98 results on '"Matthew J. Page"'
Search Results
2. Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas
- Author
-
Matthew J. Page, Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M. Tetzlaff, Elie A. Akl, Sue E. Brennan, Roger Chou, Julie Glanville, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Manoj M. Lalu, Tianjing Li, Elizabeth W. Loder, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Steve McDonald, Luke A. McGuinness, Lesley A. Stewart, James Thomas, Andrea C. Tricco, Vivian A. Welch, Penny Whiting, and David Moher
- Subjects
Statement (computer science) ,Medical education ,Systematic review ,business.industry ,Meta-analysis ,Medicine ,Systematic review methodology ,General Medicine ,Guideline ,business ,Medical writing ,Checklist ,Terminology - Abstract
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en.
- Published
- 2021
3. Integrative physiological assessment of cerebral hemodynamics and metabolism in acute ischemic stroke
- Author
-
Nathalie Nasr, Ricardo de Carvalho Nogueira, Matthew J. Page, Jui-Lin Fan, Yu-Chieh Tzeng, Caroline A. Rickards, and Patrice Brassard
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Blood Pressure ,Neuroimaging ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,Cerebral autoregulation ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Internal medicine ,medicine ,Homeostasis ,Humans ,Cerebral perfusion pressure ,Review Articles ,Stroke ,Ischemic Stroke ,business.industry ,Hemodynamics ,Brain ,medicine.disease ,Transcranial Doppler ,Blood pressure ,Neurology ,Cerebral blood flow ,Cerebrovascular Circulation ,Cardiology ,Neurology (clinical) ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,business ,Perfusion ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery - Abstract
Restoring perfusion to ischemic tissue is the primary goal of acute ischemic stroke care, yet only a small portion of patients receive reperfusion treatment. Since blood pressure (BP) is an important determinant of cerebral perfusion, effective BP management could facilitate reperfusion. But how BP should be managed in very early phase of ischemic stroke remains a contentious issue, due to the lack of clear evidence. Given the complex relationship between BP and cerebral blood flow (CBF)—termed cerebral autoregulation (CA)—bedside monitoring of cerebral perfusion and oxygenation could help guide BP management, thereby improve stroke patient outcome. The aim of INFOMATAS is to ‘ identify novel therapeutic targets for treatment and management in acute ischemic stroke’. In this review, we identify novel physiological parameters which could be used to guide BP management in acute stroke, and explore methodologies for monitoring them at the bedside. We outline the challenges in translating these potential prognostic markers into clinical use.
- Published
- 2021
4. Quality of systematic reviews supporting the 2017 ACC/AHA and 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines for the management of hypertension
- Author
-
Abdul Salam, Anthony Rodgers, Matthew J. Page, Nusrath Rehana, Arun Talari, Kota Vidyasagar, Rupasvi Dhurjati, and Raju Kanukula
- Subjects
Research Report ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Evidence-based practice ,media_common.quotation_subject ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Bias ,Funding source ,Humans ,Medicine ,Quality (business) ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Methodological quality ,media_common ,Protocol (science) ,business.industry ,Outcome measures ,General Medicine ,United States ,Checklist ,Systematic review ,Family medicine ,Hypertension ,business - Abstract
ObjectiveTo assess the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) that informed recommendations in the recent American and European hypertension guidelines.Design and settingsMeta-epidemiological study. We identified SRs that were cited for class I recommendations based on Level of Evidence-A in the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and the 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension (ESC/ESH) hypertension guidelines.Main outcome measuresMethodological and reporting quality of the SRs was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) checklist and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, respectively.ResultsA total of 40 SRs was included in the analysis (28 from 2017 ACC/AHA; 22 from 2018 ESC/ESH and 10 were included in both). Based on the AMSTAR-2 assessment, only 7.5% SRs were found to be of high methodological quality, 47.5% were of moderate, each 22.5% were of low and critically low quality. Based on the PRISMA checklist assessment, a mean of 24 items (SD (2.76) were reported appropriately, and only five SRs reported all 27 items appropriately.ConclusionMethodological and reporting quality of SRs were found to vary considerably. Lack of information on the funding source of included studies, use of a protocol, integration of risk of bias assessments while interpreting findings and reporting of excluded studies were major methodological deficiencies.
- Published
- 2021
5. No evidence found for an association between trial characteristics and treatment effects in randomized trials of testosterone therapy in men: a meta-epidemiological study
- Author
-
Robin Haring, Lorenzo Bertizzolo, Mona Ghannad, Matthew J. Page, Graduate School, APH - Methodology, and APH - Personalized Medicine
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Epidemiology ,MEDLINE ,law.invention ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Bias ,Meta-Analysis as Topic ,Randomized controlled trial ,law ,Meta-research ,Internal medicine ,medicine ,Humans ,Testosterone ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Association (psychology) ,Aged ,Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ,Aged, 80 and over ,business.industry ,Men ,Testosterone (patch) ,Odds ratio ,Middle Aged ,Risk of bias ,Confidence interval ,Epidemiologic Studies ,Treatment Outcome ,Sample size determination ,Randomized trial ,business ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery - Abstract
Objective The objective of this study was to identify potential trial characteristics associated with reported treatment effect estimates in randomized trials of testosterone therapy in adult men. Study Design and Setting This is a meta-epidemiological study. MEDLINE was searched for meta-analyses of randomized trials of testosterone therapy in men published between 2008 and 2018. Data on trial characteristics were extracted independently by two reviewers. The impact of trial characteristics on reported treatment effects was investigated using a two-step meta-analytic approach. Results We identified 132 randomized trials, included in 19 meta-analyses, comprising data from 10,725 participants. None of the investigated design characteristics, including year of publication, sample size, trial registration status, center status, regionality, funding source, and conflict of interest were statistically significantly associated with reported treatment effects of testosterone therapy in men. Although trials rated at high risk of bias overall reported treatment effects that were 21% larger compared with trials rated at low risk of bias overall, the 95% confidence interval included the null (ratio of odds ratio: 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.60 to 1.03). Conclusion The present study found no clear evidence that trial characteristics are associated with treatment effects in randomized trials of testosterone therapy in men. To establish stronger evidence about the treatment effects of testosterone therapy in men, future randomized trials should not only be adequately designed but also transparently reported. Study Registration osf.io/x9g6m.
- Published
- 2020
6. Implementing the 27 PRISMA 2020 Statement items for systematic reviews in the sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation and sports science fields:the PERSiST (implementing Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science) guidance
- Author
-
Bill Vicenzino, Maureen C. Ashe, Eamonn Delahunt, Catherine Sherrington, Franco M. Impellizzeri, David Moher, Guus Reurink, Matthew J. Page, Fionn Büttner, Adam Weir, Stephanie Mathieson, Clare L Ardern, Michael Skovdal Rathleff, Sinead Holden, Emmanuel Stamatakis, Renato Andrade, Karim M. Khan, H Paul Dijkstra, Marinus Winters, Jackie L. Whittaker, Alexis A. Wright, Mike Clarke, Orthopedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, AMS - Musculoskeletal Health, AMS - Sports, and Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,09 Engineering, 11 Medical and Health Sciences, 13 Education ,Sports medicine ,Sports science ,medicine.medical_treatment ,Psychological intervention ,Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation ,Sports Medicine ,Health care ,medicine ,Humans ,Orthopedics and Sports Medicine ,Sjukgymnastik ,implementation ,Physiotherapy ,Exercise ,Uncategorized ,Medical education ,Rehabilitation ,Evidence-Based Medicine ,evaluation ,business.industry ,methodology ,General Medicine ,Transparency (behavior) ,Exercise Therapy ,meta-analysis ,Systematic review ,Meta-analysis ,business ,Psychology ,human activities ,Sport Sciences ,Sports ,Systematic Reviews as Topic - Abstract
Poor reporting of medical and healthcare systematic reviews is a problem from which the sports and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science fields are not immune. Transparent, accurate and comprehensive systematic review reporting helps researchers replicate methods, readers understand what was done and why, and clinicians and policy-makers implement results in practice. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and its accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document provide general reporting examples for systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. However, implementation guidance for sport and exercise medicine, musculoskeletal rehabilitation, and sports science does not exist. The Prisma in Exercise, Rehabilitation, Sport medicine and SporTs science (PERSiST) guidance attempts to address this problem. Nineteen content experts collaborated with three methods experts to identify examples of exemplary reporting in systematic reviews in sport and exercise medicine (including physical activity), musculoskeletal rehabilitation (including physiotherapy), and sports science, for each of the PRISMA 2020 Statement items. PERSiST aims to help: (1) systematic reviewers improve the transparency and reporting of systematic reviews and (2) journal editors and peer reviewers make informed decisions about systematic review reporting quality.
