Critical Appraisal Of Systematic Reviews Research Articles

The impact of ovarian endometrioma and endometriotic cystectomy on anti-Müllerian hormone, and antral follicle count: a contemporary critical appraisal of systematic reviews.

Currently, three crucial questions regarding the reliability of ovarian reserve measures in women with ovarian endometrioma during the reproductive age are being discussed. Firstly, the effects of endometriotic cystectomy on short and long-term ovarian reserve. Secondly, the accuracy of serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count (AFC) in estimating ovarian reserve in these cases. Thirdly, the impact of endometrioma itself on the ovarian reserve over time in such cases. The purpose of the present review is to critically assess available systematic reviews and meta-analyses that have explored these questions. Nine eligible reviews were found following a systematic search on PubMed.com and similarly assessed. These reviews varied considerably regarding the level of evidence, as per an identical comprehensive scoring system. Moderate to high-quality evidence demonstrates that endometriotic cystectomy, by the stripping technique, adversely affects ovarian reserve in the short and long term, up to 9-18 months post-surgery. Damage to ovarian reserve was considerable but more pronounced in bilateral cases than unilateral cases, equivalent to 39.5% and 57.0%, respectively. Repeat endometriotic cystectomy is detrimental to ovarian reserve. The impact of endometrioma diameter on ovarian reserve before or after surgery is still unclear. Moderate to high-quality evidence, relying on simultaneous assessment of both ovarian reserve measures, shows that AMH is sensitive while AFC is not in cases undergoing ovarian cystectomy. AMH should be the biomarker of choice for counseling and managing women with endometrioma in their reproductive age, especially before surgery. While there is some evidence to show that endometrioma per se may harm ovarian reserve, this evidence is not robust, and there is good-quality evidence to challenge this notion. It is necessary to conduct further targeted RCTs, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses based on solid methodological grounds to increase the level of evidence, refine quantitative estimates, investigate open questions, and decrease heterogeneity.

Amstar2Vis: An R package for presenting the critical appraisal of systematic reviews based on the items of AMSTAR 2.

Systematic reviews (SRs) have an important role in the healthcare decision-making practice. Assessing the overall confidence in the results of SRs using quality assessment tools, such as "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2" (AMSTAR 2), is crucial since not all SRs are conducted using the most rigorous methods. In this article, we introduce a free, open-source R package called "amstar2Vis" (https://github.com/bougioukas/amstar2Vis) that provides easy-to-use functions for presenting the critical appraisal of SRs, based on the items of AMSTAR 2 checklist. An illustrative example is outlined, describing the steps involved in creating a detailed table with the item ratings and the overall confidence ratings, generating a stacked bar plot that shows the distribution of ratings as percentages of SRs for each AMSTAR 2 item, and creating a "ggplot2" graph that shows the distribution of overall confidence ratings ("Critically Low," "Low," "Moderate," or "High"). We expect "amstar2Vis" to be useful for overview authors and methodologists who assess the quality of SRs with AMSTAR 2 checklist and facilitate the production of pertinent publication-ready tables and figures. Future research and applications could further investigate the functionality or potential improvements of our package.

Outcomes of total hip and knee arthroplasty in special populations: a synopsis and critical appraisal of systematic reviews

