Association Between Prospective Registration and Quality of Systematic Reviews in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-epidemiological Study

Zheng, Qiuyi; Lai, Fenghua; Li, Bin; Xu, Jia; Long, Jianyan; Peng, Sui; Li, Yanbing; Liu, Yihao; Xiao, Hang

doi:10.3389/fmed.2021.639652

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the availability of reporting guidelines, the poor confidence ratings in this study suggest that SR authors do not adequately adhere to such guidelines. Our results also confirm the finding that SRs with review protocols have more strengths than SRs without review protocols [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ], presumably due to better planning and preparation for SR production.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Different Approaches to Appraising Systematic Reviews of Digital Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion Using AMSTAR 2 Tool: Cross-Sectional Study

Santis

Matthias

2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-quality systematic reviews (SRs) can strengthen the evidence base for prevention and health promotion. A 16-item AMSTAR 2 tool allows the appraisal of SRs by deriving a confidence rating in their results. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to assess and compare two approaches to appraising 30 SRs of digital interventions for physical activity (PA) promotion using AMSTAR 2. Approach 1 (appraisals with 2/16 items) was used to identify SRs with critically low confidence ratings. Approach 2 (appraisals with all 16 items) was used (1) to derive the confidence ratings, (2) to identify SR strengths and weaknesses, and (3) to compare SR strengths among subgroups of SRs. The appraisal outcomes were summarized and compared using descriptive statistics. Approach 1 was quick (mean of 5 min/SR) at identifying SRs with critically low confidence ratings. Approach 2 was slower (mean of 20 min/SR), but allowed to identify SR strengths and weaknesses. Approach 2 showed that confidence ratings were low to critically low in 29/30 SRs. More strengths were identified in SRs with review protocols relative to SRs without review protocols and in newer SRs (published after AMSTAR 2 release) relative to older SRs. Only two items on AMSTAR 2 can quickly identify SRs with critical weaknesses. Although most SRs received low to critically low confidence ratings, SRs with review protocols and newer SRs tended to have more strengths. Future SRs require review protocols and better adherence to reporting guidelines to improve the confidence in their results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Different Approaches to Appraising Systematic Reviews of Digital Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion Using AMSTAR 2 Tool: Cross-Sectional Study

Santis

Matthias

2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the AMSTAR-2 tool, the contents that required significant improvement were items 2 (study protocol and registration), 3 (explanation for the inclusion of study design), 7 (list of excluded studies with justifications), 8 (adequate details of included studies), 10 (funding sources of primary studies), and 12 (evaluation of the potential impact of risk of bias in primary studies on the synthesized results). The prospective registration of MAs’ protocol is an important process that can improve the transparency and reproducibility of the results ( Page et al, 2018 ), while a recent meta-epidemiological study ( Zheng et al, 2021 ) demonstrated that registered reviews of type 2 diabetes mellitus had a higher overall score of methodological quality. According to a previous study ( Page et al, 2018 ), there were 26,535 records on the most used registration website for systematic reviews, PROSPERO, up until 10th October 2017.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chinese Medicine as an Adjunctive Treatment for Gastric Cancer: Methodological Investigation of meta-Analyses and Evidence Map