- Published
- 2022
7. Methods used to select results to include in meta-analyses of nutrition research: A meta-research study
- Author
-
Elizabeth Korevaar, Sally McDonald, Cynthia M. Kroeger, Joanne E. McKenzie, Raju Kanukula, Matthew J. Page, Lisa Bero, and Zhaoli Dai
- Subjects
Protocol (science) ,Actuarial science ,Computer science ,Epidemiology ,business.industry ,MEDLINE ,Decision rule ,Systematic review ,Meta research ,Research Design ,Meta-analysis ,Statistics ,Covariate ,Medicine ,Humans ,Nutrition research ,business ,Systematic Reviews as Topic - Abstract
ObjectivesTo investigate the extent of multiplicity of results in study reports of nutrition research, and the methods specified in systematic reviews to select results for inclusion in meta-analyses. MethodsMEDLINE and Epistemonikos were searched (January 2018 - June 2019) to identify systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes. A random sample of these reviews was selected, and for the first presented ( index) meta-analysis, rules used to select effect estimates to include in this meta-analysis were extracted from the reviews and their protocols. All effect estimates from the primary studies that were eligible for inclusion in the index meta-analyses were extracted. ResultsForty-two systematic reviews were included, 14 of which had a protocol. In 29% of review protocols and 69% of reviews, at least one decision rule to select effect estimates when multiple were available was specified. In 69% (204/325) of studies included in the index meta-analyses, there was at least one type of multiplicity of results. ConclusionsAuthors of systematic reviews of nutrition research should anticipate encountering multiplicity of results in the included primary studies. Specification of methods to handle multiplicity when designing reviews is therefore recommended. O_TEXTBOXWhat is new?O_ST_ABSKey FindingsC_ST_ABSO_LIAuthors of systematic reviews of nutrition research should anticipate encountering multiplicity of results in the included primary studies. C_LIO_LIDecision rules to select results for inclusion in meta-analyses of nutrition research were infrequently pre-specified. C_LI What this adds to what was known?O_LIPrevious studies have found that multiplicity of results of continuous outcomes in studies included in systematic reviews was common, and methods used to select results to include in meta-analyses were infrequently pre-specified in systematic review protocols. However, none of the studies examined meta-analyses in nutiriton research, inclusion of randomized or non-randomized studies, or where the outcome was non-continuous (e.g. binary, count or time-to-event); circumstances for which different forms of multiplicity might arise. Our study addressed this gap. C_LI What is the implication and what should change now?O_LIPre-specification of decision rules to handle multiplicity when designing reviews is recommended. In the systematic review, we recommend reporting any modifications to the specified rules, or any additions that were introduced to cover multiplicity scenarios that had not been anticipated when designing the review. C_LI C_TEXTBOX
- Published
- 2021
8. PRISMA2020: an R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis
- Author
-
Matthew J. Page, Luke A McGuinness, Chris C. Pritchard, and Neal R. Haddaway
- Subjects
business.industry ,Computer science ,Suite ,media_common.quotation_subject ,Usability ,Transparency (human–computer interaction) ,Systematic review ,Interactivity ,Science communication ,The Internet ,Quality (business) ,business ,Software engineering ,media_common - Abstract
BackgroundReporting standards, such as PRISMA aim to ensure that the methods and results of systematic reviews are described in sufficient detail to allow full transparency. Flow diagrams in evidence syntheses allow the reader to rapidly understand the core procedures used in a review and examine the attrition of irrelevant records throughout the review process. Recent research suggests that use of flow diagrams in systematic reviews is poor and of low quality and called for standardised templates to facilitate better reporting in flow diagrams. The increasing options for interactivity provided by the Internet gives us an opportunity to support easy-to-use evidence synthesis tools, and here we report on the development of tools for the production of PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review flow diagrams.Methods and FindingsWe developed a free-to-use, Open Source R package and web-based Shiny app to allow users to design PRISMA flow diagrams for their own systematic reviews. Our tools allow users to produce standardised visualisations that transparently document the methods and results of a systematic review process in a variety of formats. In addition, we provide the opportunity to produce interactive, web-based flow diagrams (exported as HTML files), that allow readers to click on boxes of the diagram and navigate to further details on methods, results or data files. We provide an interactive example here;https://driscoll.ntu.ac.uk/prisma/.ConclusionsWe have developed a user-friendly suite of tools for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams for users with coding experience and, importantly, for users without prior experience in coding by making use of Shiny. These free-to-use tools will make it easier to produce clear and PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review flow diagrams. Significantly, users can also produce interactive flow diagrams for the first time, allowing readers of their reviews to smoothly and swiftly explore and navigate to further details of the methods and results of a review. We believe these tools will increase use of PRISMA flow diagrams, improve the compliance and quality of flow diagrams, and facilitate strong science communication of the methods and results of systematic reviews by making use of interactivity. We encourage the systematic review community to make use of these tools, and provide feedback to streamline and improve their usability and efficiency.
- Published
- 2021
9. Cross-sectional study of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 studies: discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation
- Author
-
Quinn Grundy, Louis Leslie, Stephanie L Boughton, Lisa Bero, Kellia Chiu, Rosa Lawrence, Sally McDonald, Lisa Parker, Robin Featherstone, Jamie J Kirkham, and Matthew J. Page
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ,Cross-sectional study ,ethics (see Medical Ethics) ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,Outcome assessment ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Statistical significance ,Medicine ,Humans ,Statistical analysis ,030212 general & internal medicine ,business.industry ,SARS-CoV-2 ,public health ,Outcome measures ,COVID-19 ,General Medicine ,Study Characteristics ,COVID-19 Drug Treatment ,Coronavirus ,Cross-Sectional Studies ,Family medicine ,Observational study ,business ,Coronavirus Infections ,qualitative research - Abstract
ObjectiveTo compare results reporting and the presence of spin in COVID-19 study preprints with their finalised journal publications.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingInternational medical literature.ParticipantsPreprints and final journal publications of 67 interventional and observational studies of COVID-19 treatment or prevention from the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register published between 1 March 2020 and 30 October 2020.Main outcome measuresStudy characteristics and discrepancies in (1) results reporting (number of outcomes, outcome descriptor, measure, metric, assessment time point, data reported, reported statistical significance of result, type of statistical analysis, subgroup analyses (if any), whether outcome was identified as primary or secondary) and (2) spin (reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results so they are viewed more favourably).ResultsOf 67 included studies, 23 (34%) had no discrepancies in results reporting between preprints and journal publications. Fifteen (22%) studies had at least one outcome that was included in the journal publication, but not the preprint; eight (12%) had at least one outcome that was reported in the preprint only. For outcomes that were reported in both preprints and journals, common discrepancies were differences in numerical values and statistical significance, additional statistical tests and subgroup analyses and longer follow-up times for outcome assessment in journal publications.At least one instance of spin occurred in both preprints and journals in 23/67 (34%) studies, the preprint only in 5 (7%), and the journal publications only in 2 (3%). Spin was removed between the preprint and journal publication in 5/67 (7%) studies; but added in 1/67 (1%) study.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 preprints and their subsequent journal publications were largely similar in reporting of study characteristics, outcomes and spin. All COVID-19 studies published as preprints and journal publications should be critically evaluated for discrepancies and spin.
- Published
- 2021
10. Assessment of the Methods Used to Develop Vitamin D and Calcium Recommendations-A Systematic Review of Bone Health Guidelines
- Author
-
Liora Baram, Sally McDonald, David Raubenheimer, Matthew J. Page, Lisa Bero, Margaret Allman-Farinelli, Joanne E. McKenzie, and Zhaoli Dai
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Health Status ,MEDLINE ,chemistry.chemical_element ,Review ,CINAHL ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,Calcium ,Recommended Dietary Allowances ,Bone and Bones ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Vitamin D and neurology ,Medicine ,Humans ,TX341-641 ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Healthcare Disparities ,Vitamin D ,Nutrition and Dietetics ,Evidence-Based Medicine ,Nutrition. Foods and food supply ,business.industry ,Public health ,osteoporosis prevention ,public health ,Guideline ,Middle Aged ,evidence-based guidelines ,guideline development methods ,Systematic review ,chemistry ,Family medicine ,Dietary Supplements ,Practice Guidelines as Topic ,Osteoporosis ,Observational study ,Female ,Bone Remodeling ,business ,Food Science - Abstract
Background: There are numerous guidelines developed for bone health. Yet, it is unclear whether the differences in guideline development methods explain the variability in the recommendations for vitamin D and calcium intake. The objective of this systematic review was to collate and compare recommendations for vitamin D and calcium across bone health guidelines, assess the methods used to form the recommendations, and explore which methodological factors were associated with these guideline recommendations. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and other databases indexing guidelines to identify records in English between 2009 and 2019. Guidelines or policy statements on bone health or osteoporosis prevention for generally healthy adults aged ≥40 years were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently extracted recommendations on daily vitamin D and calcium intake, supplement use, serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level, and sunlight exposure; assessed guideline development methods against 25 recommended criteria in the World Health Organization (WHO) handbook for guideline development; and, identified types identified types of evidence underpinning the recommendations. Results: we included 47 eligible guidelines from 733 records: 74% of the guidelines provided vitamin D (200~600–4000 IU/day) and 70% provided calcium (600–1200 mg/day) recommendations, 96% and 88% recommended vitamin D and calcium supplements, respectively, and 70% recommended a specific 25(OH)D concentration. On average, each guideline met 10 (95% CI: 9–12) of the total of 25 methodological criteria for guideline development recommended by the WHO Handbook. There was uncertainty in the association between the methodological criteria and the proportion of guidelines that provided recommendations on daily vitamin D or calcium. Various types of evidence, including previous bone guidelines, nutrient reference reports, systematic reviews, observational studies, and perspectives/editorials were used to underpin the recommendations. Conclusions: There is considerable variability in vitamin D and calcium recommendations and in guideline development methods in bone health guidelines. Effort is required to strengthen the methodological rigor of guideline development and utilize the best available evidence to underpin nutrition recommendations in evidence-based guidelines on bone health.
