Interventional Radiology Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations for Neurovascular Disorders Are Not Based on High-Quality Systematic Reviews

Chong, Angela; Taylor, Mark J.; Schubert, Gerrit Alexander; Vassar, Matt

doi:10.3174/ajnr.a5079

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All 57 studies assessed adherence to individual PRISMA items, with relevant data provided on request by authors of ten studies [ 39 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 66 , 67 , 69 , 77 , 79 , 85 ]. By pooling the PRISMA adherence data across SRs in all 57 reports, we identified 11 items that fewer than 67% of SRs adhered to (Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the included studies assessing SR adherence to the PRISMA Statement focused on one clinical area, so by pooling data across these studies, our findings are more generalisable. Also, we managed to obtain unpublished data from ten studies that had not reported data on adherence to each individual PRISMA item [ 39 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 66 , 67 , 69 , 77 , 79 , 85 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe PRISMA Statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve transparency of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses. Seven extensions to the PRISMA Statement have been published to address the reporting of different types or aspects of SRs, and another eight are in development. We performed a scoping review to map the research that has been conducted to evaluate the uptake and impact of the PRISMA Statement and extensions. We also synthesised studies evaluating how well SRs published after the PRISMA Statement was disseminated adhere to its recommendations.MethodsWe searched for meta-research studies indexed in MEDLINE® from inception to 31 July 2017, which investigated some component of the PRISMA Statement or extensions (e.g. SR adherence to PRISMA, journal endorsement of PRISMA). One author screened all records and classified the types of evidence available in the studies. We pooled data on SR adherence to individual PRISMA items across all SRs in the included studies and across SRs published after 2009 (the year PRISMA was disseminated).ResultsWe included 100 meta-research studies. The most common type of evidence available was data on SR adherence to the PRISMA Statement, which has been evaluated in 57 studies that have assessed 6487 SRs. The pooled results of these studies suggest that reporting of many items in the PRISMA Statement is suboptimal, even in the 2382 SRs published after 2009 (where nine items were adhered to by fewer than 67% of SRs). Few meta-research studies have evaluated the adherence of SRs to the PRISMA extensions or strategies to increase adherence to the PRISMA Statement and extensions.ConclusionsMany studies have evaluated how well SRs adhere to the PRISMA Statement, and the pooled result of these suggest that reporting of many items is suboptimal. An update of the PRISMA Statement, along with a toolkit of strategies to help journals endorse and implement the updated guideline, may improve the transparency of SRs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Catheter-related complications were classified as major complications (catheter-related pain, hemorrhage, infection, and visceral injury along the access route) and minor complications (catheter dislodgement, obstruction, and kinking) according to the Society of Interventional Radiology guidelines. [ 4 ]…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

CT-guided special approaches of drainage for intraabdominal and pelvic abscesses

Zhao¹,

Li²,

Cui

et al. 2018

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo explore the safety and efficacy of several special approaches of drainage for deep inaccessible intraabdominal and pelvic abscesses.MethodsBy searching of our institutional database, the clinical and radiologic information of all patients with special approaches of abscesses drainage was collected, consisting of etiology, diameter of abscess, duration of drainage, major complications, rates of success, failure and death, and pre-procedure, intra-procedure and post-procedure computed tomography scans.ResultsA total of 124 patients are eligible for the criterion in our center between January 2010 and January 2018. The mean diameter of abscess was 5.6 cm (range 3.0–9.8 cm) and mean duration of drainage was 10.3 days (range 4–43 days). Pain was complained in 6 patients (4.8%) and hemorrhage was observed in one patient. Complete resolution of the abscess following drainage was observed in 115 patients (92.7%). A total of 9 patients (7.3%) failed to percutaneous abscess drainage and 3 patients died of catheter-unrelated diseases. Transintestinal afferent loop of drainage was firstly attempted in six patients and complete resolution of abscess was achieved in five patients.ConclusionSpecial approaches, including transgluteal, presacral space, transhepatic, multiplane reconstruction (MPR)-assisted oblique approach and transintestinal afferent loop approach for those deep inaccessible intraabdominal and pelvic abscesses are safe and feasible.

show abstract

“…Subsequently, we conducted a qualitative evaluation of the literature. Referring to the method reported by Chong et al [13], the contents of each literature were evaluated using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA DTA) checklist [14]. The PRISMA DTA Checklist contains 27 items that assess the quality of meta-analyses.…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Imaging Modalities Efficiency for Detecting Myocardial Ischemia in Patients Suspected of Having Stable Angina

Iwata

Ogasawara

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This study aimed to assess and compare the detection efficiency of non-invasive diagnostic imaging modalities as easy-to-understand indices for patients with myocardial ischemia. Methods: We included 1,000 patients with chest pain and possible coronary artery disease (CAD), based on their clinical condition. The modalities to be assessed were as follows: cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMRI), single-photon emission computed tomography, positron emission computed tomography (PET), stress echocardiography (SE), and fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography (FFRCT). We used the decision tree simulation analysis to assess and compare the following: (1) the number of true positive (TP), false positive (FP), false negative (FN), and true negative (TN) test results per 1,000 patients, (2) positive predictive value (PPV), (3) negative predictive value (NPV), (4) post-test probability (post-TP), (5) diagnostic accuracy (DA), and (6) the number needed to diagnose (NND). Results: In the basic settings (pre-test probability: 50%), PET generated the highest TP (450), NPV (89%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 86%-92%), DA (87%, 95% CI: 85%-89%), and NND (1.35, 95% CI: 1.26-1.48). In contrast, CMRI produced the highest TN (435), PPV (87%, 95% CI: 84%-90%), DA (87%, 95% CI: 85%-89%), and NND (1.35, 95% CI: 1.26-1.48). In addition, FFRCT generated the highest FP (120). SE produced the highest FN (155) and post-TP (29%, 95% CI: 25%-33%). Conclusion: PET and CMRI were considered more efficient than other modalities. The results of our study will be useful for both physicians who order the examination and patients who undergo it.

show abstract

Interventional Radiology Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations for Neurovascular Disorders Are Not Based on High-Quality Systematic Reviews

Cited by 6 publications

References 36 publications

Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review

Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review

CT-guided special approaches of drainage for intraabdominal and pelvic abscesses

Assessment of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Imaging Modalities Efficiency for Detecting Myocardial Ischemia in Patients Suspected of Having Stable Angina

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About