RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) represent the most robust source of evidence for informing decision-making. While there are rigorous protocols for properly conducting SRs, sometimes the methodological biases in the primary studies are accounted for in the conclusions of the SRs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to map the evidence regarding the management of caries lesions in primary teeth. METHODS: Two reviewers conducted a systematic search up to March 2024 in electronic data-bases. Any SR concerning the management of caries lesions in primary teeth was considered eli-gible. RESULTS: About 162 SRs were included. Among these, 80 focused on restorative treatments, 64 on endodontic treatments, and 18 on non-invasive treatments. Only 42.6% presented a study registra-tion protocol. The majority (67.9%) performed a meta-analysis, while a minority exclusively car-ried out qualitative data analysis. Despite 92.6% of the SRs evaluating the methodological quality or risk of bias of the primary studies using some tool, only 24% assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach, resulting in classifications ranging from very low to moderate. CONCLUSION: There is a limited adherence to study registration protocols, indicating a need for improvements in this practice. Additionally, among the few SRs that used the GRADE approach, the majority demonstrated levels of very low to moderate certainty.

RESUMEN

Conducting high-quality overviews of reviews (OoR) is time-consuming. Because the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) varies, it is necessary to critically appraise SRs when conducting an OoR. A well-established appraisal tool is A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, which takes about 15-32 min per application. To save time, we developed two fast-and-frugal decision trees (FFTs) for assessing the methodological quality of SR for OoR either during the full-text screening stage (Screening FFT) or to the resulting pool of SRs (Rapid Appraisal FFT). To build a data set for developing the FFT, we identified published AMSTAR 2 appraisals. Overall confidence ratings of the AMSTAR 2 were used as a criterion and the 16 items as cues. One thousand five hundred and nineteen appraisals were obtained from 24 publications and divided into training and test data sets. The resulting Screening FFT consists of three items and correctly identifies all non-critically low-quality SRs (sensitivity of 100%), but has a positive predictive value of 59%. The three-item Rapid Appraisal FFT correctly identifies 80% of the high-quality SRs and correctly identifies 97% of the low-quality SRs, resulting in an accuracy of 95%. The FFTs require about 10% of the 16 AMSTAR 2 items. The Screening FFT may be applied during full-text screening to exclude SRs with critically low quality. The Rapid Appraisal FFT may be applied to the final SR pool to identify SR that might be of high methodological quality.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The aim of this work is to assess the quality of observational studies and to make direct and indirect comparisons of robotic surgery with other approaches. METHOD: We searched various databases between 2014 and 2024 for observational studies comparing robotic-assisted surgery to thoracoscopy or thoracotomy. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Risk of confounding bias was present in 90% of studies, while risk of classification bias appeared in 80%. Robotic-assisted surgery reduced the risk of conversion to thoracotomy compared with thoracoscopy with an odds ratio of 0.21 (95% confidence interval: 0.06-0.65), with high heterogeneity between studies (I2=80%). Robotic-assisted surgery did not significantly reduce postoperative complications or 30-day mortality compared with thoracotomy or thoracoscopy. For 5-year overall survival, comparisons of robotic-assisted surgery to thoracoscopy or thoracotomy were non-significant with I2 of 55%. CONCLUSION: This work demonstrates the need for a randomized controlled trial to validate robotic surgery for the treatment of bronchial cancer.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease of 2019) pandemic caused major disruption to nursing research, especially qualitative research. Researchers had to overcome numerous challenges that potentially impacted the quality of the studies carried out. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to assess the characteristics and quality of reporting qualitative nursing articles on the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A systematic search and critical review using content analysis was conducted on published nurse-led articles using a qualitative approach related to the COVID-19 pandemic. A combination of the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) checklists and additional items identified from the literature were used to assess the characteristics and overall quality of reporting of qualitative research. RESULTS: Out of 63,494 articles screened, 444 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were published in high-impact, Quartile 1 journals, with the majority originating from the USA. Common themes included workforce experiences and the impact of pandemic restrictions. Methodological quality varied, with a notable underuse of standardized reporting checklists. Despite pandemic-induced challenges in data collection, interviews remained the predominant method. However, the adoption of remote research methods and analysis software was limited. DISCUSSION: The findings underscore the resilience and adaptability of nursing researchers during the pandemic. High-quality publications in top-tier journals indicate rigorous academic standards. However, the low utilization of reporting checklists suggests a need for greater emphasis on methodological transparency and adherence to established quality guidelines. This review highlights the importance of enhancing qualitative research practices to improve the rigor and reliability of studies, particularly in crisis contexts.