- Published
- 2021
11. Development of a checklist to detect errors in meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions: study protocol
- Author
-
Adya Misra, Matthew J. Page, Andrew Forbes, Steve McDonald, Elizabeth Loder, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Kerry Dwan, Raju Kanukula, Simon L Turner, Joanne E. McKenzie, and Tianjing Li
- Subjects
0301 basic medicine ,synthesis ,Process (engineering) ,Applied psychology ,Psychological intervention ,reporting guideline ,pair-wise meta-analysis ,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology ,03 medical and health sciences ,Study Protocol ,0302 clinical medicine ,Meta-Analysis as Topic ,systematic review ,Health care ,statistical issues ,errors ,030212 general & internal medicine ,General Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics ,Protocol (science) ,General Immunology and Microbiology ,business.industry ,General Medicine ,Articles ,Checklist ,meta-analysis ,030104 developmental biology ,Systematic review ,Meta-analysis ,Pairwise comparison ,business ,Psychology ,checklist ,Systematic Reviews as Topic - Abstract
Background: Systematic reviews underpin clinical practice and policies that guide healthcare decisions. A core component of many systematic reviews is meta-analysis, which is a statistical synthesis of results across studies. Errors in the conduct and interpretation of meta-analysis can lead to incorrect conclusions regarding the benefits and harms of interventions; and studies have shown that these errors are common. Enabling peer reviewers to better detect errors in meta-analysis through the use of a checklist provides an opportunity for these errors to be rectified before publication. To our knowledge, no such checklist exists. Objective: To develop and evaluate a checklist to detect errors in pairwise meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions. Methods: We will undertake a four-step process to develop the checklist. First, we will undertake a systematic review of studies that have evaluated errors in the conduct and interpretation of meta-analysis to generate a bank of items to consider for the checklist. Second, we will undertake a survey of systematic review methodologists and statisticians to seek their views on which items, of the bank of items generated in step 1, are most important to include in the checklist. Third, we will hold a virtual meeting to agree upon which items to include in the checklist. Fourth, before finalising the checklist, we will pilot with editors and peer reviewers of journals. Conclusion: The developed checklist is intended to help journal editors and peer reviewers identify errors in the application and interpretation of meta-analyses in systematic reviews. Fewer errors in the conduct and improved interpretation will lead to more accurate review findings and conclusions to inform clinical practice.
- Published
- 2021
12. Methodological quality of recommendations on vitamin D and calcium – a systematic review of bone health guidelines
- Author
-
David Raubenheimer, Zhaoli Dai, Lisa Bero, Matthew J. Page, Steve McDonald, Margaret Allman-Farinelli, Joanne E. McKenzie, and Baram L
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,business.industry ,Public health ,MEDLINE ,chemistry.chemical_element ,CINAHL ,Guideline ,Calcium ,Systematic review ,chemistry ,Family medicine ,medicine ,Vitamin D and neurology ,Observational study ,business - Abstract
There are numerous guidelines developed for bone health. Yet it is unclear the differences in guideline development methods explain the variability in recommendations for vitamin D and calcium intakes. The objective of this systematic review was to collate and compare recommendations for vitamin D and calcium across bone health guidelines, assess methods used to form the recommendations, and explore which methodological factors were associated with these guideline recommendations. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and other databases indexing guidelines to identify records in English between 2009 and 2019. Guidelines or policy statements on bone health or osteoporosis prevention for generally healthy adults aged ≥40 years were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently extracted recommendations on daily vitamin D and calcium intake, supplement use, serum 25 hydroxy vitamin D [25(OH)D] level, and sunlight exposure; assessed guideline development methods against 25 recommended criteria in the World Health Organization (WHO) Handbook for Guideline Development; and, identified types of evidence underpinning the recommendations. We included 47 eligible guidelines from 733 records: 74% of the guidelines provided vitamin D (200∼600-4000 IU/day) and 70% provided calcium (600-1200 mg/day) recommendations; 96% and 88% recommended vitamin D and calcium supplements, respectively; and 70% recommended a specific 25(OH)D concentration. The mean of meeting 25 WHO methodological criteria per guideline was 10 (95% CI: 9-12; interquartile range: 6-15). There was uncertainty in the associations between the methodological criteria and the proportion of guidelines that provided recommendations on daily vitamin D or calcium. Various types of evidence, ranging from previous bone guidelines, nutrient reference reports, systematic reviews, observational studies, to perspectives/editorials were used to underpin the recommendations. In conclusion, there is considerable variability in vitamin D and calcium recommendation and in guideline development methods in bone health guidelines. Effort is required to strengthen methodological rigor of guideline development and utilize the best available evidence to underpin public health nutrition.HighlightsThis systematic review provides evidence on the variabilities in vitamin D and calcium recommendations as well as guideline development methods in 47 bone health guidelines globally.Our findings point to continued effort to utilize the best available evidence to underpin nutrition recommendations and strengthen methodological rigor of guideline development in bone health guidelines.Registration of protocolPROSPERO: CRD42019126452
- Published
- 2021
13. Characteristics of systematic reviews published in dentistry by Brazilian corresponding authors
- Author
-
David Moher, Rafaela Bassani, Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci, Andrea Tricco, Matthew J. Page, Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci, and Rafael Sarkis-Onofre
- Subjects
Systematic review ,Data extraction ,business.industry ,Oral surgery ,parasitic diseases ,Screening method ,Medicine ,Dentistry ,Subgroup analysis ,Publication bias ,business ,Dental treatments - Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the reporting and conduct characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) published in dentistry by Brazilian corresponding authors and compare reporting characteristics of Brazilian SRs with the rest of the world. METHODS: A search in PubMed was performed to identify SRs published in dentistry in 2017 assessing different aspects of oral heath irrespective of the design of included studies. From this dataset, a subgroup analysis was performed considering only SRs published by Brazilian corresponding authors. Study screening was performed by two researchers independently, while for data extraction, one of three reviewers extracted details related to reporting and conduct of SRs. The completeness of reporting of 24 characteristics, included in the PRISMA Statement of the SRs classified as treatment/therapeutic, was evaluated comparing Brazilian SR to SRs from all other countries. RESULTS: We included 117 SRs with Brazilian corresponding authors. The majority focused on dental treatments (39.3%), with oral surgery (n=19, 16.2%) as the most commonly published. Included SRs presented varying reporting/conduct characteristics. Items such as use of reporting guidelines and screening method used were well reported. However, most SRs did not assess the risk of publication bias and did not use the GRADE assessment. Four (of 24) reporting characteristics of Brazilian SRs compared to SRs from the rest of world were reported statistically significantly more frequently: mention of a SR protocol, trial registry searched, screening method reported, and assessment of risk of bias/quality of studies. CONCLUSION: Reporting and conduct characteristics of Brazilian SRs are highly variable.
- Published
- 2019
14. Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis
- Author
-
Jonathan A C Sterne, Matthew J. Page, and Julian P.T. Higgins
- Subjects
Systematic review ,Study report ,business.industry ,Meta-analysis ,Econometrics ,Medicine ,business - Published
- 2019
15. Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial
- Author
-
Jonathan A C Sterne, Matthew J. Page, Roy G Elbers, Jelena Savović, and Julian P.T. Higgins
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Randomized controlled trial ,law ,business.industry ,Physical therapy ,medicine ,Outcome data ,business ,law.invention - Published
- 2019
16. Considering bias and conflicts of interest among the included studies
- Author
-
Matthew J. Page, Douglas G. Altman, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Isabelle Boutron, Julian P T Higgins, Andreas Lundh, Higgins, Julian P. T., and Thomas, James
- Subjects
Risk-of-bias assessments ,business.industry ,Funding sources ,Study design ,Review authors ,Sensitivity analyses ,Trial reports ,Study reports ,Cochrane reviews ,Systematic review ,Econometrics ,Medicine ,Conflicts of interest ,business - Abstract
Bias can arise because of the actions of primary study investigators or because of the actions of review authors, or may be unavoidable due to constraints on how research can be undertaken in practice. Where possible, assessments of risk of bias in a systematic review should be informed by evidence. This chapter summarizes some of the key evidence about bias that informs our guidance on risk-of-bias assessments in Cochrane Reviews. Many results are often available in trial reports, so review authors should think carefully about which results to assess for risk of bias. Review authors who restrict their primary analysis in this way are encouraged to perform sensitivity analyses to show how conclusions might be affected if studies at a high risk of bias were included. The chapter also addresses how source of funding and conflicts of interest of study authors may impact on study design, conduct and reporting.
- Published
- 2019
17. The OMERACT Emerging Leaders Program: The Good, the Bad, and the Future
- Author
-
Rachel J. Black, Bethan Richards, P. Tugwell, Premarani Sinnathurai, Kathryn S. Stok, Serena Halls, Heidi J. Siddle, Ilfita Sahbudin, Caroline A Flurey, Matthew J. Page, and Joanna Robson
- Subjects
030203 arthritis & rheumatology ,Medical education ,business.industry ,Mentors ,Immunology ,Delphi method ,Career Mobility ,Leadership ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Rheumatology ,Humans ,Immunology and Allergy ,Medicine ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Early career ,Rheumatologists ,Form of the Good ,business ,Career development - Abstract
Objective.To describe the experience of the first OMERACT Emerging Leaders Program (ELP).Methods.A Delphi process identified positive aspects, areas for improvement, and future directions. Core items were defined as essential if they received ≥ 70% ratings.Results.Participants valued relatable/accessible mentors (100%), including an OMERACT Executive mentor (100%), and a support network of peers (90%). Key items for future development were funding support (100%) and developing knowledge about OMERACT processes (90%) and politics (80%).Conclusion.The ELP has the potential to provide targeted training for early career researchers to develop relevant skills for future leadership roles within OMERACT.
