Authors Of Systematic Reviews Research Articles

The experiences of mental health professionals' and patients' use of pro re nata (PRN) medication in acute adult mental health care settings: a systematic review protocol of qualitative evidence

The experiences of mental health professionals' and patients' use of pro re nata (PRN) medication in acute adult mental health care settings: a systematic review protocol of qualitative evidence

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews published in "evidence-based" Chinese journals.

BackgroundThe number of systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) has increased dramatically in China over the past decades. However, evaluation of quality of reporting of systematic reviews published has not been undertaken. The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of reporting of SRs/MAs assessing efficacy and/or harms of clinical interventions published in “evidence-based” Chinese journals.MethodsWeb-based database searches were conducted for the Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine, the Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, the Chinese Journal of Evidence Based Pediatrics, and the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Medicine. SRs/MAs assessing efficacy and/or harms of clinical interventions were included. The cut-off was December 31st 2011. The PRISMA statement was applied to assess the quality of reporting. Each item was assessed as follows: ‘Yes’ for total compliance, scored ‘1’; ‘partial’ for partial compliance, scored ‘0.5’; and ‘No’ for non-compliance, scored ‘0’. The review was considered to have major flaws if it received a total score of ≤15.0, minor flaws if it received a total score of 15.5 to 21.0, and minimal flaws if it received a total score 21.5 to 27.0. Odds ratios were used for binary variables, and the mean difference was used for continuous variables. Analyses were performed using RevMan 5.0 software.ResultsOverall, 487 SRs/MAs were identified and assessed. The included reviews had medium quality with minor flaws based on PRISMA total scores (range: 8.5–26.0; mean: 19.6 ± 3.3). The stratified analysis showed that SRs/MAs with more than 3 authors, from a university, hospital + university cooperation, multiple affiliations (≥2), and funding have significantly higher quality of reporting of SRs/MAs; 58% of the included reviews were considered to have minor flaws (total score of 15.6 to 21.0). Only 9.6% of reviews were considered to have major flaws. Specific areas needing improvement in reporting include the abstract, protocol and registration, and characteristics of the search.ConclusionsThe reporting of SRs published in “evidence-based” Chinese journals is poor and needs to be improved in order for reviews to be useful. SR authors should use the PRISMA checklist to ensure complete and accurate accounts of their SRs.

Impact of inclusion of industry trial results registries as an information source for systematic reviews.

BackgroundClinical trial results registries may contain relevant unpublished information. Our main aim was to investigate the potential impact of the inclusion of reports from industry results registries on systematic reviews (SRs).MethodsWe identified a sample of 150 eligible SRs in PubMed via backward selection. Eligible SRs investigated randomized controlled trials of drugs and included at least 2 bibliographic databases (original search date: 11/2009). We checked whether results registries of manufacturers and/or industry associations had also been searched. If not, we searched these registries for additional trials not considered in the SRs, as well as for additional data on trials already considered. We reanalysed the primary outcome and harm outcomes reported in the SRs and determined whether results had changed. A “change” was defined as either a new relevant result or a change in the statistical significance of an existing result. We performed a search update in 8/2013 and identified a sample of 20 eligible SRs to determine whether mandatory results registration from 9/2008 onwards in the public trial and results registry ClinicalTrials.gov had led to its inclusion as a standard information source in SRs, and whether the inclusion rate of industry results registries had changed.Results133 of the 150 SRs (89%) in the original analysis did not search industry results registries. For 23 (17%) of these SRs we found 25 additional trials and additional data on 31 trials already included in the SRs. This additional information was found for more than twice as many SRs of drugs approved from 2000 as approved beforehand. The inclusion of the additional trials and data yielded changes in existing results or the addition of new results for 6 of the 23 SRs. Of the 20 SRs retrieved in the search update, 8 considered ClinicalTrials.gov or a meta-registry linking to ClinicalTrials.gov, and 1 considered an industry results registry.ConclusionThe inclusion of industry and public results registries as an information source in SRs is still insufficient and may result in publication and outcome reporting bias. In addition to an essential search in ClinicalTrials.gov, authors of SRs should consider searching industry results registries.

