Characteristics Of Systematic Reviews Research Articles

Differences in the reporting of conflicts of interest and sponsorships in systematic reviews with meta-analyses in dentistry: an examination of factors associated with their reporting

BackgroundReporting conflicts of interest (COI) and sources of sponsorship are of paramount importance in adequately interpreting the results of systematic reviews. Some evidence suggests that there is an influence of COI and sponsorship on the study results.The objectives of this meta-research study were twofold: (a) to assess the reporting of COI and sponsorship statements in systematic reviews published in dentistry in three sources (abstract, journal’s website and article’s full text) and (b) to assess the associations between the characteristics of the systematic reviews and reporting of COI.MethodsWe searched the PubMed database for dental systematic reviews published from database inception to June 2023. We assessed how COI and sponsorship statements were reported in the three sources. We performed a logistic regression analysis to assess the associations between the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the reporting of COI.ResultsWe assessed 924 abstracts published in PubMed and on the corresponding journals´ websites. Similarly, full texts associated with the 924 abstracts were also assessed. A total of 639 (69%) and 795 (88%) studies had no statement of COI in the abstracts on PubMed and the journal’s website, respectively. In contrast, a COI statement was reported in 801 (87%) full texts. Sponsorship statements were not reported in 911 (99%) and 847 (93%) abstracts published in PubMed and a journal´s website, respectively. Nearly two-thirds of the full-text articles (N = 607) included sponsorship statements. Journal access was significantly associated with COI statement reporting in all three sources. Open-access journals have significantly higher odds to report COI in PubMed and full-texts, while have significantly lower odds to report COI in the websites, compared with subscription or hybrid journals. type was significantly associated with COI statement reporting on the journal’s website and in the full text. Review registration based on the full text and the number of authors were significantly associated with COI statement reporting in PubMed and in the full texts. Several other variables were found to be significantly associated with COI statement reporting in one of the three sources.ConclusionsCOI and sponsorship statements seem to be underreported in the abstracts and homepage of the journals, compared to the full-texts. These results were particularly more pronounced in abstracts published in both the PubMed database and the journals’ websites. Several characteristics of systematic reviews were associated with COI statement reporting.

Methodological quality of systematic reviews in dentistry including animal studies: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundThe overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews including animal models can be heterogeneous. We assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews including animal models in dentistry as well as the overall confidence in the results of those systematic reviews.Material & methodsPubMed, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for systematic reviews including animal studies in dentistry published later than January 2010 until 18th of July 2022. Overall confidence in the results was assessed using a modified version of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) checklist. Checklist items were rated as yes, partial yes, no and not applicable. Linear regression analysis was used to investigate associations between systematic review characteristics and the overall adherence to the AMSTAR-2 checklist. The overall confidence in the results was calculated based on the number of critical and non-critical weaknesses presented in the AMSTAR-2 items and rated as high, moderate, low and critical low.ResultsOf initially 951 retrieved systematic reviews, 190 were included in the study. The overall confidence in the results was low in 43 (22.6%) and critically low in 133 (70.0%) systematic reviews. While some AMSTAR-2 items were regularly reported (e.g. conflict of interest, selection in duplicate), others were not (e.g. funding: n = 1; 0.5%). Multivariable linear regression analysis showed that the adherence scores of AMSTAR-2 was significantly associated with publication year, journal impact factor (IF), topic, and the use of tools to assess risk of bias (RoB) of the systematic reviews.ConclusionAlthough the methodological quality of dental systematic reviews of animal models improved over the years, it is still suboptimal. The overall confidence in the results was mostly low or critically low. Systematic reviews, which were published later, published in a journal with a higher IF, focused on non-surgery topics, and used at least one tool to assess RoB correlated with greater adherence to the AMSTAR-2 guidelines.

