共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
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. 相似文献2.
Long Ge Jian-cheng Wang Jin-long Li Li Liang Ni An Xin-tong Shi Yin-chun Liu Jin-hui Tian 《PloS one》2014,9(1)
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 31st 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. 相似文献3.
Yali Liu Rui Zhang Jiao Huang Xu Zhao Danlu Liu Wanting Sun Yuefen Mai Peng Zhang Yajun Wang Hua Cao Ke hu Yang 《PloS one》2014,9(11)
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. 相似文献4.
Background
Systematic reviews (SRs) of TCM have become increasingly popular in China and have been published in large numbers. This review provides the first examination of epidemiological characteristics of these SRs as well as compliance with the PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines.Objectives
To examine epidemiological and reporting characteristics as well as methodological quality of SRs of TCM published in Chinese journals.Methods
Four Chinese databases were searched (CBM, CSJD, CJFD and Wanfang Database) for SRs of TCM, from inception through Dec 2009. Data were extracted into Excel spreadsheets. The PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively.Results
A total of 369 SRs were identified, most (97.6%) of which used the terms systematic review or meta-analysis in the title. None of the reviews had been updated. Half (49.8%) were written by clinicians and nearly half (47.7%) were reported in specialty journals. The impact factors of 45.8% of the journals published in were zero. The most commonly treated conditions were diseases of the circulatory and digestive disease. Funding sources were not reported for any reviews. Most (68.8%) reported information about quality assessment, while less than half (43.6%) reported assessing for publication bias. Statistical mistakes appeared in one-third (29.3%) of reviews and most (91.9%) did not report on conflict of interest.Conclusions
While many SRs of TCM interventions have been published in Chinese journals, the quality of these reviews is troubling. As a potential key source of information for clinicians and researchers, not only were many of these reviews incomplete, some contained mistakes or were misleading. Focusing on improving the quality of SRs of TCM, rather than continuing to publish them in great quantity, is urgently needed in order to increase the value of these studies. 相似文献5.
Background
PRISMA guidelines have been developed to improve the reporting of systematic reviews (SRs). Other reporting guidelines and techniques to assess methodological quality of SRs have been developed. We aimed to assess the frequency of the use of reporting and other guidelines in SRs to assess whether PRISMA is being used inappropriately as a substitute for other relevant guidelines.Methods
Web of Knowledge was searched to identify articles citing the PRISMA guidelines over a 12-month period. The use of reporting guidelines (including PRISMA and MOOSE) and tools for assessing methodological quality (including QUADAS) was assessed. Factors associated with appropriate use of guidelines including review type, field of publication and involvement of a methodologist were investigated.Results
Over the 12-month period, 701 SRs were identified. MOOSE guidelines were cited in just 17% of epidemiologic reviews; QUADAS or QUADAS-2 was referred to in just 40% of diagnostic SRs. In the multivariable analysis, medical field of publication and methodologist involvement (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.37, 2.83) were significant predictors of appropriate use of guidelines. Inclusion of a meta-analysis resulted in 73% higher odds of appropriate usage of systematic review guidelines (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.22, 2.35).Conclusions
Usage of SR reporting guidelines and tools for assessment of methodological quality other than PRISMA may be under-utilized with negative implications both for the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews. 相似文献6.
7.
8.
Background
Use of a risk of bias (ROB) tool has been encouraged and advocated to reviewers writing systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). Selective outcome reporting and other sources of bias are included in the Cochrane ROB tool. It is important to know how this specific tool for assessing ROB has been applied since its release. Our objectives were to evaluate whether and to what extent the new Cochrane ROB tool has been used in Chinese journal papers of acupuncture.Methods
We searched CBM, TCM database, CJFD, CSJD, and the Wanfang Database from inception to March 2011. Two reviewers independently selected SRs that primarily focused on acupuncture and moxibustion, from which the data was extracted and analyzed.Results
A total of 836 SRs were identified from the search, of which, 105 were included and four are awaiting assessment. Thirty-six of the 105 SRs were published before release of the Cochrane ROB tool (up to 2009). Most used the Cochrane Handbook 4.2 or Jadad''s scale for risk or quality assessment. From 2009 to March 2011 69 SRs were identified. While “risk of bias” was reported for approximately two-thirds of SRs, only two SRs mentioned use of a “risk of bias tool” in their assessment. Only 5.8% (4/69) of reviews reported information on all six domains which are involved in the ROB tool. A risk of bias graph/summary figure was provided in 2.9% (2/69) of reviews. Most SRs gave information about sequence generation, allocation concealment, blindness, and incomplete outcome data, however, few reviews (5.8%; 4/69) described selective reporting or other potential sources of bias.Conclusions
The Cochrane “risk of bias” tool has not been used in all SRs/MAs of acupuncture published in Chinese Journals after 2008. When the ROB tool was used, reporting of relevant information was often incomplete. 相似文献9.