Systematic review of the benefits and harms of whole-body computed tomography in the early management of multitrauma patients

There is considerable interest in whether routine whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) imaging produces different patient outcomes in blunt trauma patients when compared with selective imaging. This article aimed to systematically review the literature for all outcomes measured in comparing WBCT with selective imaging in trauma patients and to evaluate the comprehensiveness of relevant dimensions for this comparison. We performed a systematic review of studies comparing WBCT and selective imaging approaches during the initial assessment of multitrauma patients. Peer-reviewed studies including cohort studies, randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews were identified through large database searches and filtered through methodologic inclusion criteria. Data on study characteristics, hypotheses and conclusions made, outcomes assessed, and references to potential benefits and harms were extracted. Eight retrospective cohort studies and two systematic reviews were identified. Six primary studies evaluated mortality as an outcome, and four studies found a significant difference in results favoring WBCT imaging over selective imaging. All five articles assessing various time intervals in hospital following imaging after injury found significantly reduced times with WBCT. Radiation exposure was found to be increased after WBCT imaging compared with selective imaging in the only study in which it was evaluated. The two systematic reviews analyzed the same three articles with regard to mortality but concluded differently about overall benefits. WBCT imaging seems to be associated with reduced times to events in hospital following traumatic injury and seems to be associated with decreased mortality. Whether this is a true effect mediated through an as yet unsubstantiated change in management or the result of hospital- or individual-level confounders is unclear. When evaluating these outcomes, it seems that the authors of both primary studies and systematic reviews have often been selective in their choice of short-term outcomes, painting an incomplete picture of the issue. Systematic review, level III.

Timing of cord clamping in very preterm infants: more evidence is needed

In December 2012, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a Committee Opinion entitled "Timing of umbilical cord clamping after birth." It stated that "evidence exists to support delayed cord clamping in preterm infants, when feasible. The single most important benefit for preterm infants is the possibility for a nearly 50% reduction in IVH." However, the Committee Opinion added that the ideal timing of umbilical cord clamping has yet to be determined and recommended that large clinical trials be conducted in the most preterm infants. Published randomized controlled trials include <200 infants of <30 weeks' gestation, with assessments of neurodevelopmental outcome in less than one-half of the children. This is a major gap in the evidence. Without reliable data from randomized controlled trials that optimally include childhood follow-up evaluations, we will not know whether delayed cord clamping may do more overall harm than good. Ongoing trials of delayed cord clamping plan to report childhood outcomes in >2000 additional very preterm infants. Current recommendations may need to change when these results become available. Greater international collaboration could accelerate resolution of whether this promising intervention will improve disability-free survival in about 1 million infants who will be born very preterm globally each year.

The role of imaging specialists as authors of systematic reviews on diagnostic and interventional imaging and its impact on scientific quality: report from the EuroAIM Evidence-based Radiology Working Group.

To evaluate the inclusion of radiologists or nuclear medicine physicians (imaging specialists) as authors of systematic reviews (SRs) on imaging and imaging-guided diagnostic procedures and to determine the impact of imaging specialists' presence as authors on the overall quality of the reviews. A MEDLINE and EMBASE search was performed for SRs of diagnostic and interventional image-guided procedures that were published from January 2001 to December 2010. SRs about procedures primarily performed by nonimaging specialists were excluded. The inclusion of imaging specialists among the SR authors and the frequency of publication in imaging journals were evaluated. The quality of a subset of 200 SRs (100 most recent SRs with imaging specialists as authors and 100 most recent SRs without imaging specialists as authors) was rated by using a 12-item modified assessment of multiple SRs (AMSTAR) evaluation tool. Spearman, χ(2), and Mann-Whitney statistics were used. From among 3258 retrieved citations, 867 SRs were included in the study. Neuroimaging had the largest number of SRs (28% [241 of 867]), 41% (354 of 867) of SRs concerned diagnostic performance, and 26% (228 of 867) of SRs were published in imaging journals. Imaging specialists were authors (in any position) in 330 (38%) of 867 SRs; they were first authors of 176 SRs and last authors of 161 SRs. SRs with imaging specialists as authors were more often published in imaging journals than in nonimaging journals (54% [179 of 330] vs 9% [49 of 537]; P < .001). The median number of modified AMSTAR quality indicators was nine in SRs with imaging specialists as authors, while that in SRs without imaging specialists as authors was seven (P = .003). Only 38% (330 of 867) of SRs on radiology or nuclear medicine-related imaging published from January 2001 to December 2010 included imaging specialists as authors. However, the inclusion of imaging specialists as authors was associated with a significant increase in the scientific quality (as judged by using a modified AMSTAR scale) of the SR.