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: In endodontics, the number of umbrella reviews has increased significantly over the last few years, but there is no evidence that they were methodologically sound. The aim of the current study was to appraise the methodological quality of umbrella reviews in endodontics, and to identify possible predictive factors associated with methodological quality. METHODS: Umbrella reviews published in the discipline of endodontics until December 2023 were included. The methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated using a checklist consisting of 11 items. Each item in the checklist was evaluated by two independent assessors who assigned a score of '1' if it was fully addressed, '0.5' if it was partially ddressed, and '0' if it was not addressed. Bootstrapped multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the association between the total scores awarded and five predictor variables (a priori protocol registration, year of publication, number of authors, journal impact factor (IF) and continent of the corresponding author). The statistical significance level was set as 5%. RESULTS: A total of 27 reviews were included. Ninety-six per cent of the reviews adequately reported: eligibility criteria for selecting the reviews, details of the reviews, techniques for assessing the risk of bias or methodological quality of the individual systematic reviews they included. Only 30% of the reviews adequately managed overlapping primary studies within individual systematic reviews. Among the five predictors analysed, a priori protocol registration and journals with IFs were associated with significantly greater total methodological quality scores. DISCUSSION: Several methodological shortcomings in the umbrella reviews published within the field of endodontics were revealed. Umbrella reviews published in journals with IFs and those with protocols registered a priori had significantly superior methodological quality scores. CONCLUSION: In endodontics, authors intending to publish umbrella reviews should consider the limitations revealed in this study and follow the appropriate rules to ensure their reviews comply with the highest standards and provide accurate and dependable information and conclusions.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Non-inferiority (NI) trials require unique trial design and methods, which pose challenges in their interpretation and applicability, risking introduction of inferior therapies in clinical practice. With the abundance of novel therapies, NI trials are increasing in publication. Prior studies found inadequate quality of reporting of NI studies, but were limited to certain specialties/journals, lacked NI margin evaluation, and did not examine temporal changes in quality. We conducted a systematic review without restriction to journal type, journal impact factor, disease state or intervention to evaluate the quality of NI trials, including a comprehensive risk of bias assessment and comparison of quality over time. METHODOLOGY: We searched PubMed and Cochrane Library databases for NI trials published in English in 2014 and 2019. They were assessed for: study design and NI margin characteristics, primary results, and risk of bias for blinding, concealment, analysis method and missing outcome data. RESULTS: We included 823 studies. Between 2014 and 2019, a shift from publication in specialty to general journals (15% vs 28%, p < 0.001) and from pharmacological to non-pharmacological interventions (25% vs 38%, p = 0.025) was observed. The NI margin was specified in most trials for both years (94% vs 95%). Rationale for the NI margin increased (36% vs 57%, p < 0.001), but remained low, with clinical judgement the most common rationale (30% vs 23%), but more 2019 articles incorporating patient values (0.3% vs 21%, p < 0.001). Over 50% of studies were open-label for both years. Gold standard method of analyses (both per protocol + (modified) intention to treat) declined over time (43% vs 36%, p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: The methodological quality and reporting of NI trials remains inadequate although improving in some areas. Improved methods for NI margin justification, blinding, and analysis method are warranted to facilitate clinical decision-making.

RESUMEN

In part 1 of this commentary, we presented an overview of mixed methods research and the rationales for using this methodology with examples from the chiropractic literature. We also introduced readers to the three core mixed methods study designs, as well as the advantages and challenges of employing a mixed methods approach. In part 2 of this series, we provide a summary of the primary and secondary findings from our doctoral work involving mixed methods research and make recommendations for improving the reporting and conduct of future chiropractic mixed methods studies.

