non-Cochrane Reviews Research Articles

Stability of orthodontic anchoring devices: a narrative review

Background and objectives. Temporary anchoring devices (TADs) are essential for controlling unwanted reactive movements in teeth because orthodontic treatments require effective anchorage to control tooth movement. The goal of this systematic review is to collect information on the advantages, disadvantages, and applications of TADs in orthodontic treatment by addressing the variables affecting their stability and efficacy. Materials and methods. Our review is a non-Cochrane review, following the PICO format for selection criteria, analyzed studies published between 2011 and 2021. The review focused on systematic reviews, meta-analyses, RCTs, case control, and cohort studies in English, extracted from PubMed and Google Scholar databases. A total of 123 papers were assessed, with 39 included for review. Results. The review found that TAD stability is highly influenced by micro-implant design, operator experience, placement technique, bone morphology and histology, and patient variables (such as age and sex). Notably, the quality and amount of bone, the length and diameter of the implant, and the surgical method all played a significant role in achieving primary stability. Although loosening and discomfort are possible side effects, TADs have been demonstrated to provide reliable and effective anchoring during orthodontic treatment. Conclusions. Greater treatment efficacy and patient comfort are made possible by the significant advancement in orthodontic anchoring that TADs represent. The performance of TADs is largely dependent on variables like operator experience, micro-screw size, and bone quality. The mandibular site presented a higher risk of loosening, although patient factors such as age and sex did not significantly affect the loosening rate. This review emphasizes how important it is to take these factors into account in order to maximize TAD stability and, consequently, therapeutic results.

Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades

BackgroundSystematic reviews are viewed as the best study design to guide clinical decision-making as they are the least biased publications assuming they are well-conducted and include well-designed studies. Cochrane was initiated in 1993 with an aim of conducting high-quality systematic reviews. We aimed to examine the publication rates of non-Cochrane systematic reviews (henceforth referred to simply as “systematic reviews”) and Cochrane reviews produced throughout Cochrane’s existence and characterize changes throughout the period.MethodsThis observational study collected data on systematic reviews published between 1993 and 2022 in PubMed. Identified Cochrane reviews were linked to data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via their Digital Object Identifier. Systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews were analyzed separately. Two authors screened a random sample of records to validate the overall sample, providing a precision of 98%.ResultsWe identified 231,602 (94%) systematic reviews and 15,038 (6%) Cochrane reviews. Publication of systematic reviews has continuously increased with a median yearly increase rate of 26%, while publication of Cochrane reviews has decreased since 2015. From 1993 to 2002, Cochrane reviews constituted 35% of all systematic reviews in PubMed compared with 3.5% in 2013–2022. Systematic reviews consistently had fewer authors than Cochrane reviews, but the number of authors increased over time for both. Chinese first authors conducted 15% and 4% of systematic reviews published from 2013–2022 and 2003–2012, respectively. Most Cochrane reviews had first authors from the UK (36%). The native English-speaking countries the USA, the UK, Canada, and Australia produced a large share of systematic reviews (42%) and Cochrane reviews (62%). The largest publishers of systematic reviews in the last 10 years were gold open access journals.ConclusionsPublication of systematic reviews is increasing rapidly, while fewer Cochrane reviews have been published through the last decade. Native English-speaking countries produced a large proportion of both types of systematic reviews. Gold open access journals and Chinese first authors dominated the publication of systematic reviews for the past 10 years. More research is warranted examining why fewer Cochrane reviews are being published. Additionally, examining these systematic reviews for research waste metrics may provide a clearer picture of their utility.

Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The objective of this study is to summarize the evidence in Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews, the effects, and the benefits of monitoring intracranial pressure (ICP) in patients with head trauma with an indication of ICP monitoringMethods: The process of preparing this overview followed the guidelines established by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) for umbrella reviews. Two independent reviewers evaluated the quality of reporting, bias risk, methodologies, and evidence using three different tools: the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) instrument, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). Results: A total of five papers met the criteria for inclusion in the study. These papers consisted of 49 primary research studies and 19 unique primary research studies. One of the SRs indicated that using intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring led to a reduction in mortality. Two of the SRs had mixed results with temporal variation, while two found no significant difference in mortality with ICP monitoring. It is important to note that the quality of the SRs varied, with some being of higher quality than others.Conclusion: There was no conclusive evidence that ICP monitoring reduces mortality in TBI patients. There was high heterogeneity in included primary research studies. Future research should aim to address the limitations of these studies and provide more conclusive evidence regarding the effectiveness of ICP monitoring in reducing mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury.

