共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 62 毫秒
1.
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2.
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. 相似文献3.
Background
Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the preferred study design when comparing therapeutical interventions in medicine. To improve clarity, consistency and transparency of reporting RCTs, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed.Objectives
(1) To assess the quality of reports and abstracts of RCTs in otorhinolaryngologic literature by using CONSORT checklists, (2) to compare the quality of reports and abstracts of otorhinolaryngologic RCTs between the top 5 general medical journals and top 5 otorhinolaryngologic journals, and (3) to formulate recommendations for authors and editors of otorhinolaryngologic (‘ENT’) journals.Methods
Based on 2012 ISI Web of Knowledge impact factors, the top 5 general medical and ENT journals were selected. On 25 June 2014, using a highly sensitive Cochrane RCT filter and ENT filter, possibly relevant articles since January 1st, 2010 were retrieved and relevant RCTs were selected. We assessed how many CONSORT items were reported adequately in reports and abstracts and compared the two journal types.Results
Otorhinolaryngologic RCTs (n = 15) published in general medical journals reported a mean of 92.1% (95% confidence interval: 89.5%–94.7%) of CONSORT items adequately, whereas RCTs (n = 18) published in ENT journals reported a mean of 71.8% (66.7%–76.8%) adequately (p < 0.001). For abstracts, means of 70.0% (63.7%–76.3%) and 32.3% (26.6–38.0%) were found respectively (p < 0.001). Large differences for specific items exist between the two journal types.Conclusion
The quality of reporting of RCTs in otorhinolaryngologic journals is suboptimal. RCTs published in general medical journals have a higher quality of reporting than RCTs published in ENT journals. We recommend authors to report their trial according to the CONSORT Statement and advise editors to endorse the CONSORT Statement and implement the CONSORT Statement in the editorial process to ensure more adequate reporting of RCTs and their abstracts. 相似文献4.
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5.
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6.
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7.
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8.
9.
10.
11.
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12.
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13.
Background
Confidence that randomized controlled trial (RCT) results accurately reflect intervention effectiveness depends on proper trial conduct and the accuracy and completeness of published trial reports. The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (JCCP) is the primary trials journal amongst American Psychological Association (APA) journals. The objectives of this study were to review RCTs recently published in JCCP to evaluate (1) adequacy of primary outcome analysis definitions; (2) registration status; and, (3) among registered trials, adequacy of outcome registrations. Additionally, we compared results from JCCP to findings from a recent study of top psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals.Methods
Eligible RCTs were published in JCCP in 2013–2014. For each RCT, two investigators independently extracted data on (1) adequacy of outcome analysis definitions in the published report, (2) whether the RCT was registered prior to enrolling patients, and (3) adequacy of outcome registration.Results
Of 70 RCTs reviewed, 12 (17.1%) adequately defined primary or secondary outcome analyses, whereas 58 (82.3%) had multiple primary outcome analyses without statistical adjustment or undefined outcome analyses. There were 39 (55.7%) registered trials. Only two trials registered prior to patient enrollment with a single primary outcome variable and time point of assessment. However, in one of the two trials, registered and published outcomes were discrepant. No studies were adequately registered as per Standard Protocol Items: Recommendation for Interventional Trials guidelines. Compared to psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals, the proportion of published trials with adequate outcome analysis declarations was significantly lower in JCCP (17.1% versus 32.9%; p = 0.029). The proportion of registered trials in JCCP (55.7%) was comparable to behavioral medicine journals (52.6%; p = 0.709).Conclusions
The quality of published outcome analysis definitions and trial registrations in JCCP is suboptimal. Greater attention to proper trial registration and outcome analysis definition in published reports is needed. 相似文献14.
Masaki Futamura Kim S. Thomas Douglas J. C. Grindlay Elizabeth J. Doney Donna Torley Hywel C. Williams 《PloS one》2013,8(3)
Background
Many research studies have been published on atopic eczema and these are often summarised in systematic reviews (SRs). Identifying SRs can be time-consuming for health professionals, and researchers. In order to facilitate the identification of important research, we have compiled an on-line resource that includes all relevant eczema reviews published since 2000.Methods
SRs were searched for in MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE and NHS Evidence. Selected SRs were assessed against the pre-defined eligibility criteria and relevant articles were grouped by treatment category for the included interventions. All identified systematic reviews are included in the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT) database (www.greatdatabase.org.uk) and key clinical messages are summarised here.Results
A total of 128 SRs reviews were identified, including three clinical guidelines. Of these, 46 (36%) were found in the Cochrane Library. No single database contained all of the SRs found. The number of SRs published per year has increased substantially over the last thirteen years, and reviews were published in a variety of clinical journals. Of the 128 SRs, 1 (1%) was on mechanism, 37 (29%) were on epidemiology, 40 (31%) were on eczema prevention, 29 (23%) were on topical treatments, 31 (24%) were on systemic treatments, and 24 (19%) were on other treatments. All SRs included searches of MEDLINE in their search methods. One hundred six SRs (83%) searched more than one electronic database. There were no language restrictions reported in the search methods of 52 of the SRs (41%).Conclusions
This mapping of atopic eczema reviews is a valuable resource. It will help healthcare practitioners, guideline writers, information specialists, and researchers to quickly identify relevant up-to-date evidence in the field for improving patient care. 相似文献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.