Tutorial for writing systematic reviews for the Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy (BJPT).

Systematic reviews aim to summarize all evidence using very rigorous methods in order to address a specific research question with less bias as possible. Systematic reviews are widely used in the field of physical therapy, however not all reviews have good quality. This tutorial aims to guide authors of the Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy on how systematic reviews should be conducted and reported in order to be accepted for publication. It is expected that this tutorial will help authors of systematic reviews as well as journal editors and reviewers on how to conduct, report, critically appraise and interpret this type of study design.

A methodological survey of the analysis, reporting and interpretation of Absolute Risk ReductiOn in systematic revieWs (ARROW): a study protocol

BackgroundClinicians, providers and guideline panels use absolute effects to weigh the advantages and downsides of treatment alternatives. Relative measures have the potential to mislead readers. However, little is known about the reporting of absolute measures in systematic reviews. The objectives of our study are to determine the proportion of systematic reviews that report absolute measures of effect for the most important outcomes, and ascertain how they are analyzed, reported and interpreted.Methods/designWe will conduct a methodological survey of systematic reviews published in 2010. We will conduct a 1:1 stratified random sampling of Cochrane vs. non-Cochrane systematic reviews. We will calculate the proportion of systematic reviews reporting at least one absolute estimate of effect for the most patient-important outcome for the comparison of interest. We will conduct multivariable logistic regression analyses with the reporting of an absolute estimate of effect as the dependent variable and pre-specified study characteristics as the independent variables. For systematic reviews reporting an absolute estimate of effect, we will document the methods used for the analysis, reporting and interpretation of the absolute estimate.DiscussionOur methodological survey will inform current practices regarding reporting of absolute estimates in systematic reviews. Our findings may influence recommendations on reporting, conduct and interpretation of absolute estimates. Our results are likely to be of interest to systematic review authors, funding agencies, clinicians, guideline developers and journal editors.

Reference management software for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an exploration of usage and usability

BackgroundReference management software programs enable researchers to more easily organize and manage large volumes of references typically identified during the production of systematic reviews. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which authors are using reference management software to produce systematic reviews; identify which programs are used most frequently and rate their ease of use; and assess the degree to which software usage is documented in published studies.MethodsWe reviewed the full text of systematic reviews published in core clinical journals indexed in ACP Journal Club from 2008 to November 2011 to determine the extent to which reference management software usage is reported in published reviews. We surveyed corresponding authors to verify and supplement information in published reports, and gather frequency and ease-of-use data on individual reference management programs.ResultsOf the 78 researchers who responded to our survey, 79.5% reported that they had used a reference management software package to prepare their review. Of these, 4.8% reported this usage in their published studies. EndNote, Reference Manager, and RefWorks were the programs of choice for more than 98% of authors who used this software. Comments with respect to ease-of-use issues focused on the integration of this software with other programs and computer interfaces, and the sharing of reference databases among researchers.ConclusionsDespite underreporting of use, reference management software is frequently adopted by authors of systematic reviews. The transparency, reproducibility and quality of systematic reviews may be enhanced through increased reporting of reference management software usage.

