A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2

Management of unilateral craniofacial microsomia with orthopaedic functional appliances: A systematic literature review

The study aimed to summarize current knowledge regarding the use of orthopaedic functional appliances (OFA) in managing unilateral craniofacial microsomia (UCM). The eligibility criteria for the review were (1) assessing use of OFA as a stand-alone treatment and (2) using OFA in combination during or after MDO. The PICO (population, intervention, comparison and outcome) format formulated clinical questions with defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. No limitations concerning language and publication year were applied. Information sources: A literature search of Medline, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science databases without restrictions up to 30 September 2022. The risk of bias was assessed. According to Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines, two independent authors conducted data extraction. The level of evidence for included articles was evaluated based on the Oxford evidence-based medicine database. Due to the heterogeneity of studies and insufficient data for statistical pooling, meta-analysis was not feasible. Therefore, the results were synthesized narratively. A total of 437 articles were retrieved. Of these, nine met inclusion criteria: five assessing OFA and four assessing OFA during or after MDO. There is limited evidence to suggest that stand-alone and combination treatment with OFA is beneficial for treating mild-to-moderate UCM-related dentofacial deformities in short term. No studies assessed the burden of care. In the management of UCM, there is insufficient evidence supporting the efficacy of OFA as a stand-alone treatment or when combined with MDO. Additionally, there is a lack of evidence regarding treatment protocols and the effect on the condyles and the TMJ. The study was registered at Prospero database number CRD42020204969.

The relationship between the price and demand of alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food, sugar-sweetened beverages, and gambling: an umbrella review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

The WHO highlight alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food, and sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes as one of the most effective policies for preventing and reducing the burden of non-communicable diseases. This umbrella review aimed to identify and summarise evidence from systematic reviews that report the relationship between price and demand or price and disease/death for alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food, and SSBs. Given the recent recognition as gambling as a public health problem, we also included gambling.

METHODS

The protocol for this umbrella review was pre-registered (PROSPERO CRD42023447429). Seven electronic databases were searched between 2000-2023. Eligible systematic reviews were those published in any country, including adults or children, and which quantitatively examined the relationship between alcohol, tobacco, gambling, unhealthy food, or SSB price/tax and demand (sales/consumption) or disease/death. Two researchers undertook screening, eligibility, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the ROBIS tool.

RESULTS

We identified 50 reviews from 5,185 records, of which 31 reported on unhealthy food or SSBs, nine reported on tobacco, nine on alcohol, and one on multiple outcomes (alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food, and SSBs). We did not identify any reviews on gambling. Higher prices were consistently associated with lower demand, notwithstanding variation in the size of effect across commodities or populations. Reductions in demand were large enough to be considered meaningful for policy.

CONCLUSIONS

Increases in the price of alcohol, tobacco, unhealthy food, and SSBs are consistently associated with decreases in demand. Moreover, increasing taxes can be expected to increase tax revenue. There may be potential in joining up approaches to taxation across the harm-causing commodities.

Does valerian work for insomnia? An umbrella review of the evidence

Valerian is one of the most used herbal agents (phytotherapeutics) to manage sleep disturbances, in particular, sleep-onset difficulties in young adults. However, the evidence based on primary studies and systematic reviews that supports its use in this domain is weak or inconclusive. In the current study, an umbrella review was performed on the efficacy of valerian for sleep disturbances with a focus on insomnia. As such, only systematic reviews (with or without meta-analysis) were considered for this study. Systematic searches in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO and CNKI databases retrieved 70 records. Only 8 articles were considered eligible for qualitative analysis. Overall, data suggested that valerian has a good safety profile, however, the results showed no evidence of efficacy for the treatment of insomnia. Moreover, valerian appears to be effective concerning subjective improvement of sleep quality, although its effectiveness has not been demonstrated with quantitative or objective measurements. Despite its widespread use and prescription by general practitioners, psychiatrists and other professionals, valerian does not have empirical support for insomnia. Further studies, in particular high quality randomized controlled trials, are highly recommended since there are scarce studies and the existing ones are quite heterogeneous and with low methodological quality. The implications of our findings for clinical practice are critically discussed.

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.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation technology for adults: an evidence mapping based on systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a cutting-edge life-support measure for patients with severe cardiac and pulmonary illnesses. Although there are several systematic reviews (SRs) about ECMO, it remains to be seen how quality they are and how efficacy and safe the information about ECMO they describe is in these SRs. Therefore, performing an overview of available SRs concerning ECMO is crucial.

METHODS

We searched four electronic databases from inception to January 2023 to identify SRs with or without meta-analyses. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system were used to assess the methodological quality, and evidence quality for SRs, respectively. A bubble plot was used to visually display clinical topics, literature size, number of SRs, evidence quality, and an overall estimate of efficacy.

RESULTS

A total of 17 SRs met eligibility criteria, which were combined into 9 different clinical topics. The methodological quality of the included SRs in this mapping was "Critically low" to "Moderate". One of the SRs was high-quality evidence, three on moderate, three on low, and two on very low-quality evidence. The most prevalent study used to evaluate ECMO technology was observational or cohort study with frequently small sample sizes. ECMO has been proven beneficial for severe ARDS and ALI due to the H1N1 influenza infection. For ARDS, ALF or ACLF, and cardiac arrest were concluded to be probably beneficial. For dependent ARDS, ARF, ARF due to the H1N1 influenza pandemic, and cardiac arrest of cardiac origin came to an inconclusive conclusion. There was no evidence for a harmful association between ECMO and the range of clinical topics.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited available evidence for ECMO that large sample, multi-center, and multinational RCTs are needed. Most clinical topics are reported as beneficial or probably beneficial of SRs for ECMO. Evidence mapping is a valuable and reliable methodology to identify and present the existing evidence about therapeutic interventions.

