Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: a scoping review

Branched-Chain Amino Acids Supplementation and Post-Exercise Recovery: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Objective: This overview of systematic reviews (OoSRs) aimed, firstly, to systematically review, summarize, and appraise the findings of published systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses that investigate the effects of branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) on post-exercise recovery of muscle damage biomarkers, muscle soreness, and muscle performance. The secondary objective was to re-analyze and standardize the results of meta-analyses using the random-effects Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) method.Methods: The methodological quality of the reviews was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2.We searched on five databases (i.e., PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, ProQuest) for systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses that investigated the effects of BCAA supplementation on the post-exercise recovery of muscle damage biomarkers, muscle soreness, and muscle performance.Results: Eleven systematic reviews (seven with meta-analyses) of individual studies were included. Evidence suggests BCAA ingestion attenuates creatine kinase (CK) levels (medium effects) and muscle soreness (small effects) immediately post-exercise and accelerates their recovery process, with trivial-to-large effects for CK levels and small-to-large effects for muscle soreness. BCAA supplementation has no effect on lactate dehydrogenase, myoglobin, and muscle performance recovery. The re-analyses with HKSJ method using the original data reported a slight change in results significance, concluding the same evidence as the original results. The major flaws found in the analyzed reviews were the absence of justification for excluding studies, and the lack of provision of sources of funding for primary studies and sources of conflict of interest and/or funding description.Conclusions: BCAA supplementation is an effective method to reduce post-exercise muscle damage biomarkers, particularly CK levels, and muscle soreness, with no effect on muscle performance. Future systematic reviews with/without meta-analyses, with greater methodological rigor, are needed.

Quality of evidence supporting the role of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for diabetic foot ulcers

The goal of this overview of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) was to methodically gather, evaluate and summarize the data supporting the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) to treat diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). The Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were all searched thoroughly to identify SRs/MAs that qualified. AMSTAR-2 tool, PRISMA checklists and GRADE system were applied by two reviewers independently to assess the methodological quality, reporting and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs, respectively. Eleven SRs/MAs were enrolled in this overview. According to AMSTAR-2, a very low methodological quality assessment was given to the included SRs/MAs due to the limitations of items 2, 4 and 7. For the PRISMA, the overall quality of reporting is not satisfactory due to missing reporting on protocol, search, as well as additional analysis. The majority of outcomes had low- to moderate-quality evidence, and no high-quality evidence was found to support the role of HBOT for DFUs, according to GRADE. To conclude, the potential of HBOT in treating DFUs is supported by evidence of low to moderate quality. More rigorously designed, high-level studies are needed in the future to determine the evidence for HBOT for DFU, including the timing, frequency and duration of HBOT interventions.

Screening for hypertension in adults: protocol for evidence reviews to inform a Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline update

PURPOSE

To inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening in a primary care setting for hypertension in adults aged 18 years and older. This protocol outlines the scope and methods for a series of systematic reviews and one overview of reviews.

METHODS

To evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension, the Task Force will rely on the relevant key questions from the 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force systematic review. In addition, a series of reviews will be conducted to identify, appraise, and synthesize the evidence on (1) the association of blood pressure measurement methods and future cardiovascular (CVD)-related outcomes, (2) thresholds for discussions of treatment initiation, and (3) patient acceptability of hypertension screening methods. For the review of blood pressure measurement methods and future CVD-related outcomes, we will perform a de novo review and search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and APA PsycInfo for randomized controlled trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, nested case-control studies, and within-arm analyses of intervention studies. For the thresholds for discussions of treatment initiation review, we will perform an overview of reviews and update results from a relevant 2019 UK NICE review. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews. For the acceptability review, we will perform a de novo systematic review and search MEDLINE, Embase, and APA PsycInfo for randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and observational studies with comparison groups. Websites of relevant organizations, gray literature sources, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews will be hand-searched. Title and abstract screening will be completed by two independent reviewers. Full-text screening, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) will be completed independently by two reviewers. Results from included studies will be synthesized narratively and pooled via meta-analysis when appropriate. The GRADE approach will be used to assess the certainty of evidence for outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The results of the evidence reviews will be used to inform Canadian recommendations on screening for hypertension in adults aged 18 years and older.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This protocol is registered on PROSPERO and is available on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/8w4tz).

Overview of Meta-Analyses on Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

We conducted an overview of reviews to determine the effects of naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions (NDBIs; Schreibman et al. (2015) J Autism Dev Disorders 45:2411-2428) on children with autism spectrum disorder under 8 years old. We conducted an electronic database search of Academic Search Premier, CINHAL, ERIC, Medline, and APA PsycINFO in October 2022 and August 2023 and utilized snowball methods to locate relevant reviews of NDBI. We included reviews meeting the following inclusion criteria: (1) review included a meta-analytic synthesis for at least one child outcome; (2) primary studies examined a NDBI; (3) primary studies included children with ASD with a mean pre-treatment age under eight years; (4) primary studies were conducted using a two-group comparison design; and (5) review was published in English. We extracted data on characteristics of the review, participant characteristics from the primary studies, intervention characteristics, and assessed the risk of bias of the included reviews. We conducted a narrative synthesis across outcomes reported in the included reviews. We included five reviews from six reports in this overview. Two reviews included studies that examined the Early Start Denver Model, two reviews included studies that examined the Pivotal Response Treatment, and one review included studies examining NDBIs collectively. We found positive effects of NDBIs on child's communication/language, cognition, and adaptive behavior. We found mixed effects for NDBIs on autism symptomatology and restricted and repetitive behaviors. Examination of moderator analyses reported in the included reviews suggested variables influencing the effects of NDBIs included proximity of outcome to intervention, boundedness of outcome to intervention, and study location. As shown in this overview, positive effects of NDBI for young children with ASD are supported by meta-analytic evidence. While the overall findings for NDBI across reviews are positive, the findings on specific outcomes and influential variables moderating the effects of NDBI are inconsistent. Additional evidence from randomized controlled trials and future meta-analyses are needed to strengthen our knowledge of the effects of NDBI for young children with ASD.Protocol Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022353045.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Protocol for a systematic review of reviews on training primary care providers in dermoscopy to detect skin cancers

