The Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Diagnostic Tests Published by Authors in China

Background

The quality of reporting in systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of diagnostic tests published by authors in China has not been evaluated. The aims of present study are to evaluate the quality of reporting in diagnostic SRs/MAs using the PRISMA statement and determine the changes in the quality of reporting over time.

Methods

According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we searched five databases including Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of knowledge, to identify SRs/MAs on diagnostic tests. The searches were conducted on July 14, 2012 and the cut off for inclusion of the SRs/MAs was December 31^st 2011. The PRISMA statement was used to assess the quality of reporting. Analysis was performed using Excel 2003, RevMan 5.

Results

A total of 312 studies were included. Fifteen diseases systems were covered. According to the PRISMA checklist, there had been serious reporting flaws in following items: structured summary (item 2, 22.4%), objectives (item 4, 18.9%), protocol and registration (item 5, 2.6%), risk of bias across studies (item 15, 26.3%), funding (item 27, 28.8%). The subgroup analysis showed that there had been some statistically significant improvement in total compliance for 9 PRISMA items after the PRISMA was released, 6 items were statistically improved regarding funded articles, 3 items were statistically improved for CSCD articles, and there was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of reviews reporting on 22 items for SCI articles (P<0.050).

Conclusion

The numbers of diagnostic SRs/MAs is increasing annually. The quality of reporting has measurably been improved over the previous years. Unfortunately, there are still many deficiencies in the reporting including protocol and registration, search, risk of bias across studies, and funding. Future Chinese reviewers should address issues on these aspects.     

Quality Assessment of TPB-Based Questionnaires: A Systematic Review

Objective

This review is aimed at assessing the quality of questionnaires and their development process based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) change model.

Methods

A systematic literature search for studies with the primary aim of TPB-based questionnaire development was conducted in relevant databases between 2002 and 2012 using selected search terms. Ten of 1,034 screened abstracts met the inclusion criteria and were assessed for methodological quality using two different appraisal tools: one for the overall methodological quality of each study and the other developed for the appraisal of the questionnaire content and development process. Both appraisal tools consisted of items regarding the likelihood of bias in each study and were eventually combined to give the overall quality score for each included study.

Results

8 of the 10 included studies showed low risk of bias in the overall quality assessment of each study, while 9 of the studies were of high quality based on the quality appraisal of questionnaire content and development process.

Conclusion

Quality appraisal of the questionnaires in the 10 reviewed studies was successfully conducted, highlighting the top problem areas (including: sample size estimation; inclusion of direct and indirect measures; and inclusion of questions on demographics) in the development of TPB-based questionnaires and the need for researchers to provide a more detailed account of their development process.     

Aspirin in the Treatment of Cancer: Reductions in Metastatic Spread and in Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Published Studies