Value of preclinical systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric research

Similar to systematic reviews (SRs) in clinical fields, preclinical SRs address a specific research area, furnishing information on current knowledge, possible gaps, and potential methodological flaws of study design, conduct, and report. One of the main goals of preclinical SRs is to identify aspiring treatment strategies and evaluate if currently available data is solid enough to translate to clinical trials or highlight the gaps, thus justifying the need for new studies. It is imperative to rigorously follow the methodological standards that are widely available. These include registration of the protocol and adherence to guidelines for assessing the risk of bias, study quality, and certainty of evidence. A special consideration should be made for pediatric SRs, clinical and preclinical, due to the unique characteristics of this age group. These include rationale for intervention and comparison of primary and secondary outcomes. Outcomes measured should acknowledge age-related physiological changes and maturational processes of different organ systems. It is crucial to choose the age of the animals appropriately and its possible correspondence for specific pediatric age groups. The findings of well-conducted SRs of preclinical studies have the potential to provide a reliable evidence synthesis to guide the design of future preclinical and clinical studies. IMPACT: This narrative review highlights the importance of rigorous design, conduct and reporting of preclinical primary studies and systematic reviews. A special consideration should be made for pediatric systematic reviews of preclinical studies, due to the unique characteristics of this age group.

An umbrella review of the diagnostic value of next-generation sequencing in infectious diseases

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of systematic reviews (SRs) have evaluated the diagnostic values of next-generation sequencing (NGS) in infectious diseases (IDs).

AIM

This umbrella analysis aimed to assess the potential risk of bias in existing SRs and to summarize the published diagnostic values of NGS in different IDs.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library until September 2023 for SRs assessing the diagnostic validity of NGS for IDs. Two investigators independently determined review eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated reporting quality, risk of bias, methodological quality, and evidence certainty in the included SRs.

RESULTS

Eleven SRs were analyzed. Most SRs exhibited a moderate level of reporting quality, while a serious risk of bias was observed in all SRs. The diagnostic performance of NGS in detecting pneumocystis pneumonia and periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection was notably robust, showing excellent sensitivity (pneumocystis pneumonia: 0.96, 95% CI 0.90-0.99, very low certainty; periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection: 0.93, 95% CI 0.83-0.97, very low certainty) and specificity (pneumocystis pneumonia: 0.96, 95% CI 0.92-0.98, very low certainty; periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection: 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.97, very low certainty). NGS exhibited high specificity for central nervous system infection, bacterial meningoencephalitis, and tuberculous meningitis. The sensitivity to these infectious diseases was moderate. NGS demonstrated moderate sensitivity and specificity for multiple infections and pulmonary infections.

CONCLUSION

This umbrella analysis indicates that NGS is a promising technique for diagnosing pneumocystis pneumonia and periprosthetic/prosthetic joint infection with excellent sensitivity and specificity. More high-quality original research and SRs are needed to verify the current findings.

Quantifying the association of sperm DNA fragmentation with assisted reproductive technology outcomes: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are instrumental in shaping clinical practice. However, their findings can sometimes be marred by discrepancies and potential biases, thereby diluting the strength of the evidence presented. Umbrella reviews serve to comprehensively assess and synthesise these reviews, offering a clearer insight into the quality of the evidence presented. In the context of the relationship between sperm DNA fragmentation (SDF) and assisted conception outcomes, there is a divergence in the literature. Some reviews suggest a clear cause-and-effect linkage, whereas others present conflicting or inconclusive results.

OBJECTIVES

In this umbrella review we aimed to synthesise the evidence collated in systematic reviews and meta-analyses summarising the association of SDF with assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

After preregistration (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6JHDP), we performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Embase databases. We conducted a search for systematic reviews on the association between SDF and ART without any restrictions on language or publication date.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses assessing the association between SDF and ART outcomes were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed the quality of the included reviews using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS, and determined the degree of overlap of primary studies between reviews estimating the corrected covered area (CCA), adjusted for structural missingness. We evaluated the most recent reviews assessing the association of SDF with live birth, pregnancy, miscarriage, implantation, blastulation and fertilisation. The synthesis of evidence was harmonised across all included quantitative syntheses, re-estimating the odds ratio (eOR) in random-effects meta-analyses with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and 95% prediction intervals (95% PIs). We categorised the evidence strength into convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak or nonsignificant, according to the meta-analysis re-estimated P-value, total sample size, I2 statistic for heterogeneity, small study effect, excess significance bias and the largest study significance.

MAIN RESULTS

We initially captured and screened 49 332 records. After excluding duplicate and ineligible articles, 22 systematic reviews, 15 of which were meta-analyses, were selected. The 22 reviews showed a moderate degree of overlap (adjusted CCA 9.2%) in their included studies (overall n = 428, with 180 unique studies). The 15 meta-analyses exhibited a high degree of overlap (adjusted CCA = 13.6%) in their included studies (overall n = 274, with 118 unique studies). AMSTAR 2 categorised the quality of evidence in 18 reviews as critically low and the quality of evidence in four reviews as low. ROBIS categorised all the reviews as having a high risk of bias. The re-estimated results showed that the association of SDF with live birth was weak in one and nonsignificant in four meta-analyses. Similarly, the association of SDF with pregnancy, miscarriage, implantation, blastulation and fertilisation was also weak or nonsignificant. The association of high SDF with different ART outcomes was also weak or nonsignificant for different interventions (IVF, ICSI and IUI) and tests.

CONCLUSIONS

This umbrella review did not find convincing or suggestive evidence linking SDF with ART outcomes. Caution should be exercised in making any claims, policies or recommendations concerning SDF.

Exercise or mind-body exercises for psychiatry symptoms and quality of life in schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders: an overview of systematic reviews with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This overview of systematic reviews with meta-analysis aimed to summarize the effects of exercise, regular physical activity, and mind-body exercises on negative symptoms, depression symptoms, and quality of life in schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched up to November 10, 2023. AMSTAR 2 was used and the overlap between reviews was calculated.