INTRODUCTION

Globally, incidence, prevalence and mortality rates of skin cancers are escalating. Earlier detection by well-trained primary care providers in techniques such as dermoscopy could reduce unnecessary referrals and improve longer term outcomes. A review of reviews is planned to compare and contrast the conduct, quality, findings and conclusions of multiple systematic and scoping reviews addressing the effectiveness of training primary care providers in dermoscopy, which will provide a critique and synthesis of the current body of review evidence.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Four databases (Cochrane, CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE Complete) will be comprehensively searched from database inception to identify published, peer-reviewed English-language articles describing scoping and systematic reviews of the effectiveness of training primary care providers in the use of dermoscopy to detect skin cancers. Two researchers will independently conduct the searches and screen the results for potentially eligible studies using 'Research Screener' (a semi-automated machine learning tool). Backwards and forwards citation tracing will be conducted to supplement the search. A narrative summary of included reviews will be conducted. Study characteristics, for example, population; type of educational programme, including content, delivery method, duration and assessment; and outcomes for dermoscopy will be extracted into a standardised table. Data extraction will be checked by the second reviewer. Methodological quality will be evaluated by two reviewers independently using the Critical Appraisal Tool for Health Promotion and Prevention Reviews. Results of the assessments will be considered by the two reviewers and any discrepancies will be resolved by team consensus.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required to conduct the planned systematic review of peer-reviewed, published articles because the research does not involve human participants. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at leading public health, cancer and primary care conferences, and disseminated via website postings and social media channels.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023396276.

How Do Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Value the Importance of Outcomes? An Overview of Reviews

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess how patients value the importance of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) related outcomes.

METHODS

Overview of systematic reviews (SRs) reporting patients' utilities or disutilities for T2DM outcomes. We searched 3 databases from inception until June 2021. Study selection and data extraction were conducted in pairs. We evaluated the quality of SRs with the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist, and the overlap with the corrected covered area. We estimated descriptive statistics, and, when possible, conducted metanalysis.

RESULTS

We identified 11 SRs, including 119 studies and 70 outcomes. Most reviews were high-quality SRs. The outcomes with the lowest utilities were hypoglycemia with very severe symptoms (acute complications), stroke (macrovascular complications), diabetic peripheral neuropathy with severe pain (microvascular complications), extreme obesity (comorbidities), and insulin only or combined (management of diabetes). Good/excellent glucose control and noninsulin injectable showed higher values than T2DM without complications. The outcomes with the highest disutilities were amputation, depression, major hypoglycemia, stroke, and management using only insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide standardized, reliable utility values (or associated disutilities) for T2DM, acute, microvascular and macrovascular complications, related comorbidities and treatments that may support judgments when making clinical recommendations, designing decision support tools, and developing interventions and economic analysis.

Fecal microbiota transplantation as a therapy for treating ulcerative colitis: an overview of systematic reviews

AIM

The current overview on published systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analysis (MAs) aimed to systematically gather, evaluate, and synthesize solid evidence for using fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) to treat ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

Relevant articles published before January 2023 were collected from Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library. Two authors used Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool, PRISMA checklists, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system were applied by two authors to independently evaluate the methodological quality, reporting quality, and evidence quality, respectively. Re-meta-analysis on the primary RCTs was conducted after excluding overlapping randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

Six SRs/MAs involving 12 primary RCTs and 544 participants were included. According to the AMSTAR-2 tool and PRISMA checklist, methodological quality and reporting quality of the included studies was overall satisfactory. The evidence quality of a great majority of outcomes was rated as moderate to high according to the GRADE system. Compared to placebo, the re-meta-analysis found a great advantage of use FMT in inducing combined clinical and endoscopic remission (OR 3.83 [2.31, 6.34]), clinical remission (3.31 [2.09, 5.25]), endoscopic remission (OR 3.75 [2.20, 6.39]), clinical response (OR 2.56 [1.64, 4.00]), and endoscopic response (OR 2.18 [1.12, 4.26]). Pooled data showed no significant difference in serious adverse events between patients receiving FMT and those receiving placebo (OR 1.53 [0.74, 3.19]). Evidence quality of the outcomes derived from re-meta-analysis was significantly higher after overcoming the limitations of previous SRs/MAs.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, moderate- to high-quality evidence supported a promising use of FMT to safely induce remission in UC. However, further trials with larger sample size are still required to comprehensively analyze the delivery route, total dosage, frequency, and donor selection in FMT.

A Scoping Review of eProfessionalism in Healthcare Education Literature

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to answer the research question, 'How does eProfessionalism manifest in health profession student behaviors?' Key areas explored were how the concept of eProfessionalism is defined in empirical studies, healthcare profession student and educator perceptions of how online behaviors reflected eProfessionalism, and how eProfessionalism as a construct might assist healthcare students to understand the implications of their online behaviors.

METHODS

Scoping reviews are used in research areas where there is limited evidence available. This review followed a systematic process using the extended Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, which included clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, and a process of charting, collating, and summarizing the results from searching 8 databases.

RESULTS

In total, 38 papers are included in this review primarily reflecting the professions of pharmacy medicine, nursing/midwifery, and dentistry. Five key themes were identified: defining eProfessionalism; online behavior; student/faculty perceptions of eProfessionalism in social media use; students not making a connection between personal use and online professional identity; and guidelines and training.

CONCLUSION

This review suggests that health professions students struggle with blurred boundaries between personal and professional online presence, particularly concerning social media. Despite guidelines some students demonstrate unprofessional behaviors online suggesting further support is required for students to demonstrate eProfessionalism when engaging in digital environments.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Diagnostic accuracy of 18F Prostate Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA) PET-CT radiotracers in staging and restaging of high-risk prostate cancer patients and patients with biochemical recurrence: protocol for an overview of reviews

Background: Correct staging and risk stratification is essential in ensuring prostate cancer patients are offered the most appropriate treatment. Interest has been growing in the use of radiotracers targeting prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA), including the use of 18F-PSMA PET-CT, as part of the primary staging or restaging of prostate cancer. Preliminary scoping identified a number of relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses; however, individually, these each appear to look at only part of the picture. An overview of reviews aims to systematically identify, appraise and synthesise multiple systematic reviews, related to a relevant research question or questions. We present a protocol for an overview of reviews, which aims to collate existing evidence syntheses exploring the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-PSMA in staging and restaging of prostate cancer. It also aims to highlight evidence gaps in prostate cancer staging or restaging. Methods: This protocol is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for systematic review protocols (PRISMA-P). The search strategy will be designed in consultation with a librarian. Searches will be performed in Medline (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), Google Scholar and the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, supplemented by a targeted grey literature search, forward citation searching and searching reference lists of included reviews. No language or date restrictions will be applied to the eligibility criteria or the search strategy. Title & abstract and full text screening will be performed independently by two reviewers. Data will be extracted by one reviewer and checked in full by a second reviewer. Quality appraisal will be performed using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool independently by two reviewers, and results will be narratively synthesised. Conclusions: This overview of reviews may be of interest to healthcare professionals, academics and health policy decision-makers. Registration: OSF (September 7, 2023).