Testing the PRISMA-Equity 2012 Reporting Guideline: the Perspectives of Systematic Review Authors

Reporting guidelines can be used to encourage standardised and comprehensive reporting of health research. In light of the global commitment to health equity, we have previously developed and published a reporting guideline for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012). The objectives of this study were to explore the utility of the equity extension items included in PRISMA-E 2012 from a systematic review author perspective, including facilitators and barriers to its use. This will assist in designing dissemination and knowledge translation strategies. We conducted a survey of systematic review authors to expose them to the new items in PRISMA-E 2012, establish the extent to which they had historically addressed those items in their own reviews, and gather feedback on the usefulness of the new items. Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel 2008 and Stata (version 11.2 for Mac). Of 151 respondents completing the survey, 18.5% (95% CI: 12.7% to 25.7%) had not heard of the PRISMA statement before, although 83.4% (95% CI: 77.5% to 89.3%) indicated that they plan to use PRISMA-E 2012 in the future, depending on the focus of their review. Most (68.9%; 95% CI: 60.8% to 76.2%) thought that using PRISMA-E 2012 would lead them to conduct their reviews differently. Important facilitators to using PRISMA-E 2012 identified by respondents were journal endorsement and incorporation of the elements of the guideline into systematic review software. Barriers identified were lack of time, word limits and the availability of equity data in primary research. This study has been the first to ‘road-test’ the new PRISMA-E 2012 reporting guideline and the findings are encouraging. They confirm the acceptability and potential utility of the guideline to assist review authors in reporting on equity in their reviews. The uptake and impact of PRISMA-E 2012 over time on design, conduct and reporting of primary research and systematic reviews should continue to be examined.

Methods for documenting systematic review searches: a discussion of common issues.

As standardized reporting requirements for systematic reviews are being adopted more widely, review authors are under greater pressure to accurately record their search process. With careful planning, documentation to fulfill the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses requirements can become a valuable tool for organizing a systematic review literature search and planning updates. A working group of information specialists convened to discuss current practice and were informed by a Web-based survey of over 260 systematic review authors, trials search coordinators, librarians, and other information specialists conducted in February/March 2011. Survey responses provided insight into current practices and difficulties of reporting searches. These included a lack of time, tools, clear understanding of the requirements, and uncertainty about responsibility for documenting these elements. This paper will present some of the practical aspects of documenting the systematic literature search. Section 1 provides background information and rationale for this paper. Section 2 discusses issues and recommendations arising from survey results. Section 3 outlines specific elements to be recorded. Section 4 guides the reader through the information management process. Section 5 concludes with implications for future research and practice. These principles are applicable to any large literature search for systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and guideline development.

184 Handling missing participant data in meta-analysis of dichotomous outcomes: Proposed guidelines for systematic reviews of randomised trials

ObjectivesSystematic reviewers including all randomised participants in their meta-analyses need to make assumptions about the outcomes of those with missing data.Our objective is to provide systematic review authors with guidance...

Survey revealed a lack of clarity about recommended methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy data

ObjectivesTo collect reasons for selecting the methods for meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy from authors of systematic reviews and improve guidance on recommended methods. Study Design and SettingOnline survey in authors of recently published meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. ResultsWe identified 100 eligible reviews, of which 40 had used more advanced methods of meta-analysis (hierarchical random-effects approach), 52 more traditional methods (summary receiver operating characteristic curve based on linear regression or a univariate approach), and 8 combined both. Fifty-nine authors responded to the survey; 29 (49%) authors had used advanced methods, 25 (42%) authors traditional methods, and 5 (9%) authors combined traditional and advanced methods. Most authors who had used advanced methods reported to do so because they believed that these methods are currently recommended (n = 27; 93%). Most authors who had used traditional methods also reported to do so because they believed that these methods are currently recommended (n = 18; 75%) or easy to understand (n = 18; 75%). ConclusionAlthough more advanced methods for meta-analysis are recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration, both authors using these methods and those using more traditional methods responded that the methods they used were currently recommended. Clearer and more widespread dissemination of guidelines on recommended methods for meta-analysis of test accuracy data is needed.

046 Guideline Development Tool (GDT) – Web-Based Solution for Guideline Developers and Authors of Systematic Reviews

BackgroundGuideline developers and other health care decision makers benefit from following a structured process of specifying the health care questions they intend to answer and the outcomes of interest, assessing...