Stephen B. Freedman Dion Pasichnyk Karen J. L. Black Eleanor Fitzpatrick Serge Gouin Andrea Milne Lisa Hartling Pediatric Emergency Research Canada Gastroenteritis Study Group 《PloS one》2015,10(6)
Context
Gastroenteritis remains a leading cause of childhood morbidity.Objective
Because prior reviews have focused on isolated symptoms and studies conducted in developing countries, this study focused on interventions commonly considered for use in developed countries. Intervention specific, patient-centered outcomes were selected.Data Sources
MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, trial registries, grey literature, and scientific meetings.Study Selection
Randomized controlled trials, conducted in developed countries, of children aged <18 years, with gastroenteritis, performed in emergency department or outpatient settings which evaluated oral rehydration therapy (ORT), antiemetics, probiotics or intravenous fluid administration rate.Data Extraction
The study was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the PRISMA guidelines. Data were independently extracted by multiple investigators. Analyses employed random effects models.Results
31 trials (4,444 patients) were included. ORT: Compared with intravenous rehydration, hospitalization (RR 0.80, 95%CI 0.24, 2.71) and emergency department return visits (RR 0.86, 95%CI 0.39, 1.89) were similar. Antiemetics: Fewer children administered an antiemetic required intravenous rehydration (RR 0.40, 95%CI 0.26, 0.60) While the data could not be meta-analyzed, three studies reported that ondansetron administration does increase the frequency of diarrhea. Probiotics: No studies reported on the primary outcome, three studies evaluated hospitalization within 7 days (RR 0.87, 95%CI 0.25, 2.98). Rehydration: No difference in length of stay was identified for rapid vs. standard intravenous or nasogastric rehydration. A single study found that 5% dextrose in normal saline reduced hospitalizations compared with normal saline alone (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53, 0.92).Conclusions
There is a paucity of patient-centered outcome evidence to support many interventions. Since ORT is a low-cost, non-invasive intervention, it should continue to be used. Routine probiotic use cannot be endorsed at this time in outpatient children with gastroenteritis. Despite some evidence that ondansetron administration increases diarrhea frequency, emergency department use leads to reductions in intravenous rehydration and hospitalization. No benefits were associated with ondansetron use following emergency department discharge. 相似文献17.
Xhyljeta Luta Maud Maessen Matthias Egger Andreas E. Stuck David Goodman Kerri M. Clough-Gorr 《PloS one》2015,10(4)
Background
Many studies have measured the intensity of end of life care. However, no summary of the measures used in the field is currently available.Objectives
To summarise features, characteristics of use and reported validity of measures used for evaluating intensity of end of life care.Methods
This was a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. We performed a comprehensive literature search in Ovid Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews and reference lists published between 1990-2014. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts and extracted data. Studies were eligible if they used a measure of end of life care intensity, defined as all quantifiable measures describing the type and intensity of medical care administered during the last year of life.Results
A total of 58 of 1590 potentially eligible studies met our inclusion criteria and were included. The most commonly reported measures were hospitalizations (n = 44), intensive care unit admissions (n = 39) and chemotherapy use (n = 27). Studies measured intensity of care in different timeframes ranging from 48 hours to 12 months. The majority of studies were conducted in cancer patients (n = 31). Only 4 studies included information on validation of the measures used. None evaluated construct validity, while 3 studies considered criterion and 1 study reported both content and criterion validity.Conclusions
This review provides a synthesis to aid in choosing intensity of end of life care measures based on their previous use but simultaneously highlights the crucial need for more validation studies and consensus in the field. 相似文献18.
19.
20.
Ellen Driessen Steven D. Hollon Claudi L. H. Bockting Pim Cuijpers Erick H. Turner 《PloS one》2015,10(9)