ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) on the treatment for acute gout.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect published systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating drug interventions therapy in acute gout from inception to April 8th 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, assessed the methodological quality of included SRs by the AMSTAR tool, and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome by the GRADE approach.ResultsA total of seven relevant SRs were included, which contains three main outcome measures. Four SRs contained non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), three SRs contained colchicine and two SRs contained glucocorticoids. All SRs assessed risk of bias of included original studies. Two used the Jadad scale or modified Jadad scale in this assessment while others used the " assessing risk of bias” tool recommended by Cochrane Collaboration. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that: three SRs were considered high quality (scores≥9), and the other four were considered moderate quality. GRADE results showed: the quality of the evidence of 11 outcomes was low or very low, and five outcomes was moderate.ConclusionsThe current evidence confirms the effectiveness and safety of several drug interventions in the treatment of acute gout, however, the priority of these drugs is still unclear. We suggest conducting new SRs and updating relevant SRs, to systematically compare different drug interventions therapy in acute gout with the latest evidence. In addition, we still expect to put more efforts in conducting high-quality original studies, in order to fill the gap of relevant fields and improve the level of evidence quality.
Objectives To evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews on acupuncture for polycystic ovary syndrome. Methods We comprehensively searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data to collect systematic reviews on acupuncture for polycystic ovary syndrome from the establishment time of databases to January 5th, 2018. The AMSTAR tool was applied for methodological quality assessment of included studies and the GRADE system was applied for evidence quality assessment of included outcomes of systematic reviews. Results A total of 11 systematic reviews were included. The results of assessment using AMSTAR showed that, among the 11 items, most problems occurred in Item 5 " Were there any lists of research articles included and excluded”, followed by Item 1" Was an‘a prior’design provided?”and Item 11" Were potential conflict of interest included?”. GRADE grading results showed that quality of evidence for the outcome measure were" low”or" very low”. Conclusions Current acupuncture treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome has a certain effect, however, the quality of evidence is low. Thus, physicians should apply the evidence to make decision on acupuncture for polycystic ovary syndrome with caution in clinical practice and consider the actual situation, combined with the patient’s value preferences and economic factors.
Objective To assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of meta-analysis published in Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion. Methods We searched CNKI database to collect meta-analysis published in Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion up to 2015. Methodological quality assessment was carried out using AMSTAR tool, and quality assessment was carried out by PRISMA checklist. Data analysis was performed by using SPSS 19.0 software. Results A total of 31 meta-analyses were enrolled. Among all the 31 meta-analyses, the first authors came from 19 institutions, and 21 meta-analysis were supported by fundings. All meta-analyses were about the evaluations of acupuncture intervention, involving 10 disease systems (ICD-10) and sub-health. The mean score of the methodological assessment was 7.42±1.13. In addition, the mean score of reporting quality was 18.79±2.04. Conclusion The meta-analyses published in Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion have high quality on methodology as well as reporting. Due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, the above results are needed to be further assessed by more studies.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodology quality and report quality of the published systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of pediatric tuina domestically and abroad.MethodsCBM, VIP, CNKI, WanFang Data, PubMed, EMbase, and The Cochrane Library were electronically searched to collect published pediatric tuina SRs/MAs from inception to December 10th, 2018. The SRs/MAs which includes scale evaluation used AMSTAR2 and the PRISMA report quality evaluation tool to systematically review methodology, adopts Excel to carry out data collation and statistical analysis. ResultsA total of 18 studies (14 in Chinese and 4 in English) on the SRs/MAs of pediatric tuina were finally included. In terms of methodological quality, 6 studies were of low quality and 12 studies were of very low quality. All studies did not explain the reasons for adopting a particular research design type, and few of them explained the pre-plan, exclusion list, reasons and funding. In terms of report quality, 7 studies were relatively complete, 10 studies had certain defects and one study had serious defects. The existing problems were program and registration, comprehensive retrieval, information sources, financial support and so on. ConclusionsSRs/MAs of pediatric tuina have different degrees of issues in terms of methodological quality and report quality which still require further improvement and continuous strengthening.