et al. 2022

Front. Pharmacol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Many meta-analyses (MAs) on Chinese medicine (CM) as an adjunctive treatment for gastric cancer have been published in recent years. However, the pooled evidence reported in MAs and their methodological quality remain unknown. Therefore, we designed a study to comprehensively evaluate and summarize the current evidence of CMs for gastric cancer in published MAs.Methods: A systematic search on MAs published in English from inception to 1st September 2021 was conducted in PubMed and Embase. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included MAs, and the results of the quality assessment were visualized using the evidence mapping method. Stata 17/SE was used for statistical analysis (Registration number: INPLASY202190005).Results: A total of 20 MAs (16 pairwise and 4 network MAs) were included from 118 records. These MAs were published in 14 journals from 2013 to 2021, with the number of patients and trials ranging from 688 to 6,857, and from 10 to 85, respectively. A large number of CMs (e.g., AiDi, FuFangKuShen, and HuaChanSu) in combination with chemotherapy for gastric cancer were identified among the included MAs. According to the pooled results reported in MAs, when compared to chemotherapy alone, CMs in combination with chemotherapy not only improve various outcomes on efficacy (e.g., objective response rate, quality of life) but also reduce various adverse reactions (e.g., leucopenia, nausea and vomiting). Only 2 MAs were low in terms of the overall methodological quality, while the other 18 MAs were all critically low. The methodology was required to be advanced significantly, mainly involving: study protocol and registration, explanation for the inclusion of study design, list of excluded studies with justifications, adequate details of included studies, reporting on funding sources of primary studies, and evaluation of the potential impact of risk of bias. In addition, MAs that received funds support (β = 2.68; 95%CI: 0.40 to 4.96; p = 0.024) or were published in journals with higher impact factor (β = 2.81; 95%CI: 0.69 to 4.92; p = 0.012) had a higher score on the overall methodological quality in the univariate analysis, but the results were not statistically significant according to the multivariate analysis.Conclusion: Combining CMs with chemotherapy can potentially improve clinical outcomes and reduce the relevant adverse effects in patients with gastric cancer. However, the methodological quality of relevant MAs requires significant improvement, and the current evidence needs to be validated through multinational trials that are well-designed and have a large sample size.

show abstract

“…Therefore, the tool requiring an MA should have a prior protocol and register it on public websites (e.g., PROSPERO), as a preregistered protocol can inform the process of conducting an MA, reduce duplicate efforts, and help identify selective reporting bias (Page et al, 2014;Tawfik et al, 2020). An empirical study (Zheng et al, 2021) revealed that the prospective registration of protocols was positively associated with methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on type 2 diabetes mellitus. Selective inclusion of studies could result in biased or even entirely contrary findings (Palpacuer et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of systematic reviews with meta‐analyses of resveratrol: A methodological systematic review

Lu,

Ke,

Zhang

et al. 2023

Phytotherapy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, several meta‐analyses (MAs) have focused on the health effects of resveratrol. However, the methodological and reporting quality of these MAs has not yet been fully evaluated so far. Therefore, the present study evaluated the quality of these MAs through a methodological systematic review. Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception until May 20, 2022, and PubMed was used to update the search until September 6, 2023. The methodological and reporting quality of the selected MAs was evaluated using AMSTAR‐2 and PRISMA 2009. Fifty‐one MAs published during 2013–2023 were included. In each review, the number of primary studies ranged from 3 to 37, and the number of participants ranged from 50 to 2114. Among the first‐listed primary outcomes, only 23 (45.10%) were “positive.” As for the methodological quality, most MAs (44, 86.27%) on resveratrol were rated critically low. Inadequate reporting of the included MAs mainly involved items 2 (“Structured summary”), 5 (“Protocol and registration”), 8 (“Search”), 9 (“Study selection”), 10 (“Data collection process”), 12 (“Risk of bias in individual studies”), and 24 (“Summary of evidence”) based on the PRISMA 2009. Additionally, journal's impact factor, number of authors, and funding support were positively associated with the overall methodological quality but were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Future MAs on resveratrol require better design, implementation, and reporting by following the Cochrane Handbook, AMSTAR‐2, and PRISMA.

show abstract

Association Between Prospective Registration and Quality of Systematic Reviews in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-epidemiological Study

Cited by 8 publications

References 37 publications

Different Approaches to Appraising Systematic Reviews of Digital Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion Using AMSTAR 2 Tool: Cross-Sectional Study

Different Approaches to Appraising Systematic Reviews of Digital Interventions for Physical Activity Promotion Using AMSTAR 2 Tool: Cross-Sectional Study

Chinese Medicine as an Adjunctive Treatment for Gastric Cancer: Methodological Investigation of meta-Analyses and Evidence Map

Quality of systematic reviews with meta‐analyses of resveratrol: A methodological systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About