Quality of systematic reviews in African emergency medicine: a cross-sectional methodological study

IntroductionReliable systematic reviews are essential to inform clinical practice guidelines, policies and further research priorities in Africa. For systematic review findings to be trustworthy, they need to be conducted with methodological rigour and reported transparently. We assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in African emergency medicine journals, comparing them to those published in international emergency medicine journals. Additionally, we describe the types of review literature published in the African journals. MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional methodological study of systematic reviews published in selected African and international emergency medicine journals from 2012 to 2021. Studies were eligible if they were i) a systematic review on an emergency medicine topic, ii) published in one of the top five emergency medicine journals in the African region or internationally and iii) published between January 2012 and December 2021 in English or French. We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases and hand-searched selected journals. Two authors screened titles, abstracts and full texts independently and in duplicate. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer, using a standardised form, after completing a calibration exercise. We described the characteristics of systematic reviews and assessed methodological quality using AMSTAR II. ResultsWe identified 34 (37%) African and 511 (54%) international systematic reviews from 92 and 948 review articles respectively across 10 journals. We included all 34 African and a random sample of 100 international systematic reviews. Methodological quality was low or critically low for all the African systematic reviews (n=34, 100%) and all but three international systematic reviews (n=97, 97%). The median number of critical domain weaknesses was 4 (IQR 4;5) and 2 (IQR 2;4) for African and international systematic reviews respectively. The most common weaknesses across both African and international systematic reviews were i) not establishing a priori review protocols, ii) unclear selection of study designs iii) not providing a list of excluded studies and iv) unclear reporting on funding sources for included studies. ConclusionEmergency medicine systematic reviews published in African and international journals are lacking in methodological quality. Reporting an a priori protocol, developing a comprehensive search strategy, appropriate evidence synthesis and adequate assessment of risk of bias, heterogeneity and evidence certainty may improve the quality of systematic reviews.

Most systematic reviews reporting adherence to AMSTAR 2 had critically low methodological quality: a cross-sectional meta-research study

ObjectivesTo analyze the methodological quality and characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) that reported they were conducted in line with the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews). Study Design and SettingThis was a cross-sectional meta-research study. We searched MEDLINE and Embase. We included full reports of SRs reporting the study was conducted, prepared, or designed in line with the AMSTAR 2. Eligible SRs were those published from January 1, 2018, until May 3, 2022. We assessed the methodological quality of the included SRs using AMSTAR 2. ResultsWe included a total of 45 records. There were 43 SRs and 2 SR protocols. Among them, most were SRs of interventions that included primary studies on humans. More than half had a meta-analysis. According to our overall AMSTAR 2 assessments of included SRs, 35 SRs were of critically low confidence, 7 SRs were of low confidence, and one SR was of high confidence. There were no SRs of moderate confidence. ConclusionEven when authors indicate in their manuscripts that the SR was conducted/prepared/designed in line with the AMSTAR 2, it does not necessarily imply it is of high or even moderate confidence according to AMSTAR 2. A self-assessment with AMSTAR 2 could be required for submission and carefully checked by the editors/peer reviewers.

We extended the 2-week systematic review (2weekSR) methodology to larger, more complex systematic reviews: A case series

ObjectivesIn 2019 we invented the 2-week systematic review (2weekSR) methodology, to complete full, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic reviews in approximately 2 weeks. Since then we have continued to develop and adapt the 2weekSR methodology for completing larger and more complex systematic reviews, including less experienced or inexperienced team members. Study Design and SettingFor ten 2weekSRs, we collected data on (1) systematic review characteristics; (2) systematic review teams; and (3) time to completion and publication. We have also continued to develop new tools and integrate them into the 2weekSR processes. ResultsThe 10 2weekSRs addressed intervention, prevalence, and utilization questions, and included a mix of randomized and observational studies. Reviews involved screening from 458 to 5,471 references, and included between 5 and 81 studies. The median team size was 6. Most reviews (7/10) included team members with limited systematic review experience; three included team members with no prior experience. Reviews required a median of 11 workdays (range: 5–20) and 17 calendar days (range: 5–84) to complete; time from journal submission to publication ranged from 99 to 260 days. ConclusionThe 2weekSR methodology scales with review size and complexity, offering a considerable time-saving over traditionally conducted systematic reviews without relying on methodological shortcuts associated with “rapid reviews.”

