ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) of lanthanum carbonate in the treatment of chronic kidney disease with hyperphosphatemia. MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data and VIP to collect systematic reviews and meta-analysis about lanthanum carbonate in the treatment of chronic kidney disease with hyperphosphatemia from inception to August 31st, 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data, then AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies and the GRADE tool was used to grade the evidence quality of outcome measures included in the SRs. ResultsA total of eight relevant SRs were included and containing three main outcome measures. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that:four SRs were of high quality, and the other four were of medium quality. GRADE results showed:for serum phosphorus level, compared with placebo, the quality of the evidence of three SRs were medium, low and very low; compared with calcium carbonate or conventional phosphorus binder, four SRs were low, low, low and very low; compared with sevelamer, one SR was low. For serum calcium level, compared with placebo, the quality of the evidence of three SRs were high, medium and low, respectively; compared with calcium carbonate or conventional phosphorus binder, five SRs were low, low, low, very low and very low; compared with sevelamer, one SR was very low. For serum iPTH level, compared with placebo, the quality of the evidence of three SRs were medium, low and very low; compared with calcium carbonate or conventional phosphorus binder, five SRs were medium, low, low, very low and very low; compared with sevelamer, one SR was low. ConclusionAt present, methodological quality assessment for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease with lanthanum carbonate is generally not high and the level of evidence for the conclusion is generally low. In drug safety, especially in the occurrence of adverse events of the digestive system is still controversial, and a large amount of high quality experimental is needed to demonstrate the safety of its long-term use. Clinicians need to be cautious in using these evidence to make clinical decisions.
Objective To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness, analyses the factors affecting it, so as to provide a reference basis for improving the methodological quality of related studies. Methods Systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness were identified in PubMed, searching from its inception to 12 October 2024. Systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness was included, the methodological quality of the included literature was evaluated using AMSTAR-2, and data were extracted using Excel 2021. Results A total of 308 systematic reviews/ meta-analysis were included, with a fluctuating upward trend in the number of publications from 2006 to 2024; of these, a total of 12 were rated as low quality. According to the AMSTAR-2 entries, the largest number of documents fully conformed to entry 16 (82.14%), followed by entry 5 (81.49%), and entry 8 (72.73%); one document conformed to entry 10 (0.32%), and relatively few conformed to entry 12 (68.83%), entry 13 (85.39%), and entry 15 (67.53%). ConclusionThe methodological quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analysis of burden of illness needs to be improved, and the main problems include the lack of pre-study protocols, the absence of a list of excluded literature, and the less than adequate explanation of heterogeneity and risk of bias, etc. There is still a need to further improve the methodological quality of the systematic reviews and to promote the long-term development of evidence based medicine.
Objective To evaluate the relevant systematic reviews/meta-analyses that focused on the prevention and treatment of complications after impacted tooth extraction. Methods The systematic reviews/meta-analyses on the prevention and treatment of complications after impacted tooth extraction were searched in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data from inception to September 30th, 2012, and a total of 15 professional journals and the references of included studies were also retrieved manually. Two reviewers screened the literature according to the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. Then the AMSTAR was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and the GRADE system was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. Results A total of twelve relevant systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included, of which five focused on the prevention and treatment of dry socket, six on the prevention of swelling, seven on the prevention and treatment of pain, six on the prevention of limitation of mouth opening, two on the prevention of infection, three on the prevention of bleeding, and one on the treatment of nerve damage after tooth extraction. Based on AMSTAR, seven studies were minor limitations and five studies were moderate limitations. Based on GRADE system, two was high quality of evidence, twelve were moderate, nine were low, and seven were very low. Conclusion Currently, the systematic reviews/meta-analyses on the prevention and treatment of complications after impacted tooth extraction can provide some references for clinical practice, which should be combined with the real condition by clinical doctors when making an evidence-based decision. However, it also suggests performing more high quality and large sample studies to prove this conclusion.
Objectives To evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) on urate-lowering therapy (ULT) for chronic gout. Methods PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect published systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating urate-lowering drugs in chronic gout from inception to April 8th 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, assessed the methodological quality of included SRs using the AMSTAR tool, and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Results A total of 11 relevant SRs/Mets were included, containing 3 main outcome measures. All these SRs contained allopurinol. Ten SRs contained febuxostat, 3 SRs contained benzbromarone and 1 SR contained probenecid. Ten SRs assessed the risk of bias of included original studies. Eight SRs used the" assessing risk of bias”tool recommended by Cochrane Collaboration for this assessment while 2 used other tools. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool showed: the scores of 4 SRs were ≥9, and the others were ≤8. GRADE results showed: the quality of the evidence of 20 outcomes was low or very low, 10 outcomes was moderate and two outcomes was high. Conclusions Moderate quality evidence shows that febuxostat is beneficial in achieving target serum uric acid levels when comparing to allopurinol, and high quality evidence shows the incidence of gout flares is not significantly different between the two groups. High quality evidence also shows that the safety of febuxostat is better than allopurinol. Evidence of SRs is still insufficient to support the effectiveness and safety of other urate-lowering drugs. It is expected that more scientific and rigorous researches will be performed in the future, for which more high quality evidence will be produced to fill relevant gaps.
AMSTAR (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) is currently developed as a measurement tool with extensive application to assess the methodological quality of systematic review/meta-analysis. It has good reliability, validity, and responsibility, and has been widely applied. This paper introduces AMSTAR to researchers and users in China, in view of development procedure, assessment items, and application status.
