs were also older on average and cited fewer SRs than their international counterparts. Low quality scores and dated guidelines should be a cause for concern among practicing clinicians and a call to action for future guideline developers, publishers and research institutions.

Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management.

The methodological and reporting quality of burn-specific systematic reviews has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews in burn care management. Computerised searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and The Cochrane Library through to February 2016 for systematic reviews relevant to burn care using medical subject and free-text terms such as 'burn', 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching five discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted and evaluated methodological quality using the 11-item A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and reporting quality using the 27-item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Characteristics of systematic reviews associated with methodological and reporting quality were identified. Descriptive statistics and linear regression identified features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 60 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Six of the 11 AMSTAR items reporting on 'a priori' design, duplicate study selection, grey literature, included/excluded studies, publication bias and conflict of interest were reported in less than 50% of the systematic reviews. Of the 27 items listed for PRISMA, 13 items reporting on introduction, methods, results and the discussion were addressed in less than 50% of systematic reviews. Multivariable analyses showed that systematic reviews associated with higher methodological or reporting quality incorporated a meta-analysis (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·3; 95% CI: 3·8, 8·7) were published in the Cochrane library (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2·9; 95% CI: 1·6, 4·2; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·1; 95% CI: 3·1, 9·2) and included a randomised control trial (AMSTAR regression coefficient 1·4; 95%CI: 0·4, 2·4; PRISMA regression coefficient 3·4; 95% CI: 0·9, 5·8). The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in burn care requires further improvement with stricter adherence by authors to the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool.

Speech and language interventions for infants aged 0 to 2 years at high risk for cerebral palsy: a systematic review.

We evaluated the level of evidence of speech, language, and communication interventions for infants at high-risk for, or with a diagnosis of, cerebral palsy (CP) from 0 to 2 years old. We performed a systematic review of relevant terms. Articles were evaluated based on the level of methodological quality and evidence according to A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. The search terms provided 17 publications consisting of speech or language interventions. There were no interventions in the high level of evidence category. The overall level of evidence was very low. Promising interventions included Responsivity and Prelinguistic Milieu Teaching and other parent-infant transaction frameworks. There are few evidence-based interventions addressing speech, language, and communication needs of infants and toddlers at high risk for CP, and none for infants diagnosed with CP. Recommendation guidelines include parent-infant transaction programs.

Reporting quality in abstracts of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

ObjectiveConcerns have been raised regarding the quality and completeness of abstract reporting in evidence reviews, but this had not been evaluated in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. Our objective was to...

The Treatment of Neck Pain–Associated Disorders and Whiplash-Associated Disorders: A Clinical Practice Guideline

ObjectiveThe objective was to develop a clinical practice guideline on the management of neck pain–associated disorders (NADs) and whiplash-associated disorders (WADs). This guideline replaces 2 prior chiropractic guidelines on NADs and WADs. MethodsPertinent systematic reviews on 6 topic areas (education, multimodal care, exercise, work disability, manual therapy, passive modalities) were assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and data extracted from admissible randomized controlled trials. We incorporated risk of bias scores in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Evidence profiles were used to summarize judgments of the evidence quality, detail relative and absolute effects, and link recommendations to the supporting evidence. The guideline panel considered the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences. Consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi. The guideline was peer reviewed by a 10-member multidisciplinary (medical and chiropractic) external committee. ResultsFor recent-onset (0-3 months) neck pain, we suggest offering multimodal care; manipulation or mobilization; range-of-motion home exercise, or multimodal manual therapy (for grades I-II NAD); supervised graded strengthening exercise (grade III NAD); and multimodal care (grade III WAD). For persistent (>3 months) neck pain, we suggest offering multimodal care or stress self-management; manipulation with soft tissue therapy; high-dose massage; supervised group exercise; supervised yoga; supervised strengthening exercises or home exercises (grades I-II NAD); multimodal care or practitioner’s advice (grades I-III NAD); and supervised exercise with advice or advice alone (grades I-II WAD). For workers with persistent neck and shoulder pain, evidence supports mixed supervised and unsupervised high-intensity strength training or advice alone (grades I-III NAD). ConclusionsA multimodal approach including manual therapy, self-management advice, and exercise is an effective treatment strategy for both recent-onset and persistent neck pain.