BackgroundLow-dose aspirin has been shown to reduce the incidence of cancer, but its role in the treatment of cancer is uncertain.ObjectivesWe conducted a systematic search of the scientific literature on aspirin taken by patients following a diagnosis of cancer, together with appropriate meta-analyses.MethodsSearches were completed in Medline and Embase in December 2015 using a pre-defined search strategy. References and abstracts of all the selected papers were scanned and expert colleagues were contacted for additional studies. Two reviewers applied pre-determined eligibility criteria (cross-sectional, cohort and controlled studies, and aspirin taken after a diagnosis of cancer), assessed study quality and extracted data on cancer cause-specific deaths, overall mortality and incidence of metastases. Random effects meta-analyses and planned sub-group analyses were completed separately for observational and experimental studies. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed in sensitivity analyses and appropriate omissions made. Papers were examined for any reference to bleeding and authors of the papers were contacted and questioned.ResultsFive reports of randomised trials were identified, together with forty two observational studies: sixteen on colorectal cancer, ten on breast and ten on prostate cancer mortality. Pooling of eleven observational reports of the effect of aspirin on cause-specific mortality from colon cancer, after the omission of one report identified on the basis of sensitivity analyses, gave a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.76 (95% CI 0.66, 0.88) with reduced heterogeneity (P = 0.04). The cause specific mortality in five reports of patients with breast cancer showed significant heterogeneity (P<0.0005) but the omission of one outlying study reduced heterogeneity (P = 0.19) and led to an HR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.69, 1.09). Heterogeneity between nine studies of prostate cancer was significant, but again, the omission of one study led to acceptable homogeneity (P = 0.26) and an overall HR = 0.89 (95% CI 0.79–0.99). Six single studies of other cancers suggested reductions in cause specific mortality by aspirin, and in five the effect is statistically significant. There were no significant differences between the pooled HRs for the three main cancers and after the omission of three reports already identified in sensitivity analyses heterogeneity was removed and revealed an overall HR of 0.83 (95% CI 0.76–0.90). A mutation of PIK3CA was present in about 20% of patients, and appeared to explain most of the reduction in colon cancer mortality by aspirin. Data were not adequate to examine the importance of this or any other marker in the effect of aspirin in the other cancers. On bleeding attributable to aspirin two reports stated that there had been no side effect or bleeding attributable to aspirin. Authors on the other reports were written to and 21 replied stating that no data on bleeding were available.

Conclusions and Implications

The study highlights the need for randomised trials of aspirin treatment in a variety of cancers. While these are awaited there is an urgent need for evidence from observational studies of aspirin and the less common cancers, and for more evidence of the relevance of possible bio-markers of the aspirin effect on a wide variety of cancers. In the meantime it is urged that patients in whom a cancer is diagnosed should be given details of this research, together with its limitations, to enable each to make an informed decision as to whether or not to take low-dose aspirin.

Systematic Review Protocol Number

CRD42015014145     

Quality Assessment and Factor Analysis of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Endoscopic Ultrasound Diagnosis

Background

Comprehensive monitoring of the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) requires complete and accurate reporting and methodology.

Objective

To assess the reporting and methodological quality of SRs/MAs on EUS diagnosis and to explore the potential factors influencing articles’ quality.

Methods

The quality of the reporting and methodology was evaluated in relation to the adherence of papers to the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR quality scale. The total scores for every criterion and for every article on the two standards were calculated. Data were evaluated and analyzed using SPSS17.0 and RevMan 5.1 in terms of publication time, category of reviews, category of journals, and funding resource.

Results

A total of 72 SRs/MAs was included, but no Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) were obtained. The number of SRs/MAs ranged from 1 in 1998 to 15 in 2013; 88.1% used the QUADAS tool; the average overall scores by PRISMA statement and AMSTAR tool were 19.9 and 5.4, respectively. Scores on some items showed substantial improvement after publication of PRISMA and AMSTAR. However, no reviews followed the criterion of protocol and registration, and only 11.1% of articles fulfilled the criterion of literature search. SRs/MAs from the Science Citation Index (SCI) were of better quality than non-SCI studies. Funding resource made no difference to quality. Regression analysis showed that time of publication and inclusion in the SCI were significantly correlated with total scores on the two standards.

Conclusion

The reporting and methodological quality of SRs/MAs on EUS diagnosis has improved measurably since PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists released. It is hoped that CSR in this field will be produced. Literature searching and protocol criteria, as well as QUADAS-2 tool need to be addressed more in the future. Time of publication and SCI relate more to the overall quality of SRs/MAs than does funding resource.     

Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture

Background

The QUOROM and PRISMA statements were published in 1999 and 2009, respectively, to improve the consistency of reporting systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of clinical trials. However, not all SRs/MAs adhere completely to these important standards. In particular, it is not clear how well SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies adhere to reporting standards and which reporting criteria are generally ignored in these analyses.

Objectives

To evaluate reporting quality in SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies.