- Published
- 2019
18. Improving the conduct of systematic reviews: a process mining perspective
- Author
-
Matthew J. Page, Jeremiah Hwee, Nazia Darvesh, Reid Robson, Andrea C. Tricco, Ba' Pham, Patricia Rios, Ebrahim Bagheri, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai, and Asef Pourmasoumi
- Subjects
Time Factors ,Process modeling ,Epidemiology ,Computer science ,Process (engineering) ,Interprofessional Relations ,Process mining ,Social Networking ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Data Mining ,Humans ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Data collection ,Social network ,business.industry ,Event (computing) ,030503 health policy & services ,Timeline ,Models, Theoretical ,Quality Improvement ,Data science ,Research Personnel ,Systematic review ,Research Design ,0305 other medical science ,business ,Systematic Reviews as Topic - Abstract
Objectives To illustrate the use of process mining concepts, techniques, and tools to improve the systematic review process. Study Design and Setting We simulated review activities and step-specific methods in the process for systematic reviews conducted by one research team over 1 year to generate an event log of activities, with start/end dates, reviewer assignment by expertise, and person-hours worked. Process mining techniques were applied to the event log to “discover” process models, which allowed visual display, animation, or replay of the simulated review activities. Summary statistics were calculated for person-time and timelines. We also analyzed the social networks of team interactions. Results The 12 simulated reviews included an average of 3,831 titles/abstracts (range: 1,565–6,368) and 20 studies (6–42). The average review completion time was 463 days (range: 289–629) (881 person-hours [range: 243–1,752]). The average person-hours per activity were study selection 26%, data collection 24%, report preparation 23%, and meta-analysis 17%. Social network analyses showed the organizational interaction of team members, including how they worked together to complete review tasks and to hand over tasks upon completion. Conclusion Event log and process mining can be valuable tools for research teams interested in improving and modernizing the systematic review process.
- Published
- 2018
19. Top health research funders' guidance on selecting journals for funded research
- Author
-
Lesley A. Stewart, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Kelly Cobey, Matthew J. Page, Sharon E. Straus, Jamie C. Brehaut, Larissa Shamseer, and David Moher
- Subjects
media_common.quotation_subject ,journals ,Library science ,Directory ,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Political science ,Open-access mandate ,publishing ,030212 general & internal medicine ,General Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics ,Duty ,Publication ,media_common ,health research funders ,General Immunology and Microbiology ,business.industry ,05 social sciences ,General Medicine ,Articles ,3. Good health ,Publishing ,journal selection ,General partnership ,0509 other social sciences ,Periodicals as Topic ,050904 information & library sciences ,business ,Research Article - Abstract
Background: Funded health research is being published in journals that many regard as “predatory”, deceptive, and non-credible. We do not currently know whether funders provide guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded health research. Methods: We identified the largest 46 philanthropic, public, development assistance, public-private partnership, and multilateral funders of health research by expenditure, globally as well as four public funders from lower-middle income countries, from the list at https://healthresearchfunders.org. One of us identified guidance on disseminating funded research from each funders’ website (August/September 2017), then extracted information about selecting journals, which was verified by another assessor. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Results were summarized descriptively. This research used publicly available information; we did not seek verification with funding bodies. Results: The majority (44/50) of sampled funders indicated funding health research. 38 (of 44, 86%) had publicly available information about disseminating funded research, typically called “policies” (29, 76%). Of these 38, 36 (95%) mentioned journal publication for dissemination of which 13 (36.11%) offer variable guidance on selecting a journal, all of which relate to the funder’s open access mandate. Six funders (17%) outlined publisher requirements or features by which to select a journal. One funder linked to a document providing features of journals to look for (e.g. listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals) and to be wary of (e.g., no journal scope statement, uses direct and unsolicited marketing). Conclusions: Few funders provided guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded research. Funders have a duty to ensure that the research they fund is discoverable by others. This research is a benchmark for funder guidance on journal selection prior to the January 2021 implementation of Plan S (a global, funder-led initiative to ensure immediate, open access to funded, published research).
- Published
- 2021
20. The PRISMA 2020 statement:An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
- Author
-
Matthew J. Page, Elizabeth Loder, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Julie Glanville, Vivian Welch, James Thomas, Patrick M.M. Bossuyt, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Tammy Hoffmann, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Isabelle Boutron, David Moher, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Manoj M. Lalu, Andrea C. Tricco, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Luke A McGuinness, Joanne E. McKenzie, Penny Whiting, Tianjing Li, Roger Chou, Steve McDonald, Sue E. Brennan, Elie A. Akl, Lesley A. Stewart, Université Paris Cité, Equipe HAL, Monash University [Melbourne], VU University Medical Center [Amsterdam], Equipe 5 : METHODS - Méthodes de l’évaluation thérapeutique des maladies chroniques (CRESS - U1153), Centre de Recherche Épidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS (U1153 / UMR_A_1125 / UMR_S_1153)), Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers [CNAM] (CNAM), HESAM Université - Communauté d'universités et d'établissements Hautes écoles Sorbonne Arts et métiers université (HESAM)-HESAM Université - Communauté d'universités et d'établissements Hautes écoles Sorbonne Arts et métiers université (HESAM)-Université Sorbonne Paris Cité (USPC)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université Paris Cité (UPCité)-Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE)-Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers [CNAM] (CNAM), HESAM Université - Communauté d'universités et d'établissements Hautes écoles Sorbonne Arts et métiers université (HESAM)-HESAM Université - Communauté d'universités et d'établissements Hautes écoles Sorbonne Arts et métiers université (HESAM)-Université Sorbonne Paris Cité (USPC)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université Paris Cité (UPCité)-Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE), Bond University [Gold Coast], The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth), University of Ottawa [Ottawa], Auteur indépendant, McMaster University [Hamilton, Ontario], Oregon Health and Science University [Portland] (OHSU), York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO), Odense University Hospital (OUH), Ottawa Hospital Research Institute [Ottawa] (OHRI), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health [Baltimore], Johns Hopkins University (JHU), Harvard Medical School [Boston] (HMS), Indiana University [Bloomington], Indiana University System, University of Bristol [Bristol], University of York [York, UK], University College of London [London] (UCL), University of Toronto, Epidemiology and Data Science, APH - Methodology, APH - Personalized Medicine, and Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers [CNAM] (CNAM)-Université Sorbonne Paris Cité (USPC)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université de Paris (UP)-Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE)-Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers [CNAM] (CNAM)-Université Sorbonne Paris Cité (USPC)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université de Paris (UP)-Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE)
- Subjects
Research Report ,Epidemiology ,Computer science ,Statement (logic) ,[SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio] ,Statistics as Topic ,lcsh:Medicine ,Medicine (miscellaneous) ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,Terminology ,Guidelines and Guidance ,Database and Informatics Methods ,Mathematical and Statistical Techniques ,0302 clinical medicine ,Medicine and Health Sciences ,Medicine ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Meta-Analysis as Topic ,ComputingMilieux_MISCELLANEOUS ,Research reporting guidelines ,Evidence-Based Medicine ,030503 health policy & services ,Statistics ,Reporting guideline ,bepress|Medicine and Health Sciences ,General Medicine ,Research Assessment ,Metaanalysis ,MetaArXiv|Medicine and Health Sciences ,Reproducibility ,Checklist ,3. Good health ,[SDV] Life Sciences [q-bio] ,Systematic review ,Research Design ,Meta-analysis ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Physical Sciences ,Practice Guidelines as Topic ,030211 gastroenterology & hepatology ,0305 other medical science ,Quality Control ,medicine.medical_specialty ,MEDLINE ,Systematic review methodology ,Guidelines as Topic ,Health care policy reports ,Research and Analysis Methods ,Transparency ,03 medical and health sciences ,Terminology as Topic ,Humans ,Medical physics ,Statistical Methods ,Health care providers ,Publishing ,Statement (computer science) ,Medical education ,Health Care Policy ,business.industry ,Research ,lcsh:R ,Systematic reviews ,Guideline ,Medical Writing ,Database searching ,Health Care ,Medical risk factors ,Surgery ,Research Report/standards ,business ,Mathematics ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery ,Systematic Reviews as Topic - Abstract
Background: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did and what they found. Over the last decade, there have been many advances in systematic review methodology and terminology, which have necessitated an update to the guideline.Objectives: To develop the PRISMA 2020 statement for reporting systematic reviews.Methods: We reviewed 60 documents with reporting guidance for systematic reviews to generate suggested modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement. We sought feedback on the suggested modifications through an online survey of 110 systematic review methodologists and journal editors. The results of the review and survey were discussed at a 21-member in-person meeting. Following the meeting, drafts of the PRISMA 2020 checklist, abstract checklist, explanation and elaboration and flow diagram were generated and refined iteratively based on feedback from co-authors and a convenience sample of 15 systematic reviewers.Results: In this statement paper, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. The checklist includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement.Conclusions: The PRISMA 2020 statement is intended to facilitate transparent, complete and accurate reporting of systematic reviews. Improved reporting should benefit users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, health care providers, patients and other stakeholders. In order to achieve this, we encourage authors, editors and peer-reviewers to adopt the guideline.
