Where to prospectively register a systematic review

Narrative reviews in anesthesia and pain medicine: guidelines for producers, reviewers and consumers

Well-established guidelines and checklists for authors, reviewers, and readers of systematic reviews and scoping reviews are readily available. However, the availability of such for narrative reviews is lacking, including, but not limited to, field-specific guidelines in the field of anesthesia and pain medicine. In this brief article, we review the differences between the major types of reviews, followed by a more detailed description of narrative reviews that clearly differentiates them from other types of reviews. We include a recommended checklist that will aid producers, editors, reviewers, and consumers of narrative reviews as well as examples specific to the field of anesthesia and pain medicine. It is the hope that the guidelines recommended here will aid producers, editors, reviewers, and consumers of narrative reviews in anesthesia and pain medicine, including Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine Adherence to such should help differentiate between narrative reviews and other types of reviews as well as provide consistency in what elements are necessary to include in a narrative review in the field of anesthesia and pain medicine.

Only half of the authors of overviews of exercise-related interventions use some strategy to manage overlapping primary studies-a metaresearch study

OBJECTIVES

The conduct of systematic reviews (SRs) and overviews share several similarities. However, because the unit of analysis for overviews is the SRs, there are some unique challenges. One of the most critical issues to manage when conducting an overview is the overlap of data across the primary studies included in the SRs. This metaresearch study aimed to describe the frequency of strategies to manage the overlap in overviews of exercise-related interventions.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic search in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and other sources was conducted from inception to June 2022. We included overviews of SRs that considered primary studies and evaluated the effectiveness of exercise-related interventions for any health condition. The overviews were screened by two authors independently, and the extraction was performed by one author and checked by a second. We found 353 overviews published between 2005 and 2022 that met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-four overviews (46%) used at least one strategy to visualize, quantify, or resolve overlap, with a matrix (32/164; 20%), absolute frequency (34/164; 21%), and authors' algorithms (24/164; 15%) being the most used methods, respectively. From 2016 onwards, there has been a trend toward increasing the use of some strategies to manage overlap. Of the 108 overviews that used some strategy to resolve the overlap, ie, avoiding double or multiple counting of primary study data, 79 (73%) succeeded. In overviews where no strategies to manage overlap were reported (n = 189/353; 54%), 16 overview authors (8%) recognized this as a study limitation.

CONCLUSION

Although there is a trend toward increasing its use, only half of the authors of the overviews of exercise-related interventions used a strategy to visualize, quantify, or resolve overlap in the primary studies' data. In the future, authors should report such strategies to communicate more valid results.

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.

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.

Beyond the Jump: A Scoping Review of External Training Load Metrics in Volleyball

CONTEXT

Volleyball is a complex sport involving multifaceted movements and high-velocity actions, leading to diverse external training loads (ETLs) that have profound implications for player performance and injury risk.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive overview of the measurement of ETL in volleyball, identify gaps in current understanding, and offer valuable insights for stakeholders in the field.

DATA SOURCES

The literature search was conducted across the following electronic databases: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were selected based on their relevance to the measurement of ETL in volleyball.

STUDY DESIGN

A scoping review methodology was chosen to map and summarize the broad body of literature related to ETL measurement in volleyball.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data related to ETL measurements in volleyball were extracted and analyzed from the selected studies, focusing on metrics utilized, player positions examined, and technologies employed.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies related to ETL in volleyball were identified and examined for this review. Despite the importance of sagittal plane movements in volleyball, the review identified a substantial research gap regarding ETL measurements beyond this plane, as well as a lack of focus on the unique demands of different player positions like the liberos. The use of technologies such as inertial measurement units was prevalent, but more comprehensive measurement methods are needed.

CONCLUSION

There is a critical need for diversified ETL metrics in volleyball, extending beyond the conventional sagittal plane measurements. The findings highlight a substantial research gap in addressing the unique demands of different player positions, notably the liberos. This study underscores the importance of incorporating multiplanar movement data, player-specific roles, and advanced measurement technologies to develop more tailored training programs and injury prevention strategies.

Factors Underlying Vaccine Hesitancy and Their Mitigations in Saudi Arabia: Protocol for a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy is a growing concern in Saudi Arabia, impacting even well-educated parents. The decision-making process involves various factors such as accessibility, trustworthy information, and the influence of social networks, reflecting a complex interplay of emotional, cultural, social, spiritual, and political dimensions.

OBJECTIVE

This review seeks to evaluate the prevalence and trends of vaccine hesitancy, identify contributing factors, and explore potential solutions to enhance immunization rates. This review aligns with global concerns, as the World Health Organization has identified vaccine hesitancy as a top global health threat.

METHODS

Our systematic review will follow the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study) criteria for comprehensive assessment. We will conduct a thorough search across various databases, encompassing a wide range of vaccines, and pay special attention to vaccination campaigns and refusals. Inclusion criteria involve descriptive, observational, and analytical studies focusing on factors influencing vaccine acceptance or hesitancy. The study will use the Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool for quality assessment and perform a narrative synthesis to summarize findings thematically.

RESULTS

This systematic review is expected to unveil the prevalence and trends of vaccine hesitancy in diverse populations in Saudi Arabia, shedding light on cultural, religious, and social factors contributing to hesitancy. It aims to assess the effectiveness of implemented strategies, enable regional and global comparisons, and provide implications for tailored vaccination policies. Additionally, the review may pinpoint research gaps, guiding future investigations to address and mitigate vaccine hesitancy effectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings are expected to have direct policy implications and guide interventions to strengthen vaccination programs and improve public health outcomes.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/54680.

Unravelling the role of HAS2, GREM1, and PTGS2 gene expression in cumulus cells: implications for human oocyte development competency - a systematic review and integrated bioinformatic analysis

The leading indicator for successful outcomes in in-vitro fertilization (IVF) is the quality of gametes in oocytes and sperm. Thus, advanced research aims to highlight the parameter in assessing these qualities - DNA fragmentation in sperm and oocyte development capacity (ODC) via evaluation of microenvironments involving its maturation process. Regarding oocytes, most evidence reveals the role of cumulus cells as non-invasive methods in assessing their development competency, mainly via gene expression evaluation. Our review aims to consolidate the evidence of GDF-9 derivatives, the HAS2, GREM1, and PTGS2 gene expression in cumulus cells used as ODC markers in relevant publications and tailored to current IVF outcomes. In addition to that, we also added the bioinformatic analysis in our review to strengthen the evidence aiming for a better understanding of the pathways and cluster of the genes of interest - HAS2, GREM1, and PTGS2 in cumulus cell level. Otherwise, the current non-invasive method can be used in exploring various causes of infertility that may affect these gene expressions at the cumulus cell level. Nevertheless, this method can also be used in assessing the ODC in various cohorts of women or as an improvement of markers following targeted tools or procedures by evaluating the advancement of these gene expressions following the targeted intervention.