IntroductionThis study aimed to present and critically appraise the best available evidence investigating associations between some pre-defined patient-related characteristics and perioperative complications or other outcomes in THA and TKA.MethodsElectronic databases were searched (Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL) for systematic reviews assessing the following pre-defined patient-related characteristics as possible risk factors for worse peri-operative outcomes in THA and TKA: smoking, alcohol excess, rheumatoid arthritis, human immunodeficiency virus infection, hepatitis C virus infection, mental health conditions, and solid organ transplantation. Our primary outcome was periprosthetic joint infection. Results were analysed separately for THA, TKA and THA/TKA (mixed data).ResultsBased on at least two systematic reviews being in agreement, the following patient-related characteristics were associated with increased incidence of complications as follows: a) Smoking for all-cause revision in THA, for periprosthetic joint infection in TKA and THA/TKA; b) alcohol excess for periprosthetic joint infection in THA/TKA; c) human immunodeficiency virus for periprosthetic joint infection in THA/TKA; d) hepatitis C virus for overall complications, periprosthetic joint infection and all-cause revision in THA and THA/TKA, and for overall complications in TKA. Our study found conflicting evidence for a) smoking as a risk factor for periprosthetic joint infection and aseptic loosening in THA; b) human immunodeficiency virus as a risk factor for all-cause revision for THA/TKA; c) hepatitis C virus as a risk factor for periprosthetic joint infection and all-cause revision in TKA. No certainty of evidence was assigned to these results as this was not assessed by the authors of the majority of the included systematic reviews.ConclusionWe found that smoking, excess alcohol consumption, RA, and infection with HIV and HCV were associated with a higher incidence of periprosthetic joint infection in one or both of THA and TKA or mixed THA/TKA data. All our results should be interpreted and communicated to patients with caution as the quality of the included systematic reviews was generally poor.

Critical appraisal of systematic reviews of intervention studies in periodontology using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools.

Systematic reviews of intervention studies are used to support treatment recommendations. The aim of this study was to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews of intervention studies in in the field of periodontology using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS. Systematic reviews of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, published between 2019 and 2020, were searched at MedLine, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, LILACS with no language restrictions between October 2019 to October 2020. Additionally, grey literature and hand search was performed. Paired independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality and risk of bias through the AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools. One hundred twenty-seven reviews were included. According to AMSTAR 2, the methodological quality was mainly critically low (64.6%) and low (24.4%), followed by moderate (0.8%) and high (10.2%). According to ROBIS, 90.6% were at high risk of bias, followed by 7.1% low, and 2.4% unclear risk of bias. The risk of bias decreased with the increased in the impact factor of the journal. Current systematic reviews of intervention studies in periodontics were classified as low or critically low methodological quality and high risk of bias. Both tools led to similar conclusions. Better adherence to established reporting guidelines and stricter research practices when conducting systematic reviews are needed. Key words:Bias, evidence-based dentistry, methods, periodontics, systematic review.

Critical appraisal of systematic reviews of intervention in dentistry published between 2019-2020 using the AMSTAR 2 tool.

Introduction The number of systematic reviews (SRs) in dentistry published each year has grown considerably, and they have been essential in clinical decision-making and health policy.Objective The objective is to critically appraise SRs of intervention in dentistry using the 'A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2' (AMSTAR 2) tool published within one year.Methods A search in the Medline/PubMed database was performed. The SRs were identified in two phases. The first phase identified SRs of interventions in dentistry by title and abstract. In the second phase, the full text was read, applying the eligibility criteria. Three calibrated reviewers methodologically assessed all SRs identified using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Data were analysed descriptively, and SRs were grouped according to methodological quality as moderate/high and low/critically low. A logistic regression model was applied to explore the associations between methodological quality and the study's characteristics.Results Two hundred and twenty-two SRs were included. The methodological quality of the SRs included in this study were: critically low (56.8%), low (27.9%), moderate (14.4%) and high (0.9%), according to AMSTAR 2. There were no statistical differences between moderate/high and low/critically low methodological quality and publication year, continent, journal Impact Factor and dental speciality.Conclusion Less than 1% of recently published SRs in dentistry were classified with high methodological quality. We hope that this study will alert researchers about the need to improve the methodological quality of SRs.

Step 3, Critically Appraising Evidence: Quantitative Evidence-Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses.

Critical appraisal of the evidence is the third step in the evidence-based practice process. This column, the second in a multipart series to describe the critical appraisal process, focuses on critical appraisal of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

