Evaluating the impact of including non-randomised studies of interventions in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: a protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

Yao, Minghong; Wang, Yuning; Busse, Jason W.; Briel, Matthias; Mei, Fan; Li, Guowei; Zou, Kang; Li, Ling; Sun, Xin

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-073232

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The importance of cohort studies in this research topic was emphasized. Besides, only one protocol was published in July 2023, planning to evaluate the impact of including non‐RCTs in the meta‐analysis of RCTs 103 . Therefore, future research would be needed to assess the feasibility of this shortcut in different research area, due to the varying significance of primary study design types in different research fields.…”

Section: The Impact Of Using Shortcuts In Rapid Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid review: A review of methods and recommendations based on current evidence

Guo,

Jiang,

Zhao

et al. 2024

J Evidence Based Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid review (RR) could accelerate the traditional systematic review (SR) process by simplifying or omitting steps using various shortcuts. With the increasing popularity of RR, numerous shortcuts had emerged, but there was no consensus on how to choose the most appropriate ones. This study conducted a literature search in PubMed from inception to December 21, 2023, using terms such as “rapid review” “rapid assessment” “rapid systematic review” and “rapid evaluation”. We also scanned the reference lists and performed citation tracking of included impact studies to obtain more included studies. We conducted a narrative synthesis of all RR approaches, shortcuts and studies assessing their effectiveness at each stage of RRs. Based on the current evidence, we provided recommendations on utilizing certain shortcuts in RRs. Ultimately, we identified 185 studies focusing on summarizing RR approaches and shortcuts, or evaluating their impact. There was relatively sufficient evidence to support the use of the following shortcuts in RRs: limiting studies to those published in English‐language; conducting abbreviated database searches (e.g., only searching PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL); omitting retrieval of grey literature; restricting the search timeframe to the recent 20 years for medical intervention and the recent 15 years for reviewing diagnostic test accuracy; conducting a single screening by an experienced screener. To some extent, the above shortcuts were also applicable to SRs. This study provided a reference for future RR researchers in selecting shortcuts, and it also presented a potential research topic for methodologists.

show abstract

Section: The Impact Of Using Shortcuts In Rapid Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid review: A review of methods and recommendations based on current evidence

Guo,

Jiang,

Zhao

et al. 2024

J Evidence Based Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Phenobarbital treatment of alcohol withdrawal in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Lee,

Dillon,

Tahir

et al. 2024

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveDespite frequent treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in the Emergency Department (ED), evidence for phenobarbital as an ED alternative therapy is mixed. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis comparing safety and efficacy of phenobarbital (PB) to benzodiazepines (BZD) for treatment of AWS in the ED.MethodsWe searched articles and references published in English in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase from inception through May 2022. We included randomized trials and cohort studies comparing treatment with phenobarbital to benzodiazepine controls, and excluded studies focused on non‐AWS conditions. Review was conducted by two blinded investigators and a third author; 8 of 59 (13.6%) abstracts met inclusion criteria for review and meta‐analysis using a random‐effects model. Treatment superiority was evaluated through utilization, pharmacologic, and clinical outcomes. Primary outcomes for meta‐analysis were the proportion of patients (1) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), (2) admitted to the hospital, (3) readmitted to the ED after discharge, and (4) who experienced adverse events.ResultsEight studies (2 randomized controlled trials, 6 retrospective cohorts) comprised data from 1,507 patients in 2,012 treatment encounters for AWS. All studies were included in meta‐analysis for adverse events, 7 for hospital admission, 5 for ICU admission, and 3 for readmission to the ED after discharge. Overall methodological quality was low‐moderate, risk of bias moderate‐high, and statistical heterogeneity moderate. Pooled relative risk of ICU admission for those treated with PB vs. BZD was 0.92 (95% CI 0.54‐1.55). Risk for admission to the hospital was 0.98 (95% CI 0.89‐1.07) and for any adverse event was 1.1 (95% CI 0.78, 1.57); heterogeneity prevented meta‐analysis for ED readmission.ConclusionsThe current literature base does not show that treatment with phenobarbital significantly reduces ICU admissions, hospital admissions, ED readmissions, or adverse events in ED patients with AWS compared with benzodiazepines alone.

show abstract

Evaluating the impact of including non-randomised studies of interventions in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: a protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

Cited by 2 publications

References 35 publications

Rapid review: A review of methods and recommendations based on current evidence

Rapid review: A review of methods and recommendations based on current evidence

Phenobarbital treatment of alcohol withdrawal in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About