Methods

We performed a literature search for studies published prior to 2014 using the following public archives: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) database, the Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), the Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database (CSJD), and the Wanfang database. Data were extracted into pre-prepared Excel data-extraction forms. Reporting quality was assessed based on the PRISMA checklist (27 items).

Results

Of 476 appropriate SRs/MAs identified in our search, 203, 227, and 46 were published in Chinese journals, international journals, and the Cochrane Database, respectively. In 476 SRs/MAs, only 3 reported the information completely. By contrast, approximately 4.93% (1/203), 8.81% (2/227) and 0.00% (0/46) SRs/Mas reported less than 10 items in Chinese journals, international journals and CDSR, respectively. In general, the least frequently reported items (reported≤50%) in SRs/MAs were “protocol and registration”, “risk of bias across studies”, and “additional analyses” in both methods and results sections.

Conclusions

SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies have not comprehensively reported information recommended in the PRISMA statement. Our study underscores that, in addition to focusing on careful study design and performance, attention should be paid to comprehensive reporting standards in SRs/MAs on acupuncture studies.     

A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses on Gene Polymorphisms and Gastric Cancer Risk

Background

Individual variations in gastric cancer risk have been associated in the last decade with specific variant alleles of different genes that are present in a significant proportion of the population. Polymorphisms may modify the effects of environmental exposures, and these gene-environment interactions could partly explain the high variation of gastric cancer incidence around the world. The aim of this report is to carry out a systematic review of the published meta-analyses of studies investigating the association between gene polymorphisms and gastric cancer risk, and describe their impact at population level. Priorities on the design of further primary studies are then provided.

Methods

A structured bibliographic search on Medline and EMBASE databases has been performed to identify meta-analyses on genetic susceptibility to gastric cancer, without restriction criteria. We report the main results of the meta-analyses and we describe the subgroup analyses performed, focusing on the detection of statistical heterogeneity. We investigated publication bias by pooling the primary studies included in the meta-analyses, and we computed the population attributable risk (PAR) for each polymorphism.

Results

Twelve meta-analyses and one pooled-analysis of community based genetic association studies were included, focusing on nine genes involved in inflammation (IL-1β, IL-1RN, IL-8), detoxification of carcinogens (GSTs, CYP2E1), folate metabolism (MTHFR), intercellular adhesion (E-cadherin) and cell cycle regulation (p53). According to their random-Odds Ratios, individuals carrying one of the IL-1RN *2, IL-1β -511T variant alleles or homozygotes for MTHFR 677T are significantly at higher risk of gastric cancer than those with the wild type homozygote genotypes, showing high PARs. The main sources of heterogeneity in the meta-analyses were ethnicity, quality of the primary study, and selected environmental co-exposures. Effect modification by Helicobacter pylori infection for subjects carrying the unfavourable variant of IL-1 polymorphisms and by low folate intake for individuals homozygotes for MTHFR 677T allele has been reported, while genes involved in the detoxification of carcinogens show synergistic interactions. Publication bias was observed (Egger test, p = 0.03).

Discussion

The published meta-analyses included in our systematic review focused on polymorphisms having a small effect in increasing gastric cancer risk per se. Nevertheless, the risk increase by interacting with environmental exposures and in combination with additional unfavourable polymorphisms. Unfortunately meta-analyses are underpowered for many subgroup analyses, so additional primary studies performed on larger population and collecting data on environmental and genetic co-exposures are demanded.Key Words: Gastric cancer, meta-analysis, heterogeneity, polymorphism, population attributable risk.     