Methods for the Development of Healthcare Practice Recommendations Using Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Quality of healthcare can be improved when the best external evidence available is integrated in clinical decision-making in a systematic explicit manner. With the rapid expansion of clinical evidence, the opportunities for evidence-based high-quality healthcare increase. Paradoxically, the likelihood of any one person to get a complete and balanced picture of the evidence available decreases. This is especially true for rehabilitation interventions that are complex in nature and where clinical research is rather diverse. Given the complex nature of the evidence, there is a substantial risk of misinterpreting the complex information both at the level of individual sources (e.g., reports of clinical trials) and for aggregated data syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews and meta-analyses). These risks are inherent in these sources themselves and are in addition related to the methodological expertise necessary to make valid use of the evidence for clinical decision-making. Taken together, there is a great demand for systematic structured guidance from evidence to clinical decision. This methodology paper describes a structured process for the development and report of evidence-based clinical practice recommendations that uses systematic reviews and meta-analyses as evidence source. It provides a comprehensive framework with specific requirements for the development group, the formulation of the healthcare question addressed, the systematic search for the evidence, its critical appraisal, the extraction and the outcome-centered presentation of the evidence, the rating of its quality, strengths and weaknesses, any further considerations relevant for decision-making, and an explicit recommendation statement along with its justification, implementation, and resource aspects. The suggested methodology uses international standards in evidence synthesis, critical appraisal of systematic reviews, rating the quality of evidence, characteristics of recommendations, and guideline development as developed by Cochrane, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation), AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews), and AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation). An added distinctive feature of the methodology is to focus on the most up-to-date, most valid evidence and hence to support the development of valid practice recommendations in an efficient way. Practice recommendations generated by such a valid methodology would be generally applicable and promote evidence-based clinical practice globally.

Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews With Costs and Cost-Effectiveness Outcomes: An ISPOR Good Practices Task Force Report

A systematic review (SR) can provide rigorous and complete evidence to support decision makers who consider both the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of health interventions. A dramatic increase in published health economic (HE) studies, more specifically cost and cost-effectiveness studies, has resulted in the consequent proliferation of systematic reviews with cost and cost-effectiveness outcomes (SR-CCEO).1,2 First, such reviews help to indentify strenghts and weaknesses in HE studies, modelling methodologies, and data for modelling inputs.

Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examine preventive antibiotic uses and management practices designed to prevent disease in livestock.

To implement effective stewardship in food animal production, it is essential that producers and veterinarians are aware of preventive interventions to reduce illness in livestock. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MA) provide transparent, replicable, and quality-assessed overviews. At present, it is unknown how many SR/MA evaluate preventive antibiotic use or management practices aimed at reducing disease risk in animal agriculture. Further, the quality of existing reviews is unknown. Our aim was to identify reviews investigating these topics and to provide an assessment of their quality. Thirty-eight relevant reviews were identified. Quality assessment was based on the AMSTAR 2 framework for the critical appraisal of systematic reviews. The quality of most of the reviews captured was classified as critically low (84.2%, n = 32/38), and only a small percentage of the evaluated reviews did not contain critical weaknesses (7.9%, n = 3/38). Particularly, a small number of reviews reported the development of an a priori protocol (15.8%, n = 6/38), and few reviews stated that key review steps were conducted in duplicate (study selection/screening: 26.3%, n = 10/38; data extraction: 15.8%, n = 6/38). The development of high-quality reviews summarizing evidence on approaches to antibiotic reduction is essential, and thus greater adherence to quality conduct guidelines for synthesis research is crucial.

Quality Appraisal of Systematic Reviews for Behavioral Treatments of Attention Disorders in Traumatic Brain Injury.

This review appraised the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) to summarize research on behavioral interventions for attention disorders in persons with traumatic brain injury. A search of 7 databases revealed 15 MAs/SRs reporting outcomes for attention treatments in traumatic brain injury. Two examiners independently coded the quality of reviews with the Critical Appraisal of Systematic Review or Meta-Analysis and the Evidence in Augmentative and Alternative Communication Systematic Review Scale. The findings of both scales were highly correlated. Four reviews were conducted with high methodologic rigor indicated by a score of 60% or greater on both scales. No other study scored above 45%. Among the well-conducted SRs/MAs, evidence for direct attention training effects was limited to basic attention exercises, with little generalization to functional activities. Strategy training for activities and tasks requiring attentional abilities had a stronger evidence base in 1 rigorous MA. This appraisal provides valuable practice information. The conclusions of 4 rigorous reviews suggest that there is only limited positive scientific support for the effects of attention treatments for traumatic brain injury. Future SRs/MAs would benefit from adherence to review guidelines.