- Published
- 2021
21. Updated reporting guidance for systematic reviews: Introducing PRISMA 2020 to readers of the Journal of Affective Disorders
- Author
-
Sarah E Hetrick, Joanne E. McKenzie, and Matthew J. Page
- Subjects
Mood Disorders ,business.industry ,Accounting ,Transparency (behavior) ,Checklist ,03 medical and health sciences ,Psychiatry and Mental health ,Clinical Psychology ,0302 clinical medicine ,Systematic review ,Humans ,Medicine ,030212 general & internal medicine ,business ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery - Published
- 2021
22. The REPRISE Project: Protocol for an Evaluation of Reproducibility and Replicability in Syntheses of Evidence
- Author
-
Lara J Maxwell, Peter Tugwell, Sue E. Brennan, David Moher, Raju Kanukula, Joanne E. McKenzie, Julian P T Higgins, Daniel G. Hamilton, Steve McDonald, Matthew J. Page, Shinichi Nakagawa, Vivian Welch, Neal R. Haddaway, Fiona Fidler, Sathya Karunananthan, and David Nunan
- Subjects
Research design ,Psychological intervention ,Replication ,Medicine (miscellaneous) ,Sample (statistics) ,Transparency ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Meta-Analysis as Topic ,Protocol ,Humans ,Medicine ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Protocol (science) ,business.industry ,Methodology ,Reproducibility of Results ,Systematic reviews ,Quality ,Transparency (behavior) ,Data science ,Meta-analysis ,Systematic review ,Research Design ,business ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery ,Systematic Reviews as Topic - Abstract
Background Investigations of transparency, reproducibility and replicability in science have been directed largely at individual studies. It is just as critical to explore these issues in syntheses of studies, such as systematic reviews, given their influence on decision-making and future research. We aim to explore various aspects relating to the transparency, reproducibility and replicability of several components of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the effects of health, social, behavioural and educational interventions. Methods The REPRISE (REProducibility and Replicability In Syntheses of Evidence) project consists of four studies. We will evaluate the completeness of reporting and sharing of review data, analytic code and other materials in a random sample of 300 systematic reviews of interventions published in 2020 (Study 1). We will survey authors of systematic reviews to explore their views on sharing review data, analytic code and other materials and their understanding of and opinions about replication of systematic reviews (Study 2). We will then evaluate the extent of variation in results when we (a) independently reproduce meta-analyses using the same computational steps and analytic code (if available) as used in the original review (Study 3), and (b) crowdsource teams of systematic reviewers to independently replicate a subset of methods (searches for studies, selection of studies for inclusion, collection of outcome data, and synthesis of results) in a sample of the original reviews; 30 reviews will be replicated by 1 team each and 2 reviews will be replicated by 15 teams (Study 4). Discussion The REPRISE project takes a systematic approach to determine how reliable systematic reviews of interventions are. We anticipate that results of the REPRISE project will inform strategies to improve the conduct and reporting of future systematic reviews.
- Published
- 2021
23. Protocol: Benefits and harms of remdesivir for COVID-19 in adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis
- Author
-
Matthew J. Page, Asger Sand Paludan-Müller, Andreas Lundh, and Klaus Munkholm
- Subjects
Viral Diseases ,Epidemiology ,Study Protocol ,Database and Informatics Methods ,Medical Conditions ,Mathematical and Statistical Techniques ,Health care ,Medicine and Health Sciences ,Database Searching ,Multidisciplinary ,Alanine ,Pharmaceutics ,Statistics ,Alanine/analogs & derivatives ,Research Assessment ,Metaanalysis ,Systematic review ,Infectious Diseases ,Reporting bias ,Research Design ,Meta-analysis ,Physical Sciences ,Medicine ,Adult ,Risk ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Systematic Reviews ,Clinical Research Design ,Death Rates ,Science ,MEDLINE ,Research and Analysis Methods ,COVID-19/drug therapy ,Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives ,Drug Therapy ,Population Metrics ,medicine ,Humans ,Statistical Methods ,Intensive care medicine ,Adverse effect ,Protocol (science) ,Population Biology ,business.industry ,Biology and Life Sciences ,Covid 19 ,Publication bias ,Adenosine Monophosphate ,COVID-19 Drug Treatment ,Medical Risk Factors ,Adverse Events ,business ,Publication Bias ,Mathematics - Abstract
Background Effective drug treatments for Covid-19 are needed to decrease morbidity and mortality for the individual and to alleviate pressure on health care systems. Remdesivir showed promising results in early randomised trials but subsequently a large publicly funded trial has shown less favourable results and the evidence is interpreted differently in clinical guidelines. Systematic reviews of remdesivir have been published, but none have systematically searched for unpublished data, including regulatory documents, and assessed the risk of bias due to missing evidence. Methods We will conduct a systematic review of randomised trials comparing remdesivir to placebo or standard of care in any setting. We will include trials regardless of the severity of disease and we will include trials examining remdesivir for indications other than Covid-19 for harms analyses. We will search websites of regulatory agencies, trial registries, bibliographic databases, preprint servers and contact trial sponsors to obtain all available data, including unpublished clinical data, for all eligible trials. Our primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes will be length of hospital stay, time to death, severe disease, and adverse events. We will assess the risk of bias using the Cochranes Risk of Bias 2 tool and the risk of bias due to missing evidence (e.g. publication bias, selective reporting bias) using the ROB-ME tool. Where appropriate we will synthesise study results by conducting random-effects meta-analysis. We will present our findings in a Summary of Findings table and rate the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Discussion By conducting a comprehensive systematic review including unpublished data (where available), we expect to be able to provide valuable information for patients and clinicians about the benefits and harms of remdesivir for the treatment of Covid-19. This will help to ensure optimal treatment for individual patients and optimal utilisation of health care resources. Systematic review registration CRD42021255915.
- Published
- 2021
24. Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas
- Author
-
Matthew J. Page, Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M. Tetzlaff, Elie A. Akl, Sue E. Brennan, Roger Chou, Julie Glanville, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Manoj M. Lalu, Tianjing Li, Elizabeth W. Loder, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Steve McDonald, Luke A. McGuinness, Lesley A. Stewart, James Thomas, Andrea C. Tricco, Vivian A. Welch, Penny Whiting, David Moher, Juan José Yepes-Nuñez, Gerard Urrútia, Marta Romero-García, and Sergio Alonso-Fernández
- Subjects
Ciències de la salut ,business.industry ,Qualitative research ,Medicine ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,business ,Medical sciences ,Humanities ,Investigació qualitativa - Abstract
Resumen La declaracion PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), publicada en 2009, se diseno para ayudar a los autores de revisiones sistematicas a documentar de manera transparente el porque de la revision, que hicieron los autores y que encontraron. Durante la ultima decada, ha habido muchos avances en la metodologia y terminologia de las revisiones sistematicas, lo que ha requerido una actualizacion de esta guia. La declaracion prisma 2020 sustituye a la declaracion de 2009 e incluye una nueva guia de presentacion de las publicaciones que refleja los avances en los metodos para identificar, seleccionar, evaluar y sintetizar estudios. La estructura y la presentacion de los items ha sido modificada para facilitar su implementacion. En este articulo, presentamos la lista de verificacion PRISMA 2020 con 27 items, y una lista de verificacion ampliada que detalla las recomendaciones en la publicacion de cada item, la lista de verificacion del resumen estructurado PRISMA 2020 y el diagrama de flujo revisado para revisiones sistematicas.