Christian B. van der Pol Matthew D. F. McInnes William Petrcich Adam S. Tunis Ramez Hanna 《PloS one》2015,10(3)
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to determine whether study quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) published in high impact factor (IF) radiology journals is associated with citation rates.Methods
All SR and MA published in English between Jan 2007–Dec 2011, in radiology journals with an IF >2.75, were identified on Ovid MEDLINE. The Assessing the Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist for study quality, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for study completeness, was applied to each SR & MA. Each SR & MA was then searched in Google Scholar to yield a citation rate. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between AMSTAR and PRISMA results with citation rate. Multivariate analyses were performed to account for the effect of journal IF and journal 5-year IF on correlation with citation rate. Values were reported as medians with interquartile range (IQR) provided.Results
129 studies from 11 journals were included (50 SR and 79 MA). Median AMSTAR result was 8.0/11 (IQR: 5–9) and median PRISMA result was 23.0/27 (IQR: 21–25). The median citation rate for SR & MA was 0.73 citations/month post-publication (IQR: 0.40–1.17). There was a positive correlation between both AMSTAR and PRISMA results and SR & MA citation rate; ρ=0.323 (P=0.0002) and ρ=0.327 (P=0.0002) respectively. Positive correlation persisted for AMSTAR and PRISMA results after journal IF was partialed out; ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) and ρ=0.256 (P=0.004), and after journal 5-year IF was partialed out; ρ=0.235 (P=0.008) and ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) respectively.Conclusion
There is a positive correlation between the quality and the completeness of a reported SR or MA with citation rate which persists when adjusted for journal IF and journal 5-year IF. 相似文献10.
Nikolaos Pandis Padhraig S. Fleming Helen Worthington Kerry Dwan Georgia Salanti 《PloS one》2015,10(9)
Objectives
To assess discrepancies in the analyzed outcomes between protocols and published reviews within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews (COHG) on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).Study Design and Setting
All COHG systematic reviews on the CDSR and the corresponding protocols were retrieved in November 2014 and information on the reported outcomes was recorded. Data was collected at the systematic review level by two reviewers independently.Results
One hundred and fifty two reviews were included. In relation to primary outcomes, 11.2% were downgraded to secondary outcomes, 9.9% were omitted altogether in the final publication and new primary outcomes were identified in 18.4% of publications. For secondary outcomes, 2% were upgraded to primary, 12.5% were omitted and 30.9% were newly introduced in the publication. Overall, 45.4% of reviews had at least one discrepancy when compared to the protocol; these were reported in 14.5% reviews. The number of review updates appears to be associated with discrepancies between final review and protocol (OR: 3.18, 95% CI: 1.77, 5.74, p<0.001). The risk of reporting significant results was lower for both downgraded outcomes [RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.17, 1.58, p = 0.24] and upgraded or newly introduced outcomes [RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.36, 1.64, p = 0.50] compared to outcomes with no discrepancies. The risk of reporting significant results was higher for upgraded or newly introduced outcomes compared to downgraded outcomes (RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.65, 2.16, p = 0.57). None of the comparisons reached statistical significance.Conclusion
While no evidence of selective outcome reporting was found in this study, based on the present analysis of SRs published within COHG systematic reviews, discrepancies between outcomes in pre-published protocols and final reviews continue to be common. Solutions such as the use of standardized outcomes to reduce the prevalence of this issue may need to be explored. 相似文献11.