RESULTS

Eighteen reviews were included. No reviews meta-analyzed regular physical activity. Aerobic exercise may be more effective than yoga, treatment-as-usual, or multiple controls for reducing negative symptoms. Tai chi may be more effective than multiple controls for decreasing negative symptoms. Aerobic exercise or multimodal exercise programs may be more effective than multiple controls for reducing depression symptoms. Yoga may be more effective than waitlist for decreasing depression symptoms. Aerobic exercise may be more effective than multiple controls for improving quality of life. Yoga may be more effective than treatment-as-usual for improving quality of life. The rest of the meta-analyses found no differences between groups or combined different types of interventions in their meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite these results, important methodological concerns were detected that precluded us from making sound clinical recommendations.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7V5QZ.

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Chronic Pain: An Overview of Systematic Reviews with Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

This overview of reviews aimed to summarize the evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials of the efficacy of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for adults with chronic pain in relation to pain intensity, pain-related functioning, quality of life, and psychological factors. The Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to July 2, 2023. AMSTAR 2 was used to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. The overlap among reviews was calculated. Nine reviews comprising 84 meta-analyses of interest were included. At post-treatment, some meta-analyses mainly showed that ACT can reduce depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms, psychological inflexibility, and pain catastrophizing; and can improve mindfulness, pain acceptance, and psychological flexibility. At three-month follow-up, ACT can reduce depression symptoms and psychological inflexibility, as well as improve pain-related functioning and psychological flexibility. At six-month follow-up, ACT can improve mindfulness, pain-related functioning, pain acceptance, psychological flexibility, and quality of life. At six-twelve-month follow-up, ACT can reduce pain catastrophizing and can improve pain-related functioning. Some methodological and clinical issues are identified in the reviews, such as a very high overlap between systematic reviews, the fact that the certainty of the evidence is often not rated and specific details needed to replicate the interventions reviewed are often not reported. Overall, however, randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews show that ACT can improve outcomes related to chronic pain (eg, pain-related functioning). Future systematic reviews should address the methodological and clinical concerns identified here to produce higher-quality findings. PERSPECTIVE: Despite certain methodological and clinical issues, randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews of ACT appear to show that it can improve outcomes related to chronic pain (eg, psychological factors).

The Impact of Exercise Prescription Variables on Intervention Outcomes in Musculoskeletal Pain: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal pain conditions are the largest contributors to disability and healthcare burden globally. Exercise interventions improve physical function and quality of life in individuals with musculoskeletal pain, yet optimal exercise prescription variables (e.g. duration, frequency, intensity) are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to examine evidence gaps, methodological quality and exercise prescription recommendations in systematic reviews of exercise for musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

In our prospectively registered umbrella review, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 14 February 2023. Backward citation tracking was performed. We included peer-reviewed, English language, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared exercise with conservative treatment, placebo or other exercise interventions in adults with musculoskeletal pain. Data were extracted from the following groups of reviews based on their reporting of exercise prescription data and analysis of the relationship between prescription variables and outcomes: (1) those that did not report any exercise prescription data, (2) those that reported exercise prescription data but did not perform a quantitative analysis and (3) those that performed a quantitative analysis of the relationship between exercise prescription variables and outcomes. Outcome measures were physical function, pain, mental health, adverse effects and adherence to treatment. AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) was used to assess methodological quality.

RESULTS

From 6757 records, 274 systematic reviews were included. 6.6% of reviews did not report any exercise prescription data, and only 10.9% quantitatively analyzed the relationship between prescription variables and the outcome(s). The overall methodological quality was critically low in 85% of reviews.

CONCLUSION

High methodological quality evidence is lacking for optimal exercise training prescription variables in individuals with musculoskeletal pain. To better inform practice and evidence gaps, future systematic reviews should (1) identify optimum exercise prescription variables, for example, via dose-response (network) meta-analysis, (2) perform high-quality reviews per AMSTAR-2 criteria and (3) include outcomes of mental health, adverse events and exercise adherence.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021287440 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021287440 ).

Chinese herbal medicine Ginkgo biloba L. preparations for ischemic stroke: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Ginkgo biloba L. preparations (GBLPs) are a class of Chinese herbal medicine used in the adjuvant treatment of ischemic stroke (IS). Recently, several systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of GBLPs for IS have been published.

OBJECTIVE

This overview aims to assess the quality of related SRs and MAs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese Biological Medicine, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and Chinese Science and Technology Journals databases were searched from their inception to December 31, 2022.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

SRs and MAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that explored the efficacy of GBLPs for patients with IS were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the methodological quality, risk of bias (ROB), reporting quality, and credibility of evidence of the included SRs and MAs using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), respectively. Additionally, descriptive analysis and data synthesis were conducted.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine SRs/MAs involving 119 outcomes were included in this review. The overall methodological quality of all SRs/MAs was critically low based on AMSTAR 2, and 28 had a high ROB based on the ROBIS. According to the PRISMA statement, the reporting items of the included SRs/MAs are relatively complete. The results based on GRADE showed that of the 119 outcomes, 8 were rated as moderate quality, 24 as low quality, and 87 as very low quality. Based on the data synthesis, GBLPs used in conjunction with conventional treatment were superior to conventional treatment alone for decreasing neurological function scores.

CONCLUSION

GBLPs can be considered a beneficial supplemental therapy for IS. However, because of the low quality of the existing evidence, high-quality RCTs and SRs/MAs are warranted to further evaluate the benefits of GBLPs for treating IS. Please cite this article as: Meng TT, You YP, Li M, Guo JB, Song XB, Ding JY, Xie XL, Li AQ, Li SJ, Yin XJ, Wang P, Wang Z, Wang BL, He QY. Chinese herbal medicine Ginkgo biloba L. preparations for ischemic stroke: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Integr Med. 2024;22(2): 163-179.

Tools to assess the risk of bias of evidence syntheses: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this scoping review is to identify and examine risk of bias tools, critical appraisal tools, and/or assessment of methodological quality tools (including their items and domains) developed to assess all types of evidence syntheses.

