Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic reviews (SRs) have an important role in the healthcare decision-making practice. Assessing the overall confidence in the results of SRs using quality assessment tools, such as “A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2” (AMSTAR 2), is crucial since not all SRs are conducted using the most rigorous methods. In this article, we introduce a free, open-source R package called “amstar2Vis” (https://github.com/bougioukas/amstar2Vis) that provides easy-to-use functions for presenting the critical appraisal of SRs, based on the items of AMSTAR 2 checklist. An illustrative example is outlined, describing the steps involved in creating a detailed table with the item ratings and the overall confidence ratings, generating a stacked bar plot that shows the distribution of ratings as percentages of SRs for each AMSTAR 2 item, and creating a “ggplot2” graph that shows the distribution of overall confidence ratings (“Critically Low,” “Low,” “Moderate,” or “High”). We expect “amstar2Vis” to be useful for overview authors and methodologists who assess the quality of SRs with AMSTAR 2 checklist and facilitate the production of pertinent publication-ready tables and figures. Future research and applications could further investigate the functionality or potential improvements of our package. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: High methodological quality is required to interpret results of systematic reviews (SRs) in a reliable and accurate manner. The primary aim of this study was to appraise the methodologic quality of SRs with meta‐analysis within the field of traumatic dental injuries using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and assess overall confidence in their results. A secondary aim was to identify potential predictive factors associated with methodological quality. Materials and Methods: SRs with meta‐analyses published in English in the field of traumatic dental injuries from inception to March 2023 were identified. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist. Two independent evaluators scored each AMSTAR 2 item as "yes" if it was adequately addressed, "partial yes" if it was partially addressed, and "no" if it was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as "High," "Moderate," "Low," or "Critically low." Using multiple regression, the relationship between five predictor variables (journal impact factor, year of publication, number of authors, journal adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐analyses [PRISMA] guidelines and a priori protocol registration) and the total AMSTAR 2 scores was analyzed. The p‐value was 5%. Results: Forty‐one SRs were included. The overall confidence in the results of 13 reviews was categorized as "Critically low," 18 as "Low," 3 as "Moderate" and 7 as "High." Among the five predictor variables analyzed statistically, impact factor of the journal and year of publication significantly influenced the total AMSTAR 2 scores. The number of authors, adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and a priori protocol registration had no significant impact on AMSTAR 2 scores. Conclusion: The overall confidence in the results of SRs with meta‐analysis within the field of traumatic dental injuries was "Low" or "Critically Low" in the vast majority of studies (31 of 41). SRs with meta‐analyses published in journals with higher impact factors and more recent publications had significantly higher methodological quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The interaction between heredity and different environmental factors in the modification of apical periodontitis (AP) susceptibility and prediction of its progression remain poorly elucidated. Objectives: This umbrella review aimed to (i) analyse the available relevant systematic reviews in an attempt to determine the association between genotype and allelic distribution of different single‐nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and the development of AP, (ii) report deficiencies and gaps in knowledge in this area and (iii) present recommendations to conduct future clinical studies and systematic reviews. Methods: A literature search was conducted using Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from inception to October 2021, with no language restrictions, including a grey literature search. Systematic reviews with/without meta‐analysis evaluating genotype and allelic distribution of different SNPs between adult patients with/ without AP were included. All other type of studies were excluded. The methodological quality was assessed using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)‐2 tool. Two independent reviewers were involved in study selection, data extraction and appraising the included reviews; disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Results: The current study includes five systematic reviews. Three reviews performed meta‐analysis. Three reviews were graded by AMSTAR 2 as 'critically low' quality, whereas the other two were graded as 'low' and 'moderate' quality. Two reviews indicated that carriers of specific genotypes and alleles of tumour necrosis factor‐alpha (TNF‐α) ‐308 G > A and interleukin 1‐beta (IL‐1β) + 3954 C/T gene polymorphisms are more susceptible to an acute and persistent form of AP. However, high heterogeneity was observed. Discussion: The statistical heterogeneity within included systematic reviews was a consequence of clinical and methodological diversity amongst primary studies. Although some of the included reviews suggested that carriers of specific genotype and/or allele of TNF‐α −308 G > A and IL‐1β + 3954 C/T SNPs are more susceptible to AP, their conclusions should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions: No candidate genes could be identified as a definitive genetic risk or protective factor for the development and progression of AP, and further high‐quality genome‐wide association studies are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aims of the study were to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews with network meta‐analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the 'A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews' (AMSTAR 2) tool, and to evaluate the overall confidence in the results of the individual reviews included in the analysis. Methodology: Systematic reviews with NMAs within the specialty of Endodontics published in English were identified from the PubMed, EbBSCOhost and SCOPUS databases from inception to July 2021. Two reviewers were involved independently in the selection of the reviews, data extraction, methodological quality assessment and overall confidence rating. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the reviewers to achieve consensus; if disagreements persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The methodological quality of the included NMAs was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, which contains 16 items. The reviewers scored each item—'Yes'—when the item was fully addressed, 'Partial Yes'—when the item was not fully addressed, or 'No'—when the item was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low' or 'Critically low' based on the criteria reported by the AMSTAR 2 developers. Results: Twelve systematic reviews with NMAs were included. All the NMAs adequately reported Item 1 ('Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?'), Item 8 ('Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?'), Item 9 ('Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?') and Item 16 ('Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?'), whereas only one NMA reported Item 10 adequately ('Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?'). The overall confidence in the results of eight reviews was categorized as 'Critically low', one review was 'Low', two reviews were 'Moderate' and one review was 'High'. Conclusion: The overall confidence in the results for the majority of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics was judged to be 'Critically low' as their methodological quality was below the necessary standard. AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA for NMA guidelines are available to guide authors to produce high‐quality systematic reviews with NMAs and for editors and peer‐reviewers when assessing submissions to journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: High‐quality systematic reviews (SR) and meta‐analyses (MA) are considered to be reliable sources of information. This study aims to assess the quality of studies published as SR or MA in the field of bariatrics in 2016 and 2017. We identified SR and MA in the field of bariatrics by searching electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). Eligible studies were those identified as SR/MA in the title/abstract, which aimed to assess any outcome in patients with morbid obesity undergoing or scheduled to undergo bariatric surgery. Two authors independently reviewed all titles and abstracts, assessed full texts of potentially eligible studies, and assessed the quality of included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved by the third reviewer. We evaluated the quality and risk of bias of each SR/MA using AMSTAR 2 checklist and ROBIS tool, respectively. Seventy‐eight of 4236 references met inclusion criteria and were assessed for their quality/risk of bias. The methodological quality of 99% of all papers was classified as "critically low." A total of 6% of the studies were at low risk of bias, and 78% were assessed as being at high risk of bias. The methodological quality of studies published in 2016 and 2017 as SR/MA is highly unsatisfactory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]