Iosief Abraha Fabiana Trotta Joseph M. Rimland Alfonso Cruz-Jentoft Isabel Lozano-Montoya Roy L. Soiza Valentina Pierini Paolo Dessì Fulgheri Fabrizia Lattanzio Denis O’Mahony Antonio Cherubini 《PloS one》2015,10(6)
Background
Non-pharmacological intervention (e.g. multidisciplinary interventions, music therapy, bright light therapy, educational interventions etc.) are alternative interventions that can be used in older subjects. There are plenty reviews of non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention and treatment of delirium in older patients and clinicians need a synthesized, methodologically sound document for their decision making.Methods and Findings
We performed a systematic overview of systematic reviews (SRs) of comparative studies concerning non-pharmacological intervention to treat or prevent delirium in older patients. The PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, CINHAL, and PsychINFO (April 28th, 2014) were searched for relevant articles. AMSTAR was used to assess the quality of the SRs. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of primary studies. The elements of the multicomponent interventions were identified and compared among different studies to explore the possibility of performing a meta-analysis. Risk ratios were estimated using a random-effects model. Twenty-four SRs with 31 primary studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Based on the AMSTAR criteria twelve reviews resulted of moderate quality and three resulted of high quality. Overall, multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions significantly reduced the incidence of delirium in surgical wards [2 randomized trials (RCTs): relative risk (RR) 0.71, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.86, I2=0%; (GRADE evidence: moderate)] and in medical wards [2 CCTs: RR 0.65, 95%CI 0.49 to 0.86, I2=0%; (GRADE evidence: moderate)]. There is no evidence supporting the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions to prevent delirium in low risk populations (i.e. low rate of delirium in the control group)[1 RCT: RR 1.75, 95%CI 0.50 to 6.10 (GRADE evidence: very low)]. For patients who have developed delirium, the available evidence does not support the efficacy of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions to treat delirium. Among single component interventions only staff education, reorientation protocol (GRADE evidence: very low)] and Geriatric Risk Assessment MedGuide software [hazard ratio 0.42, 95%CI 0.35 to 0.52, (GRADE evidence: moderate)] resulted effective in preventing delirium.Conclusions
In older patients multi-component non-pharmacological interventions as well as some single-components intervention were effective in preventing delirium but not to treat delirium. 相似文献12.
Rinske A. Gotink Paula Chu Jan J. V. Busschbach Herbert Benson Gregory L. Fricchione M. G. Myriam Hunink 《PloS one》2015,10(4)
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. 相似文献13.
Background
Non-surgical interventions for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis remain highly controversial. Despite the publication of numerous reviews no explicit methodological evaluation of papers labeled as, or having a layout of, a systematic review, addressing this subject matter, is available.Objectives
Analysis and comparison of the content, methodology, and evidence-base from systematic reviews regarding non-surgical interventions for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis.Design
Systematic overview of systematic reviews.Methods
Articles meeting the minimal criteria for a systematic review, regarding any non-surgical intervention for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, with any outcomes measured, were included. Multiple general and systematic review specific databases, guideline registries, reference lists and websites of institutions were searched. The AMSTAR tool was used to critically appraise the methodology, and the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine and the Joanna Briggs Institute’s hierarchies were applied to analyze the levels of evidence from included reviews.Results
From 469 citations, twenty one papers were included for analysis. Five reviews assessed the effectiveness of scoliosis-specific exercise treatments, four assessed manual therapies, five evaluated bracing, four assessed different combinations of interventions, and one evaluated usual physical activity. Two reviews addressed the adverse effects of bracing. Two papers were high quality Cochrane reviews, Three were of moderate, and the remaining sixteen were of low or very low methodological quality. The level of evidence of these reviews ranged from 1 or 1+ to 4, and in some reviews, due to their low methodological quality and/or poor reporting, this could not be established.Conclusions
Higher quality reviews indicate that generally there is insufficient evidence to make a judgment on whether non-surgical interventions in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis are effective. Papers labeled as systematic reviews need to be considered in terms of their methodological rigor; otherwise they may be mistakenly regarded as high quality sources of evidence.Protocol registry number
CRD42013003538, PROSPERO 相似文献14.
15.
Objective
Systematic reviews can include cluster-randomised controlled trials (C-RCTs), which require different analysis compared with standard individual-randomised controlled trials. However, it is not known whether review authors follow the methodological and reporting guidance when including these trials. The aim of this study was to assess the methodological and reporting practice of Cochrane reviews that included C-RCTs against criteria developed from existing guidance.Methods
Criteria were developed, based on methodological literature and personal experience supervising review production and quality. Criteria were grouped into four themes: identifying, reporting, assessing risk of bias, and analysing C-RCTs. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched (2nd December 2013), and the 50 most recent reviews that included C-RCTs were retrieved. Each review was then assessed using the criteria.Results
The 50 reviews we identified were published by 26 Cochrane Review Groups between June 2013 and November 2013. For identifying C-RCTs, only 56% identified that C-RCTs were eligible for inclusion in the review in the eligibility criteria. For reporting C-RCTs, only eight (24%) of the 33 reviews reported the method of cluster adjustment for their included C-RCTs. For assessing risk of bias, only one review assessed all five C-RCT-specific risk-of-bias criteria. For analysing C-RCTs, of the 27 reviews that presented unadjusted data, only nine (33%) provided a warning that confidence intervals may be artificially narrow. Of the 34 reviews that reported data from unadjusted C-RCTs, only 13 (38%) excluded the unadjusted results from the meta-analyses.Conclusions
The methodological and reporting practices in Cochrane reviews incorporating C-RCTs could be greatly improved, particularly with regard to analyses. Criteria developed as part of the current study could be used by review authors or editors to identify errors and improve the quality of published systematic reviews incorporating C-RCTs. 相似文献16.