Rehabilitation Interventions for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVES

An increasing number of systematic reviews have been conducted on various conservative management of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) targeting different rehabilitation interventions and objectives. The intent of this article was to summarize and critically appraise the body of evidence on conservative management of the CRPS and to provide an overall picture of the current state of the literature.

METHODS

This study was an overview of systematic reviews on conservative treatments for CRPS. We conducted a literature search from inception to January 2023 in the following databases: Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Two independent reviewers conducted study screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment (using AMSTAR-2). Qualitative synthesis was the preferred method for reporting the findings of our review. We calculated the corrected covered area index to account for the proportion of overlapping primary studies that were included in multiple reviews.

RESULT

We identified 214 articles, and a total of 9 systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. Pain and disability were the most common outcomes evaluated in the reviews. There were 6 (6/9; 66%) high-quality, 2 (2/9; 22%) moderate-quality, and 1 critically low-quality systematic review (1/9;11%), with the quality of the included trials ranging from very low to high. There was a large overlap across primary studies that were included in the systematic reviews (corrected covered area=23%). The findings of high-quality reviews support the effectiveness of mirror therapy (MT) and graded motor imagery (GMI) programs on pain and disability improvement in CRPS patients. The large effect size was reported for the effectiveness of MT on pain and disability (SMD:1.88 (95% CI: 0.73-3.02) and 1.30 (95% CI: 0.11-2.49), respectively) and the effectiveness of GMI program (GMIP) on pain and disability improvement (SMD: 1.36 (95% CI: 0.75-1.96) and 1.64 (95% CI: 0.53-2.74), respectively).

DISCUSSION

The evidence is in favor of adopting movement representation techniques, such as MT and GMI programs, for the treatment of pain and disability in patients with CRPS. However, this is based on a small body of primary evidence, and more research is required to generate conclusions. Overall, the evidence is not comprehensive or of sufficient quality to make definitive recommendations about the effectiveness of other rehabilitation interventions in improving pain and disability.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Umbrella review of time-restricted eating on weight loss, fasting blood glucose, and lipid profile

CONTEXT

A growing number of systematic reviews with meta-analyses have examined the effectiveness of time-restricted eating (TRE) in reducing weight and improving fasting blood glucose and lipid profiles. However, mixed results have been found, and its effectiveness remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

This umbrella review aimed to summarize systematic reviews that (1) examine the effects of TRE on weight loss, fasting blood glucose, total cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in individuals with overweight and obesity; and (2) compare the effect sizes on these outcomes between conventional TRE and Ramadan fasting.

DATA SOURCES

A total of 11 databases were searched from inception until March 11, 2022.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers performed article selection, data extraction, and quality assessment.

DATA ANALYSIS

Seven systematic reviews with 30 unique meta-analyses involving 7231 participants from 184 primary studies were included. The quality of each review was evaluated as moderate (14.3%) or critically low (85.7%) according to the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2. The degree of overlap was rated as slight for all outcomes (corrected cover area = 1.04%-4.27%). Meta-analyses at the meta-data level suggest that TRE is beneficial for reducing weight (P = .006) and fasting blood glucose (P < .01). Meta-analyses at the primary study level suggest that the effect on LGL-C was significant (P = .03). Subgroup analyses revealed greater effects in lowering fasting blood glucose, total cholesterol, and LDL-C from Ramadan fasting than from conventional TRE. The credibility of evidence was rated as suggestive (3.3%), weak (36.7%) or nonsignificant (60%) using a classification method.

CONCLUSION

TRE may complement usual care and reduce body weight and fasting blood glucose. Rigorous randomized controlled trials with long-term assessments in a wide range of populations are warranted.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration no. CRD42022325657.

Genetics and athletic performance: a systematic SWOT analysis of non-systematic reviews

Exercise genetics/genomics is a growing research discipline comprising several Strengths and Opportunities but also deals with Weaknesses and Threats. This "systematic SWOT overview of non-systematic reviews" (sSWOT) aimed to identify the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats linked to exercise genetics/genomics. A systematic search was conducted in the Medline and Embase databases for non-systematic reviews to provide a comprehensive overview of the current literature/research area. The extracted data was thematically analyzed, coded, and categorized into SWOT clusters. In the 45 included reviews five Strengths, nine Weaknesses, six Opportunities, and three Threats were identified. The cluster of Strengths included "advances in technology", "empirical evidence", "growing research discipline", the "establishment of consortia", and the "acceptance/accessibility of genetic testing". The Weaknesses were linked to a "low research quality", the "complexity of exercise-related traits", "low generalizability", "high costs", "genotype scores", "reporting bias", "invasive methods", "research progress", and "causality". The Opportunities comprised of "precision exercise", "omics", "multicenter studies", as well as "genetic testing" as "commercial"-, "screening"-, and "anti-doping" detection tool. The Threats were related to "ethical issues", "direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies", and "gene doping". This overview of the present state of the art research in sport genetics/genomics indicates a field with great potential, while also drawing attention to the necessity for additional advancement in methodological and ethical guidance to mitigate the recognized Weaknesses and Threats. The recognized Strengths and Opportunities substantiate the capability of genetics/genomics to make significant contributions to the performance and wellbeing of athletes.

