Adequate and complete reporting of Cochrane risk of bias tool

Comparative efficacy of intratympanic gentamicin and intratympanic corticosteroid in the treatment of Meniere's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of gentamicin compared to corticosteroids for the treatment of Meniere's disease.

Methods

An extensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science until May 2024. For continuous outcomes, pooled effect estimates were determined by calculating the weighted mean difference (WMD), while for binary outcomes, the risk ratio (RR) was used, each accompanied by their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity among the studies was assessed using Cochran's I 2 and Q statistics.

Results

A total of 12 studies were selected, involving 694 patients. Our analysis found that the gentamicin group demonstrates superior vertigo control rates compared to the corticosteroid group (RR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.65, p < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, the gentamicin group showed a higher vertigo control rates at 6 months compared to the corticosteroid group (RR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.28 to 2.24, p < 0.001); however, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups at 12 months (RR: 1.48, 95% CI: 0.88 to 2.49, p = 0.14). Regarding changes in pure tone average, the corticosteroid group was superior to the gentamicin group (WMD: 4.41, 95% CI: 3.31 to 5.52, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Our study suggests that the intratympanic gentamicin group achieves higher vertigo control rates, whereas the corticosteroid group demonstrates better improvement in pure tone averages. However, the high heterogeneity in vertigo control rates warrants caution. Larger sample-sized randomized controlled trials are needed to further validate these findings.

Aflibercept versus ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of aflibercept (AFL) versus ranibizumab (RAN) for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME).

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI databases were searched up to September 2022 to identify prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AFL with RAN for the treatment of DME. Review Manager 5.3 software was used for data analysis. We used the GRADE system to evaluate the quality of the evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 8 RCTs involving 1067 eyes (939 patients) were included; there were 526 eyes in the AFL group and 541 eyes in the RAN group. Meta-analysis revealed that there was no significant difference between RAN and AFL in the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of DME patients at 6 months (WMD: -0.05, 95% CI  =  -0.12 to 0.01, moderate quality) and 12 months after injection (WMD: -0.02, 95% CI  =  -0.07 to 0.03, moderate quality). Additionally, there was no significant difference between RAN and AFL in the reduction of central macular thickness (CMT) at 6 months (WMD: -0.36, 95% CI  =  -24.99 to 24.26, very low quality) and 12 months after injection (WMD: -6.36, 95% CI  =  -16.30 to 3.59, low quality). Meta-analysis showed that the number of intravitreal injections (IVIs) for AFL was significantly lower than that for RAN (WMD: -0.47, 95% CI  =  -0.88 to -0.05, very low quality). There were fewer adverse reactions to AFL than to RAN, but the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSION

This study found that there was no difference in BCVA, CMT or adverse reactions between AFL and RAN at 6 and 12 months of follow-up, but AFL needed fewer IVIs than RAN.

Author instructions in biomedical journals infrequently address systematic review reporting and methodology: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to analyze how instructions for authors in journals indexed in MEDLINE address systematic review (SR) reporting and methodology.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We analyzed instructions for authors in 20% of MEDLINE-indexed journals listed in the online catalog of the National Library of Medicine on July 27, 2021. We extracted data only from the instructions published in English. We extracted data on the existence of instructions for reporting and methodology of SRs.

RESULTS

Instructions from 1,237 journals mentioned SRs in 45% (n = 560) of the cases. Systematic review (SR) registration was mentioned in 104/1,237 (8%) of instructions. Guidelines for reporting SR protocols were found in 155/1,237 (13%) of instructions. Guidelines for reporting SRs were explicitly mentioned in 461/1,237 (37%), whereas the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) network was referred to in 474/1,237 (38%) of instructions. Less than 2% (n = 20) of instructions mentioned risk of bias and meta-analyses; less than 1% mentioned certainty of evidence assessment, methodological expectations, updating of SRs, overviews of SRs, or scoping reviews.

CONCLUSION

Journals indexed in MEDLINE rarely provide instructions for authors regarding SR reporting and methodology. Such instructions could potentially raise authors' awareness and improve how SRs are prepared and reported.

Cochrane risk of bias tool was used inadequately in the majority of non-Cochrane systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

To analyze how many non-Cochrane systematic reviews (NCSRs) used Cochrane's risk of bias (RoB) tool, domains they used, and whether judgments and comments about RoB were in line with Cochrane Handbook.

METHODS

This was a methodological (research-on-research) study. We retrieved NCSRs from PubMed, extracted information about methods used for RoB assessment, and if they used 2011 Cochrane RoB tool, we analyzed their RoB methods and compared them with Cochrane Handbook guidance.

RESULTS

We included 508 NCSRs; 431 (85%) reported they analyzed RoB, and 269 (53%) used Cochrane RoB tool. Only 16 of those 269 (5.9%) reported both a judgment and a supporting comment in the Cochrane RoB table in the manuscript (N = 4) or in a supplementary file (N = 12). Fifteen reviews, with 158 included trials, used judgments low/high/unclear; 41% of analyzed available judgments were inadequate, either because judgment was not in line with comment or comment was missing.

CONCLUSIONS

Most NCSRs use Cochrane RoB tool to assess RoB, but most of them reported it incompletely, with high prevalence of inadequate judgments. Authors, editors, and peer-reviewers should make an effort to improve completeness and adequacy of Cochrane RoB assessment in non-Cochrane reviews.