- Published
- 2021
25. Risk of Bias 2 in Cochrane Reviews: a phased approach for the introduction of new methodology
- Author
-
Ella Flemyng, Matthew J. Page, Theresa Hm Moore, Julian P T Higgins, and Kerry Dwan
- Subjects
Quality Control ,medicine.medical_specialty ,business.industry ,Pilot Projects ,Treatment Outcome ,Bias ,Medicine ,Systematic Reviews as Topic/methods ,Pharmacology (medical) ,Medical physics ,business ,Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ,Systematic Reviews as Topic - Abstract
[No abstract]
- Published
- 2020
26. Long-term effects of alcohol consumption on cognitive function: a systematic review and dose-response analysis of evidence published between 2007 and 2018
- Author
-
Joanne E. McKenzie, Matthew J. Page, Sue E. Brennan, Steve McDonald, Jane Reid, Andrew Forbes, and Stephanie A. Ward
- Subjects
Alcohol Drinking ,MEDLINE ,lcsh:Medicine ,Medicine (miscellaneous) ,PsycINFO ,Cognition dose-response ,03 medical and health sciences ,Cognition ,0302 clinical medicine ,Environmental health ,Humans ,Medicine ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Consumption (economics) ,Dose-Response Relationship, Drug ,business.industry ,Research ,lcsh:R ,3. Good health ,Meta-analysis ,Data extraction ,Systematic review ,Long-term effects of alcohol consumption ,Alcohol ,business ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery ,Cohort study - Abstract
Background Understanding the long-term health effects of low to moderate alcohol consumption is important for establishing thresholds for minimising the lifetime risk of harm. Recent research has elucidated the dose-response relationship between alcohol and cardiovascular outcomes, showing an increased risk of harm at levels of intake previously thought to be protective. The primary objective of this review was to examine (1) whether there is a dose-response relationship between levels of alcohol consumption and long-term cognitive effects, and (2) what the effects are of different levels of consumption. Methods The review was conducted according to a pre-specified protocol. Eligible studies were those published 2007 onwards that compared cognitive function among people with different levels of alcohol consumption (measured ≥ 6 months prior to first follow-up of cognition). Major cognitive impairment was excluded. Searches were limited to MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (January 2007 to April 2018). Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (ROBINS-I) were piloted by three authors, then completed by a single author and checked by a second. Analyses were undertaken to identify and characterise dose-response relationships between levels of alcohol consumption and cognition. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results We included 27 cohort studies (from 4786 citations). Eighteen studies examined the effects of alcohol consumption at different levels (risk of bias 16 serious, 2 critical). Ten studies provided data for dose-response analysis. The pooled dose-response relationship showed a maximum standardised mean difference (SMD) indicating slightly better cognition among women with moderate alcohol consumption compared to current non-drinkers (SMD 0.18, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.34, at 14.4 grams/day; 5 studies, very low certainty evidence), and a trivial difference for men (SMD 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.10, at 19.4 grams/day; 6 studies, very low certainty evidence). Conclusions Major limitations in the design and reporting of included studies made it impossible to discern if the effects of ‘lower’ levels of alcohol intake are due to bias. Further review of the evidence is unlikely to resolve this issue without meta-analysis of individual patient data from cohort studies that address biases in the selection of participants and classification of alcohol consumption.
- Published
- 2020
27. What is the evidence for interactions between filaggrin null mutations and environmental exposures in the aetiology of atopic dermatitis? A systematic review
- Author
-
Lavinia Paternoster, Nick J. Reynolds, Hywel C Williams, Luigi Palla, Matthew J. Page, V.B. Allen, V. Van‐De‐Velde, Carsten Flohr, G. Kravvas, Amanda Roberts, Sinead Langan, Alan D. Irvine, T. McPherson, H. Blakeway, Sara J. Brown, and Richard Weller
- Subjects
filaggrin ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Genotype ,atopic eczema ,Evidence‐Based Dermatology ,environmental exposure ,Context (language use) ,Dermatology ,Filaggrin Proteins ,Bioinformatics ,Dermatitis, Atopic ,030207 dermatology & venereal diseases ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Intermediate Filament Proteins ,systematic review ,Loss of Function Mutation ,Epidemiology ,Medicine ,Animals ,Genetic Predisposition to Disease ,Gene–environment interaction ,skin and connective tissue diseases ,10. No inequality ,Atopic dermatitis ,atopic dermatitis ,business.industry ,gene-environment interaction ,filaggrin mutation ,medicine.disease ,3. Good health ,body regions ,exposure ,Sample size determination ,Mutation ,Etiology ,Cats ,gene‐environment interaction ,FLG ,business ,Filaggrin - Abstract
Summary Background Epidemiological studies indicate that gene–environment interactions play a role in atopic dermatitis (AD). Objectives To review the evidence for gene–environment interactions in AD aetiology, focusing on filaggrin (FLG) loss‐of‐function mutations. Methods A systematic search from inception to September 2018 in Embase, MEDLINE and BIOSIS was performed. Search terms included all synonyms for AD and filaggrin/FLG; any genetic or epidemiological study design using any statistical methods were included. Quality assessment using criteria modified from guidance (ROBINS‐I and Human Genome Epidemiology Network) for nonrandomized and genetic studies was completed, including consideration of power. Heterogeneity of study design and analyses precluded the use of meta‐analysis. Results Of 1817 papers identified, 12 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria required and performed formal interaction testing. There was some evidence for FLG–environment interactions in six of the studies (P‐value for interaction ≤ 0·05), including early‐life cat ownership, older siblings, water hardness, phthalate exposure, higher urinary phthalate metabolite levels (which all increased AD risk additional to FLG null genotype) and prolonged breastfeeding (which decreased AD risk in the context of FLG null genotype). Major limitations of published studies were the low numbers of individuals (ranging from five to 94) with AD and FLG loss‐of‐function mutations and exposure to specific environmental factors, and variation in exposure definitions. Conclusions Evidence on FLG–environment interactions in AD aetiology is limited. However, many of the studies lacked large enough sample sizes to assess these interactions fully. Further research is needed with larger sample sizes and clearly defined exposure assessment. Linked Comment: Park and Seo. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:411., What's already known about this topic? Gene–environment interactions are considered important in the aetiology of atopic dermatitis.Loss‐of-function mutations in the gene coding filaggrin (FLG) are the most consistently reported genetic variants for atopic dermatitis.Studies have reported evidence for gene–environment interaction involving FLG and a range of different environmental exposures. What does this study add? There is some evidence for FLG–environment interactions in the aetiology of atopic dermatitis; however, the evidence is limited.Studies lack large enough sample sizes to achieve adequate power in order to assess these interactions fully. Linked Comment: Park and Seo. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:411. Plain language summary available online
- Published
- 2019
28. Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions
- Author
-
Nadera Ahmadzai, Ferrán Catalá-López, Dianna Wolfe, Matthew J. Page, Fatemeh Yazdi, Douglas G. Altman, Larissa Shamseer, Andrea C. Tricco, David Moher, and Joanne E. McKenzie
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Biomedical Research ,Biomedical intervention ,Epidemiology ,business.industry ,MEDLINE ,Psychological intervention ,Reproducibility of Results ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,computer.software_genre ,Confidence interval ,Original data ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Systematic review ,Research Design ,medicine ,Humans ,Medical physics ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Data mining ,business ,Sensitivity analyses ,computer ,Systematic Reviews as Topic - Abstract
Objectives To evaluate how often reproducible research practices, which allow others to recreate the findings of studies, given the original data, are used in systematic reviews (SRs) of biomedical research. Study Design and Setting We evaluated a random sample of SRs indexed in MEDLINE during February 2014, which focused on a therapeutic intervention and reported at least one meta-analysis. Data on reproducible research practices in each SR were extracted using a 26-item form by one author, with a 20% random sample extracted in duplicate. We explored whether the use of reproducible research practices was associated with an SR being a Cochrane review, as well as with the reported use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Results We evaluated 110 SRs of therapeutic interventions, 78 (71%) of which were non-Cochrane SRs. Across the SRs, there were 2,139 meta-analytic effects (including subgroup meta-analytic effects and sensitivity analyses), 1,551 (73%) of which were reported in sufficient detail to recreate them. Systematic reviewers reported the data needed to recreate all meta-analytic effects in 72 (65%) SRs only. This percentage was higher in Cochrane than in non-Cochrane SRs (30/32 [94%] vs. 42/78 [54%]; risk ratio 1.74, 95% confidence interval 1.39–2.18). Systematic reviewers who reported imputing, algebraically manipulating, or obtaining some data from the study author/sponsor infrequently stated which specific data were handled in this way. Only 33 (30%) SRs mentioned access to data sets and statistical code used to perform analyses. Conclusion Reproducible research practices are underused in SRs of biomedical interventions. Adoption of such practices facilitates identification of errors and allows the SR data to be reanalyzed.
- Published
- 2018
29. Rates and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: Protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis
- Author
-
Matthew J. Page, Kyungwan Hong, Fiona Fidler, Hannah Fraser, Steve McDonald, Anisa Rowhani-Farid, and Daniel G. Hamilton
- Subjects
Data Analysis ,Knowledge management ,Computer science ,media_common.quotation_subject ,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology ,Study Protocol ,03 medical and health sciences ,Code sharing ,0302 clinical medicine ,Meta-Analysis as Topic ,Institution ,Code (cryptography) ,Humans ,030212 general & internal medicine ,General Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics ,media_common ,Statement (computer science) ,Protocol (science) ,General Immunology and Microbiology ,Information Dissemination ,business.industry ,Publications ,Health sciences ,Articles ,General Medicine ,Research Personnel ,Data sharing ,Meta-analysis ,Systematic review ,Medicine ,business ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery ,Systematic Reviews as Topic ,Biomedical sciences - Abstract
Numerous studies have demonstrated low but increasing rates of data and code sharing within medical and health research disciplines. However, it remains unclear how commonly data and code are shared across all fields of medical and health research, as well as whether sharing rates are positively associated with implementation of progressive policies by publishers and funders, or growing expectations from the medical and health research community at large. Therefore this systematic review aims to synthesise the findings of medical and health science studies that have empirically investigated the prevalence of data or code sharing, or both. Objectives include the investigation of: (i) the prevalence of public sharing of research data and code alongside published articles (including preprints), (ii) the prevalence of private sharing of research data and code in response to reasonable requests, and (iii) factors associated with the sharing of either research output (e.g., the year published, the publisher’s policy on sharing, the presence of a data or code availability statement). It is hoped that the results will provide some insight into how often research data and code are shared publicly and privately, how this has changed over time, and how effective some measures such as the institution of data sharing policies and data availability statements have been in motivating researchers to share their underlying data and code.