Improving the quality of myofascial release research – A critical appraisal of systematic reviews

IntroductionMyofascial release (MFR) is a form of manual therapy that involves the application of a low load, long duration stretch to the myofascial complex intended to restore optimal length, decrease pain and improve function. MFR is being used to treat patients with a wide variety of conditions, with favourable evidence supporting its efficacy. Critical appraisal of the recent research trials or reviews aims to improve the quality and reliability of future works in this field. ObjectiveThis work attempts to examine and categorize the strength and limitations of current MFR research by critically appraising recent systematic reviews (SRs) to synthesise recommendations for improving quality and reliability of future clinical trials. MethodologySRs on MFR published until 2018 were selected for this analysis. The methodological qualities of the SRs were assessed by AMSTAR II tool. ResultsThe SRs demonstrated moderate methodological quality. The overall confidence rating of the results of the review by AMSTAR II was low to moderate, mainly due to the omission of a risk of bias analysis in two of the reviews. ConclusionThis review concludes that the SRs analysed were completed with moderate methodological quality, but with procedural weaknesses and interpretation biases. The most recent review was qualitatively superior due to the inclusion of risk of bias analysis and effect size calculation. This critical appraisal and the derived recommendations can act as ‘stepping stones’ on which high quality future MFR trials and evidence can be built.

The management strategies of cancer-associated anorexia: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews

BackgroundCancer-related anorexia remains one of the most prevalent and troublesome clinical problems experienced by patients with cancer during and after therapy. To ensure high-quality care, systematic reviews (SRs) are seen as the best guide. Considering the methodology quality of SRs varies, we undertook a comprehensive overview, and critical appraisal of pertinent SRs.MethodsEight databases (between the inception of each database and September 1, 2017) were searched for SRs on the management of cancer-related anorexia. Two researchers evaluated the methodological quality of each SR by using the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) checklist. Characteristics of the “high quality” SRs were abstracted, included information on relevant studies numbers, study design, population, intervention, control, outcome and result.ResultsEighteen SRs met the inclusion criteria. The R-AMSTAR scores of methodological quality ranged from 18 to 41 out of 44, with an average score of 30. Totally eight SRs scored ≥31 points, which showed high methodological quality, and would be used for data extraction to make summaries. Anamorelin had some positive effects to relieve cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome (CACS) and improve the quality of life (QoL). Megestrol Acetate (MA) could improve appetite, and was associated with slight weight gain for CACS. Oral nutritional interventions were effective in increasing nutritional intake and improving some aspects of QoL in patients with cancer who were malnourished or at nutritional risk. The use of thalidomide, Eicosapentaenoic Acid, and minerals, vitamins, proteins, or other supplements for the treatment of cachexia in cancer were uncertain, and there was inadequate evidence to recommend it to clinical practices, the same situation in Chinese Herb Medicine and acupuncture (acupuncture and related therapies were effective in improving QoL) for treating anorexia in cancer patients, warranting further RCTs in these areas.ConclusionsAnamorelin, MA, oral nutrition interventions, and acupuncture could be considered to be applied in patients with cancer-related anorexia. Future RCTs and SRs with high quality on the pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical interventions of anorexia in cancer patients are warranted.

Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

Leonardo Roever1* and Giuseppe Biondi Zoccai2,3 1Department of Clinical Research, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia, Brazil 2Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy 3Eleonora Lorillard Spencer Cenci Foundation, Rome, Italy *Corresponding author: Leonardo Roever, Department of Clinical Research, Av Para, 1720 Bairro Umuarama, Uberlândia-MG-CEP 38400-902, Brazil, Tel: +553488039878; E-mail: leonardoroever@hotmail.com Rec Date: 08 December, 2015; Acc Date: 15 December, 2015; Pub Date: 22 December, 2015 Copyright: © 2015 Roever L, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Critical appraisal of systematic reviews on the effect of a history of periodontitis on dental implant loss