Patients' and informal caregivers' perspectives on self-management interventions for type 2 diabetes mellitus outcomes: a mixed-methods overview of 14 years of reviews

BACKGROUND

Self-management interventions (SMIs) are core components of high-quality care in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to identify and summarise the scientific evidence exploring the perspectives of patients with T2DM and their informal caregivers on outcomes of SMIs, and the key themes to enhance T2DM patient-centred care.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods overview of reviews. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO, up to June 2021 for systematic reviews (SRs) exploring the perspectives of adults with T2DM and their informal caregivers, regarding self-management. Two reviewers conducted independently study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. We estimated the degree of overlap across SRs. We performed a qualitative analysis using a thematic synthesis approach.

RESULTS

We identified 54 SRs, corresponding to 939 studies, with a slight overlap. Most SRs (47/54, 87%) were considered high quality. We developed summaries for 22 outcomes and identified six overarching themes: (1) diabetic identity; (2) accessing healthcare; (3) experience of care; (4) engagement with self-management; (5) outcomes awareness; and (6) challenges adhering to self-management. We found important variability in how patients with T2DM and their informal caregivers value critical outcomes influenced by the disease progression and several contextual factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings represent what matters most to patients with T2DM and their informal caregivers regarding outcomes of SMIs. Our results can facilitate the development and evaluation of SMIs, and guide decision-making in diabetes care, including the formulation of decisions and recommendations.

Comparison of Reporting and Transparency in Published Protocols and Publications in Umbrella Reviews: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Inconsistencies between a protocol and its umbrella review (UR) may mislead readers about the importance of findings or lead to false-positive results. Furthermore, not documenting and explaining inconsistencies in the UR could reduce its transparency. To our knowledge, no study has examined the methodological consistency of the protocols with their URs and assessed the transparency of the URs when generating evidence.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the inconsistency of protocols with their URs in the methodology and assess the transparency of the URs.

METHODS

We searched medical-related electronic databases from their inception to January 1, 2022. We investigated inconsistencies between protocols and their publications and transparencies in the search strategy, inclusion criteria, methods of screening and data extraction, quality assessment, and statistical analysis.

RESULTS

We included 31 protocols and 35 publications. For the search strategy, 39 inconsistencies between the protocols and their publications were found in 26 of the 35 (74%) URs, and 16 of these inconsistencies were indicated and explained. There were 84 inconsistencies between the protocols and their URs regarding the inclusion criteria in 31 of the 35 (89%) URs, and 29 of the inconsistencies were indicated and explained. Deviations from their protocols were found in 12 of the 32 (38%) URs reporting the methods of screening, 14 of the 30 (47%) URs reporting the methods of data extraction, and 11 of the 32 (34%) URs reporting the methods for quality assessment. Of the 35 URs, 6 (17%) were inconsistent with their protocols in terms of the tools for quality assessment; one-half (3/6, 50%) of them indicated and explained the deviations. As for the statistical analysis, 31 of the 35 (89%) URs generated 61 inconsistencies between the publications and their protocols, and 16 inconsistencies were indicated and explained.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high prevalence of inconsistencies between protocols and publications of URs, and more than one-half of the inconsistencies were not indicated and explained in the publications. Therefore, how to promote the transparency of URs will be a major part of future work.

Prenatal exposure to ambient air pollutants and congenital heart defects: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Prenatal exposure to ambient air pollutants has been linked to congenital heart defects (CHD), but findings of existing systematic reviews have been mixed.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the epidemiological evidence on associations between prenatal exposure to ambient air pollutants and CHD subtypes, based on a systematic overview of reviews ("umbrella review").

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for reviews assessing associations between prenatal exposure to criteria air pollutants and CHD. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool. The certainty of the systematic review findings was graded using the Navigation Guide methodology.

RESULTS

We identified eleven systematic reviews, including eight with meta-analyses, assessing in total 35 primary studies of prenatal exposure to criteria air pollutants and various CHD subtypes. The certainty of the findings of four meta-analyses indicating an increased risk for coarctation of the aorta associated with nitrogen dioxide exposure was rated as moderate. The certainty of findings indicating positive, inverse, or null associations for other pollutant-subtype combinations was rated as very low to low, based on low precision and high statistical heterogeneity of summary odds ratios (SOR), substantial inconsistencies between review findings, and methodological limitations of the systematic reviews.

DISCUSSION

The inconsistent findings and high statistical heterogeneity of many SOR of the included systematic reviews may partly be traced to differences in methodological approaches, and the risk of bias across included reviews (e.g., inclusion criteria, systematic search strategies, synthesis methods) and primary studies (e.g., exposure assessment, diagnostic criteria). Adherence to appropriate systematic review guidelines for environmental health research, as well as rigorous evaluation of risk of bias in primary studies, are essential for future risk assessments and policy-making. Still, our findings suggest that prenatal exposure to ambient air pollutants may increase risks for at least some CHD subtypes.

Mapping and systematic appraisal of umbrella reviews in epidemiological research: a protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

INTRODUCTION

Umbrella review is one of the terms used to describe an overview of systematic reviews. During the last years, a rapid increase in the number of umbrella reviews on epidemiological studies has been observed, but there is no systematic assessment of their methodological and reporting characteristics. Our study aims to fill this gap by performing a systematic mapping of umbrella reviews in epidemiological research.

METHODS

We will perform a meta-epidemiological study including a systematic review in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify all the umbrella reviews that focused on systematic reviews of epidemiological studies and were published from inception until December 31, 2022. We will consider eligible any research article which was designed as an umbrella review and summarized systematic reviews and meta-analyses of epidemiological studies. From each eligible article, we will extract information about the research topic, the methodological characteristics, and the reporting characteristics. We will examine whether the umbrella reviews assessed the strength of the available evidence and the rigor of the included systematic reviews. We will also examine whether these characteristics change across time.

DISCUSSION

Our study will systematically appraise the methodological and reporting characteristics of published umbrella reviews in epidemiological literature. The findings of our study can be used to improve the design and conduct of future umbrella reviews, to derive a standardized set of reporting and methodological guidelines for umbrella reviews, and to allow further meta-epidemiological work.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

osf.io/sxzc6.