ObjectivesTo overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of effectiveness and safety of spinal manipulation for low back pain or neck pain. MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2015), CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP to collect SRs/MAs of spinal manipulation for low back pain or neck pain from inception to January 30th, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and then AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included SRs/MAs. ResultsA total of 21 SRs/MAs were included. Twenty of them assessed the methodological quality of included original randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with different tools:2 used Jadad scale, 5 used PEDro scale, 6 used Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and 7 used other tools. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that:among 11 items, the item 1 of "Was an ‘a priori’ design provided" (18 SRs/MAs did not provide) and item 4 of "Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided" (18 SRs/MAs did not provide) appeared to be the most problematic, followed by item 10 of "Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed" (14 SRs/MAs did not assess the publication bias) and item 11 of "Was the conflict of interest stated" (14 SRs/MAs did not provide the conflict of interest and 4 were incomplete). ConclusionThe methodological quality of included SRs/MAs is poor. The limited evidence showed that spinal manipulation is more effective for acute low back pain than chronic low back pain, and the short term effect is better than the long term one. Different spinal manipulation techniques have various effects but are all safe. Chiropractic manipulation may have the best effect. Due to the limitation of quality and quantity of included SRs/MAs, there may be potential bias in the above conclusion that needs more high quality studies to verify.
Objective To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness, analyses the factors affecting it, so as to provide a reference basis for improving the methodological quality of related studies. Methods Systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness were identified in PubMed, searching from its inception to 12 October 2024. Systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness was included, the methodological quality of the included literature was evaluated using AMSTAR-2, and data were extracted using Excel 2021. Results A total of 308 systematic reviews/ meta-analysis were included, with a fluctuating upward trend in the number of publications from 2006 to 2024; of these, a total of 12 were rated as low quality. According to the AMSTAR-2 entries, the largest number of documents fully conformed to entry 16 (82.14%), followed by entry 5 (81.49%), and entry 8 (72.73%); one document conformed to entry 10 (0.32%), and relatively few conformed to entry 12 (68.83%), entry 13 (85.39%), and entry 15 (67.53%). ConclusionThe methodological quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness needs to be improved, and the main problems include the lack of pre-study protocols, the absence of a list of excluded literature, and the less than adequate explanation of heterogeneity and risk of bias, etc. There is still a need to further improve the methodological quality of the systematic reviews and to promote the long-term development of evidence based medicine.
ObjectivesTo conduct an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) on Tuina from 2013 to 2017, and to explore recent research improvements on Tuina.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, SpringerLink e-book database, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM databases were searched to collect SRs including randomized controlled clinical trials on Tuina from January 1st, 2013 to December 31st, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and used AMSTAR 2 tool and PRISMA statement to assess methodology quality and reporting quality of included studies, respectively. The R 3.4.3 software was used to analyze data.ResultsA total of 8 SRs studies were included in the overview. The studied diseases involved radiculopathy cervical spondylotic, myelopathy cervical spondylotic, constipation, child anorexia, child diarrhea and external humeral epicondylitis. The results of above SRs showed that massage might be superior to other interventions in clinical efficacy, curative effects or total effective rate. However, due to the low quality of included studies of SRs, further evidence from high-quality clinical studies is required to verify above conclusions. For the results of AMSTAR 2 assessment, all 8 SRs were rated as very low quality. The quantity of items accomplished for each SR ranged from 7 to 13, 2 SRs had low methodological quality (percentage of accomplishment or partial accomplishment <50.0%) and 6 SRs with high methodological quality (percentage of accomplishment or partial accomplishment ≥50.0%). All 8 SRs did not report item 2 "Whether to declare research methods", item 10 "Whether reports have included funding sources for each study" and item 11 "Whether reports used the correct statistical method". The results of PRISMA assessment showed that all SR had good quality of reporting. The accomplished items number of each SR ranged from 22 to 26. However, there were defects in item 5(0), item 16(25.0%) and item 23(25.0%). All SRs did not report item 5 "Whether to declare research program".ConclusionsThis study finds that Tuina has supportive evidence-based medical evidence for treating anorexia, cervical spondylosis and other diseases, however, the SRs of Tuina are yet needed to be improved in terms of standardized degree. Therefore, establishing a reporting consolidated standard for evidence-based medicine on Tuina in order to improve the quality of clinical studies so as to provide clinicians with high-quality evidence is the focus of our further research.