INTRODUCTION

Evidence synthesis is often the basis for policies, procedures, decisions, and evidence-based practice. It is imperative that evidence syntheses are of good quality, reproducible, and reliable. Despite methodological advancements, there remains a substantial risk that bias is present in the conduct of an evidence synthesis project, hindering the validity and reliability of the findings. One way to assess bias is through formal tools and assessments for assessing the risk of bias and/or methodological quality.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Published and unpublished papers presenting a risk of bias, critical appraisal, or methodological quality assessment tool for assessing an evidence synthesis will be included. Individual umbrella reviews proposing a de novo tool or modified tool will be excluded from the review, as will texts that do not present a tool.

METHODS

A 3-step search strategy will be conducted to locate both published and unpublished documents. An initial search of PubMed was developed with a librarian, which identified keywords and MeSH terms. A second search of MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, and Compendex will follow. Websites and databases, including Google, Cochrane, and JBI, will be searched for difficult-to-locate and unpublished literature. Documents will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by 2 researchers, and the data will be presented narratively and in tables.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework osf.io/mjcfy.

Teledentistry for improving access to, and quality of oral health care: A protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Digital technologies are becoming essential to address and optimize the suboptimal performance of healthcare systems. Teledentistry involves the use of information and communication technology to improve access to oral health care and the quality of oral health care delivery. Several systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of teledentistry but with conflicting results. The aim of this review is to comprehensively summarize available SRs and provide evidence on the impact of teledentistry on access to oral care, patients' and oral healthcare providers' outcomes, quality of oral health care and costs. This protocol has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42022373964). Six electronic databases including MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Embase.com), CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos will be searched for SRs of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed reviews evaluating teledentistry modalities involving both patients and/or oral health care providers (OHCPs). We will include studies published in English or French. The outcomes will include patients' outcomes (e.g., access to oral health care, patient-reported outcomes, and patient-reported experiences); patient indicators (e.g., clinical outcomes, adherence to treatment, adverse outcomes and costs); and OHCP indicators (e.g., diagnostic accuracy, barriers and enablers costs and equity). Two independent reviewers will perform data screening, data extraction and will assess the quality of included studies using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools. Data will be synthesized narratively and presented by tables and graphs. We will report any overlap of primary studies in the SRs. A statement on the strength of evidence for each outcome will be provided if possible. This review will inform decision-makers, patients, OHCPs, and researchers on the potential effectiveness, benefits, and challenges of teledentistry and support them in making recommendations for its use. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, presentations at conferences, and on social media.

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.

Risk Factors for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: An Umbrella Review

BACKGROUND

Identification of risk factors facilitates the prevention of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). Several published systematic reviews have already addressed the risk factors for BCRL. This study aimed to systematically identify potential risk factors for BCRL and evaluate the quality of evidence.

METHODS

The study followed methodologic guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute, and the Cochrane Handbook. The following electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to 15 November 2022: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, CNKI, SinoMed, Wanfang, JBI Database, Cochrane Database, ProQuest, and PROSPERO. Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed methodologic quality using AMSTAR2, risk of bias using ROBIS, and evidence quality using GRADE. The study evaluated overlap, assessed the small-study effect, and calculated the I2 statistic and Egger's P value as needed.

RESULTS

The study included 14 publications comprising 10 meta-analyses and 4 systematic reviews. The authors identified 39 factors and 30 unique meta-analyses. In the study, 13 innate personal trait-related risk factors, such as higher body mass index (BMI) and axillary lymph nodes dissection, showed statistically significant associations with BCRL incidence. Breast reconstruction was found to be a protective factor. The methodologic quality was low or critically low. The majority of the systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were rated as having a high risk of bias. Evidence quality was low for 22 associations and moderate for 8 associations.

CONCLUSIONS

The currently identified risk factors for BCRL all are innate personal trait-related factors. Future well-designed studies and robust meta-analyses are needed to explore potential associations between behavioral-, interpersonal-, and environmental-related factors and BCRL, as well as the role of genetic variations and pathophysiologic factors.

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.

Efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine adjuvant therapy for severe pneumonia: evidence mapping of the randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses

Background and Objective: Severe pneumonia is a critical respiratory disease with high mortality. There is insufficient evidence on the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) adjuvant therapy for severe pneumonia. This study aims to identify, describe, assess, and summarize the currently available high-quality design evidence on TCM adjuvant therapy for severe pneumonia to identify evidence gaps using the evidence mapping approach. Methods: Systematic searches were performed on English and Chinese online databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, CQVIP, and SinoMed) to identify papers from inception until August 2023 for inclusion into the review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews (SRs), and meta-analyses concerning TCM adjuvant therapy for severe pneumonia or its complications in adults were included. The risk of bias in RCTs was evaluated by using the Cochrane Handbook ROB tool. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Risk of Bias in Systematic Review (ROBIS) tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system were used to assess the methodological quality, risk of bias, and evidence quality of SRs or meta-analyses, respectively. Then, a bubble plot was designed to visually display information in four dimensions. Results: A total of 354 RCTs and 17 SRs or meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. The published RCTs had several flaws, such as unreasonable design, limited sample size, insufficient attention to non-drug therapy studies and syndrome differentiation, improper selection or use of outcome indicators, and failure to provide high-quality evidence. Sixteen SRs or meta-analyses of methodological quality scored "Critically Low" confidence. Twelve SRs or meta-analyses were rated as "High Risk." Most outcomes were rated as "Low" evidence quality. We found that TCM combined with conventional treatment could improve the clinical total effective rate and the TCM syndromes efficacy. The combined approach could also shorten mechanical ventilation time, infection control time, and length of hospital and ICU stay; significantly reduce temperature, respiratory rate, heart rate, white blood cell counts, levels of C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, blood inflammatory factors, bacteriological response, and D-dimer; decrease CPIS, APACHE II score, and PSI score; improve pulmonary imaging features, arterial blood gas indicators (including arterial oxygen pressure, arterial oxygen saturation, and oxygen index), and lung function (including forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in the first second) for severe pneumonia compared with conventional treatment only (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in adverse reactions and incidence of adverse events (p > 0.05). In addition, compared with conventional treatment only, most SRs or meta-analyses concluded that TCM combined with conventional treatment was "Beneficial" or "Probably beneficial." Conclusion: TCM combined with conventional treatment had advantages in efficacy, clinical signs, laboratory results, and life quality outcomes of severe pneumonia, with no difference in safety outcomes compared with conventional treatment only. QingJin Huatan decoction is the most promising target, and Xuanbai Chengqi decoction has a "Probably beneficial" conclusion. XueBiJing injection and TanReQing injection are two commonly used Chinese herbal injections for treating severe pneumonia, and both are "Probably beneficial." However, there was a need for multicenter RCTs with large sample sizes and high methodological quality in the future. In addition, the methodological design and quality of SRs or meta-analyses should be improved to form high-quality, evidence-based medical evidence and provide evidence for the effectiveness and safety of TCM adjuvant therapy for severe pneumonia.