Superfoods for Type 2 Diabetes: A Narrative Review and Proposal for New International Recommendations

Background and Objectives: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic metabolic disease affecting an estimated 537 million individuals worldwide. 'Superfoods' can be integrated into the diet of T2DM patients due to their health benefits. Study Objectives: (i) To carry out a narrative review of 'superfoods' with the potential to reduce glycaemic levels in T2DM patients (2019 to 2022), (ii) to identify 'superfoods' with the potential to reduce HbA1c and (iii) to propose new guidance on the use of 'superfoods'. Materials and Methods: A narrative review was carried out using the databases PubMed, SciELO, DOAJ and Google Scholar. The keywords were ["type 2 diabetes" and ("food" or "diet" or "nutrition") and ("glycaemia" or "glycemia")]. Only review studies were included. Results: Thirty reviews were selected. The 'superfoods' identified as having a potential impact on glycaemic control were foods with polyphenols (e.g., berries), fermented dairy products, whole cereals/grains, nuts and proteins, among others. The possibility of an extensive reduction in Hb1Ac was reported for fermented dairy products, especially yoghurts enriched with vitamin D or probiotics (HbA1c reduction of around 1%) or by increasing the fibre intake by 15 g (or up to 35 g) (HbA1c reduction of around 2%). Conclusion: It is recommended that the identified 'superfoods' are included in the diet of T2DM patients, although this should not substitute an appropriate diet and exercise plan. In particular, yoghurts and an increased fibre intake (by 15 g or up to 35 g) can be used as nutraceuticals. New recommendations on the introduction of 'superfoods' in the diet of T2DM patients have been proposed.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews

» Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.» A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.» Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

An Umbrella Review of the Best and Most Up-to-Date Evidence on the Built Environment and Physical Activity in Older Adults ≥60 Years

Objectives: To present the best and most up-to-date evidence on associations between built environment (BE) attributes and overall and specific domains of physical activity (PA) (i.e., leisure, transport, walking, and cycling) in older adults (≥60 years).

Methods: An umbrella review was undertaken to compile evidence from systematic reviews using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. A comprehensive search (updated 16 August 2022), inclusion/exclusion of articles via title/abstract and full-text reviews, data extraction, and critical appraisal were completed. Only reviews with a good critical appraisal score were included.

Results: Across three included systematic reviews, each BE attribute category was positively associated with ≥1 PA outcome. A larger number of significant associations with BE attributes were reported for transport walking (13/26), total walking (10/25), and total PA (9/26), compared to leisure walking (4/34) and transport cycling (3/12). Fewer associations have been examined for leisure cycling (1/2).

Conclusion: Although the causality of findings cannot be concluded due to most primary studies being cross-sectional, these best and most up-to-date findings can guide necessary future longitudinal and experimental studies for the (re)design of age-friendly communities.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Introduction to Umbrella Reviews as a Useful Evidence-Based Practice

The umbrella review (UR) is a novel methodological approach that has been established to address the ever-expanding research volume of published systematic reviews. In this study, we examined the rationale underlying URs, the concepts and goals of URs, and their applicability in clinical settings. Additionally, we briefly assessed the process of conducting URs and discussed the current challenges in this regard. URs are used to integrate, evaluate, and synthesize the findings of related systematic reviews. By organizing and summarizing the abundant information in accordance with the level of evidence, URs can serve as a useful methodological tool and provide appropriate entry points to clinicians or decision-makers in the medical field. Considering the availability of many suitable interventions for specific conditions in a broad field, URs can enable evidence-based decision-making and offer a broad perspective for the resolution of issues in healthcare by summarizing the evidence and providing directions on a variety of topics. URs are clearly contributing to the management of the deluge of evidence in evidence-based medicine. However, despite the availability of several directions for conducting URs, some points of confusion persist, especially when determining the certainty of evidence. Therefore, advanced guidelines for the appropriate performance of URs are required to provide more reliable evidence through URs.

Overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews for Rehabilitation Interventions in Persons With Spinal Cord Injury: A Mapping Synthesis

OBJECTIVE

This article aims to describe the evidence on rehabilitation interventions for persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) identified in Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) selected for inclusion in the World Health Organization Rehabilitation Programme-Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation.

DATA SOURCES

The CSRs search was led by the Cochrane Rehabilitation team, using the tagging process, using the terms "spinal cord injury" and "rehabilitation" in the Cochrane Library.

STUDY SELECTION

We performed an overview of all the CSRs according to the inclusion criteria defined with the World Health Organization: rehabilitation interventions in persons with SCI.

DATA EXTRACTION

The CSRs identified after the screening process were summarized using an evidence map, grouping outcomes, and comparisons of included CSRs indicating the effect and the quality of evidence to provide a comprehensive view of what is known.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Out of 248 CSRs from the past 10 years tagged in the Cochrane Rehabilitation database, 3 were related to SCI. They provide data on 13 outcomes analyzed within 11 comparisons for a total of 64 primary studies, including 2024 participants with SCI. Of these, 7 outcomes and 1 comparison focused on people with cervical SCI. Rehabilitation interventions might improve respiratory outcomes and pain relief in people with SCI. There is uncertainty whether bodyweight-supported treadmill training, robotic-assisted training, and functional electrostimulation affect walking speed and capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence needs to be confirmed by better quality research. Therefore, future priorities are the improvement of methodological quality of the studies in people with SCI, particularly considering the complexity of this health condition. Further, there is a need for more CSRs in the field.

Reliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in foot ulcer prevention in diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews

Background

Reliable evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to prevent diabetes-related foot ulceration is essential to inform clinical practice. Well-conducted systematic reviews that synthesise evidence from all relevant trials offer the most robust evidence for decision-making. We conducted an overview to assess the comprehensiveness and utility of the available secondary evidence as a reliable source of robust estimates of effect with the aim of informing a cost-effective care pathway using an economic model. Here we report the details of the overview. [PROSPERO Database (CRD42016052324)].

Methods

Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Epistomonikos, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), and the Health Technology Assessment Journals Library were searched to 17th May 2021, without restrictions, for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of preventive interventions in people with diabetes. The primary outcomes of interest were new primary or recurrent foot ulcers. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the included reviews.