ObjectiveTo investigate the status of research and development methods of Cochrane overviews. MethodsThe Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched up to March 2014 to identify Cochrane overviews. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed and analyzed search strategy, quality assessment method, data analysis, and study results. ResultsA total of 18 Cochrane overviews were included. Among them, 4 (22.2%) overviews included formal statistical indirect comparison; 8 (44.4%) included only results from direct comparison; 6 (33.4%) only systematically analyzed current studies without data pooling; 12 (66.7%) only searched The Cochrane Library, while 6 (33.3%) expanded search to other databases; 14 (77.8%) applied the AMSTAR tool to assess methodological quality of included literature; 12 (66.7%) applied the GRADE system to assess the quality of evidence; and 9 (50%) yielded new outcomes. ConclusionCurrently, the development and reporting standards of Cochrane overviews are still immature. Investigators should choose proper methods based on research objectives when developing Cochrane overviews.
ObjectiveTo investigate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analyses conducted by hospital pharmacists in China, so as to improve the quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analyses in this field. MethodsThe literatures were retrieved from CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, CBM, CMCI, PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library from the establishment date to March 17th, 2016. According to the inclusive and exclusive criteria, authors independently screened and extracted the published information. Reporting and methodological quality of included reviews were evaluated by PRIMSA statements and AMSTAR checklists. Data analysis was conducted by using Excel 2013 software and SPSS 20.0 software. ResultsOne thousand and eighteen systematic reviews/ meta-analyses were included, including 871 Chinese literatures and 147 English literatures. The average score of PRIMSA was 18.41±2.84, and the average score of AMSTAR was 7.38±1.28. The main problems of PRIMSA were structured summary, objectives, protocol and registration, additional analyses and funding. The main problems of AMSTAR were priori design, status of publication and list of studies (included and excluded). Univariate analysis showed that some factors could improve the quality of methodology and reporting, including studies in English (P<0.000 1), published after checklists' (P<0.000 1), hospital in higher-level (P<0.000 1), illuminating the funding or interest conflict (P<0.000 1). Pearson analysis indicated that linear correlation were detected between PRISMA scores and AMSTAR scores (P<0.000 1), as well as citations and AMSTAR scores (P=0.045). ConclusionEvidenced-based pharmacy in hospital has developed rapidly, the quality of methodology and reporting have increaseed year by year, but further improvement should be considered in different aspects. The methods to evaluate the clinical application of these systematic reviews/ meta-analyses should be developed in the future.
Objective To evaluate the relevant systematic reviews/meta-analyses that focused on the prevention and treatment of complications after impacted tooth extraction. Methods The systematic reviews/meta-analyses on the prevention and treatment of complications after impacted tooth extraction were searched in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data from inception to September 30th, 2012, and a total of 15 professional journals and the references of included studies were also retrieved manually. Two reviewers screened the literature according to the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. Then the AMSTAR was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and the GRADE system was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Results A total of twelve relevant systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included, of which five focused on the prevention and treatment of dry socket, six on the prevention of swelling, seven on the prevention and treatment of pain, six on the prevention of limitation of mouth opening, two on the prevention of infection, three on the prevention of bleeding, and one on the treatment of nerve damage after tooth extraction. Based on AMSTAR, seven studies were minor limitations and five studies were moderate limitations. Based on GRADE system, two was high quality of evidence, twelve were moderate, nine were low, and seven were very low. Conclusion Currently, the systematic reviews/meta-analyses on the prevention and treatment of complications after impacted tooth extraction can provide some references for clinical practice, which should be combined with the real condition by clinical doctors when making an evidence-based decision. However, it also suggests performing more high quality and large sample studies to prove this conclusion.