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.
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 evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) about traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension. MethodsWe comprehensively searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane library (Issue 4, 2014), CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data to collect SRs of traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension from the establishment time of databases to April 30th, 2014. The AMSTAR tool was applied for methodological quality assessment of included studies, and the GRADE system was applied for evidence quality assessment of included outcomes of SRs. ResultsA total of 12 SRs involving 31 outcomes were included, of which 11 SRs focused on the comparison of therapeutic effects between traditional Chinese medicine combined with western medicine and western medicine alone. Nine SRs adopted Jadad tool to assess methodological quality of included original studies. The results of assessment using AMSTAR showed that, among 11 items, there were the most problems concerning Item 1 "Was an 'a prior' design provided?" (none of the 12 SRs provided it); followed by Item 11 "Were potential conflict of interest included?" (nine SRs didn't described it), and Item 6 "Were the characteristics of included studies provided" (six SRs didn't provided it). The results of grading showed that, 29 outcomes were graded as "low" or "very low" quality. The main factors contributed to downgrading evidence quality were limitations (31 outcomes), followed by imprecision (12 outcomes), and inconsistency (13 outcomes). ConclusionCurrently, the methodological quality of SRs about traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension was poor on the whole, with low quality of evidence as well as lack of enough attention to the end outcomes of patients with essential hypertension. Thus, physicians should apply the evidence to make decision about traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension with caution in clinical practice.
ObjectiveTo overview of systematic reviews (SRs) of Yiqi Fumai (YQFM) injection in the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF). MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect SRs of YQFM injection in the treatment of CHF from January 1, 2007 to October 31, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed methodological quality, risk of bias, report quality and evidence quality by using AMSTAR-2, ROBIS scale, PRISMA, and GRADE system. ResultsA total of 7 SRs were included. The evaluation results showed that the quality of all SRs was low, a few SRs were assessed as having a low risk of bias, and all SRs were relatively completely reported. A total of 46 results were extracted from the included SRs, including 3 with moderate quality evidence, 12 with low quality evidence and 31 with very low quality evidence. ConclusionYQFM may be an effective and safe treatment, but current evidence quality is low.
ObjectiveTo conduct an overview of systematic reviews on the impact of evidence-based learning (EBL) method on medical education. MethodsThe CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, CBM, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were electronically searched to collect the relevant systematic reviews or meta-analyses of the application of EBL method in medical education from inception to May, 2024. Two researchers conducted the literature screening and data extraction independently. The AMSTAR 2, ROBIS tool, PRISMA 2020, and GRADE system were separately used to evaluate the methodological quality, the risk of bias, the quality of reporting, and the quality of evidence of included studies. ResultsA total of 16 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included. The methodological quality evaluation by AMSTAR 2 showed that the quality level of 16 studies was very low. The results of ROBIS tool showed that 1 study was low risk of bias and 15 studies were high risk of bias. The GRADE evaluation of the evidence quality for 36 outcome indicators in the included studies revealed that 6 were of moderate quality, 12 were of low quality, and the rest were of very low quality. ConclusionEBL method has demonstrated significant effects in improving theoretical performance, practical skills, and critical thinking abilities among medical students. However, the methodological and evidence quality of the current systematic reviews/meta-analyses are low.
ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4) in treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsDatabase including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were searched from inception to December 2016 to collect SRs/MAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DPP-4 for the treatment of T2DM. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the reporting and methodological qualities using the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR tool.ResultsTwenty-seven SRs/MAs of DPP-4 for the treatment of T2DM were included in this overview. The average score of AMSTAR was 7.04. The worst score were the item 1 (26 studies didn't provide an ‘a priori’ design), item 4 (10 studies didn't provide whether the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?), item 10 and item 11 (15 studies didn't assess the likelihood of publication bias and the potential conflicts of interest). The PRISMA score ranged from 17.0 to 24.5. The main problems of reporting were protocol and registration, search, additional analyses and funding.ConclusionThe evidence shows that the reporting and methodological quality of the SRs/MAs of DPP-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes are not high.