Findings

The overview identified 30 systematic reviews of patient education, footwear and off-loading, complex and other interventions. Many are poorly reported and have fundamental methodological shortcomings associated with increased risk of bias. Most concerns relate to vague inclusion criteria (60%), weak search or selection strategies (70%) and quality appraisal methods (53%) and inexpert conduct and interpretation of quantitative and narrative evidence syntheses (57%). The 30 reviews have collectively assessed 26 largely poor-quality RCTs with substantial overlap.

Interpretation

The majority of these systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions to prevent diabetic foot ulceration are at high risk of bias and fail to provide reliable evidence for decision-making. Adherence to the core principles of conducting and reporting systematic reviews is needed to improve the reliability of the evidence generated to inform clinical practice.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01738-y.

Guidance on review type selection for health technology assessments: key factors and considerations for deciding when to conduct a de novo systematic review, an update of a systematic review, or an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

A systematic review (SR) helps us make sense of a body of research while minimizing bias and is routinely conducted to evaluate intervention effects in a health technology assessment (HTA). In addition to the traditional de novo SR, which combines the results of multiple primary studies, there are alternative review types that use systematic methods and leverage existing SRs, namely updates of SRs and overviews of SRs. This paper shares guidance that can be used to select the most appropriate review type to conduct when evaluating intervention effects in an HTA, with a goal to leverage existing SRs and reduce research waste where possible.

PROCESS

We identified key factors and considerations that can inform the process of deciding to conduct one review type over the others to answer a research question and organized them into guidance comprising a summary and a corresponding flowchart. This work consisted of three steps. First, a guidance document was drafted by methodologists from two Canadian HTA agencies based on their experience. Next, the draft guidance was supplemented with a literature review. Lastly, broader feedback from HTA researchers across Canada was sought and incorporated into the final guidance.

INSIGHTS

Nine key factors and six considerations were identified to help reviewers select the most appropriate review type to conduct. These fell into one of two categories: the evidentiary needs of the planned review (i.e., to understand the scope, objective, and analytic approach required for the review) and the state of the existing literature (i.e., to know the available literature in terms of its relevance, quality, comprehensiveness, currency, and findings). The accompanying flowchart, which can be used as a decision tool, demonstrates the interdependency between many of the key factors and considerations and aims to balance the potential benefits and challenges of leveraging existing SRs instead of primary study reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Selecting the most appropriate review type to conduct when evaluating intervention effects in an HTA requires a myriad of factors to be considered. We hope this guidance adds clarity to the many competing considerations when deciding which review type to conduct and facilitates that decision-making process.

Kanglaite (Coix Seed Extract) as Adjunctive Therapy in Cancer: Evidence Mapping Overview Based on Systematic Reviews With Meta-Analyses

Background: Several quantitative systematic reviews of Kanglaite (KLT), an herb preparation used to treat cancer and malignant pleural effusion, have been published in recent years. However, the clinical evidence reported in these studies has not been pursued further and the methodological quality of these meta-analyses remains unknown. Therefore, an overview was designed to map the evidence landscape based on the published meta-analyses on KLT in cancer treatment.

Methods: Two bibliographic databases (PubMed and Embase) were searched from inception to 25 November 2021. Two independent reviewers were involved in study selection, data abstraction, and methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR 2. The principal features of publications and the clinical outcomes of efficacy and safety were synthesized narratively, and results of methodological quality were reported as frequencies and percentages with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The evidence map was used to visualize the overall quality. Excel 2016 and Stata 17/SE were used for data analysis.

Results: Thirteen meta-analyses published in English were included for in-depth analysis. Among them, the year of publication ranged from 2008 to 2021, and the number of included patients ranged from 488 to 2,964. Regarding the cancer type, seven articles focused on non-small cell lung cancer, two on malignant pleural effusion, and four reviews on digestive system malignancies, such as hepatocellular carcinoma and pancreatic cancer. Almost all included meta-analyses reported that KLT as adjunctive therapy could improve various efficacy outcomes (such as disease response rates, quality of life, immune indicators) and reduce the rate of occurrence of adverse reactions, such as nausea and vomiting, leukopenia, and anemia. In terms of their methodological quality, three meta-analyses were of low quality, whereas 10 studies were critically low in quality. The methodological flaws main involved items 2 (“predesigned protocol and registration informatio’’), 3 (“rationale of study design for inclusion”), 4 (“comprehensive search strategy’’), 5 (“literature selection in duplicate’’), 7 (“list of excluded studies with reasons’’), 8 (“adequate information on included studies’’), 10 (“funding support for included primary studies’’), and 12 (“evaluation of the potential impact of risk of bias’’) based on the AMSTAR 2 tool.

Conclusion: Current evidence reveals that KLT is effective and safe as an adjunctive treatment for non-small cell lung cancer, malignant pleural effusion, and digestive system malignancies (such as hepatocellular carcinoma). However, the results assessed in this overview should be further verified using well-designed and clearly reported clinical trials and meta-analyses of KLT.

Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement

OBJECTIVE

To develop a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.

DESIGN

Development of the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement.

PARTICIPANTS

Core team (seven individuals) led day-to-day operations, and an expert advisory group (three individuals) provided methodological advice. A panel of 100 experts (authors, editors, readers including members of the public or patients) was invited to participate in a modified Delphi exercise. 11 expert panellists (chosen on the basis of expertise, and representing relevant stakeholder groups) were invited to take part in a virtual face-to-face meeting to reach agreement (≥70%) on final checklist items. 21 authors of recently published overviews were invited to pilot test the checklist.

SETTING

International consensus.

INTERVENTION

Four stage process established by the EQUATOR Network for developing reporting guidelines in health research: project launch (establish a core team and expert advisory group, register intent), evidence reviews (systematic review of published overviews to describe reporting quality, scoping review of methodological guidance and author reported challenges related to undertaking overviews of reviews), modified Delphi exercise (two online Delphi surveys to reach agreement (≥70%) on relevant reporting items followed by a virtual face-to-face meeting), and development of the reporting guideline.