Meditative Movement Therapies and Health-Related Quality-of-Life in Adults: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses

Poor health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) is a significant public health issue while the use of meditative movement therapies has been increasing. The purpose of this investigation was to carry out a systematic review of previous meta-analyses that examined the effects of meditative movement therapies (yoga, tai chi and qigong) on HRQOL in adults. Previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials published up through February, 2014 were included by searching nine electronic databases and cross-referencing. Dual-selection and data abstraction occurred. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews Instrument (AMSTAR) was used to assess methodological quality. Standardized mean differences that were pooled using random-effects models were included. In addition, 95% prediction intervals were calculated as well as the number needed-to-treat and percentile improvements. Of the 510 citations screened, 10 meta-analyses representing a median of 3 standardized mean differences in 82 to 528 participants (median = 270) with breast cancer, schizophrenia, low back pain, heart failure and diabetes, were included. Median methodological quality was 70%. Median length, frequency and duration of the meditative movement therapies were 12 weeks, 3 times per week, for 71 minutes per session. The majority of results (78.9%) favored statistically significant improvements (non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals) in HRQOL, with standardized mean differences ranging from 0.18 to 2.28. More than half of the results yielded statistically significant heterogeneity (Q ≤ 0.10) and large or very large inconsistency (I² ≥ 50%). All 95% prediction intervals included zero. The number-needed-to-treat ranged from 2 to 10 while percentile improvements ranged from 9.9 to 48.9. The results of this study suggest that meditative movement therapies may improve HRQOL in adults with selected conditions. However, a need exists for a large, more inclusive meta-analysis (PROSPERO Registration #CRD42014014576).     

The Epidemiology of Hepatitis C Virus in the Maghreb Region: Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

Objective

To systematically review and synthesize available epidemiological data on hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence and incidence in the Maghreb region and to estimate the country-specific population-level HCV prevalence.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of HCV antibody prevalence and incidence in the Maghreb countries as outlined by the PRISMA guidelines. Meta-analyses were conducted using DerSimonian-Laird random-effect models with inverse variance weighting to pool HCV prevalence estimates among general population groups.

Results

We identified 133 HCV prevalence measures and two HCV incidence measures. Among high risk groups, HCV prevalence ranged between 22% and 94% among people who inject drugs, 20% and 76% among dialysis patients, and 2% and 51% among hemophiliacs. Among intermediate-risk groups, considerable but widely variable HCV prevalence was found. Most common risk factors cited across studies were the duration of dialysis, number of transfusions, and having a history of surgery or dental work. The national HCV prevalence in Algeria was estimated at 0.3% (95%CI: 0.1–0.5), Libya 1.2% (95%CI: 1.1–1.3), Mauritania 1.1% (95%CI: 0–2.3), Morocco 0.8% (95%CI: 0.5–1.2), and Tunisia 0.6% (95%CI: 0.5–0.8).

Conclusions

HCV prevalence in the Maghreb region of the Middle East and North Africa is comparable to that in developed countries of about 1%. HCV exposures appear often to be linked to medical care and are suggestive of ongoing transmission in such settings. Injecting drug use appears also to be a major, though not dominant, contributor to HCV transmission. Further research is needed to draw a more thorough understanding of HCV epidemiology, especially in the countries with limited number of studies. HCV prevention policy and programming in these countries should focus on the settings of exposure.     

Neurobiological Correlates in Forensic Assessment: A Systematic Review

Background

With the increased knowledge of biological risk factors, interest in including this information in forensic assessments is growing. Currently, forensic assessments are predominantly focused on psychosocial factors. A better understanding of the neurobiology of violent criminal behaviour and biological risk factors could improve forensic assessments.

Objective

To provide an overview of the current evidence about biological risk factors that predispose people to antisocial and violent behaviour, and determine its usefulness in forensic assessment.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using articles from PsycINFO, Embase and Pubmed published between 2000 and 2013.

Results

This review shows that much research on the relationship between genetic predisposition and neurobiological alterations with aggression is performed on psychiatric patients or normal populations. However, the number of studies comparing offenders is limited. There is still a great need to understand how genetic and neurobiological alterations and/or deficits are related to violent behaviour, specifically criminality. Most studies focus on only one of the genetic or neurobiological fields related to antisocial and/or violent behaviour. To reliably correlate the findings of these fields, a standardization of methodology is urgently needed.