The Urgent Need for Evidence in Arthroscopic Meniscal Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Evidence for Operative Management of Meniscal Tears

Background: Arthroscopic surgery of the knee is one of the most frequently performed orthopaedic procedures. One-third of these procedures are performed for meniscal injuries. It is essential that this commonly performed surgery be supported by robust evidence. Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of arthroscopic surgery for meniscal injuries in all populations. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: An online search was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) that compared treatment options for meniscal injury. The following databases (inception to April 2015) were included in the search: CENTRAL; MEDLINE; EMBASE; NHS Evidence; National Guideline Clearing House, Database of s of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment; ISRCTN; Clinicaltrials.gov; WHO trials platform. Only studies whose participants were selected on the basis of meniscal injury were included; no restrictions were placed on patient demographics. Two independent reviewers applied AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) criteria for SRs and the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool for RCTs. Results: Nine RCTs and 8 SRs were included in the review. No difference was found between arthroscopic meniscal debridement compared with nonoperative management as a first-line treatment strategy for patients with knee pain and a degenerative meniscal tear (mean difference: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, 1.6 [95% CI, −2.2 to 5.2], pain visual analog scale, −0.06 [95% CI, −0.28 to 0.15]). Some evidence was found to indicate that patients with resistant mechanical symptoms who initially fail nonoperative management may benefit from meniscal debridement No studies compared meniscal repair with meniscectomy or nonoperative management. Initial evidence suggested that meniscal transplant might be favorable in certain patient groups. Conclusion: Further evidence is required to determine which patient groups have good outcomes from each intervention. Given the current widespread use of arthroscopic meniscal surgeries, more research is urgently needed to support evidence-based practice in meniscal surgery in order to reduce the numbers of ineffective interventions and support potentially beneficial surgery.

Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines.

BackgroundRapid reviews are an accelerated evidence synthesis approach intended to meet the timely needs of decision-makers in healthcare settings. Quality of conduct and reporting has been described in the rapid review literature; however, no formal assessment has been carried out using available instruments. The objective of this study was to explore compliance with conduct and reporting guidelines in rapid reviews published or posted online during 2013 and 2014.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive literature search for rapid reviews using multiple bibliographic databases (e.g. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library) through December 31, 2014. Grey literature was searched thoroughly, and health technology assessment agencies were surveyed to identify additional rapid review products. Candidate reviews were assessed for inclusion using pre-specified eligibility criteria. Detailed data was collected from the included reviews on study and reporting characteristics and variables significant to rapid reviews (e.g. nomenclature, definition). We evaluated the quality of conduct and reporting of included rapid reviews using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklists. Compliance with each checklist item was examined, and the sum of adequately reported items was used to describe overall compliance. Rapid reviews were stratified to explore differences in compliance related to publication status. The association between compliance and time to completion or length of publication was explored through univariate regression.ResultsSixty-six rapid reviews were included. There were heterogeneous nomenclature, research questions and approaches to rapid reviews. Compliance with AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists was poor. Published rapid reviews were compliant with individual PRISMA items more often than unpublished reviews, but no difference was seen in AMSTAR item compliance overall. There was evidence of an association between length of publication and time to completion and the number of adequately reported PRISMA or AMSTAR items.ConclusionsTransparency and inadequate reporting are significant limitations of rapid reviews. Scientific editors, authors and producing agencies should ensure that the reporting of conduct and findings is accurate and complete. Further research may be warranted to explore reporting and conduct guidelines specific to rapid reviews and how these guidelines may be applied across the spectrum of rapid review approaches.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0258-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Efficacy, Safety and Applications of Medical Hypnosis.