- Published
- 2021
30. Routine Ertapenem Prophylaxis for Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsy does Not Select for Carbapenem Resistant Organisms: A Prospective Cohort Study
- Author
-
Rodney C. Studd, Alice G. McLachlan, Maxim G. Bloomfield, Timothy K. Blackmore, and Matthew J. Page
- Subjects
0301 basic medicine ,medicine.medical_specialty ,business.industry ,Urology ,030106 microbiology ,030232 urology & nephrology ,Carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae ,Drug resistance ,Intensive care unit ,Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsy ,law.invention ,Surgery ,Ciprofloxacin ,03 medical and health sciences ,chemistry.chemical_compound ,0302 clinical medicine ,Antibiotic resistance ,chemistry ,law ,polycyclic compounds ,medicine ,business ,Prospective cohort study ,Ertapenem ,medicine.drug - Abstract
Purpose: Sepsis after transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy is an increasing problem in this era of rising antibiotic resistance. Although ertapenem prophylaxis has proved effective at our institution to reduce this, it has raised local and regional antimicrobial stewardship concerns. We investigated the possible selective effect of single dose ertapenem prophylaxis on fecal colonization with carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae.Materials and Methods: Patients underwent a rectal swab prior to receiving prebiopsy ertapenem prophylaxis. A second swab was obtained at followup 4 to 6 weeks later. Swabs were screened for carbapenem resistant Enterobacteriaceae using an enhanced CDC (Centers for Disease Control) method. Prebiopsy swabs were also screened for extended spectrum β-lactamase producing and ciprofloxacin resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Patients were monitored for post-biopsy sepsis.Results: A total of 326 patients were enrolled in the study. At baseline 6.4% and 9.0% of patients had coloniza...
- Published
- 2017
31. Controversy and Debate on Meta-epidemiology. Paper 4: Confounding and other concerns in meta-epidemiological studies of bias
- Author
-
Matthew J. Page
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Epidemiology ,business.industry ,Environmental health ,Confounding ,MEDLINE ,Medicine ,business - Published
- 2020
32. Evaluation of the completeness of intervention reporting in Cochrane surgical systematic reviews using the TIDieR-SR checklist: a cross-sectional study
- Author
-
Matthew J. Page, Jessica Sosio, Matt Vassar, James Glasbey, Cole Wayant, Austin Jorski, and Craig Cooper
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,business.industry ,Cross-sectional study ,Psychological intervention ,Reproducibility of Results ,General Medicine ,Research findings ,Checklist ,Clinical Practice ,03 medical and health sciences ,Cross-Sectional Studies ,0302 clinical medicine ,Systematic review ,Primary outcome ,Research Design ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Family medicine ,Humans ,Medicine ,030212 general & internal medicine ,business ,Surgical interventions ,Systematic Reviews as Topic - Abstract
IntroductionComplete reporting of systematic reviews of interventions is essential to the interpretation of research findings and the reproducibility of research results. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist—and the version specific to systematic reviews (TIDieR-SR)—was created to provide authors and researchers an evidence-based guide for reporting trial and systematic review interventions. In this study, we apply TIDieR-SR to Cochrane systematic reviews of surgical interventions.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Database for relevant systematic reviews. Two investigators applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to all titles/abstracts and full texts. These same investigators extracted all data in duplicate while masked to the other’s data. The primary outcome was adherence to TIDieR-SR items.ResultsTwo hundred and thirty-eight systematic reviews were included. Overall, included SRs adhered to a median of 6 (IQR 5–7) out of eight TIDieR-SR items. The item with the lowest adherence was item 7 (share intervention materials, 1/238 (0.4%).DiscussionOur results are encouraging, but the generalisability of our findings is compromised by the inclusion of only Cochrane systematic reviews. Future reporting of intervention materials is likely to improve the application of effective surgical interventions in the clinical practice.
- Published
- 2020
33. A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome: a PROSPERO register study
- Author
-
Lesley A. Stewart, Andrea C. Tricco, Kerry Dwan, Sharon E. Straus, Elise Cogo, David Moher, Heather MacDonald, Matthew J. Page, Julie Polisena, Alison Booth, and Tammy Clifford
- Subjects
Risk ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Epidemiology ,Outcome (game theory) ,Cohort Studies ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Primary outcome ,Bias ,Internal medicine ,Outcome Assessment, Health Care ,Statistics ,medicine ,Humans ,Registries ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Retrospective Studies ,biology ,business.industry ,Retrospective cohort study ,Prospero ,biology.organism_classification ,Confidence interval ,Review Literature as Topic ,Systematic review ,Epidemiologic Research Design ,Relative risk ,business ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery ,Cohort study - Abstract
OBJECTIVES To examine outcome reporting bias of systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Retrospective cohort study. The primary outcomes from systematic review publications were compared with those reported in the corresponding PROSPERO records; discrepancies in the primary outcomes were assessed as upgrades, additions, omissions, or downgrades. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to determine the likelihood of having a change in primary outcome when the meta-analysis result was favorable and statistically significant. RESULTS Ninety-six systematic reviews were published. A discrepancy in the primary outcome occurred in 32% of the included reviews and 39% of the reviews did not explicitly specify a primary outcome(s); 6% of the primary outcomes were omitted. There was no significant increased risk of adding/upgrading (RR, 2.14; 95% CI: 0.53, 8.63) or decreased risk of downgrading (RR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.27, 2.17) an outcome when the meta-analysis result was favorable and statistically significant. As well, there was no significant increased risk of adding/upgrading (RR, 0.89; 95% CI: 0.31, 2.53) or decreased risk of downgrading (RR, 0.56; 95% CI: 0.29, 1.08) an outcome when the conclusion was positive. CONCLUSIONS We recommend review authors carefully consider primary outcome selection, and journals are encouraged to focus acceptance on registered systematic reviews.
- Published
- 2016
34. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
- Author
-
Tianjing Li, Matthew J. Page, Vivian Welch, James Thomas, Miranda Cumpston, Julian P T Higgins, and Jacqueline Chandler
- Subjects
Medical education ,Systematic review ,business.industry ,Psychological intervention ,MEDLINE ,Medicine ,Pharmacology (medical) ,Guidelines as Topic ,business ,Systematic Reviews as Topic - Published
- 2019
35. Evaluation of Reproducible Research Practices in Oncology Systematic Reviews With Meta-analyses Referenced by National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines
- Author
-
Matt Vassar, Cole Wayant, and Matthew J. Page
- Subjects
Oncology ,Cancer Research ,medicine.medical_specialty ,business.industry ,Hazard ratio ,MEDLINE ,Confidence interval ,law.invention ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Systematic review ,Trustworthiness ,Randomized controlled trial ,law ,Full data ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Internal medicine ,medicine ,Forest plot ,030212 general & internal medicine ,business ,Original Investigation - Abstract
Importance Reproducible research practices are essential to biomedical research because these practices promote trustworthy evidence. In systematic reviews and meta-analyses, reproducible research practices ensure that summary effects used to guide patient care are stable and trustworthy. Objective To evaluate the reproducibility in theory of meta-analyses in oncology systematic reviews cited by the 49 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for the treatment of cancer by site and evaluate whether Cochrane reviews or systematic reviews that report adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines use more reproducible research practices. Design, Setting, and Participants A cross-sectional investigation of all systematic reviews with at least 1 meta-analysis and at least 1 included randomized clinical trial (RCT) that are cited by NCCN guidelines for treatment of cancer by site. We scanned the reference list of all NCCN guidelines (n = 49) for potential systematic reviews and meta-analyses. All retrieved studies were screened, and data were extracted, independently and in duplicate. The analysis was carried out between May 6, 2018, and January 28, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures The frequency of reproducible research practices, defined as (1) effect estimate and measure of precision (eg, hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval); (2) clear list of studies included for each analysis; and (3) for subgroup and sensitivity analyses, it must be clear which studies were included in each group or level. Results We identified 1124 potential systematic reviews, and 154 meta-analyses comprising 3696 meta-analytic effect size estimates were included. Only 2375 of the 3696 meta-analytic estimates (64.3%), including subgroup and sensitivity analyses, were reproducible in theory. Forest plots appear to improve the reproducibility of meta-analyses. All meta-analytic estimates were reproducible in theory in 100 systematic reviews (64.9%), and in 15 systematic reviews (9.7%), no meta-analytic estimates could potentially be reproduced. Data were said to be imputed in 29 meta-analyses, but none specified which data. Only 1 meta-analysis included a link to an online data set. Conclusions and Relevance More reproducible research practices are needed in oncology meta-analyses, as suggested by those that are cited by the NCCN. Reporting meta-analyses in forest plots and requirements for full data sharing are recommended.