The confidence in the results of physiotherapy systematic reviews in the musculoskeletal field is not increasing over time: a meta-epidemiological study using AMSTAR 2 tool

ObjectivesTo assess the confidence in the results of systematic reviews on the effectiveness of physiotherapy for musculoskeletal conditions in the past 10 years and to analyze trends and factors associated. MethodsThis is a metaepidemiological study on systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and PEDro were searched for SRs of RCT on physiotherapy interventions for musculoskeletal disorders from December 2012 to December 2022. Two researchers independently screened the records based on the inclusion criteria; a random sample of 100 studies was selected, and each journal, author, and study variable was extracted. The methodological quality of SRs was independently assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool. Any disagreement was solved by consensus. ResultsThe confidence in SRs results was critically low in 90% of the studies, and it did not increase over time. Cochrane reviews are predominantly represented in the higher AMSTAR 2 confidence levels, with a statistically significant difference compared to non-Cochrane reviews. The last author's H-index is the only predictor of higher confidence among the variables analyzed (OR 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.06). ConclusionThe confidence in SRs results is unacceptably low. Given the relevance of musculoskeletal disorders and the impact of evidence synthesis on the clinical decision-making process, there is an urgent need to improve the quality of secondary research by adopting more rigorous methods.

Frequency of use and adequacy of Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 in non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in 2020: Meta-research study.

Risk of bias (RoB) assessment is essential to the systematic review methodology. The new version of the Cochrane RoB tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was published in 2019 to address limitations identified since the first version of the tool was published in 2008 and to increase the reliability of assessments. This study analyzed the frequency of usage of the RoB 2 and the adequacy of reporting the RoB 2 assessments in non-Cochrane reviews published in 2020. This meta-research study included non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions published in 2020. For the reviews that used the RoB 2 tool, we analyzed the reporting of the RoB 2 assessment. Among 3880 included reviews, the Cochrane RoB 1 tool was the most frequently used (N = 2228; 57.4%), followed by the Cochrane RoB 2 tool (N = 267; 6.9%). From 267 reviews that reported using the RoB 2 tool, 213 (79.8%) actually used it. In 26 (12.2%) reviews, erroneous statements were used to indicate the RoB 2 assessment. Only 20 (9.4%) reviews presented a complete RoB 2 assessment with a detailed table of answers to all signaling questions. The judgment of risk of bias by the RoB 2 tool was not justified by a comment in 158 (74.2%) reviews. Only in 33 (14.5%) of reviews the judgment in all domains was justified in the accompanying comment. In most reviews (81.7%), the RoB was inadequately assessed at the study level. In conclusion, the majority of non-Cochrane reviews published in 2020 still used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. Many reviews used the RoB 2 tool inadequately. Further studies about the uptake and the use of the RoB 2 tool are needed.

Investigate the relationship between the retraction reasons and the quality of methodology in non-Cochrane retracted systematic reviews: a systematic review

BackgroundThis systematic review aimed to investigate the relationship between retraction status and the methodology quality in the retracted non-Cochrane systematic review.MethodPubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched with keywords including systematic review, meta-analysis, and retraction or retracted as a type of publication until September 2023. There were no time or language restrictions. Non-Cochrane medical systematic review studies that were retracted were included in the present study. The data related to the retraction status of the articles were extracted from the retraction notice and Retraction Watch, and the quality of the methodology was evaluated with the AMSTAR-2 checklist by two independent researchers. Data were analyzed in the Excel 2019 and SPSS 21 software.ResultOf the 282 systematic reviews, the corresponding authors of 208 (73.75%) articles were from China. The average interval between publish and retraction of the article was about 23 months and about half of the non-Cochrane systematic reviews were retracted in the last 4 years. The most common reasons for retractions were fake peer reviews and unreliable data, respectively. Editors and publishers were the most retractors or requestors for retractions. More than 86% of the retracted non-Cochrane SRs were published in journals with an impact factor above two and had a critically low quality. Items 7, 9, and 13 among the critical items of the AMSTAR-2 checklist received the lowest scores.Discussion and conclusionThere was a significant relationship between the reasons of retraction and the quality of the methodology (P-value < 0.05). Plagiarism software and using the Cope guidelines may decrease the time of retraction. In some countries, strict rules for promoting researchers increase the risk of misconduct. To avoid scientific errors and improve the quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), it is better to create protocol registration and retraction guidelines in each journal for SRs/MAs.