The efficacy and safety of hypnotic techniques in somatic medicine, known as medical hypnosis, have not been supported to date by adequate scientific evidence. We systematically reviewed meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of medical hypnosis. Relevant publications (January 2005 to June 2015) were sought in the Cochrane databases CDSR and DARE, and in PubMed. Meta-analyses involving at least 400 patients were included in the present analysis. Their methodological quality was assessed with AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews). An additional search was carried out in the CENTRAL and PubMed databases for RCTs of waking suggestion (therapeutic suggestion without formal trance induction) in somatic medicine. Out of the 391 publications retrieved, five were reports of metaanalyses that met our inclusion criteria. One of these meta-analyses was of high methodological quality; three were of moderate quality, and one was of poor quality. Hypnosis was superior to controls with respect to the reduction of pain and emotional stress during medical interventions (34 RCTs, 2597 patients) as well as the reduction of irritable bowel symptoms (8 RCTs, 464 patients). Two meta-analyses revealed no differences between hypnosis and control treatment with respect to the side effects and safety of treatment. The effect size of hypnosis on emotional stress during medical interventions was low in one meta-analysis, moderate in one, and high in one. The effect size on pain during medical interventions was low. Five RCTs indicated that waking suggestion is effective in medical procedures. Medical hypnosis is a safe and effective complementary technique for use in medical procedures and in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Waking suggestions can be a component of effective doctor-patient communication in routine clinical situations.

Dental and skeletal effects of palatal expansion techniques: a systematic review of the current evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The aim was to assess the quality and to summarise the findings of the Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Meta-Analyses (MAs) on the dental and skeletal effects of maxillary expansion. Electronic and manual searches have been independently conducted by two investigators, up to February 2015. SRs and MAs on the dentoalveolar and skeletal effects of fixed expanders were included. The methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews). The design of the primary studies included in each SR/MA was assessed with the LRD (Level of Research Design scoring). The evidence for each outcome was rated applying a pre-determined scale. Twelve SRs/MAs were included. The AMSTAR scores ranged from 4 to 10. Two SRs/MAs included only RCTs. The current findings from SRs/MAs support with high evidence a significant increase in the short-term of maxillary dentoalveolar transversal dimensions after Rapid Maxillary Expansion (RME). The same effect is reported with moderate evidence after Slow Maxillary Expansion (SME). However, there is moderate evidence of a non-significant difference between the two expansion modalities concerning the short-term dentoalveolar effects. With both RME and SME, significant increase of skeletal transversal dimension in the short-term is reported, and the skeletal expansion is always smaller than the dentoalveolar. Even though dental relapse to some extent is present, long-term results of the dentoalveolar effects show an increase of the transversal dimension, supported by moderate evidence for RME and low evidence for SME. Skeletal long-term effects are reported only with RME, supported by very low evidence.

Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Literature

Well-conducted systematic reviews have a critical role in informing evidence-based decision-making in plastic surgery. The authors' objective was to assess the methodologic quality of systematic reviews in the plastic surgery literature. The authors systematically assessed all systematic reviews in 10 high-impact plastic surgery journals using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 2003 to 2013. These were evaluated for methodologic quality using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), a validated 11-point instrument. After removal of duplicates and screening titles and abstracts, 190 systematic reviews met eligibility criteria. The majority of systematic reviews were published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (n = 88). The most common domain covered was reconstruction (17.9 percent). Using AMSTAR, the median score was 4 (interquartile range, 2.25 to 6.00) on a scale of 1 to 11. No increase in AMSTAR score was observed with time (p = 0.18). Almost half of all systematic reviews (48.4 percent) included at least two independent data extractors, and less than one-third of them (15.3 percent) searched unpublished studies or provided a list of both included and excluded studies (14.8 percent). The methodologic quality of included primary studies was evaluated in 35.3 percent. Systematic reviews in plastic surgery demonstrated inadequate adherence to methodologic standards of quality, which raises concerns about validity. There has been an increase in the number of systematic reviews published in plastic surgery over the past decade, yet there has been no significant improvement observed in methodologic quality.

Assessment and prevention of behavioural and social risk factors associated with oral cancer: protocol for a systematic review of clinical guidelines and systematic reviews to inform Primary Care dental professionals.