Commentaire sur l'utilisation de méthodes mixtes dans la recherche en chiropratique. Partie 2: résultats et recommandations pour améliorer les futures études sur les méthodes mixtes en chiropratique.Dans la première partie de cette étude, nous avons présenté un aperçu de la recherche par méthodes mixtes et les raisons d'utiliser cette méthodologie à l'aide d'exemples provenant des ouvrages sur la chiropratique. Nous avons également présenté aux lecteurs les trois principaux modèles d'étude des méthodes mixtes, ainsi que les avantages et les difficultés liés à l'utilisation de ces méthodes. Dans la deuxième partie de cette série, nous présentons un résumé des résultats primaires et secondaires de notre travail de doctorat concernant les méthodes mixtes de recherche et nous formulons des recommandations pour améliorer les rapports et la conduite des futures études sur les méthodes mixtes en chiropratique.

RESUMEN

We recently each completed doctoral programs where the major focus of our work was in mixed methods research. In the first part of this three-part commentary, we present an overview of mixed methods research. In the second part, we present a summary of our primary and secondary research findings from our doctoral work involving mixed methods. In a third paper, we will discuss integrating qualitative research with randomized controlled trials and how this mixed methods study design can be applied to research within the chiropractic profession. Our aim with these papers is to increase awareness amongst the chiropractic community of the value (and challenges) of using this unique methodology. We also make recommendations for improving the quality of reporting and conduct of future chiropractic mixed methods studies. Further dissemination of this work will occur through online webinars and conference presentations.

Étude sur l'utilisation de méthodes mixtes dans la recherche en chiropratique. Partie 1: aperçu des méthodes mixtes de rechercheNous avons récemment terminé chacun un programme de doctorat dont l'objectif principal était les méthodes mixtes de recherche. Dans la première partie de cette étude en trois parties, nous présentons un aperçu sur les méthodes mixtes de recherche. Dans la deuxième partie, nous présentons un résumé des résultats de nos recherches primaires et secondaires dans le cadre de nos travaux de doctorat impliquant des méthodes mixtes. Dans un troisième article, nous discuterons de l'intégration de la recherche qualitative aux essais cliniques randomisés et de la manière dont ce modèle d'étude mixte peut être appliqué à la recherche au sein de la profession chiropratique.L'objectif de ces articles est de sensibiliser la communauté chiropratique à la valeur (et aux difficultés) de l'utilisation de cette méthodologie unique. Nous formulons également des recommandations pour améliorer la qualité des rapports et la conduite des futures études sur les méthodes mixtes en chiropratique. La diffusion de ce travail se fera par des webinaires en ligne et des présentations lors de conférences.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize existing evidence of the relationship between voice parameters and speech intelligibility. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, 13 databases were searched and a manual search was conducted. A narrative synthesis of methodological quality, study characteristics, participant demographics, voice parameter categorization, and their relationship to speech intelligibility was conducted. A Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment was also performed. RESULTS: A total of 5593 studies were retrieved, and 30 eligible studies were included in the final scoping review. The studies were given scores of 10-25 (average 16.93) out of 34 in the methodological quality assessment. Research that analyzed voice parameters related to speech intelligibility, encompassing perceptual, acoustic, and aerodynamic parameters, was included. Validated and nonvalidated perceptual voice assessments showed divergent results regarding the relationship between perceptual parameters and speech intelligibility. The relationship between acoustic parameters and speech intelligibility was found to be complex and the results were inconsistent. The limited research on aerodynamic parameters did not reach a consensus on their relationship with speech intelligibility. Studies in which listeners were not speech-language pathologists (SLPs) far outnumbered those with SLP listeners, and research conducted in English contexts significantly exceeded that in non-English contexts. The GRADE evaluation indicated that the quality of evidence varied from low to moderate. DISCUSSION: The results for the relationship between voice parameters and intelligibility showed significant heterogeneity. Future research should consider age-related voice changes and include diverse age groups. To enhance validity and comparability, it will be necessary to report effect sizes, tool validity, inter-rater reliability, and calibration procedures. Voice assessments should account for the validation status of tools because of their potential impact on the outcomes. The linguistic context may also influence the results.

