Most systematic reviews of high methodological quality on psoriasis interventions are classified as high risk of bias using ROBIS tool

Gómez-García, Francisco; Ruano, Juan; Gay-Mimbrera, Jesús; Aguilar-Luque, Macarena; Sanz-Cabanillas, Juan Luís; Alcalde‐Mellado, Patricia; Maestre-López, Beatriz; Carmona-Fernández, P.J.; González-Padilla, Marcelino; García-Nieto, Antonio Vélez; Isla-Tejera, Beatriz

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.015

Cited by 26 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a systematic literature search was conducted in a previous study and, taking the results listed, we filtered them to include only those published by July 5th 2016 [ 7 ]. Then, new SRs and MAs published by January 2017 were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An increasing number of elective therapies have been developed during the last decade, but these usually have potentially significant adverse side effects and high costs, which puts patients at risk and brings the sustainability of the health systems into question [ 5 , 6 ]. Assessing full-text documents using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tools, we recently observed that most SRs relating to interventions in psoriasis are of low methodological quality (28.8%) and have a high bias risk (86%) [ 7 ]. However, it is impractical to suggest that interested parties apply this same method to assess the methodological quality and the risk of bias of SRs, as it is a time-consuming process that requires systematic literature searching, abstract screening, and full, in-depth manuscript assessment; further, two or more evaluators are required to control for rating discrepancies [ 8 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions

Gómez-García

Ruano

Aguilar-Luque

et al. 2017

BMC Med Res Methodol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundArticle summaries’ information and structure may influence researchers/clinicians’ decisions to conduct deeper full-text analyses. Specifically, abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA) should provide structured summaries for quick assessment. This study explored a method for determining the methodological quality and bias risk of full-text reviews using abstract information alone.MethodsSystematic literature searches for SRs and/or MA about psoriasis were undertaken on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database. For each review, quality, abstract-reporting completeness, full-text methodological quality, and bias risk were evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A), Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and ROBIS tools, respectively. Article-, author-, and journal-derived metadata were systematically extracted from eligible studies using a piloted template, and explanatory variables concerning abstract-reporting quality were assessed using univariate and multivariate-regression models. Two classification models concerning SRs’ methodological quality and bias risk were developed based on per-item and total PRISMA-A scores and decision-tree algorithms. This work was supported, in part, by project ICI1400136 (JR). No funding was received from any pharmaceutical company.ResultsThis study analysed 139 SRs on psoriasis interventions. On average, they featured 56.7% of PRISMA-A items. The mean total PRISMA-A score was significantly higher for high-methodological-quality SRs than for moderate- and low-methodological-quality reviews. SRs with low-bias risk showed higher total PRISMA-A values than reviews with high-bias risk. In the final model, only ’authors per review > 6’ (OR: 1.098; 95%CI: 1.012-1.194), ’academic source of funding’ (OR: 3.630; 95%CI: 1.788-7.542), and ’PRISMA-endorsed journal’ (OR: 4.370; 95%CI: 1.785-10.98) predicted PRISMA-A variability. Reviews with a total PRISMA-A score < 6, lacking identification as SR or MA in the title, and lacking explanation concerning bias risk assessment methods were classified as low-methodological quality. Abstracts with a total PRISMA-A score ≥ 9, including main outcomes results and explanation bias risk assessment method were classified as having low-bias risk.ConclusionsThe methodological quality and bias risk of SRs may be determined by abstract’s quality and completeness analyses. Our proposal aimed to facilitate synthesis of evidence evaluation by clinical professionals lacking methodological skills. External validation is necessary.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0460-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions

Gómez-García

Ruano

Aguilar-Luque

et al. 2017

BMC Med Res Methodol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our finding is in agreement with previous overview reports in biomedical and public health outcomes which revealed the methodological quality of reviews is not as high as the publication rate. [33][34][35][36] This could be attributed to conducting and reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses without registering or publishing a study protocol; consequently, authors may be biased. This hypothesis is supported by our findings which shows only 4 out of 48 systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses have registered their protocol in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of biomedical and public health reviews in Ethiopia from 1970 to 2018: trends, methodological qualities, gaps and future directions