BackgroundTobacco and alcohol are recognised as the major risk factors for both oral cavity (mouth) and oropharyngeal (throat) cancers, with increasing acceptance of the role of human papillomavirus (HPV) in the aetiology of oropharyngeal cancers. In addition, there is a significant increased risk for oral cancer among lower socioeconomic groups, males and older age groups. There is a growing evidence for the potential role of primary care professionals in smoking cessation and reducing alcohol-related harm. However, there are uncertainties about the best approaches/strategies to assess risk factors associated with oral cancer, effective components of preventive interventions for behaviour change and implementation strategies in primary care dental settings. Thus, in order to contribute to the prevention of oral cancer effectively, dental professionals need to assess patients on the major risk factors (tobacco, alcohol and HPV/sexual behaviours) and deliver appropriate prevention, taking into account the patient’s sociodemographic context.AimThe study aims to synthesise evidence on the best practice for undertaking an assessment of major behavioural risk factors associated with oral cancer and delivering effective behaviour change preventive interventions (e.g. advice, counselling, patient recall, signposting/referral to preventive services) by dental professionals in primary care dental settings.MethodThe study involves a systematic review and evidence appraisal. We will search for clinical guidelines and systematic reviews from the following databases: Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsychINFO, PubMed, TRIP and Google Scholar. We will also search websites of professional organisations/agencies and bibliographies/reference lists of selected papers. Quality will be assessed with the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II) instrument for included clinical guidelines and the AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) and ROBIS instruments for included systematic reviews. The best practice evidence will be assessed via a narrative synthesis of extracted data, considering publication quality.DiscussionThis systematic review will synthesise evidence on the best practice for oral cancer risk factor assessment and prevention and evaluate the relationship between available clinical guidelines and the review evidence base. This collation of evidence will be useful for making recommendations for future intervention, research and guideline development.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42015025289Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0169-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Characterizing patient-oriented tools that could be packaged with guidelines to promote self-management and guideline adoption: a meta-review.

BackgroundSelf-management is an important component of care for patients or consumers (henceforth termed patients) with chronic conditions. Research shows that patients view guidelines as potential sources of self-management support. However, few guidelines provide such support. The primary purpose of this study was to characterize effective types of self-management interventions that could be packaged as resources in (i.e., appendices) or with guidelines (i.e., accompanying products).MethodsWe conducted a meta-review of systematic reviews that evaluated self-management interventions. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from 2005 to 2014 for English language systematic reviews. Data were extracted on study characteristics, intervention (content, delivery, duration, personnel, single or multifaceted), and outcomes. Interventions were characterized by the type of component for different domains (inform, activate, collaborate). Summary statistics were used to report the characteristics, frequency, and impact of the types of self-management components. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) was used to assess the methodological quality of included reviews.ResultsSeventy-seven studies were included (14 low, 44 moderate, 18 high risk of bias). Reviews addressed numerous clinical topics, most frequently diabetes (23, 30 %). Fifty-four focused on single (38 educational, 16 self-directed) and 21 on multifaceted interventions. Support for collaboration with providers was the least frequently used form of self-management. Most conditions featured multiple types of self-management components. The most frequently occurring type of self-management component across all studies was lifestyle advice (72 %), followed by psychological strategies (69 %), and information about the condition (49 %). In most reviews, the intervention both informed and activated patients (57, 76 %). Among the reviews that achieved positive results, 83 % of interventions involved activation alone, 94 % in combination with information, and 95 % in combination with information and collaboration. No trends in the characteristics and impact of self-management by condition were observed.ConclusionsThis study revealed numerous opportunities for enhancing guidelines with resources for both patients and providers to support self-management. This includes single resources that provide information and/or prompt activation. Further research is needed to more firmly establish the statistical association between the characteristics of self-management support and outcomes; and to and optimize the design of self-management resources that are included in or with guidelines, in particular, resources that prompt collaboration with providers.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0419-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

GRADE in Systematic Reviews of Acupuncture for Stroke Rehabilitation: Recommendations based on High-Quality Evidence.

Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated acupuncture’s effectiveness in stroke rehabilitation. The current study reviews the quality of evidence in SRs of acupuncture in stroke rehabilitation, and rates the strength of recommendation for its use based on this evidence using the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations) approach. A comprehensive literature search was performed using multiple databases (e.g., Medline, Embase) with advanced search strategies. Two authors independently selected articles, collected data, and assessed the methodological quality of each identified SR according to AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews) and OQAQ (Oxman and Guyatt’s overview quality assessment questionnaire). Outcomes related to stroke rehabilitation were evaluated. SRs of high methodological quality (AMSTAR score ≥9 and OQAQ score ≥7) were graded using GRADE. Ultimately, acupuncture yields benefits in stroke rehabilitation (neurological function improvement: RR = 1.34; swallowing improvement: RR = 1.61, 1.49, 1.07; disability: SMD = 0.49 or 0.07). Poor evidentiary quality and insufficient information about harm led to weak recommendations. In conclusion, acupuncture may improve stroke rehabilitation, as the GRADE approach indicated a weak recommendation for acupuncture’s usage in this context.

Assessment for Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in the Field of Hepatology.

A systematic review (SR) provides the best and most objective analysis of the existing evidence in a particular field. SRs and derived conclusions are essential for evidence-based strategies in medicine and evidence-based guidelines in clinical practice. The popularity of SRs has also increased markedly in the field of hepatology. However, although SRs are considered to provide a higher level of evidence with greater confidence than original articles, there have been no reports on the quality of SRs and meta-analyses (MAs) in the field of hepatology. Therefore, we performed a quality assessment of 225 SRs and MAs that were recently published in the field of hepatology (January 2011 to September 2014) using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Using AMSTAR, we revealed both a shortage of assessments of the scientific quality of individual studies and a publication bias in many SRs and MAs. This review addresses the concern that SRs and MAs need to be conducted in a stricter and more objective manner to minimize bias and random errors. Thus, SRs and MAs should be supported by a multi-disciplinary approach that includes clinical experts, methodologists, and statisticians.

From Foucault to Freire Through Facebook: Toward an Integrated Theory of mHealth.

To document the integration of social science theory in literature on mHealth (mobile health) and consider opportunities for integration of classic theory, health communication theory, and social networking to generate a relevant theory for mHealth program design. A secondary review of research syntheses and meta-analyses published between 2005 and 2014 related to mHealth, using the AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) methodology for assessment of the quality of each review. High-quality articles from those reviews using a randomized controlled design and integrating social science theory in program design, implementation, or evaluation were reviewed. Results There were 1,749 articles among the 170 reviews with a high AMSTAR score (≥30). Only 13 were published from 2005 to 2014, used a randomized controlled design and made explicit mention of theory in any aspect of their mHealth program. All 13 included theoretical perspectives focused on psychological and/or psychosocial theories and constructs. Conclusions There is a very limited use of social science theory in mHealth despite demonstrated benefits in doing so. We propose an integrated theory of mHealth that incorporates classic theory, health communication theory, and social networking to guide development and evaluation of mHealth programs.

A Youth Suicide Prevention Plan for Canada: A Systematic Review of Reviews.

We conducted an expedited knowledge synthesis (EKS) to facilitate evidence-informed decision making concerning youth suicide prevention, specifically school-based strategies and nonschool-based interventions designed to prevent repeat attempts. Systematic review of review methods were applied. Inclusion criteria were as follows: systematic review or meta-analysis; prevention in youth 0 to 24 years; peer-reviewed English literature. Review quality was determined with AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews). Nominal group methods quantified consensus on recommendations derived from the findings. No included review addressing school-based prevention (n = 7) reported decreased suicide death rates based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled cohort studies (CCSs), but reduced suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, and proxy measures of suicide risk were reported (based on RCTs and CCSs). Included reviews addressing prevention of repeat suicide attempts (n = 14) found the following: emergency department transition programs may reduce suicide deaths, hospitalizations, and treatment nonadherence (based on RCTs and CCSs); training primary care providers in depression treatment may reduce repeated attempts (based on one RCT); antidepressants may increase short-term suicide risk in some patients (based on RCTs and meta-analyses); this increase is offset by overall population-based reductions in suicide associated with antidepressant treatment of youth depression (based on observational studies); and prevention with psychosocial interventions requires further evaluation. No review addressed sex or gender differences systematically, Aboriginal youth as a special population, harm, or cost-effectiveness. Consensus on 6 recommendations ranged from 73% to 100%. Our EKS facilitates decision maker access to what is known about effective youth suicide prevention interventions. A national research-to-practice network that links researchers and decision makers is recommended to implement and evaluate promising interventions; to eliminate the use of ineffective or harmful interventions; and to clarify prevention intervention effects on death by suicide, suicide attempts, and suicidal ideation. Such a network could position Canada as a leader in youth suicide prevention.