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.
Objective To overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses of efficacy of FNB used as a postoperative analgesic technique among patients undergoing TKR. Methods We electronically searched databases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP from inception to July, 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. The primary outcome was pain scores and the consumption of opoid medicine to evaluate the effectiveness of FNB. Results A total of 16 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included, involving the FNBvs. LIA, PMDI, EA, PCA and ACB, respectively. The results of quality assessment indicated medium scores with 3 to 9 scores. The overviews’ results showed that: at rest, FNB was not superior to LIA at 6h after TKR; it was superior to PMDI at 12h after TKR; it was also superior to PCA and LIA, but not superior to ACB at 24h after TKR. On movement, FNB was superior to PCA and LIA at 24h after TKR; it was also superior to PCA at 48h after TKR. As to the consumption of opoid medicine, the consumption in FNB group was more than LIA group at 12h after TKR. In addition, the consumption in FNB group was less than PCA and LIA at 24h after TKR, and it was also less than PCA and ACB at 48h. The satisfaction of patients who received FNB was better than ACB, EA and PCA. Conclusion The current overview shows that FNB is more effective than PCA and LIA, the patients’ satisfaction is better. Due to the limitations of the quantity and quality of included studies, the above conclusions are needed to be verified by more studies.
ObjectiveTo systematically summarize and evaluate the existing evidence of Qishen Yiqi dropping pill (QSYQ) in the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF), and to evaluate its quality. MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect systematic reviews/meta-analyses(SRs/MAs) related to objectives from inception to December 31, 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and quality of evidence of included SRs/MAs by using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Risk of Bias in Systematic(ROBIS) scale, the list of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis(PRISMA), and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. ResultsThis overview included 17 SRs/MAs. The methodological quality, reporting quality, risk of bias, and quality of evidence for outcome measures of SRs/MAs were all unsatisfactory. All SRs/MAs were of low quality according to the results of the AMSTAR-2 assessment. And only a small number of SRs/MAs were assessed as low risk of bias based on the results of the ROBIS assessment. The evaluation results of the PRISMA checklist showed that the report quality of the 24 studies included was relatively complete. According to the GRADE system evaluation results, 94% of the 84 outcome indicators were low-quality and very low-quality evidence. Limitations were the main factors leading to their degradation, followed by publication bias, inconsistency, imprecision and indirectness. ConclusionAt present, QSYQ has good clinical efficacy in the treatment of CHF, but the standardization and scientificity of clinical research and secondary research reports are insufficient, resulting in low quality of clinical recommendations evidence. In the future, it is necessary to further standardize and improve the quality of clinical and secondary research.
ObjectiveTo retrieve and summarize the clinical studies on traditional Chinese medicine for heart failure prevention and treatment and to observe the distribution of evidence in the field of heart failure by using the method of evidence map.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were searched from January 2000 to January 2020. Clinical studies, systematic reviews, guidelines, and clinical pathways related to traditional Chinese medicine for heart failure prevention and treatment were included, and the distribution characteristics of evidence were analyzed by using charts and text descriptions.ResultsA total of 8 580 papers were included, including 8 398 clinical studies (6 821 randomized controlled trials, 1 109 non-randomized controlled trials and 468 observational studies), 160 systematic reviews, and 22 guidelines, expert consensus and pathway studies. The number of clinical studies domestically and abroad showed an overall growth trend. The sample size was concentrated in 60- 100 cases. Coronary atherosclerotic heart disease was the most common comorbidity of heart failure. AMSTAR scores of systematic reviews were primarily 4 to 8. The results of high-quality randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews showed that traditional Chinese medicine combined with conventional Western medicine in the treatment of heart failure had certain advantages in improving heart function, quality of life and prognosis.ConclusionsHigh-quality clinical studies show that traditional Chinese medicine has certain advantages in the efficacy and safety of heart failure prevention and treatment; however, few studies have high methodological quality. In the future, multi-center, large sample size, and high methodological quality clinical studies are needed to further explore the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine therapy in the field of heart failure.