Physical energies for the management of genitourinary syndrome of menopause: An overview of a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Energy-based devices (laser and radiofrequency) have been used to treat genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). To evaluate the efficacy and safety of physical energy use in managing GSM symptoms. Five databases were searched from inception to December 2022. Language restrictions were not imposed. We included all Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses that described postmenopausal women with symptoms of GSM treated with physical energy. We performed a network meta-analysis using frequentist methods to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Methodological and reporting quality were assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). Nine reviews were included in the overview, six of which were meta-analyses. Four randomized controlled trials, representing 218 participants and nine different study arms, met the criteria for inclusion in our component network meta-analysis. Confidence in review findings was low in six reviews and critically low in three. Our network meta-analysis results showed that premarin (SMD 2.60, 95% CI 7.76-3.43), conjugated estrogens (SMD 2.13, 95% CI 1.34-2.91), carbon dioxide laser (SMD 1.71, 95% CI 1.10-2.31), promestriene (SMD 1.41, 95% CI 0.59-2.24), and vaginal lubricant (SMD 1.37, 95% CI 0.54-2.20) were more effective than sham for reducing sexual dysfunction, with a consequent increase in Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Two studies showed a high risk of bias, owing to a lack of blinding. Several gaps in the use of physical energy for managing GSM still need to be addressed. The small number of blind clinical trials made the results fragile.

Evolution of appraisal tool usage preferences in PROSPERO records: a study of non-Cochrane systematic reviews

ObjectivesThis research-on-research substudy uses a data-driven approach to investigate the range of appraisal tools in non-Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).Study design and settingA comprehensive web scraping of all completed non-Cochrane registrations in PROSPERO from February 2011 to December 2017 was performed. The focus was classifying the appraisal tools based on study type, assessment aspects, and research topics.ResultsAfter analyzing 17,708 complete records, we found a predominant use of methodological quality assessment tools compared to those for reporting quality or risk of bias (RoB). This indicates a greater emphasis on methodological rigor in the studied protocols. Various tools for assessing methodological quality were observed, reflecting the complexity of such evaluations. Instruments designed for evaluating methodological or reporting quality were mainly intended for non-randomized clinical trials or observational studies, unlike RoB tools more commonly used in randomized clinical trials. No distinct trends in tool usage were observed in specific research conditions or domains, suggesting that tool choice is influenced more by study design than research topic.ConclusionThis study provides insights into the preferential use of various assessment tools in conducting non-Cochrane systematic reviews, as evidenced in PROSPERO records. The findings reveal various methodological assessment tools, underscoring their versatility across different study designs and research areas.

The Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines Focused on the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma: Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) inform evidence-based decision-making in the clinical setting; however, systematic reviews (SRs) that inform these CPGs may vary in terms of reporting and methodological quality, which affects confidence in summary effect estimates. Our objective was to appraise the methodological and reporting quality of the SRs used in CPGs for cutaneous melanoma and evaluate differences in these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis by searching PubMed for cutaneous melanoma guidelines published between January 1, 2015, and May 21, 2021. Next, we extracted SRs composing these guidelines and appraised their reporting and methodological rigor using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) checklists. Lastly, we compared these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs. All screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion. Of the SRs appraised, the mean completion rate was 66.5% (SD 12.29%) for the PRISMA checklist and 44.5% (SD 21.05%) for AMSTAR. The majority of SRs (19/50, 53%) were of critically low methodological quality, with no SRs being appraised as high quality. There was a statistically significant association (P<.001) between AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. Cochrane SRs had higher PRISMA mean completion rates and higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane SRs. SRs supporting CPGs focused on the management of cutaneous melanoma vary in reporting and methodological quality, with the majority of SRs being of low quality. Increasing adherence to PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists will likely increase the quality of SRs, thereby increasing the level of evidence supporting cutaneous melanoma CPGs.

Are units of analysis properly considered in orthodontic meta-analyses?