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature from 1998 to 2012

Systematic reviews synthesize the current best evidence to address a clinical question. Given the growing emphasis on evidence-based clinical practice, systematic reviews are being increasingly sought after and published. We previously reported limitations in the methodological quality of 57 individual systematic reviews published from 1998 to 2008. We provide an update to our previous study, adding systematic reviews published from 2009 to 2012. We systematically searched PubMed® and hand searched the table of contents of 4 major urological journals to identify systematic reviews related to questions of prevention and therapy. Two independent reviewers with prior formal evidence-based medicine training assessed the methodological quality using the validated 11-point AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) instrument. We performed predefined statistical hypothesis testing for differences by publication period (1998 to 2008 vs 2009 to 2012) and journal of publication. We performed statistical testing using SPSS®, version 23.0 with a 2-sided α of 0.05 using the Student t-test, ANOVA and the chi-square test. A total of 113 systematic reviews published from 2009 to 2012 met study inclusion criteria. The most common topics were oncology (44 reviews or 38.9%), voiding dysfunction (26 or 23.0%) and stones/endourology (13 or 11.5%). The largest contributor was European Urology (46 reviews or 40.7%), followed by BJU International (31 or 27.4%) and The Journal of Urology® (22 or 19.5%). Themean ± SD AMSTAR score for the 2009 to 2012 period was 5.3 ± 2.3 compared to 4.8 ± 2.0 for 1998 to 2008 with a mean difference of 0.5 (95% CI 0.2 to 1.2, p = 0.133). While the number of systematic reviews published in the urological literature has increased substantially, the methodological quality of these studies remains suboptimal. Systematic review authors and editors should make every effort to adhere to well established methodological standards to enhance the impact of their research efforts.

Systematic reviews with language restrictions and no author contact have lower overall credibility: a methodology study.

BackgroundHigh-quality systematic reviews (SRs) require rigorous approaches to identify, appraise, select, and synthesize research evidence relevant to a specific question. In this study, we evaluated the association between two steps in the conduct of an SR – restricting the search to English, and author contact for missing data – and the overall credibility of a SR.MethodsAll SRs cited by the Endocrine Society’s Clinical Practice Guidelines published from October 2006 through January 2012 were included. The main outcome was the overall A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) score, as a surrogate of SR credibility. Nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis tests and multivariable linear regression models were used to investigate the association between language restriction, author contact for missing data, and the overall AMSTAR score.ResultsIn all, 69 SRs were included in the analysis. Only 31 SRs (45%) reported searching non-English literature, with an average AMSTAR score of 7.90 (standard deviation [SD] =1.64). SRs that reported language restriction received significantly lower AMSTAR scores (mean =5.25, SD =2.32) (P<0.001). Only 30 SRs (43%) reported contacting authors for missing data, and these received, on average, 2.59 more AMSTAR points (SD =1.95) than those who did not (P<0.001). In multivariable analyses, AMSTAR score was significantly correlated with language restriction (beta =−1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −2.62, −0.01, P=0.05) and author contact for missing data (beta =2.16, 95% CI: 0.91, 3.41, P=0.001). However, after adjusting for compliance with reporting guidelines, language restriction was no longer significantly associated with the AMSTAR score.ConclusionFewer than half of the SRs conducted to support the clinical practice guidelines we examined reported contacting study authors or searched non–English literature. SRs that did not conduct these two steps had lower quality scores, suggesting the importance of these two steps for overall SR credibility.