RESULTS

From the evidence reviews, we drafted an initial list of 47 potentially relevant reporting items. An international group of 52 experts participated in the first Delphi survey (52% participation rate); agreement was reached for inclusion of 43 (91%) items. 44 experts (85% retention rate) completed the second Delphi survey, which included the four items lacking agreement from the first survey and five new items based on respondent comments. During the second round, agreement was not reached for the inclusion or exclusion of the nine remaining items. 19 individuals (6 core team and 3 expert advisory group members, and 10 expert panellists) attended the virtual face-to-face meeting. Among the nine items discussed, high agreement was reached for the inclusion of three and exclusion of six. Six authors participated in pilot testing, resulting in minor wording changes. The final checklist includes 27 main items (with 19 sub-items) across all stages of an overview of reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

PRIOR fills an important gap in reporting guidance for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. The checklist, along with rationale and example for each item, provides guidance for authors that will facilitate complete and transparent reporting. This will allow readers to assess the methods used in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions and understand the trustworthiness and applicability of their findings.

Adverse Events Associated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Overview of Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

Recognition and management of adverse events (AEs) associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) use by cancer patients requires expertise from multiple disciplines. Greater awareness of potential AEs may result in earlier recognition, appropriate management, and better patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this overview of systematic reviews was to synthesize and consolidate systematic review evidence describing the incidence proportion and severity of AEs associated with various ICI therapies across different cancers.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of four databases was conducted to identify systematic reviews that describe the incidence proportion and severity of AEs related to ICI therapy in cancer patients. A systematic review was eligible if it included adults with cancer; on ICI alone or in combination with another ICI, chemotherapy, or targeted therapy; severity (graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) and incidence proportion of AEs and whether it reported its eligibility criteria. AEs of interest were identified through an iterative ranking exercise by key stakeholders and knowledge users. Extraction of PICOTTS elements and quality indicators (AMSTAR-2) were used to manage overlap of primary studies across systematic reviews at the outcome level. Cancer subtypes were mapped to drug class and AE severity.

RESULTS

Overall, 129 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria for data mapping. Systematic reviews reported incidence proportions for more than 76 AEs, of which 34 were identified as AEs of interest. After overlap assessment, 65 systematic reviews were chosen for data extraction. The three AEs with the highest median incidence were fatigue (18.3%, interquartile range [IQR] 15.0-28.0%), diarrhea (15.3%, IQR 9.7-29.2%) and rash (14.4%, IQR 10.3-19.2%). The three AEs (high-grade) with the highest median incidence were diarrhea (1.5%, IQR 1.2-6.0%), colitis (1.3%, IQR 0.6-6.1%) and neutropenia (1.2%, IQR 0.4-3.3%). Incidence proportions of high-grade AEs were often considerably lower than all-grade AEs and combination therapy (ICI combinations or combinations of ICI with chemotherapy or targeted therapy) was responsible for some of the highest incidence proportions regardless of AE. Rare AEs and certain cancer subtypes were not well reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Early recognition of AEs associated with ICIs requires expertise from diverse specialists, not just oncologists. Greater awareness of potential AEs may result in earlier recognition, appropriate management, and better patient outcomes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42021231593.

Identifying priorities for research on financial risk protection to achieve universal health coverage: a scoping overview of reviews

OBJECTIVES

Financial risk protection (FRP) is an indicator of the Sustainable Development Goal 3 universal health coverage (UHC) target. We sought to characterise what is known about FRP in the UHC context and to identify evidence gaps to prioritise in future research.

DESIGN

Scoping overview of reviews using the Arksey & O'Malley and Levac & Colquhoun framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL-Plus and PAIS Index were systematically searched for studies published between 1 January 1995 and 20 July 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Records were screened by two independent reviewers in duplicate using the following criteria: (1) literature review; (2) focus on UHC achievement through FRP; (3) English or French language; (4) published after 1995 and (5) peer-reviewed.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers extracted data using a standard form and descriptive content analysis was performed to synthesise findings.

RESULTS

50 studies were included. Most studies were systematic reviews focusing on low-income and middle-income countries. Study periods spanned 1990 and 2020. While FRP was recognised as a dimension of UHC, it was rarely defined as a concept. Out-of-pocket, catastrophic and impoverishing health expenditures were most commonly used to measure FRP. Pooling arrangements, expansion of insurance coverage and financial incentives were the main interventions for achieving FRP. Evidence gaps pertained to the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and equity implications of efforts aimed at increasing FRP. Methodological gaps related to trade-offs between single-country and multicountry analyses; lack of process evaluations; inadequate mixed-methods evidence, disaggregated by relevant characteristics; lack of comparable and standardised measurement and short follow-up periods.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping overview of reviews characterised what is known about FRP as a UHC dimension and found evidence gaps related to the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and equity implications of FRP interventions. Theory-informed mixed-methods research using high-quality, longitudinal and disaggregated data is needed to address these objectives.

Impact of organized activities on mental health in children and adolescents: An umbrella review

•

This umbrella review included six systematic reviews of lower quality.

•

A small positive impact of organized sport activities on youth mental health was found.

•

Only two systematic reviews that studied organized non-sport activities could be included.

•

Mixed results were found for impact of organized non-sport activities on youth mental health.

•

Mediation or confounding through physical activity needs further study.

Mental health problems are a leading cause of health-related disability among children and adolescents. Organized activities are a possible preventive factor for mental health problems. An aggregated overview of evidence is relevant for youth policymakers and is lacking so far.

Thus we aim to provide an overview of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the impact of participation in organized sport and non-sport activities (e.g. arts, music) on childhood and adolescent mental health. Systematic reviews were identified through a search in five databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science core collection, CINAHL and PsycINFO) on 25-March-2021. Systematic reviews about organized activities and mental health outcomes in 0–21-year-olds published in English were included. Two independent reviewers assessed titles, abstracts and full texts, performed data-extraction and quality assessment using the AMSTAR-2 and assessed the quality of evidence. Out of 833 studies, six were considered eligible. Quality of the reviews ranged from critically low to moderate. Most reviews focused on organized sport activities, focusing on: team sport, level of sport involvement, extracurricular and community sport activities. Indications of a positive impact on mental health outcomes were found for participation in team sport, in (school) clubs, and in extracurricular and community sport and non-sport activities. We found a small positive impact of organized sport activities on mental health outcomes among children and adolescents. This seems not to depend on any specific type of organized sport activity. Limited evidence was found for organized non-sport activities.

Dose-response effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor monotherapy for the treatment of depression: systematic review of reviews and meta-narrative synthesis

Objective

To assess and clarify the relations between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) dose efficacy, acceptability (early treatment discontinuation (dropouts)), and tolerability (reported adverse drug effects), and critically evaluate methods previously used to examine SSRI dose-response effects for the treatment of depression in adults.