The Evidence for Screening Older Adults for Nutrition Risk in Primary Care: An Umbrella Review

It is not known if nutrition risk screening of older adults should be a standard practice in primary care. The evidence in support of nutrition risk screening of older adults in primary care was examined and critically analyzed using an umbrella review. The peer reviewed and grey literature were searched for clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and systematic reviews (SRs). Titles and abstracts were independently screened by the two authors. Resources were excluded if they did not apply to older adults, did not discuss nutrition/malnutrition risk screening, or were in settings other than primary care. Full texts were independently screened by both authors, resulting in the identification of six CPGs and three SRs that met the review criteria. Guidelines were appraised with the AGREE II tool and SRs with the AMSTAR 2 tool. The quality of the CPGs was high, while the quality of the SRs was low. The CPGs and SRs acknowledged a lack of high-quality research on the benefits of regular nutrition risk screening for older adults in primary care; however, CPGs recommended annual screening for older adults in primary care practices or other community settings. High-quality research investigating nutrition risk screening of older adults in primary care is needed.

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.

Oral-health-related quality of life in adolescents: umbrella review

BACKGROUND

To evaluate oral conditions, demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in adolescents.

METHODS

Umbrella review, conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyzes (PRISMA) checklist. The search strategy used a combination of words, applied in the electronic databases PubMed, WebScience, Embase, Lilacs, Scopus and Cochrane. Included publications until January 2022, without restrictions. Data collection took place with systematized practices and the eligibility criteria were studies focusing on OHRQoL; teenagers; adolescentes; present the term "systematic review" and/or "meta-analysis" in the title or abstract. The quality assessment followed the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) and the adherence of the article to the PRISMA was verified.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty-two articles were identified, and 22 were included, published between 2009 and 2022. 21 Systematic reviews focused on the English language. Most studies showed heterogeneity in the methodological structuring process: 10 articles were considered of low and 10 critically low quality. Clinical conditions associated with worsening in quality of life were dental caries, malocclusion, dental trauma, toothache, edentulism, need for orthodontic treatment, irregular brushing, and periodontal disease. Socioeconomic factors related to housing, parental education, access to health care, absence of siblings and nuclear family influence OHRQoL. Completion of orthodontic treatment, health promotion programs, dental care and safe housing all have a positive impact.

CONCLUSION

Worse oral health status, older age, female sex and worse socioeconomic status were significantly associated with worse OHRQoL.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD4202129352.

Systematic literature reviews over the years

Purpose: Nowadays, systematic literature reviews (SLRs) and meta-analyses are often placed at the top of the study hierarchy of evidence. The main objective of this paper is to evaluate the trends in SLRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) throughout the years. Methods: Medline database was searched, using a highly focused search strategy. Each paper was coded according to a specific ICD-10 code; the number of RCTs included in each evaluated SLR was also retrieved. All SLRs analyzing RCTs were included. Protocols, commentaries, or errata were excluded. No restrictions were applied. Results: A total of 7,465 titles and abstracts were analyzed, from which 6,892 were included for further analyses. There was a gradual increase in the number of annual published SLRs, with a significant increase in published articles during the last several years. Overall, the most frequently analyzed areas were diseases of the circulatory system (n = 750) and endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases (n = 734). The majority of SLRs included between 11 and 50 RCTs each. Conclusions: The recognition of SLRs' usefulness is growing at an increasing speed, which is reflected by the growing number of published studies. The most frequently evaluated diseases are in alignment with leading causes of death and disability worldwide.

Critical appraisal of systematic reviews of intervention studies in periodontology using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools

Background

Systematic reviews of intervention studies are used to support treatment recommendations. The aim of this study was to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews of intervention studies in in the field of periodontology using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS.

Material and Methods

Systematic reviews of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, published between 2019 and 2020, were searched at MedLine, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, LILACS with no language restrictions between October 2019 to October 2020. Additionally, grey literature and hand search was performed. Paired independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality and risk of bias through the AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools.

Results

One hundred twenty-seven reviews were included. According to AMSTAR 2, the methodological quality was mainly critically low (64.6%) and low (24.4%), followed by moderate (0.8%) and high (10.2%). According to ROBIS, 90.6% were at high risk of bias, followed by 7.1% low, and 2.4% unclear risk of bias. The risk of bias decreased with the increased in the impact factor of the journal.

Conclusions

Current systematic reviews of intervention studies in periodontics were classified as low or critically low methodological quality and high risk of bias. Both tools led to similar conclusions. Better adherence to established reporting guidelines and stricter research practices when conducting systematic reviews are needed. Key words:Bias, evidence-based dentistry, methods, periodontics, systematic review.

Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

METHODS

Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

RESULTS

A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.