Reporting quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews of ultra-processed foods: a methodological study

A dramatic shift in the global food system is occurring with the rapid growth of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) consumption, which poses potentially serious health risks. Systematic review (SR) method has been used to summarise the association between UPF consumption and multiple health outcomes; however, a suboptimal-quality SR may mislead the decision-making in clinical practices and health policies. Therefore, a methodological review was conducted to identify the areas that can be improved regarding the risk of bias and reporting quality of relevant SRs. Systematic searches to collect SRs with meta-analyses of UPFs were performed using four databases from their inception to April 14, 2023. The risk of bias and reporting quality were evaluated using ROBIS and PRISMA 2020, respectively. The key characteristics of the included SRs were summarised descriptively. Excel 2019 and R 4.2.3 were used to analyse the data and draw graphs. Finally, 16 relevant SRs written in English and published between 2020 and 2023 in 12 academic journals were included. Only one SR was rated as low risk of bias, and the others were rated as higher risk of bias mainly because the risk of bias in the original studies was not explicitly addressed when synthesising the evidence. The reporting was required to be advanced significantly, involving amendments of registration and protocol, data and analytic code statement, and lists of excluded studies with justifications. The reviews' results could improve the quality, strengthen future relevant SRs' robustness, and further underpin the evidence base for supporting clinical decisions and health policies.

Ramadan intermittent fasting and its association with health-related indices and exercise test performance in athletes and physically active individuals: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review, summarise and appraise findings of published systematic reviews, with/without meta-analyses, examining associations between Ramadan fasting observance (RO), health-related indices and exercise test performances in athletes and physically active individuals.

DESIGN

Overview of systematic reviews with assessment of reviews' methodological quality.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, SPORTDiscus, ProQuest, PsycINFO and SciELO.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Systematic reviews with/without meta-analyses examining associations of RO with health-related indices and exercise performances in athletes and physically active individuals.

RESULTS

Fourteen systematic reviews (seven with meta-analyses) of observational studies, with low-to-critically-low methodological quality, were included. Two reviews found associations between RO and decreased sleep duration in athletes and physically active individuals. One review suggested athletes may experience more pronounced reductions in sleep duration than physically active individuals. One review found associations between RO and impaired sleep quality in athletes and physically active individuals. RO was associated with decreased energy, carbohydrate and water intake in adult-aged athletes, but not adolescents. One review suggests RO was associated with athletes' increased feelings of fatigue and decreased vigour. No association was found between RO and athletes' lean mass or haematological indices. RO was unfavourably associated with changes in athletes' performance during high-intensity exercise testing.

CONCLUSION

Continuance of training during RO could be associated with athletes' mood state disturbances, decreased sleep duration and performance decline during high-intensity exercise testing, while preserving lean mass. However, careful interpretation is necessary due to the low-to-critically-low methodological quality of the included reviews.

Factors influencing the work of researchers in Scientific Initiation: A systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Scientific Initiation (SI) is an educational activity that allows students to begin their scientific training and research under the guidance of an experienced researcher. While several studies have examined students' perceptions of SI, research on the perspective of researchers working in this field is currently lacking. Thus, this study's aim is to describe the protocol design for conducting a systematic review. At the same time, the review aims also to identify factors influencing the work of researchers in SI and explore the motivations leading researchers to engage in research projects within institutions and their respective impacts.

METHOD AND ANALYSES

Literature search will be done using the bibliographic databases, including Academic Search Premier, APA PsycNet, CINAHL Plus, ERIC, SocINDEX, Scopus, and Web of Science. The search strategy was guided by the PICo framework (Population, phenomenon of Interest, and Context). The preparation and development of this protocol following guidelines were employed: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015), Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies 2015 (PRESS 2015), and PRISMA-Search (PRISMA-S). Original, peer-reviewed articles that examine the factors related to the work of researchers in SI will be included without any language or publication date restrictions. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies will be screened by two independent researchers. The included studies will be analyzed to identify factors, policies, and their impacts obtained analytically. Findings will be objectively categorized and synthetically represented through figures, diagrams, and graphic models. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) and the Downs and Black checklists. A third senior reviewer will resolve any discrepancies.

DISCUSSION

We aim to understand the factors that drive researchers to engage in SI research through the dissemination of the findings of this systematic review. This may aid the development of institutional strategies and actions that can support the enhancement of SI programs and encourage greater researcher participation.

Lack of Consensus on the Definition of Aseptic Loosening in Total Ankle Replacement: A Narrative Systematic Review

Background: Aseptic loosening is one of the most common modes of failure of total ankle replacement (TAR). However, a precise definition of aseptic loosening is still lacking. This systematic review aimed to identify the variations of applied definitions and offer insights into the lack of consensus. Methods: Human studies reporting aseptic loosening of TAR published in peer-reviewed journals within the last decade were considered. The search strategy involved specific terms in Embase, MEDLINE ALL, and the Cochrane Library. Variations in aseptic loosening definitions were analysed. Results: Of 767 studies, 88 were included in this study. Only nine studies precisely defined aseptic loosening with significant variations. Twenty-two studies referenced the term and fifty-seven reported it as a complication but neither defined nor referenced it. Conclusions: Significant uncertainty exists regarding the universal definition of aseptic loosening of TAR, and many variations occur in terms of the assessment approach and criteria.

The Role of Hepcidin in Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS): A Systematic Review of Observational Studies

Iron overload emerges as a serious complication in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), particularly associated with frequent transfusions during the course of the disease. The discovery and description of hepcidin's mechanisms of action have contributed to a deeper understanding of iron metabolism. The existing literature reports a potential role of hepcidin in MDS, yet these data are fragmented and presented in an unstructured, somewhat chaotic manner. Hence, to address the existing data, we performed a systematic review of observational studies examining hepcidin levels in MDS. An extensive review of three bibliographic databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, and Scopus) enabled us to identify 12 observational studies. These studies focused primarily on adult patients with low-risk MDS who underwent transfusions and chelation therapy. An in-depth analysis of these manuscripts led to four main conclusions: (1) although high serum hepcidin levels are associated with MDS, most studies generally have not found a significant difference in these levels between patients and healthy individuals; (2) serum hepcidin levels are specific to MDS type; (3) serum hepcidin levels in MDS are strongly associated with transfusions and the genetic status of patients; and (4) high-risk MDS is associated with high serum hepcidin levels. While we have furnished a comprehensive summary of the significance of hepcidin in MDS, there are still gaps that future research should address. This pertains primarily to the capacity of hepcidin in predicting adverse outcomes for MDS patients and evaluating the efficacy of chelation therapy or the need for transfusion.