To perform a systematic critical appraisal of the methodological quality of systematic reviews on the effect of a history of periodontitis on dental implant loss. PubMed, the Cochrane database for systematic reviews, the DARE, Biosis Preview, CINAHL, Web of Science, and LILACS electronic databases were searched on 16th June 2012, independently and in duplicate, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to dental implants for patients with and without a history of periodontitis. Manual searching of the reference lists of included papers was also conducted. The methodological quality of these systematic reviews was assessed by use of the AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR checklists. Before quality assessment was initiated, the reviewers were calibrated until they achieved excellent agreement. Sixty-eight papers were initially retrieved. Of these, nine systematic reviews and three meta-analyses were included. Some domains, for example, "characteristics of the included studies" were satisfied in both checklists. In contrast, domains such as "comprehensive literature search" and "assessment of likelihood of publication bias" were rarely met. Much methodological variability was encountered in the selected reviews. To furnish readers with a more comprehensive assessment of the evidence, authors should observe higher standards when conducting and reporting their reviews.

Re-examining the Evidence in Radiation Dermatitis Management Literature: An Overview and a Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews

To provide an overview and a critical appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs) of published interventions for the prevention/management of radiation dermatitis. We searched Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. We also manually searched through individual reference lists of potentially eligible articles and a number of key journals in the topic area. Two authors screened all potential articles and included eligible SRs. Two authors critically appraised and extracted key findings from the included reviews using AMSTAR (the measurement tool for "assessment of multiple systematic reviews"). Of 1837 potential titles, 6 SRs were included. A number of interventions have been reported to be potentially beneficial for managing radiation dermatitis. Interventions evaluated in these reviews included skin care advice, steroidal/nonsteroidal topical agents, systemic therapies, modes of radiation delivery, and dressings. However, all the included SRs reported that there is insufficient evidence supporting any single effective intervention. The methodological quality of the included studies varied, and methodological shortfalls in these reviews might create biases to the overall results or recommendations for clinical practice. An up-to-date high-quality SR in the prevention/management of radiation dermatitis is needed to guide practice and direction for future research. We recommend that clinicians or guideline developers critically evaluate the information of SRs in their decision making.

TIPS AND TRICKS: Critical appraisal of systematic reviews

TIPS AND TRICKS: Critical appraisal of systematic reviews

Evidence-Based Practice Challenge: Teaching Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews and Clinical Practice Guidelines to Graduate Students

The TREAD Evidence-Based Practice Model is a framework for faculty to use in graduate research courses so students can become excellent consumers of the best available evidence to use in their clinical decision making in the practice setting. This model is based on competency in information literacy as the basis for developing evidence-based search strategies to find, appraise, and synthesize Level I evidence, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and evidence-based practice guidelines. This model emphasizes the use of standardized critical appraisal tools, such as the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) or Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE), to facilitate user-friendly rapid appraisal of Level I evidence. Faculty are challenged to embrace this paradigm shift, to unlearn how they learned, and to teach their graduate research course focusing on the importance of Level I evidence to enable their graduates to make informed advanced practice decisions and improve patient outcomes.

State of the Evidence on Acute Asthma Management in Children: A Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews

State of the Evidence on Acute Asthma Management in Children: A Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews

How to Use a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

This article introduces practicing urologists to the critical appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to guide their evidence-based clinical practice. Using a urological clinical case scenario we introduce a 3-step process in evaluating systematic reviews and meta-analyses by considering 1) the validity of the review results, 2) what the results are, and 3) the extent to which the results can and should be applied to patient care. A systematic review seeks to synthesize the medical literature about a specific clinical question using explicit methods to perform a comprehensive literature search, identify and select eligible studies, critically appraise their methods, and judiciously summarize the results considering how they vary with study characteristics. When this summary involves statistical methods, ie a meta-analysis, reviewers can offer a pooled estimate that will have greater precision and will apply more broadly than the individual studies. The quality of the underlying studies, the consistency of results across studies and the precision of the pooled estimate can considerably affect the strength of inference from systematic reviews. Valid systematic reviews of high quality studies can increase the confidence with which urologists and patients make evidence-based decisions. Thus, urologists need to recognize the inherent limitations, understand the results and apply them judiciously to patient care.

How Systematic Reviews Can Foster Evidence‐Based Clinical Decisions

How Systematic Reviews Can Foster Evidence‐Based Clinical Decisions