17.
Ivor Popovich Bethany Windsor Vanessa Jordan Marian Showell Bev Shea Cynthia M. Farquhar 《PloS one》2012,7(12)
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. 相似文献18.
Regine Potthast Volker Verv?lgyi Natalie McGauran Michaela F. Kerekes Beate Wieseler Thomas Kaiser 《PloS one》2014,9(4)
Background
Clinical trial results registries may contain relevant unpublished information. Our main aim was to investigate the potential impact of the inclusion of reports from industry results registries on systematic reviews (SRs).Methods
We identified a sample of 150 eligible SRs in PubMed via backward selection. Eligible SRs investigated randomized controlled trials of drugs and included at least 2 bibliographic databases (original search date: 11/2009). We checked whether results registries of manufacturers and/or industry associations had also been searched. If not, we searched these registries for additional trials not considered in the SRs, as well as for additional data on trials already considered. We reanalysed the primary outcome and harm outcomes reported in the SRs and determined whether results had changed. A “change” was defined as either a new relevant result or a change in the statistical significance of an existing result. We performed a search update in 8/2013 and identified a sample of 20 eligible SRs to determine whether mandatory results registration from 9/2008 onwards in the public trial and results registry ClinicalTrials.gov had led to its inclusion as a standard information source in SRs, and whether the inclusion rate of industry results registries had changed.Results
133 of the 150 SRs (89%) in the original analysis did not search industry results registries. For 23 (17%) of these SRs we found 25 additional trials and additional data on 31 trials already included in the SRs. This additional information was found for more than twice as many SRs of drugs approved from 2000 as approved beforehand. The inclusion of the additional trials and data yielded changes in existing results or the addition of new results for 6 of the 23 SRs. Of the 20 SRs retrieved in the search update, 8 considered ClinicalTrials.gov or a meta-registry linking to ClinicalTrials.gov, and 1 considered an industry results registry.Conclusion
The inclusion of industry and public results registries as an information source in SRs is still insufficient and may result in publication and outcome reporting bias. In addition to an essential search in ClinicalTrials.gov, authors of SRs should consider searching industry results registries. 相似文献19.
Margaret M. Demment Karen Peters J. Andrew Dykens Ann Dozier Haq Nawaz Scott McIntosh Jennifer S. Smith Angela Sy Tracy Irwin Thomas T. Fogg Mahmooda Khaliq Rachel Blumenfeld Mehran Massoudi Timothy De Ver Dye 《PloS one》2015,10(9)
Background
Breast and cervical cancers have emerged as major global health challenges and disproportionately lead to excess morbidity and mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) when compared to high-income countries. The objective of this paper was to highlight key findings, recommendations, and gaps in research and practice identified through a scoping study of recent reviews in breast and cervical cancer in LMICs.Methods
We conducted a scoping study based on the six-stage framework of Arskey and O’Malley. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, and CINAHL with the following inclusion criteria: 1) published between 2005-February 2015, 2) focused on breast or cervical cancer 3) focused on LMIC, 4) review article, and 5) published in English.Results
Through our systematic search, 63 out of the 94 identified cervical cancer reviews met our selection criteria and 36 of the 54 in breast cancer. Cervical cancer reviews were more likely to focus upon prevention and screening, while breast cancer reviews were more likely to focus upon treatment and survivorship. Few of the breast cancer reviews referenced research and data from LMICs themselves; cervical cancer reviews were more likely to do so. Most reviews did not include elements of the PRISMA checklist.Conclusion
Overall, a limited evidence base supports breast and cervical cancer control in LMICs. Further breast and cervical cancer prevention and control studies are necessary in LMICs. 相似文献20.