Effect of Levetiracetam on Cognition: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Double-Blind Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Studies have suggested that levetiracetam may help improve cognitive function in patients with epilepsy. Recently, its efficacy in improving cognitive function was reported in patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer's disease. However, the specific cognitive domains affected and the degree of evidence supporting these effects remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the effects of levetiracetam on different cognitive domains.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. We defined our inclusion criteria for the systematic review as: (1) randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) involving human subjects, (2) double-blinded RCTs, and (3) RCTs evaluating the quantitative differences in cognitive function between levetiracetam and placebo. We excluded: (1) non-RCT studies, (2) open-label studies, and (3) RCTs lacking cognitive assessments for either intervention. Two authors independently searched electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov, from inception until 2 July 2023. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analytic techniques were applied to examine the impact of levetiracetam on cognitive domain tests, with Hedges' g facilitating the comparison with placebo. The domains analyzed comprised multi-domain, executive function, processing speed, working memory, verbal memory/learning (verbal ML), visuospatial memory/learning (visuospatial ML), and language. We used odds ratios to compare the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events between the groups, including somnolence, fatigue, dizziness, headache, irritability, and cognitive adverse events.

RESULTS

A random-effects model was utilized to perform a meta-analysis of 16 RCTs including 545 participants. Compared with a placebo, levetiracetam was associated with improved executive function [Hedges'g = - 0.390, 95% confidence interval (CI) = - 0.609 to - 0.172, p < 0.001, I2 = 24.0%]. Subgroup analysis showed that levetiracetam outperformed placebo in patients without epilepsy (Hedges' g = - 0.419, 95% CI = - 0.647 to - 0.191, p < 0.001, I2 = 26.2%). Meanwhile, low-dose levetiracetam showed a moderate favorable effect over placebo (Hedges' g = -0.544, 95% CI = - 1.085 to - 0.003, p = 0.049, I2 = 65.3%). In patients without epilepsy, low-dose levetiracetam was associated with improved executive function (Hedges'g = - 0.544, 95% CI = - 1.085 to - 0.003, p = 0.049, I2 = 65.3%). Concurrently, levetiracetam was associated with more frequent somnolence than a placebo (odds ratio = 4.654, 95% CI = 1.533 to 14.124, p = 0.007, I2 = 32.9%). Potential publication bias was observed in the executive function domain.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study suggests that levetiracetam might improve executive function in specific populations. However, the diversity in study populations and potential publication bias warrant caution.

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.

[A Study on the Scientific Reliability of Notification Data in the Foods with Function Claims]

We conducted a comprehensive survey of Foods with Function Claims (FFC) submitted from April to August 2022 to examine the scientific reliability of the systematic review (SR), which is the basis for functional claims. The results of the review of 611 functional claims for 398 products showed that there were 121 functionally active substances and 87 health claims (Hc) that were labeled, with some functionally active substances having multiple functions. SRs, meta-analyses, and clinical studies were submitted as the basis of functionality for 87%, 10%, and 3% of the reports, respectively. Of these SRs, 39% of the SRs included a single paper. In 67% of the SRs with a single paper included, some of the authors of the included paper and the person who conducted the SR had the same affiliation, which raises concerns about conflicts of interest. The median of clinical trial participants in papers included for SR was relatively small, 38, and the smallest total number of SRs was 6. Thus, it was shown that there are many SRs for FFC that are based on only a single paper or a small-scale clinical trial and that lack reliability as scientific evidence.

Magnetic resonance imaging shows low sensitivity but good specificity in detecting ramp lesions in children and adolescents with ACL injury: A systematic review

IMPORTANCE

The diagnosis of ramp lesions can be problematic, even with arthroscopy, due to their extreme posteromedial position. Consequently, they have been colloquially referred to as the "hidden lesions" of the knee. Undiagnosed and untreated injuries in this knee region may be associated with ongoing dynamic rotational laxity of the knee after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and an increased risk of anterior cruciate ligament graft failure.

AIM

This study aimed to systematically review the literature to assess the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting ramp lesions in children and adolescents with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient knees. It was hypothesized that MRI has poor sensitivity for identifying ramp lesions in children and adolescents.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A systematic review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The following search terms were used in the title, abstract and keywords fields: "ramp" or "meniscus" AND "children" or "adolescents." The outcome data extracted from the studies were incidence of ramp in concomitant with ACL lesion, MRI sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV).

FINDINGS

Of the 387 patients with ACL injury, 90 were reported to have ramp lesions (23.3%). The mean age at the time of diagnosis was 15.3 ​± ​0.81 years. The mean time from injury to MRI was 116.1 ​± ​113.5 days, while the mean time from injury to surgery was 172.6 ​± ​139.1 days. The MRI taken to detect ramp lesions in the paediatric population showed a pooled sensitivity of 50%, specificity of 75%, accuracy of 70%, PPV of 41% and NPV of 79%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The prevalence of ACL-associated ramp lesions in children and adolescents is similar to that in adult populations. Magnetic resonance imaging has low sensitivity but good specificity for assessing ramp lesions. In the presence of a posteromedial tibial bone bruise or a thin fluid signal separating the posterior horn of the medial meniscus and the posteromedial capsule a ramp lesion should always be suspected.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO -: CRD42023453895.

Evidence-based literature review: De-duplication a cornerstone for quality

Evidence-based literature reviews play a vital role in contemporary research, facilitating the synthesis of knowledge from multiple sources to inform decision-making and scientific advancements. Within this framework, de-duplication emerges as a part of the process for ensuring the integrity and reliability of evidence extraction. This opinion review delves into the evolution of de-duplication, highlights its importance in evidence synthesis, explores various de-duplication methods, discusses evolving technologies, and proposes best practices. By addressing ethical considerations this paper emphasizes the significance of de-duplication as a cornerstone for quality in evidence-based literature reviews.

Perspectives on systematic review protocol registration: a survey amongst stakeholders in the clinical research publication process

BACKGROUND

As systematic reviews (SRs) inform healthcare decisions, it is key that they address relevant questions and use rigorous methodology. Registration of SR protocols helps researchers identify relevant topics for future reviews and aims to prevent bias and duplication of effort. However, most SRs protocols are currently not registered, despite its significance. To guide future recommendations to enhance preregistration of SRs, it is important to gain a comprehensive understanding of the perspectives within the research community. Therefore, this study aims to examine the experiences with and factors of influence (barriers and facilitators) on prospective SR registration amongst researchers, peer reviewers and journal editors.

METHODS

Two different surveys were distributed to two groups: researchers and journal editors both identified from an existing sample of SRs. Researchers who indicated to have peer reviewed a SR were surveyed on their perspectives as peer reviewers as well. Survey design and analysis were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Shared and unique subthemes from the perspectives of researchers, peer reviewers and journal editors were identified and linked to the SR registration process (Innovation), to team, organisation (Inner setting) and (inter)national research community (Outer setting), and to characteristics of researchers, peer reviewers or journal editors (Individuals).