Methodologic quality and risk-of-bias in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a review of methods

OBJECTIVE: To compare the characteristics of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions that assessed or did not methodologic quality/risk-of-bias of included studies. Additionally, to analyze methodologic features of those assessing the methodologic quality/risk-of-bias. METHODS: PubMed database was searched. From 25,571 systematic reviews retrieved, a random sample of 1,025 was screened. Frequencies were used to describe outcomes. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regressions were performed to test the associations with methodologic quality/risk-of-bias results assessment. In a second analysis, systematic reviews that assessed methodologic quality/risk of bias were dichotomized according to the design of included studies (randomized clinical trials-only versus non-randomized studies of intervention or a combination of both). RESULTS: 303 systematic reviews were fully analyzed. Methodologic quality/risk of bias was assessed by 278 (92%). Methodologic quality/risk-of-bias assessment was associated with a higher number of databases searched (>4, P= 0.008), the presence of meta-analysis (P= 0.005), and the design of included studies (randomized clinical trials-only, P= 0.042). The chance of using a suitable tool and a tool designed for risk-of-bias assessment rather than methodologic quality was higher for randomized clinical trials-only systematic reviews (P< 0.05). The most used tool was Cochrane’s RoB Tool without a clear studies’ overall risk classification system. CONCLUSION: methodologic quality/risk-of-bias assessment was associated with included studies’ design (randomized clinical trials-only), a meta-analysis of data, and the number of databases searched (>4). The most used tool was Cochrane’s RoB Tool, with no clearly defined rating system. Methodologic quality/risk-of-bias assessment methods description, results, and impacts on meta-analysis, the certainty of evidence, and systematic reviews’ results are still to be consistently addressed.

Methodological assessment of systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies

BackgroundSystematic reviews of in-vitro studies, like any other study, can be of heterogeneous quality. The present study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies.MethodsWe searched for systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases published up to January 2022. We assessed the methodological quality of the systematic reviews using a modified “A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews” (AMSTAR-2) instrument. The 16 items, in the form of questions, were answered with yes, no, or py (partial yes). Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to examine the association between systematic review characteristics and AMSTAR-2 percent score. Overall confidence in the results of the systematic reviews was rated, based on weaknesses identified in critical and non-critical AMSTAR-2 items.ResultsThe search retrieved 908 potential documents, and after following the eligibility criteria, 185 systematic reviews were included. The most researched topics were ceramics and dental bonding. The overall rating for the confidence in the results was critically low in 126 (68%) systematic reviews. There was high variability in the response among the AMSTAR-2 items (0% to 75% positively answered). The univariable analyses indicated dental specialty (p = 0.03), number of authors (coef: 1.87, 95% CI: 0.26, 3.47, p = 0.02), and year of publication (coef: 2.64, 95% CI: 1.90, 3.38, p < 0.01) were significantly associated with the AMSTAR-2 percent score. Whereas, in the multivariable analysis only specialty (p = 0.01) and year of publication (coef: 2.60, 95% CI: 1.84, 3.35, p < 0.001) remained significant. Among specialties, endodontics achieved the highest AMSTAR-2 percent score.ConclusionsThe methods of systematic reviews of in vitro dental studies were suboptimal. Year of publication and dental specialty were associated with AMSTAR-2 scores. The overall rating of the confidence in the results was low and critically low for most systematic reviews.

Characteristics of systematic reviews of yoga: a bibliometric analysis of the research

Characteristics of systematic reviews of yoga: a bibliometric analysis of the research

Characteristics of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis on COVID-19 in the Pediatric Population: A Bibliometric Review With Emphasis on Top 5 Cited Articles.

Characteristics of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis on COVID-19 in the Pediatric Population: A Bibliometric Review With Emphasis on Top 5 Cited Articles.

Quality appraisal of systematic reviews of interventions for children with cerebral palsy reveals critically low confidence.