Design

Systematic review of reviews and meta-narrative synthesis.

Data sources

Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, and the Cochrane Collaboration library, from 1975 to December 2021. Reference lists of national depression treatment guidelines were systemically searched by hand.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Reviews assessing SSRI monotherapy dose-response effects for the treatment of depression in adults (age ≥18 years) reporting efficacy, acceptability, or tolerability. Reviews meeting inclusion criteria had a high degree of heterogeneity, due to methodological diversity; therefore, a meta-narrative synthesis approach was applied. Standard daily doses were defined as 20 mg citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine; 50 mg sertraline; and 10 mg escitalopram. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool, in line with Cochrane recommendations.

Results

The search identified 9138 records; 387 full text reports were assessed for eligibility, 42 of which matched the inclusion criteria. The majority, 83% (n=35), of reviews included data for studies with a duration of ≤12 weeks (ie, the acute phase of depression treatment). Of 39 reviews assessing efficacy, the majority (n=26) indicated that individual SSRIs and SSRI class demonstrated flat dose-response effects; standard doses were optimal for efficacy. Acceptability or tolerability were assessed in 28 reviews. Higher than standard daily doses were associated with higher dropout rates and a greater incidence of adverse drug effects (eg, nausea, sexual dysfunction, fatigue, anxiety). Despite a range of methods being reported, there was an overall consensus regarding SSRI dose related efficacy, dropouts, and adverse drug effects.

Conclusion

Standard daily doses of SSRIs for the treatment of depression in adults provide a favourable balance between efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability. Patients are encouraged to talk to their prescriber or community pharmacist if they experience adverse effects or have any concerns about their drug treatments.

Do manual therapies have a specific autonomic effect? An overview of systematic reviews

Background

The impact of manual therapy interventions on the autonomic nervous system have been largely assessed, but with heterogeneous findings regarding the direction of these effects. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews to describe if there is a specific autonomic effect elicited by manual therapy interventions, its relation with the type of technique used and the body region where the intervention was applied.

Methods

We conducted an overview according to a publicly registered protocol. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EPISTEMONIKOS and SCOPUS, from their inception to march 2021. We included systematic reviews for which the primary aim of the intervention was to assess the autonomic effect elicited by a manual therapy intervention in either healthy or symptomatic individuals. Two authors independently applied the selection criteria, assessed risk of bias from the included reviews and extracted data. An established model of generalisation guided the data analysis and interpretation.

Results

We included 12 reviews (5 rated as low risk of bias according the ROBIS tool). The findings showed that manual therapies may have an effect on both sympathetic and parasympathetic systems. However, the results from included reviews were inconsistent due to differences in their methodological rigour and how the effects were measured. The reviews with a lower risk of bias could not discriminate the effects depending on the body region to which the technique was applied.

Conclusion

The magnitude of the specific autonomic effect elicited by manual therapies and its clinical relevance is uncertain. We point out some specific recommendations in order to improve the quality and relevance of future research in this field.

Managing overlap of primary study results across systematic reviews: practical considerations for authors of overviews of reviews

BACKGROUND

Overviews often identify and synthesise a large number of systematic reviews on the same topic, which is likely to lead to overlap (i.e. duplication) in primary studies across the reviews. Using a primary study result multiple times in the same analysis overstates its sample size and number of events, falsely leading to greater precision in the analysis. This paper aims to: (a) describe types of overlapping data that arise from the same primary studies reported across multiple reviews, (b) describe methods to identify and explain overlap of primary study data, and (c) present six case studies illustrating different approaches to manage overlap.

METHODS

We first updated the search in PubMed for methods from the MOoR framework relating to overlap of primary studies. One author screened the studies titles and abstracts, and any full-text articles retrieved, extracted methods data relating to overlap of primary studies and mapped it to the overlap methods from the MOoR framework. We also describe six case studies as examples of overviews that use specific overlap methods across the steps in the conduct of an overview. For each case study, we discuss potential methodological implications in terms of limitations, efficiency, usability, and resource use.

RESULTS

Nine methods studies were found and mapped to the methods identified by the MOoR framework to address overlap. Overlap methods were mapped across four steps in the conduct of an overview - the eligibility criteria step, the data extraction step, the assessment of risk of bias step, and the synthesis step. Our overview case studies used multiple methods to reduce overlap at different steps in the conduct of an overview.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study underlines that there is currently no standard methodological approach to deal with overlap in primary studies across reviews. The level of complexity when dealing with overlap can vary depending on the yield, trends and patterns of the included literature and the scope of the overview question. Choosing a method might be dependent on the number of included reviews and their primary studies. Gaps in evaluation of methods to address overlap were found and further investigation in this area is needed.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Navigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic.

METHODS

Nine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO's Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Eighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as "critically low". Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82-95%), cough with or without sputum (58-72%), dyspnea (26-59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29-51%), sore throat (10-13%), headache (8-12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5-9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

In this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was "critically low". Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.

Global mapping of overviews of systematic reviews in healthcare published between 2000 and 2020: a bibliometric analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a bibliometric analysis using a large sample of overviews of systematic reviews (OoSRs) and reveal research trends and areas of interest about these studies.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1/1/2000 to 15/10/2020. We used Scopus meta-data and two authors recorded supplementary information independently. We summarized the data using frequencies with percentages.

RESULTS

A total of 1558 studies were considered eligible for analysis. We found that the publications have been increasing yearly and their nomenclature was not uniform (the most frequent label in the title was "overview of systematic reviews"). The largest number of papers and the most cited ones were published by corresponding authors from the UK. The publications were distributed across 737 scholarly journals and many of them were published in the field of complementary/alternative medicine, psychiatry/psychology, nutrition/dietetics, and pediatrics. The co-authorship analysis revealed collaborations among countries. The most common clinical conditions were depression, diabetes, cancer, dementia, pain, cardiovascular disease, stroke, obesity, and schizophrenia.

CONCLUSION

OoSRs have recently become a popular approach of evidence synthesis. International collaborations between overview authors from countries with increased research productivity and countries with less research activity should be encouraged.