RESULTS

The survey's response rates were 65/727 (9%) for researchers, of which 37 were peer reviewers, and 22/308 (7%) for journal editors. Most respondents (n = 76, 94%) were familiar with SR protocol registration and 81% of researchers had registered minimally one SR protocol. Shared SR registration process subthemes were the importance and advantages of SR protocol registration, as well as barriers such as a high administrative burden. Shared subthemes regarding the inner and outer setting centred on journal processes, external standards and time. Shared individual factors were knowledge, skills and awareness.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the respondents were familiar with SR protocol registration and had a positive attitude towards it. This study identified suboptimal registration process, administrative burden and lack of mandatory SR protocol registration as barriers. By overcoming these barriers, SR protocol registration could contribute more effectively to the goals of open science.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

osf.io/gmv6z.

Identifying the data elements and functionalities of clinical decision support systems to administer medication for neonates and pediatrics: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Patient safety is a central healthcare policy worldwide. Adverse drug events (ADE) are among the main threats to patient safety. Children are at a higher risk of ADE in each stage of medication management process. ADE rate is high in the administration stage, as the final stage of preventing medication errors in pediatrics and neonates. The most effective way to reduce ADE rate is using medication administration clinical decision support systems (MACDSSs). The present study reviewed the literature on MACDSS for neonates and pediatrics. It identified and classified the data elements that mapped onto the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standard and the functionalities of these systems to guide future research.

METHODS

PubMed/ MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and ProQuest databases were searched from 1995 to June 31, 2021. Studies that addressed developing or applying medication administration software for neonates and pediatrics were included. Two authors reviewed the titles, abstracts, and full texts. The quality of eligible studies was assessed based on the level of evidence. The extracted data elements were mapped onto the FHIR standard.

RESULTS

In the initial search, 4,856 papers were identified. After removing duplicates, 3,761 titles, and abstracts were screened. Finally, 56 full-text papers remained for evaluation. The full-text review of papers led to the retention of 10 papers which met the eligibility criteria. In addition, two papers from the reference lists were included. A total number of 12 papers were included for analysis. Six papers were categorized as high-level evidence. Only three papers evaluated their systems in a real environment. A variety of data elements and functionalities could be observed. Overall, 84 unique data elements were extracted from the included papers. The analysis of reported functionalities showed that 18 functionalities were implemented in these systems.

CONCLUSION

Identifying the data elements and functionalities as a roadmap by developers can significantly improve MACDSS performance. Though many CDSSs have been developed for different medication processes in neonates and pediatrics, few have actually evaluated MACDSSs in reality. Therefore, further research is needed on the application and evaluation of MACDSSs in the real environment.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

(dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.bwbwpape).

Reply to Moreno et al. Comment on "Sallam, M. ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns. Healthcare 2023, 11, 887"

I would like to thank the authors for their commentary on the publication "ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns" [...].

Supraglottic airway device versus tracheal tube for pediatric laparoscopic surgery-A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Conventionally, tracheal tubes have been used for general anesthesia in pediatric laparoscopic surgeries. Recently, supraglottic devices are being used for the same. The performance of supraglottic devices versus tracheal tubes in children undergoing laparoscopic surgery is uncertain.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared supraglottic devices versus tracheal tubes in patients ≤18 years undergoing laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia was conducted. The outcomes were peak airway pressures (cm H2 O), end-tidal carbon dioxide during pneumoperitoneum (mm Hg), recovery time (min), postoperative sore throat and adverse events. Mean difference and odds ratio, with 95% confidence intervals were reported using a random effect model.

RESULTS

Eight trials (n = 591) were included in the final meta-analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in the peak airway pressures (MD 0.58, 95% CI: -0.65 to 1.8; p = .36) and end-tidal carbon dioxide (MD -0.60, 95% CI: -2.00 to 0.80; p = .40) during pneumoperitoneum in the supraglottic device and the tracheal tube group. The tracheal tube group had higher odds of sore throat (OR 3.30, 95% CI: 1.69-6.45; p = .0005) and the supraglottic airway group had faster recovery time (MD 4.21, 95% CI: 3.12-5.31; p < .0001), which were statistically significant. The certainty of evidence is graded low.

CONCLUSION

There is low quality evidence to suggest that for pediatric laparoscopic surgeries of short duration, supraglottic devices could provide comparable intraoperative ventilation in terms of peak airway pressures and end tidal carbon dioxide, with lower odds of postoperative sore throat and faster recovery time when compared to tracheal tubes.

The Current Evidence of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), an advanced RT technique, is a considerable treatment option for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the distinguishing features of IMRT for HCC have not yet been clearly defined. A systematic review was performed according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The PubMed/MedLine, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and KoreaMed were used to screen eligible studies focusing on treatment outcomes after IMRT for HCC until 18 April 2023. A total of 1755 HCC patients receiving IMRT among 29 studies from 2009 to 2023 were selected for the meta-analysis. The median proportion of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C was 100% (range: 38-100%). Nineteen studies used combined treatment. Pooled rates of response and 1-year local control were 58% (95% confidence interval [CI], 50-65%) and 84% (95% CI, 70-94%), respectively. The median overall survival (OS) was 13 months (range: 5-45 months), and pooled 1- and 3-year OS rates were 59% (95% CI, 52-66%), and 23% (95% CI, 14-33%), respectively. Pooled rates of classic radiation-induced liver disease (RILD), nonclassic RILD, and hepatic toxicity ≥ grade 3 were 2%, 4%, and 4%, respectively. Although most patients had advanced-stage HCC and combined treatment was commonly used, IMRT for HCC showed similar survival to existing RT modalities and relatively low severe toxicity.

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.

Prevalence of suicidal behavior in patients with chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Objective

Chronic pain is a leading cause of disability, severely impairing an individual's daily activity and quality of life. In addition, this condition may contribute to suicidal thoughts by leading to neuropsychological impairments, a perceived lack of meaning in life, and pain-related catastrophizing. This systematic review aimed to comprehensively investigate the prevalence and associated factors of suicidal behaviors (SBs) including suicidal ideation (SI) and suicide attempt (SA) or its complete, in individuals with chronic pain.

Methods

Five electronic databases were searched up to October 4, 2022. Only observational studies investigating the prevalence of SB in individuals with chronic pain were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. A meta-analysis was conducted to quantify the prevalence of SB in the population, and the command "Metaprop" was used in STATA/MP 16. In addition, factors explaining the association between chronic pain and SB identified through regression analysis were investigated.

