The quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses assessing the effects of ankle-foot orthosis on clinical outcomes in stroke patients: A methodological systematic review

Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews of comparative studies in autograft-based anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the AMSTAR-2 tool: A systematic umbrella review

PURPOSE

There remains a lack of consensus around autograft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), though there is a large body of overlapping systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Systematic reviews and their methodological quality were aimed to be further assessed, using a validated tool known as assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR-2).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 23 April 2023 for systematic reviews (with/without meta-analysis) comparing primary ACLR autografts. A final quality rating from AMSTAR-2 was provided for each study ('critically low', 'low', 'moderate' or 'high' quality). Correlational analyses were conducted for ratings in relation to study characteristics.

RESULTS

Two thousand five hundred and ninety-eight studies were screened, and 50 studies were ultimately included. Twenty-four studies (48%) were rated as 'critically low', 17 (34%) as 'low', seven (14%) as 'moderate' and two (4%) as 'high' quality. The least followed domains were reporting on sources of funding (1/50 studies), the impact of risk of bias on results of meta-analyses (11/36 studies) and publication bias (17/36 studies). There was a significant increase in the frequency of studies graded as 'moderate' compared to 'low' or 'critically low' quality over time (p = 0.020).

CONCLUSION

The methodological quality of systematic reviews comparing autografts in ACLR is low, with many studies being rated lower due to commonly absent aspects of systematic review methodology such as investigating sources of funding and publication bias. More recent studies were generally more likely to be of higher quality. Authors are advised to consult AMSTAR-2 prior to conducting systematic reviews in ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Care Continuum for HIV Risk Populations: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective biomedical strategy for HIV prevention. This umbrella review is aimed at providing a comprehensive summary of the current status of each stage of the PrEP care cascade. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. Additionally, a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist were used to evaluate their methodological and reporting quality, respectively. A total of 30 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. According to the results of methodological quality assessment, 3 reviews were rated as low, while 27 as critically low. Furthermore, the results of the reporting quality evaluation revealed a mean score of 23.03 for the included reviews. Across all the reviews, awareness of PrEP was generally moderate in all populations, and the acceptability was even higher compared with awareness. Unfortunately, the PrEP uptake among different groups was even less optimal, although the adherence was almost above moderate, and several barriers that hindered the utilization of PrEP were identified, and the most common are as follows: cost, stigma, lack of knowledge, mistrust, low risk perception, and more. Although PrEP has proven to be an effective prevention method to date, the promotion of PrEP failed to achieve the anticipated outcome. To reinforce the generalization of and use of PrEP, and effectively control HIV transmission, it is urgent to identify the underlying causes of low uptake rates so that efficient interventions can be implemented.