P001 Collaboration on evidence synthesis to support health care recommendations: what works, what doesn’t and what’s next

Systematic reviews have become a sine non qua in guideline development. The reasons for this are obvious: recommendations must be based on the best available evidence and systematic reviews allow...

144WS How to Make Judgements About the Quality or Strength of Evidence Transparent

BackgroundWhen assessing the confidence in intervention effects, i.e. the quality of evidence, guideline developers should make their judgement about this confidence transparent and provide an overall assessment (or grade) of...

P043 Five major areas of research of GRADE system

BackgroundOver the past 10 years, more and more guideline developers and systematic review authors adopt the GRADE method. Also, many researchers and groups become interested in discussing, studying and developing...

057 Handling Trial Participants with Missing Data in Meta-Analyses Of Dichotomous Outcomes: Guidance for Systematic Reviewers

BackgroundSystematic reviewers including all randomised participants in their meta-analyses need to make assumptions about the outcomes of those with missing data.Objectives To provide systematic review authors with guidance on dealing...

Strategies for obtaining unpublished drug trial data: a qualitative interview study

BackgroundAuthors of systematic reviews have difficulty obtaining unpublished data for their reviews. This project aimed to provide an in-depth description of the experiences of authors in searching for and gaining access to unpublished data for their systematic reviews, and to give guidance on best practices for identifying, obtaining and using unpublished data.MethodsThis is a qualitative study analyzing in-depth interviews with authors of systematic reviews who have published Cochrane reviews or published systematic reviews outside of The Cochrane Library. We included participants who 1) were the first or senior author of a published systematic review of a drug intervention, 2) had expertise in conducting systematic reviews, searching for data, and assessing methodological biases, and 3) were able to participate in an interview in English. We used non-random sampling techniques to identify potential participants. Eighteen Cochrane authors were contacted and 16 agreed to be interviewed (89% response rate). Twenty-four non-Cochrane authors were contacted and 16 were interviewed (67% response rate).ResultsRespondents had different understandings of what was meant by unpublished data, including specific outcomes and methodological details. Contacting study authors was the most common method used to obtain unpublished data and the value of regulatory agencies as a data source was underappreciated. Using the data obtained was time consuming and labor intensive. Respondents described the collaboration with other colleagues and/or students required to organize, manage and use the data in their reviews, generally developing and using templates, spreadsheets and computer programs for data extraction and analysis. Respondents had a shared belief that data should be accessible but some had concerns about sharing their own data. Respondents believed that obtaining unpublished data for reviews has important public health implications. There was widespread support for government intervention to ensure open access to trial data.ConclusionsRespondents uniformly agreed that the benefit of identifying unpublished data was worth the effort and was necessary to identify the true harms and benefits of drugs. Recent actions by government, such as increased availability of trial data from the European Medicines Agency, may make it easier to acquire critical drug trial data.

Citation of Previous Meta-analyses on the Same Topic: A Clue to Perpetuation of Incorrect Methods?

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses serve as a basis for decision-making and clinical practice guidelines and should be carried out using appropriate methodology to avoid incorrect inferences. We describe the characteristics, statistical methods used for meta-analyses, and citation patterns of all 21 glaucoma systematic reviews we identified pertaining to the effectiveness of prostaglandin analog eye drops in treating primary open-angle glaucoma, published between December 2000 and February 2012. We abstracted data, assessed whether appropriate statistical methods were applied in meta-analyses, and examined citation patterns of included reviews. We identified two forms of problematic statistical analyses in 9 of the 21 systematic reviews examined. Except in 1 case, none of the 9 reviews that used incorrect statistical methods cited a previously published review that used appropriate methods. Reviews that used incorrect methods were cited 2.6 times more often than reviews that used appropriate statistical methods. We speculate that by emulating the statistical methodology of previous systematic reviews, systematic review authors may have perpetuated incorrect approaches to meta-analysis. The use of incorrect statistical methods, perhaps through emulating methods described in previous research, calls conclusions of systematic reviews into question and may lead to inappropriate patient care. We urge systematic review authors and journal editors to seek the advice of experienced statisticians before undertaking or accepting for publication a systematic review and meta-analysis. The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.