Conclusion

Findings from the current review suggest that violent aggression, like all forms of human behaviour, both develops under specific genetic and environmental conditions, and requires interplay between these conditions. Violence should be considered as the end product of a chain of life events, during which risks accumulate and potentially reinforce each other, displaying or triggering a specific situation. This systematic review did not find evidence of predispositions or neurobiological alterations that solely explain antisocial or violent behaviour. With better designed studies, more correlation between diverse fields, and more standardisation, it might be possible to elucidate underlying mechanisms. Thus, we advocate maintaining the current case-by-case differentiated approach to evidence-based forensic assessment.     

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in Subfertility: A Comparison of Two Different Approaches

Background

Systematic reviews are used widely to guide health care decisions. Several tools have been created to assess systematic review quality. The measurement tool for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews known as the AMSTAR tool applies a yes/no score to eleven relevant domains of review methodology. This tool has been reworked so that each domain is scored based on a four point scale, producing R-AMSTAR.

Methods and Findings

We aimed to compare the AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR tools in assessing systematic reviews in the field of assisted reproduction for subfertility. All published systematic reviews on assisted reproductive technology, with the latest search for studies taking place from 2007–2011, were considered. Reviews that contained no included studies or considered diagnostic outcomes were excluded. Thirty each of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews were randomly selected from a search of relevant databases. Both tools were then applied to all sixty reviews. The results were converted to percentage scores and all reviews graded and ranked based on this. AMSTAR produced a much wider variation in percentage scores and achieved higher inter-rater reliability than R-AMSTAR according to kappa statistics. The average rating for Cochrane reviews was consistent between the two tools (88.3% for R-AMSTAR versus 83.6% for AMSTAR) but inconsistent for non-Cochrane reviews (63.9% R-AMSTAR vs. 38.5% AMSTAR). In comparing the rankings generated between the two tools Cochrane reviews changed an average of 4.2 places, compared to 2.9 for non-Cochrane.

Conclusion

R-AMSTAR provided greater guidance in the assessment of domains and produced quantitative results. However, there were many problems with the construction of its criteria and AMSTAR was much easier to apply consistently. We recommend that AMSTAR incorporates the findings of this study and produces additional guidance for its application in order to improve its reliability and usefulness.     

Patient-Reported Outcomes for Quality of Life Assessment in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation is a large and growing burden across all types of healthcare. Both incidence and prevalence are expected to double in the next 20 years, with huge impact on hospital admissions, costs and patient quality of life. Patient wellbeing determines the management strategy for atrial fibrillation, including the use of rhythm control therapy and the clinical success of heart rate control. Hence, evaluation of quality of life is an emerging and important part of the assessment of patients with atrial fibrillation. Although a number of questionnaires to assess quality of life in atrial fibrillation are available, a comprehensive overview of their measurement properties is lacking.InterpretationGiven the low ratings for many measurement properties, no single questionnaire can be recommended, although AFEQT performed strongest. Further studies to robustly assess reliability, validity and responsiveness of AF-specific quality of life questionnaires are required. This review consolidates the current evidence for quality of life assessment in patients with atrial fibrillation and identifies priority areas for future research.     

Assessment of Trust in Physician: A Systematic Review of Measures

Over the last decades, trust in physician has gained in importance. Studies have shown that trust in physician is associated with positive health behaviors in patients. However, the validity of empirical findings fundamentally depends on the quality of the measures in use. Our aim was to provide an overview of trust in physician measures and to evaluate the methodological quality of the psychometric studies and the quality of psychometric properties of identified measures. We conducted an electronic search in three databases (Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo). The secondary search strategy included reference and citation tracking of included full texts and consultation of experts in the field. Retrieved records were screened independently by two reviewers. Full texts that reported on testing of psychometric properties of trust in physician measures were included in the review. Study characteristics and psychometric properties were extracted. We evaluated the quality of design, methods and reporting of studies with the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. The quality of psychometric properties was assessed with Terwee’s 2007 quality criteria. After screening 3284 records and assessing 169 full texts for eligibility, fourteen studies on seven trust in physician measures were included. Most of the studies were conducted in the USA and used English measures. All but one measure were generic. Sample sizes range from 25 to 1199 participants, recruited in very heterogeneous settings. Quality assessments revealed several flaws in the methodological quality of studies. COSMIN scores were mainly fair or poor. The overall quality of measures’ psychometric properties was intermediate. Several trust in physician measures have been developed over the last years, but further psychometric evaluation of these measures is strongly recommended. The methodological quality of psychometric property studies could be improved by adhering to quality criteria like the COSMIN checklist.     

Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Otorhinolaryngologic Articles Based on the PRISMA Statement

Background

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) provide the highest possible level of evidence. However, poor conduct or reporting of SRs and MAs may reduce their utility. The PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) was developed to help authors report their SRs and MAs adequately.

Objectives

Our objectives were to (1) evaluate the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs and their abstracts in otorhinolaryngologic literature using the PRISMA and PRISMA for Abstracts checklists, respectively, (2) compare the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs published in Ear Nose Throat (ENT) journals to the quality of SRs and MAs published in the ‘gold standard’ Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and (3) formulate recommendations to improve reporting of SRs and MAs in ENT journals.

Methods

On September 3, 2014, we searched the Pubmed database using a combination of filters to retrieve SRs and MAs on otorhinolaryngologic topics published in 2012 and 2013 in the top 5 ENT journals (ISI Web of Knowledge 2013) or CDSR and relevant articles were selected. We assessed how many, and which, PRISMA (for Abstracts) items were reported adequately per journal type.

Results

We identified large differences in the reporting of individual items between the two journal types with room for improvement. In general, SRs and MAs published in ENT journals (n = 31) reported a median of 54.4% of the PRISMA items adequately, whereas the 49 articles published in the CDSR reported a median of 100.0 adequately (difference statistically significant, p < 0.001). For abstracts, medians of 41.7% for ENT journals and 75.0% for the CDSR were found (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The reporting of SRs and MAs in ENT journals leaves room for improvement and would benefit if the PRISMA Statement were endorsed by these journals.     

An Investigation of the Shortcomings of the CONSORT 2010 Statement for the Reporting of Group Sequential Randomised Controlled Trials: A Methodological Systematic Review

Background

It can be argued that adaptive designs are underused in clinical research. We have explored concerns related to inadequate reporting of such trials, which may influence their uptake. Through a careful examination of the literature, we evaluated the standards of reporting of group sequential (GS) randomised controlled trials, one form of a confirmatory adaptive design.

Methods

We undertook a systematic review, by searching Ovid MEDLINE from the 1^st January 2001 to 23^rd September 2014, supplemented with trials from an audit study. We included parallel group, confirmatory, GS trials that were prospectively designed using a Frequentist approach. Eligible trials were examined for compliance in their reporting against the CONSORT 2010 checklist. In addition, as part of our evaluation, we developed a supplementary checklist to explicitly capture group sequential specific reporting aspects, and investigated how these are currently being reported.

Results

Of the 284 screened trials, 68(24%) were eligible. Most trials were published in “high impact” peer-reviewed journals. Examination of trials established that 46(68%) were stopped early, predominantly either for futility or efficacy. Suboptimal reporting compliance was found in general items relating to: access to full trials protocols; methods to generate randomisation list(s); details of randomisation concealment, and its implementation. Benchmarking against the supplementary checklist, GS aspects were largely inadequately reported. Only 3(7%) trials which stopped early reported use of statistical bias correction. Moreover, 52(76%) trials failed to disclose methods used to minimise the risk of operational bias, due to the knowledge or leakage of interim results. Occurrence of changes to trial methods and outcomes could not be determined in most trials, due to inaccessible protocols and amendments.