Assessment of unit of analysis (UoA) in meta-analysis with cluster, split-mouth, repeated measures designs, and multiple intervention groups is a fundamental step in the analysis. The objective of this study was to evaluate the UoAs in orthodontic meta-analysis and determine the error of the analysis. An electronic search was conducted in the Cochrane Library and PubMed to identify orthodontic systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses published in Cochrane and in the highest impact orthodontic journals between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2022. SRs with meta-analysis assessing at least one of the following UoAs; cluster trials, crossover trials, multiple observations, or multiple intervention groups were included. Screening and data extraction were undertaken by two investigators independently. Descriptive statistics for the study characteristics were provided. The associations between avoiding the unit analysis error (yes, no) and the study characteristics were examined using Fisher's exact test and chi-square test. Logistic regression was undertaken for the significant predictors. Eighty SRs were deemed eligible for inclusion. Only 30 per cent of the included SRs avoided UoA errors. Compared to the split-mouth design, repeated measures designs had higher odds of avoiding UoA error (odds ratio: 9.6, 95% confidence interval: 2.8-32.3, P < 0.001). In contrast, fewer odds of avoiding the UoA error were found in the cluster design (OR: 0.2, 95% CI: 0.4-1.3, P = 0.09). Though multiple intervention groups have higher odds of avoiding UoA error than split-mouth studies, this was not statistically significant (OR: 2.1, 95% CI: 0.5-8, P = 0.28). None of the SRs characteristics have influenced the appropriate handling of the unit analysis except the type of the journal; the odds of avoiding the UoA error were higher in Cochrane reviews than the non-Cochrane reviews (OR: 3.3, 95% CI: 1.2-8.7, P = 0.02), and the number of authors (P < 0.05). UoA errors are common in orthodontic meta-analyses and were only partially avoided in split-mouth design, repeated measures design, and multiple intervention groups.

Fatigue in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases: a scoping review on definitions, measurement instruments, determinants, consequences and interventions

ObjectivesTo scope published reviews addressing fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis, osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia in areas relevant for clinical practice: (1) definition, (2) measurement instruments and diagnosis, (3) determinants, (4)...

Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome- an overview of systematic reviews.

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain condition that usually occurs in a limb following trauma or surgery. It is characterised by persisting pain that is disproportionate in magnitude or duration to the typical course of pain after similar injury. There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal management of CRPS, although a broad range of interventions have been described and are commonly used. This is the first update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2013. To summarise the evidence from Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews of the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of any intervention used to reduce pain, disability, or both, in adults with CRPS. We identified Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews through a systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PEDro, LILACS and Epistemonikos from inception to October 2022, with no language restrictions. We included systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials that included adults (≥18 years) diagnosed with CRPS, using any diagnostic criteria. Two overview authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the reviews and certainty of the evidence using the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools respectively. We extracted data for the primary outcomes pain, disability and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes quality of life, emotional well-being, and participants' ratings of satisfaction or improvement with treatment. MAIN RESULTS: We included six Cochrane and 13 non-Cochrane systematic reviews in the previous version of this overview and five Cochrane and 12 non-Cochrane reviews in the current version. Using the AMSTAR 2 tool, we judged Cochrane reviews to have higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. The studies in the included reviews were typically small and mostly at high risk of bias or of low methodological quality. We found no high-certainty evidence for any comparison. There was low-certainty evidence that bisphosphonates may reduce pain intensity post-intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.8 to -3.4, P = 0.001; I2 = 81%; 4 trials, n = 181) and moderate-certainty evidence that they are probably associated with increased adverse events of any nature (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.47; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 4.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 168.0; 4 trials, n = 181). There was moderate-certainty evidence that lidocaine local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade probably does not reduce pain intensity compared with placebo, and low-certainty evidence that it may not reduce pain intensity compared with ultrasound of the stellate ganglion. No effect size was reported for either comparison. There was low-certainty evidence that topical dimethyl sulfoxide may not reduce pain intensity compared with oral N-acetylcysteine, but no effect size was reported. There was low-certainty evidence that continuous bupivacaine brachial plexus block may reduce pain intensity compared with continuous bupivacaine stellate ganglion block, but no effect size was reported. For a wide range of other commonly used interventions, the certainty in the evidence was very low and provides insufficient evidence to either support or refute their use. Comparisons with low- and very low-certainty evidence should be treated with substantial caution. We did not identify any RCT evidence for routinely used pharmacological interventions for CRPS such as tricyclic antidepressants or opioids. Despite a considerable increase in included evidence compared with the previous version of this overview, we identified no high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of any therapy for CRPS. Until larger, high-quality trials are undertaken, formulating an evidence-based approach to managing CRPS will remain difficult. Currentnon-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions for CRPS are of low methodological quality and should not be relied upon to provide an accurate and comprehensive summary of the evidence.