Alemu

Mohammed

Endalamaw

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:Globally, there has been a dramatic increment of narrative reviews, systematic reviews and overview publication rates. In Ethiopia, only small number of reviews are published and no overviews conducted in biomedical and public health disciplines. Therefore, we aimed to (1) assess the trend of narrative and systematic reviews in Ethiopia, (2) examine their methodological quality and (3) suggest future directions for improvement. Methods:PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, CINHAL, WHO Global Index Medicus, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO electronic databases were searched and supplemented by hand searching as well. All narrative reviews and systematic reviews with or without a meta-analysis from 1970 to April 2018 were included. The International Narrative Systematic assessment (INSA) for narrative reviews and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) for systematic reviews with or without a meta-analysis were used for quality appraisal. Fisher's exact test at the p-value threshold of 0.05 was used to compare the differences in methodological quality. Results:Of the 2,201 initially identified articles, 106 articles published from 1970 to 2018 were eligible for full-text review. Among included reviews, 50.9% were narrative reviews, 16% were systematic reviews and 33.1% were systematic reviews with metaanalyses. Twenty-nine percent were published in Ethiopia and 43.4% were published after 2015. 85.1% of narrative reviews poorly described the characteristics of included studies and 63.8% did not report a conflict of interest. In systematic reviews, 89.6%, 91.7%, and 100% did not register/publish the protocol, justifying the selection of the study designs for inclusion and report sources of funding for the primary studies respectively. Overall,What is new? Key findings• The publication rate of narrative and systematic reviews have risen in Ethiopia.• Almost half of narrative reviews and three-fourths of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis had poor scientific methodological quality. What this adds to what is known P a g e | 513. Bown M, Sutton A. Quality control in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

show abstract

“…Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), the standards for evidence 2 synthesis of primary studies, are extremely useful to support decision making processes 3 in the context of Health Systems [1]. However it is desirable that these decisions being 4 supported by reviews of highest methodological quality and have the lowest risk of 5 bias [2]. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions states that a 6 protocol should be prepared before publishing an SR [3].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions states that a 6 protocol should be prepared before publishing an SR [3]. In 2010, PRISMA statement 7 advocated registration of SR protocols [1,2]. Preparing an a priori protocol will reduce 8 the potential for bias in the review process and increase transparency of analysis and 9 results [4].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of international collaborative research efforts to develop non-Cochrane systematic reviews

Viguera-Guerra

Ruano

Aguilar-Luque

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research-on-research study describes efforts to develop non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) by analysing demographical and time-course collaborations between international institutions using protocols registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) or published in scientific journals. We have published an a priori protocol to develop this study. Protocols published in scientific journals were searched in MEDLINE/PubMed and Embase databases using the query terms 'Systematic review'[Title] AND 'protocol' [Title] from February 2011 to December 2017. Protocols registered at PROSPERO during the same period were obtained by web scraping all non-Cochrane records with a Python script. After excluding protocols with less than 90% fulfilled or duplicated, they were classified as published 'only in PROSPERO', 'only in journals', or in both 'journals and PROSPERO'. Results of data and metadata extraction using text-mining processes were curated by two reviewers. Datasets and R scripts are freely available to facilitate reproducibility. We obtained 20,814 protocols of non-Cochrane SRs. While 'unique protocols' by re-viewers' institutions from 60 countries were the most frequent, to prepare 'collaborative protocols' a median of 6 (2-150) institutions were involved from 130 different countries. Ranked list of countries involved in overall protocol production were the UK, the U.S.. Most protocols were registered only in PROSPERO. However, the number of protocols published in scientific journals (924) or in both PROSPERO and journals (807) has progressively increased over the last three years. Syst Rev and BMJ Open published more than half of the total protocols. While most productive countries were PLOS 1/11 involved in 'unique' and 'collaborative' protocols, less productive countries only participated in 'collaborative' protocols that were mainly published only in PROSPERO. Our results suggest that although most countries were involved in producing in solitary protocols of non-Cochrane SRs during the study period, it would be desirable to develop new strategies to promote international collaborations, especially with less productive countries. Scientific journals vs PROSPERO repository 130There were 124 journals where 1,758 protocols of SRs were published (Fig. 3a). Some of 131 these journal by frequency order are 'BMC Systematic Reviews' (Syst Rev), 'British 132

show abstract

Most systematic reviews of high methodological quality on psoriasis interventions are classified as high risk of bias using ROBIS tool

Cited by 26 publications

References 40 publications

Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions

Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions

Overview of biomedical and public health reviews in Ethiopia from 1970 to 2018: trends, methodological qualities, gaps and future directions

Evolution of international collaborative research efforts to develop non-Cochrane systematic reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About