RESUMEN

LAY ABSTRACT: Research has increasingly focused on the intersection between gender diversity and autism. To better understand this literature, this scoping review systematically searched five databases for peer-reviewed literature on gender diversity and autism published between 2018 and 2023. Included studies (N = 84) were of English language, featured original qualitative or quantitative findings, and examined a psychosocial connection between autism and gender spectra variables. Most studies focused on measuring prevalence of autism among gender-diverse individuals. While the overall study rigor was acceptable, weaknesses in measurement, sample selection, and definition of key terms were noted. Promisingly, studies in this area appear to be shifting away from a pathologizing lens and towards research methods that engage in meaningful collaboration with the autistic, gender-diverse community to investigate how to best enhance the quality of life and wellbeing of this population.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Mistletoe treatment in cancer patients is controversial, and a Cochrane review concluded that due to heterogeneity, performing a meta-analysis was not suitable. However, several systematic reviews included meta-analyses in favor of mistletoe. The aim of this work was to assess the influence of the methodological quality of controlled studies on the results of a meta-analysis regarding overall survival. METHODS: Between April and August 2022, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science were systematically searched. In addition, reference lists of previously published meta-analyses were checked for relevant publications. A random effects meta-analysis with clustering was performed. The risk of bias within the studies was assessed using ROB 2.0 and ROBINS-I. RESULTS: The search identified 4685 hits, and 28 publications reporting on 28 298 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Overall, the analysis led to a significant result in favor of mistletoe therapy (overall HR = 0.61 with 95% CI [0.53;0.7]). According to our subgroup analysis of randomized studies, studies of higher quality (lower risk of bias) did not lead to a significant result in favor of mistletoe therapy (HR = 0.78; CI = [0.30; 2.00]). CONCLUSIONS: In the case of mistletoe therapy, the results of the meta-analysis strongly depended on the methodological quality of the included studies. Calculating meta-analyses that include low-quality studies may lead to severe misinterpretation of the data.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: We aimed to systematically assess the methodological quality and clinical potential application of published magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomics studies about endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: Studies of EC radiomics analyses published between 1 January 2000 and 19 March 2023 were extracted, and their methodological quality was evaluated using the radiomics quality score (RQS) and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pairwise correlation analyses and separate meta-analyses of studies exploring differential diagnoses and risk prediction were also performed. RESULTS: Forty-five studies involving 3 aims were included. The mean RQS was 13.77 (range: 9-22.5); publication bias was observed in the areas of 'index test' and 'flow and timing'. A high RQS was significantly associated with therapy selection-aimed studies, low QUADAS-2 risk, recent publication year, and high-performance metrics. Raw data from 6 differential diagnosis and 34 risk prediction models were subjected to meta-analysis, revealing diagnostic odds ratios of 23.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.48-66.83) and 18.23 (95% CI 13.68-24.29), respectively. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of radiomics studies involving patients with EC is unsatisfactory. However, MRI-based radiomics analyses showed promising utility in terms of differential diagnosis and risk prediction.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Cross-sectional studies are commonly used to study human health and disease, but are especially susceptible to bias. This scoping review aims to identify and describe available tools to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in cross-sectional studies and to compile the key bias concepts relevant to cross-sectional studies into an item bank. Using the JBI scoping review methodology, the strategy to locate relevant RoB concepts and tools is a combination of database searches, prospective review of PROSPERO registry records; and consultation with knowledge users and content experts. English language records will be included if they describe tools, checklists, or instruments which describe or permit assessment of RoB for cross-sectional studies. Systematic reviews will be included if they consider eligible RoB tools or use RoB tools for RoB of cross-sectional studies. All records will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by one researcher and checked by a second. An analytic framework will be used to structure the extraction of data. Results for the scoping review are pending. Results from this scoping review will be used to inform future selection of RoB tools and to consider whether development of a new RoB tool for cross-sectional studies is needed.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Network meta-analyses can be valuable for decision-makers in guiding clinical practice. However, for network meta-analysis results to be reliable, the assumptions of both transitivity and coherence must be met, and the methodology should adhere to current best practices. We aimed to assess whether network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interventions for proximal humerus fractures provide reliable estimates of intervention effects. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for network meta-analyses comparing interventions for proximal humerus fractures. We critically assessed the methodology regarding the development of a protocol, search strategy, trial inclusion, outcome extraction, and the methods used to conduct the network meta-analyses. We assessed the transitivity and coherence of the network graphs for the Constant score (CS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (DASH), and additional surgery. Transitivity was assessed by comparing probable effect modifiers (age, gender, fracture morphology, and comorbidities) across intervention comparisons. Coherence was assessed using Separating Indirect from Direct Evidence (SIDE) (Separating Indirect from Direct Evidence) and the design-by-treatment interaction test. We used CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-analyses) to assess the confidence in the results. RESULTS: None of the three included network meta-analyses had a publicly available protocol or data-analysis plan, and they all had methodological flaws that could threaten the validity of their results. Although we did not detect incoherence for most comparisons, the transitivity assumption was violated for CS, DASH, and additional surgery in all three network meta-analyses. Additionally, the confidence in the results was 'very low' primarily due to within-study bias, reporting bias, intransitivity, imprecision, and heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Current network meta-analyses of RCTs comparing interventions for proximal humerus fractures do not provide reliable estimates of intervention effects. We advise caution in using these network meta-analyses to guide clinical practice. To improve the utility of network meta-analyses to guide clinical practice, journal editors should require that network meta-analyses are done according to a predefined analysis plan in a publicly available protocol and that both coherence and transitivity have been adequately assessed and reported.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Knee Osteoarthritis (KOA) has become a serious health issue for elderly patients. Several systematic reviews (SRs) and Meta-Analyses (MAs) have reported extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) has widely been used in the treatment of KOA. This overview aims to summarize and evaluate the available evidence for the efficacy of ESWT for KOA. Eight databases were searched from inception to December 4, 2022. The methodological quality of the included SRs/MAs was assessed by Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies in terms of outcome indicators. Eight SRs/MAs were finally included in this study. The results of the methodological quality of the included SRs/MAs were generally unsatisfactory. The limitations were a lack of explaining the reasons for selection, a list of excluded literature, reporting bias assessment, and reporting the potential sources of conflict of interest. A total of 49 outcome indicators were assessed by using the GRADE tool. Only 3 items were assessed as moderate quality and the remaining indicators were rated as low and very low. Limitations were the most common downgraded factors. ESWT is regarded as a safe and therapeutically effective non-pharmacological method for the treatment of KOA. However, the reliability of the results is affected by the generally low methodological and evidential quality of the included SRs/MAs. Future researchers should improve the quality of original studies and SRs/MAs to provide a higher level of evidence-based medical evidence.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