Discussion and Conclusions

There are issues with the reporting of GS trials, particularly those specific to the conduct of interim analyses. Suboptimal reporting of bias correction methods could potentially imply most GS trials stopping early are giving biased results of treatment effects. As a result, research consumers may question credibility of findings to change practice when trials are stopped early. These issues could be alleviated through a CONSORT extension. Assurance of scientific rigour through transparent adequate reporting is paramount to the credibility of findings from adaptive trials. Our systematic literature search was restricted to one database due to resource constraints.     

Standardised Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Healthcare: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of RCTs

Background

Mindfulness-based therapies are being used in a wide range of common chronic conditions in both treatment and prevention despite lack of consensus about their effectiveness in different patient categories.

Objective

To systematically review the evidence of effectiveness MBSR and MBCT in different patient categories.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of RCTs, using the standardized MBSR or MBCT programs. We used PRISMA guidelines to assess the quality of the included reviews and performed a random effects meta-analysis with main outcome measure Cohen’s d. All types of participants were considered.

Results

The search produced 187 reviews: 23 were included, covering 115 unique RCTs and 8,683 unique individuals with various conditions. Compared to wait list control and compared to treatment as usual, MBSR and MBCT significantly improved depressive symptoms (d=0.37; 95%CI 0.28 to 0.45, based on 5 reviews, N=2814), anxiety (d=0.49; 95%CI 0.37 to 0.61, based on 4 reviews, N=2525), stress (d=0.51; 95%CI 0.36 to 0.67, based on 2 reviews, N=1570), quality of life (d=0.39; 95%CI 0.08 to 0.70, based on 2 reviews, N=511) and physical functioning (d=0.27; 95%CI 0.12 to 0.42, based on 3 reviews, N=1015). Limitations include heterogeneity within patient categories, risk of publication bias and limited long-term follow-up in several studies.

Conclusion

The evidence supports the use of MBSR and MBCT to alleviate symptoms, both mental and physical, in the adjunct treatment of cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic pain, depression, anxiety disorders and in prevention in healthy adults and children.     

Adverse Events Associated with Yoga: A Systematic Review of Published Case Reports and Case Series

While yoga is gaining increased popularity in North America and Europe, its safety has been questioned in the lay press. The aim of this systematic review was to assess published case reports and case series on adverse events associated with yoga. Medline/Pubmed, Scopus, CAMBase, IndMed and the Cases Database were screened through February 2013; and 35 case reports and 2 case series reporting a total of 76 cases were included. Ten cases had medical preconditions, mainly glaucoma and osteopenia. Pranayama, hatha yoga, and Bikram yoga were the most common yoga practices; headstand, shoulder stand, lotus position, and forceful breathing were the most common yoga postures and breathing techniques cited. Twenty-seven adverse events (35.5%) affected the musculoskeletal system; 14 (18.4%) the nervous system; and 9 (11.8%) the eyes. Fifteen cases (19.7%) reached full recovery; 9 cases (11.3%) partial recovery; 1 case (1.3%) no recovery; and 1 case (1.3%) died. As any other physical or mental practice, yoga should be practiced carefully under the guidance of a qualified instructor. Beginners should avoid extreme practices such as headstand, lotus position and forceful breathing. Individuals with medical preconditions should work with their physician and yoga teacher to appropriately adapt postures; patients with glaucoma should avoid inversions and patients with compromised bone should avoid forceful yoga practices.     

Reporting of Adverse Events in Published and Unpublished Studies of Health Care Interventions: A Systematic Review

BackgroundWe performed a systematic review to assess whether we can quantify the underreporting of adverse events (AEs) in the published medical literature documenting the results of clinical trials as compared with other nonpublished sources, and whether we can measure the impact this underreporting has on systematic reviews of adverse events.ConclusionsThere is strong evidence that much of the information on adverse events remains unpublished and that the number and range of adverse events is higher in unpublished than in published versions of the same study. The inclusion of unpublished data can also reduce the imprecision of pooled effect estimates during meta-analysis of adverse events.