Antivirals for prevention of hepatitis B virus mother-to-child transmission in human immunodeficiency virus positive pregnant women co-infected with hepatitis B virus.

Antivirals for prevention of hepatitis B virus mother-to-child transmission in human immunodeficiency virus positive pregnant women co-infected with hepatitis B virus.

Trends of Randomized Clinical Trials Citing Prior Systematic Reviews, 2007-2021

Systematic reviews can help to justify a new randomized clinical trial (RCT), inform its design, and interpret its results in the context of prior evidence. To assess trends and factors associated with citing (a marker of the use of) prior systematic reviews in RCT reports. This cross-sectional study investigated 737 Cochrane reviews assessing health interventions to identify 4003 eligible RCTs, defined as those included in an updated version but not in the first version of a Cochrane review and published 2 years after the first version of the Cochrane review was published. The primary outcome was the citation of prior systematic reviews, Cochrane or others, as determined by screening references of eligible RCTs. Factors that may be associated with the citation of prior systematic reviews were also examined. Among 4003 eligible RCTs, 1241 studies (31.0%) cited Cochrane reviews, 1698 studies (42.4%) cited prior non-Cochrane reviews, and 2265 studies (56.6%) cited either type of systematic review or both; 1738 RCTs (43.4%) cited no systematic reviews. The percentage of RCTs citing prior Cochrane reviews, non-Cochrane reviews, and either or both types of review increased from 28 studies (15.3%), 46 studies (25.1%), and 65 studies (35.5%) of 183 RCTs before 2008 to 42 studies (40.8%), 65 studies (64.1%), and 73 studies (71.8%) of 102 RCTs since 2020, respectively; the annual increases were 1.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.3%), 3.3% (95% CI, 2.9%-3.7%), and 3.0% (95% CI, 2.5%-3.5%), respectively. The proportion of RCTs citating prior systematic reviews varied considerably across clinical specialties, ranging from 28 of 106 RCTs (26.4%) in ophthalmology to 386 of 553 RCTs (69.8%) in psychiatry (P < .001). RCTs with 100 participants or more (risk ratio [RR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.30), nonindustry funding (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.27-1.61), and authors from high-income countries (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17) were more likely to cite systematic reviews than those with fewer than 100 participants, industry funding, and authors from low- and middle-income countries, respectively. A journal requirement to cite systematic reviews was not associated with the likelihood of citing a systematic review. This study found that the citation of prior systematic reviews in RCT reports improved over time, but approximately 40% of RCTs failed to do so. These findings suggest that reference to prior evidence for initiating, designing, and reporting RCTs should be further emphasized to assure clinical relevance, improve methodological quality, and facilitate interpretation of new results.

Reporting according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) depends on abstract length

ObjectiveTo evaluate reporting of abstracts of systematic reviews according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) 2013 checklist. Study Design and SettingA random sample of 534 systematic reviews on effectiveness indexed in PubMed between 2000 and 2019 was assessed. Adherence of abstracts to PRISMA-A was analysed using descriptive statistics. Results were stratified by number of words, structure, and year of publication. ResultThe mean score of fully reported PRISMA-A items was 5.4 of 12, with adherence varying widely between items (0% to 98.8%). Cochrane reviews received higher mean total scores than non-Cochrane reviews (6.3 vs. 5.2). Adherence to PRISMA-A increased linearly with increasing word count. In non-Cochrane reviews, authors of structured abstracts more often adhered to PRISMA-A than those of unstructured abstracts. No improvements in reporting of abstracts were found after the implementation of PRISMA-A in 2013. ConclusionAdherence to PRISMA-A shows great potential for improvement. Therefore, authors, editors, and reviewers should be made aware of PRISMA-A by referring to it in the journal submission guidelines. As adherence to PRISMA-A increases with the number of words, journals should consider to increase the word limit to 250–300 words.