This study aimed to assess the methods and outcomes of The Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 appraisals in overviews of reviews (overviews) of interventions in the cardiovascular field and identify factors that are associated with these outcomes. MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched until November 2022. Eligible were overviews of cardiovascular interventions, analyzing systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Extracted data included characteristics of overviews and SRs and AMSTAR 2 appraisal methods and outcomes. Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to explore potential associations between the characteristics of SRs and extracted AMSTAR 2 overall ratings ("High-Moderate" vs. "Low-Critically low"). The original results on individual AMSTAR 2 items were entered into the official AMSTAR 2 online tool and the recalculated overall confidence ratings were compared to those provided in overviews. All 34 overviews identified were published between 2019 and 2022. Rating of overall confidence following the algorithm suggested by AMSTAR 2 developers was noted in 74% of overviews. The 679 unique included SRs were mainly of "Critically low" (53%) or "Low" (18.7%) confidence and underperformed in items 2 (Protocol, no = 65.2%) and 7 (List of excluded studies, no = 84%). The following characteristics of SRs were significantly associated with higher overall ratings: Cochrane origin, pharmacological interventions, including exclusively RCTs, citation of methodological and reporting guidelines, protocol, absence of funding and publication after AMSTAR 2 release. Generally, overviews' authors tended to deviate from the original rating scheme and ascribe higher ratings to SRs compared to the official AMSTAR 2 online tool. Most SRs included in overviews of cardiovascular interventions have critically low or low confidence in their results. Overviews' authors should be more transparent about the methods used to derive the overall confidence in SRs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the methodological quality and characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) that reported they were conducted in line with the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a cross-sectional meta-research study. We searched MEDLINE and Embase. We included full reports of SRs reporting the study was conducted, prepared, or designed in line with the AMSTAR 2. Eligible SRs were those published from January 1, 2018, until May 3, 2022. We assessed the methodological quality of the included SRs using AMSTAR 2. RESULTS: We included a total of 45 records. There were 43 SRs and 2 SR protocols. Among them, most were SRs of interventions that included primary studies on humans. More than half had a meta-analysis. According to our overall AMSTAR 2 assessments of included SRs, 35 SRs were of critically low confidence, 7 SRs were of low confidence, and one SR was of high confidence. There were no SRs of moderate confidence. CONCLUSION: Even when authors indicate in their manuscripts that the SR was conducted/prepared/designed in line with the AMSTAR 2, it does not necessarily imply it is of high or even moderate confidence according to AMSTAR 2. A self-assessment with AMSTAR 2 could be required for submission and carefully checked by the editors/peer reviewers.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered the gold standard of evidence, but many published SRs are of poor quality. This study identifies how librarian involvement in SRs is associated with quality-reported methods and examines the lack of motivation for involving a librarian in SRs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched databases for SRs that were published by a first or last author affiliated to a Vancouver hospital or biomedical research site and published between 2015 and 2019. Corresponding authors of included SRs were contacted through an e-mail survey to determine if a librarian was involved in the SR. If a librarian was involved in the SR, the survey asked at what level the librarian was involved and if a librarian was not involved, the survey asked why. Quality of reported search methods was scored independently by two reviewers. A linear regression model was used to determine the association between quality of reported search methods scores and the level at which a librarian was involved in the study. RESULTS: One hundred ninety one SRs were included in this study and 118 (62%) of the SRs authors indicated whether a librarian was involved in the SR. SRs that included a librarian as a co-author had a 15.4% higher quality assessment score than SRs that did not include a librarian. Most authors (27; 75%) who did not include a librarian in their SR did not do so because they did not believe it was necessary. CONCLUSION: Higher level of librarian involvement in SRs is correlated with higher scores in reported search methods. Greater advocacy or changes at the policy level is necessary to increase librarian involvement in SRs and as a result the quality of their search methods.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