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.

Is the quality of systematic reviews influenced by prospective registration: a methods review of systematic musculoskeletal physical therapy reviews

INTRODUCTION

It is unknown if verified prospective registration of systematic reviews (SRs) and the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that they use affect an SR's methodological quality on A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2).

METHODS

Data originated from interventional SRs published in International Society of Physiotherapy Journals Editors (ISPJE) member journals, indexed in MEDLINE, between 1 January 2018 and 18 August 2021. Blinded reviewers identified the SRs and extracted the data for the variables of interest for the SRs and the RCTs.

RESULTS

Two of 14 ISPJE member journals required prospective SR registration. Twenty SRs were identified, and 169 unique, retrievable RCTs were included within those SRs. One (5.0%) of the 20 SRs and 15 of the 169 (8.9%) RCTs were prospectively registered and published consistent with this intent. Nineteen (95.0%) of the 20 identified SRs was categorized as 'critically low' on the AMSTAR 2.

DISCUSSION

SRs and the RCTs identified within them were infrequently prospectively registered, prospectively verifiable, or prospectively verified based on the established research record.

CONCLUSIONS

Ensuring that SRs and RCTs have fidelity with the research record from conception to publication may help rule out low-value interventions, decrease variability in physical therapy practice, and solidify evidence-based physical therapy practice.

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.

Quality of systematic reviews on timing of complementary feeding for early childhood allergy prevention

BACKGROUND

Only rigorously prepared analyses can provide the highest level of evidence to inform decision-making. Several recent systematic reviews (SRs) examined the hypothesis that the early introduction of specific allergenic complementary foods (CFs) to infants may lead to a lower incidence of one or more allergic outcomes. However, the methodological rigour and quality of reporting of SRs in this area has not yet been systematically evaluated.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched PubMed, Medline (Ovid), and Web of Science Core Collection on 13th January 2022, using a pre-specified and tested search syntax for SRs with RCT evidence on the early introduction of allergenic CFs as a means for allergy prevention in infants and children. We examined the quality and risk of bias (RoB) using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools, examined adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and checked whether certainty of the evidence was assessed.

RESULTS

Twelve SRs were included. Application of both tools resulted in similar overall judgements in terms of direction and extent for nine of the 12 SRs. Nine SRs were found to be of critically low to low quality according to AMSTAR-2 and to be at high RoB according to ROBIS. One SR received a moderate quality rating (AMSTAR-2) and high RoB rating (ROBIS). However, for two SRs, judgements between AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS were at stark variance. Only two SRs fully adhered to the PRISMA checklist. Six SRs evaluated the certainty of the body of RCT evidence. Several SRs failed to consider unpublished studies either by an explicit a priori exclusion or by inadequate search strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Well-conducted SRs are important for decision-making and informing guideline development, the quality of their methodology should therefore be considered. The methodological rigour and the reporting quality of SRs on the timing of CF for allergy prevention must be improved.

REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/7cs4b .

Efficacy of Surgical Masks Versus N95 Respirators for the Prevention of COVID-19 in Dental Settings: A Systematic Review

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. (SARS-CoV-2). It spreads mainly through saliva droplets or nasal discharge. Dentists are among the professionals with the greatest risk of contracting and transmitting COVID-19. We compared the efficacy of surgical masks versus N95 respirators in preventing COVID-19 infection in dental settings. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Search terms corresponded to a predefined PICOS (patient/population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes) question. The risk of bias was evaluated using AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2), ROBIS (Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews), and Health Evidence tools. A total of 191 articles were screened, and nine of them were further evaluated for eligibility, of which five articles (fulfilled the selection criteria) and were included in this study. Two studies concluded that surgical masks could provide equivalent protection to N95 respirators. Another study found that N95 respirators were superior to surgical masks. The fourth study found that better protection can be achieved when using surgical masks by the aerosol source than when the recipient uses an N95 respirator, while the last study concluded that surgical masks or N95 respirators alone do not provide full protection. Thus, according to this systematic review, N95 respirators provide better protection against COVID-19 infection compared to surgical masks.

User experience of applying AMSTAR 2 to appraise systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a commentary

BACKGROUND

'A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2' (AMSTAR 2) is a validated 16-item scale designed to appraise systematic reviews (SRs) of healthcare interventions and to rate the overall confidence in their results. This commentary aims to describe the challenges with rating of the individual items and the application of AMSTAR 2 from the user perspective.

DISCUSSION

A group of six experienced users (methodologists working in different clinical fields for at least 10 years) identified and discussed the challenges in rating of each item and the general use of AMSTAR 2 to appraise SRs. A group discussion was used to develop recommendations on how users could deal with the identified challenges. We identified various challenges with the content of items 2-16 and with the derivation of the overall confidence ratings on AMSTAR 2. These challenges include the need (1) to provide additional definitions (e.g., what constitutes major deviations from SR protocol on item 2), (2) to choose a rating strategy for multiple conditions on single items (e.g., how to rate item 5 if studies were selected in duplicate, but consensus between two authors was not reported), and (3) to determine rules for deriving the confidence ratings (e.g., what items are critical for such ratings). Based on these challenges we formulated specific recommendations for items 2-16 that AMSTAR 2 users could consider before applying the tool. Our commentary adds to the existing literature by providing the first in-depth examination of the AMSTAR 2 tool from the user perspective. The identified challenges could be addressed by additional decision rules including definitions for ambiguous items and guidance for rating of complex items and derivation of confidence ratings. We recommend that a team consensus regarding such decision rules is required before appraisal procedure begins.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not applicable.

Are movement-based mindful exercises (QIGONG, TAI CHI, AND YOGA) beneficial for stroke and Parkinson's disease? A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of qigong, tai chi, and yoga in people with neurological diseases.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library until September 2022. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool. A qualitative synthesis of included reviews and meta-analyses was performed. Citation matrices and the corrected covered area were used to explore the overlap of randomized controlled trials among reviews.