Results

A total of 19 studies were included in this review (N = 3,312,343). The pooled lifetime prevalence of SI and SA was 28.90% (95% confidence interval, 17.95 to 41.26%) and 10.83% (5.72 to 17.30%), respectively, in a mixed sample comprising various chronic pain conditions. Importantly, the pooled prevalence of past 2-week SI was as high as 25.87% (18.09 to 34.50%). The methodological quality of the included studies was not optimal, and studies using validated SB assessment tools were lacking. Potential protective factors against SB in this population included pain coping and self-efficacy, older age, certain race/ethnicity groups, and marriage.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated the high prevalence of SB in individuals with chronic pain. Specifically, around 1 in 4 individuals with chronic pain had SI within the last 2 weeks. However, there was considerable heterogeneity in the pooled prevalence of SB in this population.

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.

The international platform of registered systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (INPLASY) at 3 years: an analysis of 4,658 registered protocols on inplasy.com, platform features, and website statistics

Background

INPLASY® is an international platform for registering systematic reviews and meta-analysis protocols that was launched in March 2020. INPLASY® provides an online database in which the protocols are maintained as permanent public records and can be accessed on its website (www.inplasy.com).

Methods

We described the database features and registered information of all records published since the launch of the registry on March 31, 2023. Additionally, we analyzed the website statistics dataset to explore user experience and promote data transparency.

Results

Four thousand six hundred fifty-eight records were registered in INPLASY®, and more than 94% of the protocols were published within 24 h. Most of the submissions were from China, followed by Portugal, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brazil. The INPLASY® website received 386,395 page views from 64,568 visitors during the first three years. The accesses were obtained from 170 countries. Most of the accesses were from China, followed by the US, the UK, and Portugal. The review status "completed and published" was observed in 898 protocols, and these studies were published in 372 different scientific peer-reviewed journals. The features of INPLASY® include the following: (i) INPLASY® identifier, a unique protocol number; (ii) the digital object identifier (DOI) number, the URL of the protocol linked to a specific DOI; (iii) ORCID update, INPLASY® automatically updates authors' ORCID page, including their protocol; and (iv) search tools, the protocols are freely accessible on www.inplasy.com.

Conclusions

INPLASY® has several practical and useful features that should be considered when planning the registration of a systematic review protocol. Furthermore, the sharp increase in the number of protocols registered in INPLASY® in the first three years and the database statistics demonstrate that INPLASY® has become an important source of systematic review protocols. Therefore, authors should access INPLASY® before planning a future review study to avoid unintended duplication of efforts and to obtain timely registration.

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.

Mapping the characteristics, methodological quality and standards of reporting of network meta-analyses on antithrombotic therapies: An overview

BACKGROUND

Although a large number of network meta-analyses (NMAs) in the field of cardiology are available, little is known about their methodological quality. We aimed to map the characteristics and critically appraised the standards of conduct and evidence reporting of NMAs assessing antithrombotic therapies for the treatment or prophylaxis of heart diseases and cardiac surgical procedures.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and Scopus to identify NMAs comparing the clinical effects of antithrombotic therapies. Overall characteristics of the NMAs were extracted and their reporting quality and methodological quality were evaluated using the PRISMA-NMA checklist and AMSTAR-2, respectively.

RESULTS

We found 86 NMAs published between 2007 and 2022. Comparisons among direct-acting oral anticoagulants were available in 61 (71%) NMAs. Although around 75% of NMAs stated that they followed international guidelines for conduct and reporting, only one third provided a protocol/register. Complete search strategies and publication bias assessment were lacking in around 53% and 59% of studies, respectively. Most NMAs (n = 77, 90%) provided supplemental material; however, only 5 (6%) made the complete raw data available. Network diagrams were depicted in most studies (n = 67, 78%), yet network geometry was described in only 11 (12.8%) of them. Mean adherence to the PRISMA-NMA checklist was 65.1 ± 16.5%. AMSTAR-2 assessment showed 88% of the NMAs had critically low methodological quality.

CONCLUSION

Although there is a wide diffusion of NMA-type studies on antithrombotics for heart diseases, their methodological and reporting quality remains suboptimal. This may reflect fragile clinical practices due to misleading conclusions from critically low-quality NMAs.

A Simple Guide to Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses lie on the top of the evidence hierarchy because they utilize explicit methods for literature search and retrieval of studies relevant to the review question as well as robust methodology for quality assessment of included studies and quantitative synthesis of results. As opposed to narrative reviews which represent the authors' personal judgments, they may be more resource-intensive, but provide an unbiased answer to a specific clinical query. Clinical guidelines are usually supported by such evidence syntheses. Therefore, it is important that healthcare practitioners become competent in understanding and applying systematic review findings. This simple guide outlines the key principles regarding the design, conduct and interpretation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Strategies used to manage overlap of primary study data by exercise-related overviews: protocol for a systematic methodological review

INTRODUCTION

One of the most conflicting methodological issues when conducting an overview is the overlap of primary studies across systematic reviews (SRs). Overlap in the pooled effect estimates across SRs may lead to overly precise effect estimates in the overview. SRs that focus on exercise-related interventions are often included in overviews aimed at grouping and determining the effectiveness of various interventions for managing specific health conditions. The aim of this systematic methodological review is to describe the strategies used by authors of overviews focusing on exercise-related interventions to manage the overlap of primary studies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A comprehensive search strategy has been developed for different databases and their platforms. The databases to be consulted will be MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Cochrane Library) and Epistemonikos. Two reviewers will independently screen the records identified through the search strategy and extract the information from the included overviews. The frequency and the type of overlap management strategies of the primary studies included in the SRs will be considered as the main outcome. In addition, the recognition of the lack of use of any overlap management strategy and the congruence between planning and conducting the overview focusing on overlap management strategies will be assessed. A subgroup analysis will be carried out according to the journal impact factor, year of publication and compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews statement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will not involve human subjects and therefore does not require ethics committee approval. However, the conduct and reporting of the findings of this review will be conducted in a rigorous, systematic and transparent manner, which relates to research ethics.The findings of this review will be presented at scientific conferences and published as one or more studies in peer-review scientific journals related to rehabilitation or research methods.

Letter to the Editor: Clarity and quality assessment of epidemiology of sarcopenia: Prevalence, risk factors, and consequences

This study proposes a novel hybrid joining process, called bonded-hole hemming, for joining dissimilar materials. The process combines the hole hemming process, a newly developed joining process by plastic deformation, and adhesive bonding. The suitability of this process for joining AZ31 magnesium and AA6082-T4 aluminium sheets is evaluated through finite element simulations and experimental tests, where single-lap shear testing is carried out to assess mechanical performance. The experimental and numerical analyses of the single lap joint (SLJ) tests are also performed to validate the cohesive zone model (CZM) employed in the finite element models and the phosphate-permanganate treatment (PPT) for the magnesium sheets. The results show that the pre-cured bonded-hole hemmed (BHH) joint is more advantageous than the post-cured BHH joint, due to the presence of defects in the latter, caused by uncured adhesive during the hemming stage. Both the numerical simulations, using cohesive elements, and the experimental data confirm that the hemming stage does not cause damage to the cured adhesive layer in the bondedhole hemming process. Furthermore, the numerical simulation acceptably predicts the mechanical behaviour of the BHH joint under shear testing. In conclusion, the maximum joint strength of the BHH joints is around 11kN, which is about 3.8 times stronger than the hole-hemmed (HH) joints (2.9kN). According to the numerical results, it is believed that the BHH joint would exhibit enhanced strength and elongation if the tested specimens did not contain the holes used for clamping. The results allow concluding that the bonded-hole hemming process is a viable method for joining dissimilar materials, especially those with significantly distinct mechanical properties.