ObjectiveTo systematically collect， analyze， and evaluate the randomized controlled trials （RCT） of Chinese patent medicine combined with western medicine in the treatment of hypertension， map the evidence， and provide reference for the future clinical research and formulation of guidelines and policies. MethodThe relevant articles were retrieved from China Biology Medicine disc， China National Knowledge Infrastructure （CNKI）， VIP， Wanfang Data， PubMed， Embase， and Cochrane Library with the time interval from inception to December 31， 2022. The RCT of Chinese patent medicines combined with western medicine in the treatment of hypertension were included. The research characteristics and methodological quality were analyzed and evaluated. ResultA total of 330 RCTs of treating hypertension with Chinese patent medicines combined with Western medicine were included in this study， all of which were published in Chinese. These RCTs involved 88 Chinese patent medicines and 37 788 patients， and 46% of RCT had the sample size ≥100 patients. Eighty-seven percent of RCT showed the study period within 3 months. All the interventions in the RCTs were Chinese patent medicine + western medicine vs western medicine. Among the evaluation indicators， blood pressure， response rate， TCM syndrome score， endothelial cell function， and safety were mainly concerned. In terms of methodological quality， most articles did not mention the generation of random sequences， allocation concealment， or blinding method. The blinding evaluation of outcomes showed low risks of bias， and there was insufficient information to judge whether there was selective bias or other bias. ConclusionThere were many Chinese patent medicines used in combination with western medicine in the treatment of hypertension， and they were mainly taken orally. The existing RCT had problems such as small sample size， unclear clinical value positioning， imperfect design failing to reflect the value of Chinese patent medicines， unreasonable measurement indicators， and non-standard measurement methods. Future research should solve the above problems， improve the research quality， value， and authenticity， and enhance the reliability and extension of evidence.

RESUMEN

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Asunto(s)