RESULTS

Nineteen systematic reviews (containing 74 trials and 80 meta-analyses) in people with Parkinson's disease (PD) or stroke were included. The critical domains of the AMSTAR 2 were not satisfied in more than half of the reviews, and only 4 evaluated the certainty of the evidence. The overlap was very high (21.7%) and high (11%) for tai chi studies in PD and stroke, respectively. In people with PD, qigong, yoga, and tai chi can improve balance, with tai chi being beneficial to increase functional mobility. For stroke patients, tai chi was better than controls to enhance motor function and independence, but not for health-related quality of life and quality of sleep. Findings on balance, walking ability and depression were inconclusive in stroke population.

CONCLUSIONS

Qigong, tai chi, and yoga appear to be effective to improve balance performance in people with PD. Tai chi practice enhances motor function and independency in stroke patients.

Reporting quality and risk of bias in JBI systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of interventions: a methodological review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this methodological review is to evaluate the adherence of systematic reviews of effectiveness published in JBI Evidence Synthesis to reporting guidelines and methodological quality.

INTRODUCTION

Systematic reviews of effectiveness are essential tools for health practitioners and policy-makers. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool are used to ensure maintenance of high reporting standards and methodological quality, respectively. This review will utilize these tools to identify strengths and shortfalls in the reporting quality of JBI systematic reviews of effectiveness.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review will include the 20 most recent systematic reviews of effectiveness published in JBI Evidence Synthesis .

METHODS

This review will search MEDLINE (PubMed) for effectiveness reviews published in JBI Evidence Synthesis . Abstract and full-text screening will be performed by 2 independent reviewers, and the most recent 20 studies will be selected for inclusion. Data regarding adherence to PRISMA 2020 and ROBIS will be extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Data will be presented descriptively with tables and synthesized narratively.

Critical Appraisal Tools to Aid Pharmacists in Evidence-Based Practice: A Narrative Review

Background

Pharmacists and allied health researchers need to ensure that their practice is supported by current, evidence-based information. Critical appraisal tools have been developed to aid in this process.

Objectives

To analyze the current landscape of critical appraisal tools and to create an aid for pharmacists and other allied health researchers to use in comparing various tools and choosing the best one for each particular study design.

Data Sources

A literature search of the PubMed, University of Toronto Libraries, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted in December 2021, to generate an up-to-date list of critical appraisal tools. The tools were then summarized in a descriptive table.

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Review articles, original manuscripts, and tool webpages were examined to develop a comparison chart based on the user-friendliness, efficiency, comprehensiveness, and reliability of each tool.

Results

Fourteen tools were found through the literature search. These tools were compared using the findings of included review articles, and a comparison chart was created to aid pharmacists and allied health researchers in selecting the appropriate tool for their practice.

Conclusions

There are many standardized critical appraisal tools that can help in assessing the quality of evidence, and the summary list of tools developed and reported here can help health care researchers to compare among them and choose the best one. No tools were found that have been specifically adapted to serve the needs of pharmacists when assessing scientific articles. Future research should examine how existing critical appraisal tools can better identify common data elements that are essential to evidence-based decision-making in pharmacy practice.

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.

Benefits of Participation in Clinical Trials: An Umbrella Review

Participation in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) entails taking part in the discovery of effects of health care interventions. The question of whether participants' outcomes are different to those of non-participants remains controversial. This umbrella review was aimed at assessing whether there are health benefits of participation in RCTs, compared to non-participation. After prospective registration (PROSPERO CRD42021287812), we searched the Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from inception to June 2022 to identify relevant systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses. Data extraction and study quality assessment (AMSTAR-2) were performed by two independent reviewers. Of 914 records, six systematic reviews summarising 380 comparisons of RCT participants with non-participants met the inclusion criteria. In two reviews, the majority of comparisons were in favour of participation in RCTs. Of the total of comparisons, 69 (18.7%) were in favour of participation, reporting statistically significant better outcomes for patients treated within RCTs, 264 (71.7%) comparisons were not statistically significant, and 35 (9.5%) comparisons were in favour of non-participation. None of the reviews found a harmful effect of participation in RCTs. Our findings suggest that taking part in RCTs may be beneficial compared to non-participation.

The Influence of Sex, Gender, or Age on Outcomes of Digital Technologies for Treatment and Monitoring of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Protocol for an Overview of Systematic Reviews

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common chronic disease that can be treated and monitored with various digital technologies. Digital technologies offer unique opportunities for treating and monitoring people with chronic diseases, but little is known about whether the outcomes of such technologies depend on sex, gender, or age in people with COPD.

Objective

The general objective of this study is to assess the possible influence of sex, gender, or age on outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD through an overview of systematic reviews.

Methods

The study is planned as an overview of systematic reviews. Study reporting is based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines because guidelines for overviews are not available as of this writing. The information sources for the overview will include 4 bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and Web of Science) as well as the bibliographies of the included systematic reviews. The electronic search strategy will be developed and conducted in collaboration with an experienced database specialist. The search results will be presented in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The eligibility of studies is based on the population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) criteria: (1) people with COPD (population), (2) digital technology intervention for treatment or monitoring (intervention), (3) any control group or no control group (comparison), (4) any outcome, and (5) systematic review of randomized controlled trials or non–randomized controlled trials with or without a meta-analysis (study design). Critical appraisal of the included systematic reviews will be performed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2). Data will be extracted using a standardized data extraction sheet.

Results

The literature search is scheduled for June 2022. We expect to select the relevant systematic reviews, code the data, and appraise the systematic reviews by December 2022.