Definition, harms, and prevention of redundant systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Along with other types of research, it has been stated that the extent of redundancy in systematic reviews has reached epidemic proportions. However, it was also emphasized that not all duplication is bad, that replication in research is essential, and that it can help discover unfortunate behaviors of scientists. Thus, the question is how to define a redundant systematic review, the harmful consequences of such reviews, and what we could do to prevent the unnecessary amount of this redundancy.

MAIN BODY

There is no consensus definition of a redundant systematic review. Also, it needs to be defined what amount of overlap between systematic reviews is acceptable and not considered a redundancy. One needs to be aware that it is possible that the authors did not intend to create a redundant systematic review. A new review on an existing topic, which is not an update, is likely justified only when it can be shown that the previous review was inadequate, for example, due to suboptimal methodology. Redundant meta-analyses could have scientific, ethical, and economic questions for researchers and publishers, and thus, they should be avoided, if possible. Potential solutions for preventing redundant reviews include the following: (1) mandatory prospective registration of systematic reviews; (2) editors and peer reviewers rejecting duplicate/redundant and inadequate reviews; (3) modifying the reporting checklists for systematic reviews; (4) developing methods for evidence-based research (EBR) monitoring; (5) defining systematic reviews; (6) defining the conclusiveness of systematic reviews; (7) exploring interventions for the adoption of methodological advances; (8) killing off zombie reviews (i.e., abandoned registered reviews); (9) better prevention of duplicate reviews at the point of registration; (10) developing living systematic reviews; and (11) education of researchers.

CONCLUSIONS

Disproportionate redundancy of the same or very similar systematic reviews can lead to scientific, ethical, economic, and societal harms. While it is not realistic to expect that the creation of redundant systematic reviews can be completely prevented, some preventive measures could be tested and implemented to try to reduce the problem. Further methodological research and development in this field will be welcome.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MODELS SHOW POTENTIAL IN RECOGNIZING THE DENTAL IMPLANT TYPE, PREDICTING IMPLANT SUCCESS, AND OPTIMIZING IMPLANT DESIGN

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Revilla-León M, Gómez-Polo M, Vyas S, Barmak BA, Galluci GO,Att W, Krishnamurthy VR. J. Artificial intelligence applications in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2021:(21);S0022-3913.

SOURCE OF FUNDING

Note reported.

TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN

Systematic review.

Characteristics, completion and publication of PROSPERO records in regional anesthesia for acute perioperative pain

Aim: We analyzed characteristics and completion status of Systematic Reviews (SRs) about regional anesthesia for acute perioperative pain relief registered in PROSPERO. Materials & methods: PROSPERO was searched on 5 January 2022. Characteristics of PROSPERO records, completion status and publication information were extracted. PubMed and Google Scholar were searched by 31 May 2022, for additional published SRs. The inconsistency of PROSPERO records' status was analyzed by comparing the most recent PROSPERO status with subsequent publication of completed SR. Time-to-publication was calculated. Results: Almost half of 174 included PROSPERO records (49%) were registered in 2021. A median of 3 (IQR: 2-4.75) authors, and a search of 4 information sources (IQR: 3-5) was planned. At first registration, 51 (29%) records had already started or completed formal screening. PROSPERO records included mostly adults (48%) undergoing trunk blocks (56%), with pain intensity (74%) as a main outcome. 147 (84%) PROSPERO records had a status "ongoing". Yet, 71 (41%) PROSPERO records were completed SRs, published after a median of 291 days. Inconsistency in status was found in 34% of PROSPERO records. Conclusion: Despite an increase in PROSPERO registrations about regional anesthesia, most were not published, and a third had inaccurate status.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) AS AN AID IN RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY IS PROMISING, BUT STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Artificial intelligence applications in restorative dentistry: A systematic review. Revilla-León, M., Gómez-Polo, M., Vyas, S., Barmak, A. B., Özcan, M., Att, W., & Krishnamurthy, V. R. J Prosthet Dent 2021 SOURCE OF FUNDING: Not reported.

TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN

Systematic review.

Inappropriate Use of the Term "Papilledema" in the Medical Literature: A Systematic Review of Case Reports across Specialties

TOPIC

The term "papilledema" is often misused in different ways when describing nonintracranial pressure-related optic disc edema (ODE) or on fundoscopic examination. However, the extent of these errors is unknown among case reports.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

"Papilledema" refers to ODE secondary to raised intracranial pressure (ICP). Papilledema is a leading reason for referral to neuro-ophthalmologists. In any specialty setting, papilledema must be distinguished from other causes of ODE because it implies a unique pathophysiology and management strategy. If managed inappropriately, papilledema may cause permanent vision loss.

METHODS

Cross-sectional evidence-based study with protocol registered on Open Science Framework (digital object identifier: 10.17605/OSF.IO/BUQS3). From Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE, we included case reports with "papilledema" in their title, abstract, or article keywords between January 2011 and March 2022. Studies were graded for the following errors: type 1 (using "papilledema" without evidence of elevated ICP), type 2 (declaring "papilledema" on examination before finding evidence of elevated ICP), type 3 (both errors type 1 and 2), or no error.

RESULTS

Among 722 case reports, there was a total of 482 errors (66.8%). There were 12 type 1 errors, 360 type 2 errors, 110 type 3 errors, and 240 studies with no errors. Ophthalmology, neurology, and neurosurgery were the most represented fields, yet only ophthalmology had a low prevalence of errors among all specialties. Regardless, all specialties with at least 10 included reports had a high error prevalence (>30%). Reduced error prevalence was significantly associated with higher impact factor journals, non-open-access publication models, and origin countries with an English official language. Error prevalence was not significantly associated with publication year. Also, the relationship between article citation counts and the prevalence of any type of error did not reach significance. Risk of bias analysis indicated that error occurrence was unrelated to the quality of case report study design.

CONCLUSION

"Papilledema" is widely misused even among ophthalmology case reports. When allowed to propagate, this error can mislead care delivery to patients with ODE. Our results, although limited to case reports, indicate a need for more thorough peer-review standards and neuro-ophthalmology exposure in medical education.

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.