Multivariate meta-analysis of multiple outcomes: characteristics and predictors of borrowing of strength from Cochrane reviews

ObjectivesMultivariate meta-analysis allows the joint synthesis of multiple outcomes accounting for their correlation. This enables borrowing of strength (BoS) across outcomes, which may lead to greater efficiency and even different conclusions compared to separate univariate meta-analyses. However, multivariate meta-analysis is complex to apply, so guidance is needed to flag (in advance of analysis) when the approach is most useful.Study design and settingWe use 43 Cochrane intervention reviews to empirically investigate the characteristics of meta-analysis datasets that are associated with a larger BoS statistic (from 0 to 100%) when applying a bivariate meta-analysis of binary outcomes.ResultsFour characteristics were identified as strongly associated with BoS: the total number of studies, the number of studies with the outcome of interest, the percentage of studies missing the outcome of interest, and the largest absolute within-study correlation. Using these characteristics, we then develop a model for predicting BoS in a new dataset, which is shown to have good performance (an adjusted R2 of 50%). Applied examples are used to illustrate the use of the BoS prediction model.ConclusionsCochrane reviewers mainly use univariate meta-analysis methods, but the identified characteristics associated with BoS and our subsequent prediction model for BoS help to flag when a multivariate meta-analysis may also be beneficial in Cochrane reviews with multiple binary outcomes. Extension to non-Cochrane reviews and other outcome types is still required.

Effectiveness of interventions for dry eye: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews

IntroductionDry eye is a leading cause of ocular morbidity and economic and societal burden for patients and healthcare systems. There are several treatment options available for dry eye and high-quality...

Retracted systematic reviews continued to be frequently cited: a citation analysis

Background and ObjectivesTo survey the citations of retracted non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) in scientific literature. MethodsWe searched the Web of Science and Google Scholar from their inception to 30 April 2020 to find the citations of 153 previously identified retracted non-Cochrane SRs. We calculated the numbers of citations before and after retraction separately. We also described how the citation addressed the retraction and how it was used in the article. ResultsA We identified 954 citations of 128 retracted SRs. The number of retracted SRs and citations reached the peak in 2014 and 2016, respectively, and the majority of the citations (n = 580, 60.8%) were in articles published after the SR was retracted. The mean number of citation per retracted SRs was 7.5. 2.6 before and 4.5 after the publication of the retraction notice. Twenty-nine (5.0%) citations indicated the retraction of the SRs in the reference section. Nine of these citations supported the retracted SR's results, and 15 disagreed with them. ConclusionRetracted SRs continue to be cited after the publication of the retraction notice. Standardized methods are needed to guide the management of retractions and avoid inappropriate citations of retracted articles.

Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis including degenerative meniscal tears).

Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis including degenerative meniscal tears).

Methodological quality of systematic reviews on Chinese herbal medicine: a methodological survey

BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) synthesise the best evidence of effectiveness and safety on Chinese herbal medicine (CHM). Decision-making should be supported by the high-quality evidence of prudently conducted SRs, but the trustworthiness of conclusions may be limited by poor methodological rigour.MethodsThis survey aimed to examine the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on CHM published during January 2018 to March 2020. We conducted literature search in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE via Ovid, and EMBASE via Ovid. Eligible SRs must be in Chinese or English with at least one meta-analysis on the treatment effect of any CHM documented in the 2015 Chinese Pharmacopoeia. Two reviewers extracted the bibliographical characteristics of SRs and appraised their methodological quality using AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2). The associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality were investigated using Kruskal-Wallis tests and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients.ResultsWe sampled and appraised one hundred forty-eight SRs. Overall, one (0.7%) was of high methodological quality; zero (0%), four (2.7%), and one-hundred forty-three (96.6%) SRs were of moderate, low, and critically-low quality. Only thirteen SRs (8.8%) provided a pre-defined protocol; none (0%) provided justifications for including particular primary study designs; six (4.1%) conducted a comprehensive literature search; two (1.4%) provided a list of excluded studies; nine (6.1%) undertook meta-analysis with appropriate methods; and seven (4.7%) reported funding sources of included primary studies. Cochrane reviews had higher overall quality than non-Cochrane reviews (P < 0.001). SRs with European funding support were less likely to have critically-low quality when compared with their counterparts (P = 0.020). SRs conducted by more authors (rs = 0.23; P = 0.006) and published in higher impact factor journals (rs = 0.20; P = 0.044) were associated with higher methodological quality.ConclusionsOur results indicated that the methodological quality of SRs on CHM is low. Future authors should enhance the methodological quality through registering a priori protocols, justifying selection of study designs, conducting comprehensive literature search, providing a list of excluded studies with rationales, using appropriate method for meta-analyses, and reporting funding sources among primary studies.