ObjectivesTo assess the methodological and reporting quality of surgical meta-analyses published in English in 2014.MethodsAll meta-analyses investigating surgical procedures published in 2014 were selected from PubMed and EMbase. The characteristics of these meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting and methodological quality were assessed by the PRISMA and AMSTAR, respectively. Independent predictive factors associated with these two qualities were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses.ResultsA total of 197 meta-analyses covering 10 surgical subspecialties were included. The mean PRISMA and AMSTAR score (by items) were 22.2±2.4 and 7.8±1.2, respectively, and a positive linear correlation was found between them with a R2 of 0.754. Those meta-analyses conducted by the first authors who had previously published meta-analysis was significantly higher in reporting and methodological quality than those who had not (P<0.001). Meanwhile, there were also significant differences in these reporting (P<0.001) and methodological (P<0.001) quality between studies published in Q1 ranked journals and (Q2+Q3) ranked jounals. On multivariate analyses, region of origin (non-Asiavs. Asia), publishing experience of first authors (ever vs. never), rank of publishing journals (Q1 vs. Q2+Q3), and preregistration (presence vs. absence) were associated with better reporting and methodologic quality, independently.ConclusionThe reporting and methodological quality of current surgical meta-analyses remained suboptimal, and first authors' experience and ranking of publishing journals were independently associated with both qualities. Preregistration may be an effective measure to improve the quality of meta-analysis, which deserves more attention from future meta-analysis reviewers.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) on the treatment for acute gout.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect published systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating drug interventions therapy in acute gout from inception to April 8th 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, assessed the methodological quality of included SRs by the AMSTAR tool, and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome by the GRADE approach.ResultsA total of seven relevant SRs were included, which contains three main outcome measures. Four SRs contained non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), three SRs contained colchicine and two SRs contained glucocorticoids. All SRs assessed risk of bias of included original studies. Two used the Jadad scale or modified Jadad scale in this assessment while others used the " assessing risk of bias” tool recommended by Cochrane Collaboration. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that: three SRs were considered high quality (scores≥9), and the other four were considered moderate quality. GRADE results showed: the quality of the evidence of 11 outcomes was low or very low, and five outcomes was moderate.ConclusionsThe current evidence confirms the effectiveness and safety of several drug interventions in the treatment of acute gout, however, the priority of these drugs is still unclear. We suggest conducting new SRs and updating relevant SRs, to systematically compare different drug interventions therapy in acute gout with the latest evidence. In addition, we still expect to put more efforts in conducting high-quality original studies, in order to fill the gap of relevant fields and improve the level of evidence quality.
ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews on efficacy and safety of hyperbaric oxygen in treatment of diabetic foot.MethodsCNKI, CBM, VIP, WanFang Data, The Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMbase databases were searched to collect systematic reviews or meta-analyses on the efficacy and safety of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for diabetic foot from inception to November 17th, 2019. Two researchers independently screened literature and extracted data. Then, AMSTAR 2 tool and PRISMA statement were used to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of included systematic reviews, and the outcome indicators were comprehensively analyzed.ResultsA total of 10 systematic reviews were included. The results of AMSTAR 2 suggested that 6 systematic reviews were of extremely low quality, 3 of low quality, and 1 of high quality. The PRISMA score ranged from 16.5 to 27. The results of the included systematic reviews showed that hyperbaric oxygen therapy might be superior to other interventions in ulcer healing rate and large amputation rate without increasing the risk of adverse events. ConclusionsThe existing systematic reviews/meta-analysis evidence shows that hyperbaric oxygen therapy may have certain curative effect on diabetic foot, however, its methodology and report quality evaluation are insufficient.
ObjectivesTo overview the systematic reviews of traditional Chinese herb injections for viral pneumonia.MethodsCNKI, CBM, WanFang Data, VIP, PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and EMbase databases were electronically searched to collect systematic reviews (SRs) of traditional Chinese herb injections for viral pneumonia from inception to March 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. Then, AMSTAR 2 was used to assess the methodological quality and GRADE was used to grade the outcome indicators of included SRs.ResultsA total of 10 SRs were included, containing six Chinese herb injections (Xiyanping injection, Yanhuning injection, Tanreqing injection, Reduning injection, Shuanghuanglian injection, and Chuanhuning injection). Five items of AMSTAR 2 were reported well, and two items were not reported in any of the included SRs, and the quality was unsatisfactory. The efficacy of Chinese herb injection was superior than that of western medicine in many outcome indicators, such as antipyretic time, the pulmonary rales disappearing time, and the total clinical efficiency. The quality of evidence ranged from medium to very low.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that the quality of SRs of Chinese herb injections for viral pneumonia requires improvement, and most of the results show that Chinese herb injections are more effective than western medicines.
ObjectivesTo overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of effectiveness and safety of spinal manipulation for low back pain or neck pain. MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2015), CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP to collect SRs/MAs of spinal manipulation for low back pain or neck pain from inception to January 30th, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and then AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included SRs/MAs. ResultsA total of 21 SRs/MAs were included. Twenty of them assessed the methodological quality of included original randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with different tools:2 used Jadad scale, 5 used PEDro scale, 6 used Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and 7 used other tools. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that:among 11 items, the item 1 of "Was an ‘a priori’ design provided" (18 SRs/MAs did not provide) and item 4 of "Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided" (18 SRs/MAs did not provide) appeared to be the most problematic, followed by item 10 of "Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed" (14 SRs/MAs did not assess the publication bias) and item 11 of "Was the conflict of interest stated" (14 SRs/MAs did not provide the conflict of interest and 4 were incomplete). ConclusionThe methodological quality of included SRs/MAs is poor. The limited evidence showed that spinal manipulation is more effective for acute low back pain than chronic low back pain, and the short term effect is better than the long term one. Different spinal manipulation techniques have various effects but are all safe. Chiropractic manipulation may have the best effect. Due to the limitation of quality and quantity of included SRs/MAs, there may be potential bias in the above conclusion that needs more high quality studies to verify.