Multiple revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: not the best but still good

PURPOSE

Given the paucity of literature on the re-revision of ACL, the current study was undertaken. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesise and qualitatively assess the currently available evidence in the literature regarding the re-revision of ACL reconstruction (rrACLR).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines. The following search terms were used in the title, abstract and keywords fields: "ACL" or "anterior cruciate ligament" AND "revision" or "multiple" or "repeat". The outcome data extracted from the studies were the Lysholm score, Subjective IKDC, Marx Score, Tegner, Marx Score, KOOS score, radiological changes and the rate of return to sports. Complications, failures and/or revision surgery were also analysed.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 295 patients [191 (64.7%) men and 104 (35.3%) women] with a mean age of 29.9 ± 2.8 years (range 14-58 years) from 10 studies. The mean postoperative follow-up (reported in all studies except one) was 66.9 ± 44.7 months (range 13-230.4 months). Associated injuries were 103 (34.9%) medial meniscus tears, 57 (19.3%) lateral meniscus tears, 14 (4.7%) combined medial plus lateral meniscus tears, 11 (3.7%) meniscal tears (not specified), 252 (85.4%) cartilage lesions, 6 (2.0%) medial collateral ligament injury and 2 (0.7%) lateral collateral ligament injuries. In 47 (15.9%) patients an extra-articular plasty was performed for the anterolateral ligament. In all studies that reported pre- and post-operative IKDC (subjective and objective) and Lysholm score, there was a significant improvement compared to the pre-operative value (p < 0.05). At the final follow-up, laxity measured with KT-1000 was found to be 2.2 ± 0.6 mm. 31 (10.5%) out of 295 patients returned to their pre-injury activity level. A total of 19 (6.4%) re-ruptures were found, while only 4 (1.4%) complications (all minors) were reported, out of which 2 (0.7%) were superficial infections, 1 (0.3%) cyclops lesion and 1 (0.3%) flexion loss.

CONCLUSION

Multiple revisions of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction allow acceptable clinical results and a good degree of knee stability with a low rate of subsequent new re-ruptures but the possibility of regaining pre-injury sports activity is poor; whenever possible, it is preferred to revise the ligament in one stage. This surgery remains a challenge for orthopaedic surgeons and many doubts persist regarding the ideal grafts, additional extra-articular procedures and techniques to use.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO-CRD42022352164 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ).

A bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology

Background

Bibliometric analysis is a quantitative method which applies mathematical and statistical tools to evaluate the inter-relationships and impacts of publications, authors, institutions and countries in a specific research area. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) are summaries of the best available evidence to address a specific research question via comprehensively literature search, in-depth analysis and synthesis of results. To date, there have been several studies summarizing the publication trends of SRMAs in research specialties, however, none has conducted specifically in ophthalmology. The purpose of this study is to establish the scientometric landscape of SRMAs published in the field of ophthalmology over time.

Methods

We retrieved relevant ophthalmological SRMAs and the corresponding bibliometric parameters during 2000 to 2020 from Web of Science Core Collection. Bibliometric analysis was performed using bibliometrix package. Pre-registration and guideline compliance of each article was independently assessed by two investigators.

Results

A total of 2,660 SRMAs were included, and the average annual growth rate was 21.26%. China and the United States were the most productive countries, while Singapore was the country with the highest average citations per document. Wong TY was not only the most productive, but also the most frequently cited author. The most productive affiliation was National University of Singapore (n = 236). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses output in most subspecialties had steadily increased with retina/vitreous (n = 986), glaucoma (n = 411) and cornea/external diseases (n = 303) constantly as the most dominant fields. Rates of pre-registration and guideline compliance had dramatically increased over time, with 20.0 and 63.5% of article being pre-registered and reported guideline in 2020, respectively. However, SRMAs published on ophthalmology journals tended to be less frequently pre-registered and guideline complied than those on non-ophthalmology journals (both p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The annual output of SRMAs has been rapidly increasing over the past two decades. China and the United States were the most productive countries, whereas Singapore has the most prolific and influential scholar and institution. Raising awareness and implementation of SRMAs pre-registration and guideline compliance is still necessary to ensure quality, especially for ophthalmology journals.

Effectiveness of physical rehabilitation interventions in critically ill patients-A protocol for an overview of systematic reviews

INTRODUCTION

Adult and pediatric patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) requiring invasive ventilatory support, sedation, and muscle blockade may present neuromusculoskeletal deterioration. Different physical rehabilitation interventions have been studied to evaluate their effectiveness in improving critically ill patients' outcomes. Given that many published systematic reviews (SRs) aims to determine the effectiveness of different types of physical rehabilitation interventions, it is necessary to group them systematically and assess the methodological quality of SRs to help clinicians make better evidence-based decisions. This overview of SRs (OoSRs) aims to map the existing evidence and to determine the effectiveness of physical rehabilitation interventions to improve neuromusculoskeletal function and other clinical outcomes in adult and pediatric critically ill patients.

METHODS

An OoSRs of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials involving critically ill adult and pediatric patients receiving physical rehabilitation intervention will be conducted. A sensitive search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and other search resources will be conducted. Two independent reviewers will conduct study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The degree of overlap of studies will be calculated using the corrected covered area. The methodological quality of the SRs will be measured using the AMSTAR-2 tool. The GRADE framework will report the certainty of evidence by selecting the "best" SR for each physical rehabilitation intervention and outcome.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this overview are expected to determine the effectiveness and safety of physical rehabilitation interventions to improve neuromusculoskeletal function in adult and pediatric critically ill patients based on a wide selection of the best available evidence and to determine the knowledge gaps in this topic by mapping and assessing the methodological quality of published SRs.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023389672.

CAT HPPR: a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of systematic, rapid, and scoping reviews investigating interventions in health promotion and prevention

BACKGROUND

For over three decades researchers have developed critical appraisal tools (CATs) for assessing the scientific quality of research overviews. Most established CATs for reviews in evidence-based medicine and evidence-based public health (EBPH) focus on systematic reviews (SRs) with studies on experimental interventions or exposure included. EBPH- and implementation-oriented organisations and decision-makers, however, often seek access to rapid reviews (RRs) or scoping reviews (ScRs) for rapid evidence synthesis and research field exploration. Until now, no CAT is available to assess the quality of SRs, RRs, and ScRs following a unified approach. We set out to develop such a CAT.

METHODS

The development process of the Critical Appraisal Tool for Health Promotion and Prevention Reviews (CAT HPPR) included six phases: (i) the definition of important review formats and complementary approaches, (ii) the identification of relevant CATs, (iii) prioritisation, selection and adaptation of quality criteria using a consensus approach, (iv) development of the rating system and bilingual guidance documents, (v) engaging with experts in the field for piloting/optimising the CAT, and (vi) approval of the final CAT. We used a pragmatic search approach to identify reporting guidelines/standards (n = 3; e.g. PRISMA, MECIR) as well as guidance documents (n = 17; e.g. for reviews with mixed-methods approach) to develop working definitions for SRs, RRs, ScRs, and other review types (esp. those defined by statistical methods or included data sources).