To evaluate the methodological quality of recent systematic reviews of interventions for children with cerebral palsy in order to determine the level of confidence in the reviews' conclusions. A comprehensive search of 22 databases identified eligible systematic reviews with and without meta-analysis published worldwide from 2015 to 2019. We independently extracted data and used A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) to appraise methodological quality. Eighty-three systematic reviews met strict eligibility criteria. Most were from Europe and Latin America and reported on rehabilitative interventions. AMSTAR-2 appraisal found critically low confidence in 88% (n=73) because of multiple and varied deficiencies. Only 7% (n=6) had no AMSTAR-2 critical domain deficiency. The number of systematic reviews increased fivefold from 2015 to 2019; however, quality did not improve over time. Most of these systematic reviews are considered unreliable according to AMSTAR-2. Current recommendations for treating children with CP based on these flawed systematic reviews need re-evaluation. Findings are comparable to reports from other areas of medicine, despite the general perception that systematic reviews are high-level evidence. The required use of current widely accepted guidance for conducting and reporting systematic reviews by authors, peer reviewers, and editors is critical to ensure reliable, unbiased, and transparent systematic reviews. What this paper adds Confidence was critically low in the conclusions of 88% of systematic reviews about interventions for children with cerebral palsy (CP). Quality issues in the sample were not limited to systematic reviews of non-randomized trials, or to those about certain populations of CP or interventions. The inclusion of meta-analysis did not improve the level of confidence in these systematic reviews. Numbers of systematic reviews on this topic increased over the 5 search years but their methodological quality did not improve.

Characteristics of systematic reviews published in dentistry by Brazilian corresponding authors

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the reporting and conduct characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) published in dentistry by Brazilian corresponding authors and compare reporting characteristics of Brazilian SRs with the rest of the world. METHODS: A search in PubMed was performed to identify SRs published in dentistry in 2017 assessing different aspects of oral heath irrespective of the design of included studies. From this dataset, a subgroup analysis was performed considering only SRs published by Brazilian corresponding authors. Study screening was performed by two researchers independently, while for data extraction, one of three reviewers extracted details related to reporting and conduct of SRs. The completeness of reporting of 24 characteristics, included in the PRISMA Statement of the SRs classified as treatment/therapeutic, was evaluated comparing Brazilian SR to SRs from all other countries. RESULTS: We included 117 SRs with Brazilian corresponding authors. The majority focused on dental treatments (39.3%), with oral surgery (n=19, 16.2%) as the most commonly published. Included SRs presented varying reporting/conduct characteristics. Items such as use of reporting guidelines and screening method used were well reported. However, most SRs did not assess the risk of publication bias and did not use the GRADE assessment. Four (of 24) reporting characteristics of Brazilian SRs compared to SRs from the rest of world were reported statistically significantly more frequently: mention of a SR protocol, trial registry searched, screening method reported, and assessment of risk of bias/quality of studies. CONCLUSION: Reporting and conduct characteristics of Brazilian SRs are highly variable.

The risk of conclusion change in systematic review updates can be estimated by learning from a database of published examples

ObjectivesTo determine which systematic review characteristics are needed to estimate the risk of conclusion change in systematic review updates. Study Design and SettingWe applied classification trees (a machine learning method) to model the risk of conclusion change in systematic review updates, using pairs of systematic reviews and their updates as samples. The classifiers were constructed using a set of features extracted from systematic reviews and the relevant trials added in published updates. Model performance was measured by recall, precision, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). ResultsWe identified 63 pairs of systematic reviews and updates, of which 20 (32%) exhibited a change in conclusion in their updates. A classifier using information about new trials exhibited the highest performance (AUC: 0.71; recall: 0.75; precision: 0.43) compared to a classifier that used fewer features (AUC: 0.65; recall: 0.75; precision: 0.39). ConclusionWhen estimating the risk of conclusion change in systematic review updates, information about the sizes of trials that will be added in an update are most useful. Future tools aimed at signaling conclusion change risks would benefit from complementary tools that automate screening of relevant trials.

Usage of automation tools in systematic reviews.

Systematic reviews are a cornerstone of today's evidence-informed decision making. With the rapid expansion of questions to be addressed and scientific information produced, there is a growing workload on reviewers, making the current practice unsustainable without the aid of automation tools. While many automation tools have been developed and are available, uptake seems to be lagging. For this reason, we set out to investigate the current level of uptake and what the potential barriers and facilitators are for the adoption of automation tools in systematic reviews. We deployed surveys among systematic reviewers that gathered information on tool uptake, demographics, systematic review characteristics, and barriers and facilitators for uptake. Systematic reviewers from multiple domains were targeted during recruitment; however, responders were predominantly from the biomedical sciences. We found that automation tools are currently not widely used among the participants. When tools are used, participants mostly learn about them from their environment, for example, through colleagues, peers, or organization. Tools are often chosen on the basis of user experience, either by own experience or from colleagues or peers. Lastly, licensing, steep learning curve, lack of support, and mismatch to workflow are often reported by participants as relevant barriers. While conclusions can only be drawn for the biomedical field, our work provides evidence and confirms the conclusions and recommendations of previous work, which was based on expert opinions. Furthermore, our study highlights the importance that organizations and best practices in a field can have for the uptake of automation tools for systematic reviews.

Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study protocol

BackgroundEpidemiology and the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are well known. However, no study has analyzed the influence of protocol features on the probability that a study’s results will be finally reported, thereby indirectly assessing the reporting bias of International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration records.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to explore which factors are associated with a higher probability that results derived from a non-Cochrane PROSPERO registration record for a systematic review will be finally reported as an original article in a scientific journal.Methods/designThe PROSPERO repository will be web scraped to automatically and iteratively obtain all completed non-Cochrane registration records stored from February 2011 to December 2017. Downloaded records will be screened, and those with less than 90% fulfilled or are duplicated (i.e., those sharing titles and reviewers) will be excluded. Manual and human-supervised automatic methods will be used for data extraction, depending on the data source (fields of PROSPERO registration records, bibliometric databases, etc.). Records will be classified into published, discontinued, and abandoned review subgroups. All articles derived from published reviews will be obtained through multiple parallel searches using the full protocol “title” and/or “list reviewers” in MEDLINE/PubMed databases and Google Scholar. Reviewer, author, article, and journal metadata will be obtained using different sources. R and Python programming and analysis languages will be used to describe the datasets; perform text mining, machine learning, and deep learning analyses; and visualize the data. We will report the study according to the recommendations for meta-epidemiological studies adapted from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for SRs and MAs.DiscussionThis meta-epidemiological study will explore, for the first time, characteristics of PROSPERO records that may be associated with the publication of a completed systematic review. The evidence may help to improve review workflow performance in terms of research topic selection, decision-making regarding team selection, planning relationships with funding sources, implementing literature search strategies, and efficient data extraction and analysis. We expect to make our results, datasets, and R and Python code scripts publicly available during the third quarter of 2018.

Grey Literature Searching for Health Sciences Systematic Reviews: A Prospective Study of Time Spent and Resources Utilized.

To identify estimates of time taken to search grey literature in support of health sciences systematic reviews and to identify searcher or systematic review characteristics that may impact resource selection or time spent searching. A survey was electronically distributed to searchers embarking on a new systematic review. Characteristics of the searcher and systematic review were collected along with time spent searching and what resources were searched. Time and resources were tabulated and resources were categorized as grey or non-grey. Data was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis tests. Out of 81 original respondents, 21% followed through with completion of the surveys in their entirety. The median time spent searching all resources was 471 minutes, and of those a median of 85 minutes were spent searching grey literature. The median number of resources used in a systematic review search was four and the median number of grey literature sources searched was two. The amount of time spent searching was influenced by whether the systematic review was grant funded. Additionally, the number of resources searched was impacted by institution type and whether systematic review training was received. This study characterized the amount of time for conducting systematic review searches including searching the grey literature, in addition to the number and types of resources used. This may aid searchers in planning their time, along with providing benchmark information for future studies. This paper contributes by quantifying current grey literature search patterns and associating them with searcher and review characteristics. Further discussion and research into the search approach for grey literature in support of systematic reviews is encouraged.

The Value of Systematic Reviews as Research Activities in Medical Education

Medical residents and postdoctoral fellows are often required to conduct and publish original research as part of their medical education. However, their relative lack of experience, time, money, and sometimes supervision in conducting original research often results in research of modest quality on topics of limited importance. Such research may also consume scarce resources from the sponsoring institution. Manuscripts describing such research are often unremarkable, although most are submitted for publication, where editors and peer reviewers will spend time evaluating them. Systematic reviews of the literature, however, offer similar training in the scientific method, are relatively inexpensive to conduct, teach critical appraisal of the literature, give trainees a thorough command of the topic studied, and provide even new investigators the opportunity to make important contributions to the literature. Systematic reviews of the literature should thus be acceptable alternatives to original research assignments for most trainees in medical education programs. The author reviews the characteristics of systematic reviews, outlines the steps in conducting them, identifies the lessons learned from completing each step, and compares the advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews with those of conducting original research.