Conclusions

There is a growing recognition that the influence of sex, gender, or age should be considered in research design and outcome reporting in the context of health care interventions. Our overview will identify systematic reviews of various digital technologies for treatment or monitoring of COPD. The most interesting aspect of the overview will be to investigate if any systematic reviews considered the influence of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of such digital technologies in COPD. Evidence from the overview could be used to guide more individualized (sex, gender, or age-based) recommendations for the use of digital technologies among people with COPD.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022322924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=322924

Health Effects of Electronic Cigarettes: An Umbrella Review and Methodological Considerations

E-cigarettes are often marketed as a safer alternative to combustible cigarettes. However, their health effects, especially those associated with long-term use, remain largely uncertain. We conducted an umbrella review of the cardiopulmonary and carcinogenic risks of e-cigarette use, distinguishing between short-term and long-term health effects. The search for systematic reviews was conducted across four electronic databases through 25 January 2022. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 quality appraisal tool. Seventeen systematic reviews, including five meta-analyses, were included in our umbrella review. There was a clear underreporting of e-cigarette devices and e-liquid types, e-cigarette and cigarette exposure, and the health and smoking status of study participants. Overall, the findings suggest that short-term use of e-cigarettes may be associated with acute cardiopulmonary risks, although to a lesser extent than cigarette use. Long-term e-cigarette use may have pulmonary/respiratory benefits in those who switch from chronic cigarette smoking, particularly in individuals with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Evidence on intermediate and long-term carcinogenic effects is lacking. This umbrella review underscores the urgent need for systematic reviews with better adherence to established reporting guidelines, consistent definitions of duration of e-cigarette use, a focus on newer devices, and accounting for the impacts of former or current smoking.

The role of prenatal vitamin D on the development of childhood asthma and wheeze: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE

It has been suggested that prenatal vitamin D plays a role in the development of childhood asthma and wheeze. Several systematic reviews have been conducted, but the results are inconsistent, and the methodological quality has not been studied. Therefore, the objective of this umbrella review was to assess the internal validity of the evidence base and the evidence for an association between prenatal vitamin D and asthma or wheezing in the offspring.

METHODS

We searched the electronic databases Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library for studies on prenatal vitamin D using search words such as vitamin D, 25-hydroxyvitamin D, calcidiol, fetal, and neonatal. The search was conducted in June 2020, and the databases were searched from their date of establishment. We included systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of experimental and observational studies assessing the association between prenatal vitamin D or asthma and wheeze. We excluded narrative reviews, commentaries, and other umbrella reviews. The methodological quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2 tool. PROSPERO reg. no. CRD42020151329.

RESULTS

We identified 22 eligible systematic reviews (17 on asthma and 20 on wheeze). Using the AMSTAR 2 quality assessment tool, the methodological quality was rated as critically low in 21 out of 22 systematic reviews, suggesting that previous reviews and meta-analyses did not provide accurate and comprehensive summaries of the included studies and that conclusions reached were potentially flawed. The majority of the included reviews reported that prenatal vitamin D reduces the risk of wheeze in the offspring.

CONCLUSION

Prior to informing public guidelines, high-quality systematic reviews of the current evidence are greatly warranted.

The Effectiveness of Duloxetine for Knee Osteoarthritis: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Background: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) has become a public health problem. Several systematic reviews (SRs) have reported that duloxetine may be an effective treatment for improving pain and depressive symptoms in patients with KOA.

Aim: To evaluate the available results and provide scientific evidence for the efficacy and safety of duloxetine for KOA.

Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was conducted across eight databases from inception to 31 December 2021. Two researchers independently selected eligible studies, collected data and evaluated those included SRs’ quality. For assessing methodological quality, the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) was employed. Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) was used to assess the risk of bias. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) was utilized for assessing reporting quality. In addition, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to determine primary outcome indicators’ evidence quality.

Results: Totally 6 SRs were contained in this overview. After assessment based on AMSTAR 2, ROBIS, and PRISMA, unsatisfactory results in terms of methodological quality, risk of bias as well as reporting quality, were obtained. Limitations included a search of grey literature, the reasons for selecting the study type, an excluded study list and the specific reasons, reporting bias assessment, and reporting of potential sources of conflict of interest. According to the GRADE results, the evidence quality was high in 0, moderate in 5, low in 19, and very low in 36. Limitations were the most commonly downgraded factor, followed by publication bias and inconsistency.

Conclusion: Duloxetine may be an effective treatment for improving pain and depressive symptoms in KOA patients with acceptable adverse events. However, due to the low quality of the available evidence, the original study design and the quality of evidence from SRs should be further improved, so as to provide strong scientific evidence for definitive conclusions.

Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO; (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/), identifier (CRD42021289823).

Methodological quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on stem cells for knee osteoarthritis: A cross-sectional survey

Clinical guidelines need high-quality studies to support clinical decision-making, in which the evidence often was collected from systematic reviews (SRs) and/or meta-analyses (MAs). At present, the methodological quality and risk of bias (RoB) of SRs/MAs on stem cell therapy for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) has been poorly investigated. This study aims to strictly evaluate the methodological quality and RoB in SRs/MAs of stem cell therapy for KOA. Four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases) were searched, from inception to October 5th, 2021. SRs/MAs involving randomized control trials (RCTs) or cohort studies on stem cell therapy for the treatment of KOA were included. The methodological quality and RoB were assessed using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tool respectively. In total, 22 SRs/MAs were included. According to the results obtained by AMSTAR 2 tool, all SRs/MAs were rated as "Critically low". Main methodological weaknesses were as follows: up to 81.82% did not meet protocol registration requirements, only 13.64% provided a list of excluded studies and justification, and 13.64% investigated and discussed the publication bias.. ROBIS-based RoB assessment showed that all the SRs/MAs were rated as "High". Besides, the lack of following the implementation of the PRISMA reporting guideline seems to reduce the methodological quality of the studies. The overall methodological quality of the SRs/MAs concerning the application of stem cell therapy in treating KOA is "Critically low", while the RoB is high. It is difficult to provide effective evidence for the formulation of guidelines for KOA treatment. We suggest that the relevant methodological quality assessment should be carried out in the future before the SRs/MAs are used as clinical evidence. In addition, it may be necessary for many journals to include the checklist with a submitted manuscript.