RESULTS

We successfully identified 14 relevant CATs, predominantly for SRs (e.g. AMSTAR 2), and extracted 46 items. Following consensual discussions 15 individual criteria were included in our CAT and tailored to the review types of interest. The CAT was piloted with 14 different reviews which were eligible to be included in a new German database looking at interventions in health promotion and prevention in different implementation settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The newly developed CAT HPPR follows a unique uniformed approach to assess a set of heterogeneous reviews (e.g. reviews from problem identification to policy evaluations) to assist end-users needs. Feedback of external experts showed general feasibility and satisfaction with the tool. Future studies should further formally test the validity of CAT HPPR using larger sets of reviews.

The role of scoping reviews in reducing research waste

OBJECTIVES

Scoping reviews and evidence map methodologies are increasingly being used by researchers. The objective of this article is to examine how scoping reviews can reduce research waste.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This article summarizes the key issues facing the research community regarding research waste and how scoping reviews can make an important contribution to the reduction of research waste in both primary and secondary research.

RESULTS

The problem of research waste is an enduring challenge for global health, leading to a waste of human and financial resources and producing research outputs that do not provide answers to the most pressing research questions. Research waste occurs within primary research but also in secondary research such as evidence syntheses. The focus of scoping reviews on characterizing the nature of existing evidence on a topic and including all types of evidence, potentially reduces research waste in five ways: (1) identifying key research gaps on a topic, (2) determining appropriate outcome measures, (3) mapping existing methodological approaches, (4) developing a consistent understanding of terms and concepts used in existing evidence, and (5) ensuring scoping reviews do not exacerbate the issue of research waste.

CONCLUSION

To ensure that scoping reviews do not themselves end up contributing to research waste, it is important to register the scoping review and to ensure that international reporting standards and methodological guidance are followed.

Extent and nature of duplication in PROSPERO using COVID-19-related registrations: a retrospective investigation and survey

OBJECTIVES

During COVID-19, the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) experienced a surge in registrations for COVID-19-related systematic reviews, and duplication of research questions became apparent. Duplication can waste funding, time and research effort and make policy making more difficult.This project explored the extent of and reasons for duplication of COVID-19-related systematic review registrations in PROSPERO during the pandemic.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of COVID-19-related registrations in PROSPERO, and a qualitative survey.

SETTING

PROSPERO was searched for registrations related to four COVID-19 research areas: epidemiology, rehabilitation, transmission and treatments.

METHODS

Records identified were compared using Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcome, Study Design (PICOS) elements of PROSPERO registration forms. Registrations with similar or identical PICOS were evaluated further as 'duplicates'.Authors of 'duplicate' registrations were invited to complete a survey asking whether they searched PROSPERO prior to registration, identified similar reviews and, if so, why they continued with their review.

RESULTS

1054 COVID-19 reviews were registered between March 2020 and January 2021, of which 138 were submitted when at least one similar protocol was already registered in PROSPERO. Duplication was greatest in reviews of COVID-19 treatments; for example, there were 14 similar reviews evaluating the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine.From 138 authors invited to take part in the survey, we received 41 responses. Most respondents said that they identified similar reviews when they searched PROSPERO prior to registration. Main reasons given for 'duplication' were differences in PICOS or planned analyses (n=13), poor quality of previous registrations (n=2) and the need to update evidence (n=3).

CONCLUSIONS

This research highlights that registration of similar and duplicate systematic reviews related to COVID-19 in PROSPERO occurred frequently. Awareness of research waste is required, and initial checking for similar reviews should be embedded within good review practice.

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.

Effectiveness and Safety of Combination Therapy with Herbal Medicine and Growth Hormone Compared to Growth Hormone Monotherapy for Short Stature Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Herbal medicines (HM) and growth hormones (GH) are widely used to treat short stature (SS) in children. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of combination therapy with HM and GH (CHG) compared to those of GH monotherapy (GHM) in children with SS.

Methods

We searched 17 electronic databases from inception to 1 April 2021. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Two authors independently performed the selection and quality assessment of the included studies using Cochrane Handbook criteria. Relative risk (RR) was used to measure dichotomous outcomes with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Mean difference (MD) or standard MD (SMD) was used to measure continuous outcomes with a 95% CI.

Results

Seven RCTs involving 455 participants with SS were included. Standard deviations in height (MD = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.24–0.38, p < 0.00001), and insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 (MD = 1.39, 95% CI: 0.93–1.85, p < 0.00001) were significantly higher in the CHG group than in the GHM group. Growth velocity (MD = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.34–2.31, p < 0.00001) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (MD = 61.85, 95% CI: 55.80–67.90, p < 0.00001) were significantly higher in the CHG group. Adverse events were significantly lower in the CHG group (risk ratio: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.02–0.54, p = 0.007). However, the level of evidence was low.

Conclusions

CHG demonstrated significantly better efficacy than GHM for treating SS, with a low incidence of adverse events. However, since the level of evidence is low, methodologically standardized RCTs are required to verify these results.

The Effect of Carbohydrate Intake on Strength and Resistance Training Performance: A Systematic Review

High carbohydrate intakes are commonly recommended for athletes of various sports, including strength trainees, to optimize performance. However, the effect of carbohydrate intake on strength training performance has not been systematically analyzed. A systematic literature search was conducted for trials that manipulated carbohydrate intake, including supplements, and measured strength, resistance training or power either acutely or after a diet and strength training program. Studies were categorized as either (1) acute supplementation, (2) exercise-induced glycogen depletion with subsequent carbohydrate manipulation, (3) short-term (2–7 days) carbohydrate manipulation or (4) changes in performance after longer-term diet manipulation and strength training. Forty-nine studies were included: 19 acute, six glycogen depletion, seven short-term and 17 long-term studies. Participants were strength trainees or athletes (39 studies), recreationally active (six studies) or untrained (four studies). Acutely, higher carbohydrate intake did not improve performance in 13 studies and enhanced performance in six studies, primarily in those with fasted control groups and workouts with over 10 sets per muscle group. One study found that a carbohydrate meal improved performance compared to water but not in comparison to a sensory-matched placebo breakfast. There was no evidence of a dose-response effect. After glycogen depletion, carbohydrate supplementation improved performance in three studies compared to placebo, in particular during bi-daily workouts, but not in research with isocaloric controls. None of the seven short-term studies found beneficial effects of carbohydrate manipulation. Longer-term changes in performance were not influenced by carbohydrate intake in 15 studies; one study favored the higher- and one the lower-carbohydrate condition. Carbohydrate intake per se is unlikely to strength training performance in a fed state in workouts consisting of up to 10 sets per muscle group. Performance during higher volumes may benefit from carbohydrates, but more studies with isocaloric control groups, sensory-matched placebos and locally measured glycogen depletion are needed.