- Published
- 2019
36. Patients' experience of shoulder disorders: a systematic review of qualitative studies for the OMERACT Shoulder Core Domain Set
- Author
-
Hsiaomin Huang, M. Voshaar, Beverley Shea, Dorcas E. Beaton, Arianne P. Verhagen, Denise O'Connor, Samuel L Whittle, Daniëlle A W M van der Windt, Joel Gagnier, Rachelle Buchbinder, Mary Malek, Pamela Richards, Sofia Ramiro, Romi Haas, Matthew J. Page, and Psychology, Health & Technology
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,shoulder pain ,PsycINFO ,CINAHL ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Rheumatology ,systematic review ,qualitative evidence synthesis ,medicine ,Pharmacology (medical) ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Grading (education) ,outcome assessment ,030203 arthritis & rheumatology ,business.industry ,medicine.disease ,Checklist ,n/a OA procedure ,Clinical trial ,Critical appraisal ,Capsulitis ,Physical therapy ,business ,qualitative research ,Qualitative research - Abstract
Objectives To describe the experiences (including symptoms and perceived impacts on daily living) of people with a shoulder disorder. Methods Systematic review of qualitative studies. We searched for eligible qualitative studies indexed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL (EBSCO), SportDiscus (EBSCO) and Ovid PsycINFO up until November 2017. Two authors independently screened studies for inclusion, appraised their methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, used thematic synthesis methods to generate themes describing the experiences reported by participants and assessed the confidence in the findings using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. Results The inclusion criteria were met by eight studies, which included 133 participants (49 females and 84 males) with either rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, proximal humeral fracture, shoulder instability or unspecified shoulder pain. We generated seven themes to describe what people in the included studies reported experiencing: pain; physical function/activity limitations; participation restriction; sleep disruption; cognitive dysfunction; emotional distress; and other pathophysiological manifestations (other than pain). There were interactions between the themes, with particular experiences impacting on others (e.g. pain leading to reduced activities and sleep disruption). Following grading of the evidence, we considered it likely that most of the review findings were a reasonable representation of the experiences of people with shoulder disorders. Conclusion Patients with shoulder disorders contend with considerable disruption to their life. The experiences described should be considered by researchers seeking to select the most appropriate outcomes to measure in clinical trials and other research studies in people with shoulder disorders.
- Published
- 2019
37. The OMERACT Core Domain Set for Clinical Trials of Shoulder Disorders
- Author
-
Hsiaomin Huang, Marieke Voshaar, Bethan Richards, Daniëlle A W M van der Windt, Arianne P. Verhagen, Joel Gagnier, Dorcas E. Beaton, Peter Malliaras, Mario Lenza, Philip G. Conaghan, Samuel L Whittle, Sofia Ramiro, Rachelle Buchbinder, Nadine E. Foster, Matthew J. Page, Beverley Shea, Christopher Hill, Yngve Roe, Pamela Richards, Tiffany K. Gill, Christian Kopkow, Nitin B. Jain, Toby O. Smith, Bart W. Koes, Psychology, Health & Technology, and General Practice
- Subjects
musculoskeletal diseases ,OUTCOME MEASUREMENT ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Immunology ,Core domain ,Domain (software engineering) ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Physical medicine and rehabilitation ,Rheumatology ,Shoulder Pain ,1103 Clinical Sciences, 1107 Immunology, 1117 Public Health and Health Services ,Outcome Assessment, Health Care ,Humans ,Immunology and Allergy ,Medicine ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Set (psychology) ,030203 arthritis & rheumatology ,Core set ,business.industry ,Outcome measures ,OMERACT ,Cognition ,R1 ,humanities ,n/a OA procedure ,Arthritis & Rheumatology ,Clinical trial ,TRIALS ,CORE OUTCOME SET ,SHOULDER ,business ,RC - Abstract
Objective.To reach consensus on the core domains to be included in a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders using the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 Core Domain Set process.Methods.At OMERACT 2018, the OMERACT Shoulder Working Group conducted a workshop that presented the OMERACT 2016 preliminary core domain set and its rationale based upon a systematic review of domains measured in shoulder trials and international Delphi sessions involving patients, clinicians, and researchers, as well as a new systematic review of qualitative studies on the experiences of people with shoulder disorders. After discussions in breakout groups, the OMERACT core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders was presented for endorsement by OMERACT 2018 participants.Results.The qualitative review (n = 8) identified all domains included in the preliminary core set. An additional domain, cognitive dysfunction, was also identified, but confidence that this represents a core domain was very low. The core domain set that was endorsed by the OMERACT participants, with 71% agreement, includes 4 “mandatory” trial domains: pain, function, patient global — shoulder, and adverse events including death; and 4 “important but optional” domains: participation (recreation/work), sleep, emotional well-being, and condition-specific pathophysiological manifestations. Cognitive dysfunction was voted out of the core domain set.Conclusion.OMERACT 2018 delegates endorsed a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders. The next step includes identification of a core outcome measurement set that passes the OMERACT 2.1 Filter for measuring each domain.
- Published
- 2019
38. Letter re: stratification of meta-analyses based on risk of bias is appropriate and does not induce selection bias
- Author
-
Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Jonathan A C Sterne, Camilla Hansen, and Matthew J. Page
- Subjects
Selection bias ,bias ,Epidemiology ,business.industry ,media_common.quotation_subject ,systematic reviews ,methodology ,randomized trials ,Stratification (mathematics) ,law.invention ,Systematic review ,Randomized controlled trial ,law ,quality ,Data Interpretation, Statistical ,Statistics ,Medicine ,business ,Selection Bias ,media_common - Abstract
[No abstract]
- Published
- 2019
39. Safety and efficacy of testosterone for women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trial data
- Author
-
Robin J. Bell, Sally Green, Rakibul M. Islam, Matthew J. Page, and Susan R. Davis
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Hormone Replacement Therapy ,Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism ,Libido ,030209 endocrinology & metabolism ,Placebo ,law.invention ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Endocrinology ,Randomized controlled trial ,law ,Internal medicine ,Internal Medicine ,medicine ,Humans ,Testosterone ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Adverse effect ,business.industry ,Testosterone (patch) ,Sexual desire ,Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological ,Sexual dysfunction ,Treatment Outcome ,Meta-analysis ,Androgens ,Women's Health ,Female ,medicine.symptom ,business ,Sexual function - Abstract
Summary Background The benefits and risks of testosterone treatment for women with diminished sexual wellbeing remain controversial. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess potential benefits and risks of testosterone for women. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science for blinded, randomised controlled trials of testosterone treatment of at least 12 weeks' duration completed between Jan 1, 1990, and Dec 10, 2018. We also searched drug registration applications to the European Medicine Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration to identify any unpublished data. Primary outcomes were the effects of testosterone on sexual function, cardiometabolic variables, cognitive measures, and musculoskeletal health. This study is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), number CRD42018104073. Findings Our search strategy retrieved 46 reports of 36 randomised controlled trials comprising 8480 participants. Our meta-analysis showed that, compared with placebo or a comparator (eg, oestrogen, with or without progestogen), testosterone significantly increased sexual function, including satisfactory sexual event frequency (mean difference 0·85, 95% CI 0·52 to 1·18), sexual desire (standardised mean difference 0·36, 95% CI 0·22 to 0·50), pleasure (mean difference 6·86, 95% CI 5·19 to 8·52), arousal (standardised mean difference 0·28, 95% CI 0·21 to 0·35), orgasm (standardised mean difference 0·25, 95% CI 0·18 to 0·32), responsiveness (standardised mean difference 0·28, 95% CI 0·21 to 0·35), and self-image (mean difference 5·64, 95% CI 4·03 to 7·26), and reduced sexual concerns (mean difference 8·99, 95% CI 6·90 to 11·08) and distress (standardised mean difference −0·27, 95% CI −0·36 to −0·17) in postmenopausal women. A significant rise in the amount of LDL-cholesterol, and reductions in the amounts of total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, and triglycerides, were seen with testosterone administered orally, but not when administered non-orally (eg, by transdermal patch or cream). An overall increase in weight was recorded with testosterone treatment. No effects of testosterone were reported for body composition, musculoskeletal variables, or cognitive measures, although the number of women who contributed data for these outcomes was small. Testosterone was associated with a significantly greater likelihood of reporting acne and hair growth, but no serious adverse events were recorded. Interpretation Testosterone is effective for postmenopausal women with low sexual desire causing distress, with administration via non-oral routes (eg, transdermal application) preferred because of a neutral lipid profile. The effects of testosterone on individual wellbeing and musculoskeletal and cognitive health, as well as long-term safety, warrant further investigation. Funding Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.
- Published
- 2019
40. Effect of breakfast on weight and energy intake: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- Author
-
Matthew J. Page, Katherine Sievert, Yuanyuan Wang, Flavia M. Cicuttini, Mary Malek, Sultana Monira Hussain, and Harrison J Hughes
- Subjects
030309 nutrition & dietetics ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Weight loss ,Weight Loss ,Weight management ,medicine ,Humans ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Breakfast ,Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ,2. Zero hunger ,0303 health sciences ,business.industry ,Research ,digestive, oral, and skin physiology ,Weight change ,Body Weight ,General Medicine ,Feeding Behavior ,medicine.disease ,Obesity ,Confidence interval ,3. Good health ,Clinical trial ,Meta-analysis ,medicine.symptom ,business ,Energy Intake ,Body mass index ,Demography - Abstract
ObjectiveTo examine the effect of regular breakfast consumption on weight change and energy intake in people living in high income countries.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Ovid Medline, and CINAHL were searched for randomised controlled trials published between January 1990 and January 2018 investigating the effect of breakfast on weight or energy intake. ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal were also searched in October 2018 to identify any registered yet unpublished or ongoing trials.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials from high income countries in adults comparing breakfast consumption with no breakfast consumption that included a measure of body weight or energy intake. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Random effects meta-analyses of the effect of breakfast consumption on weight and daily energy intake were performed.ResultsOf 13 included trials, seven examined the effect of eating breakfast on weight change, and 10 examined the effect on energy intake. Meta-analysis of the results found a small difference in weight favouring participants who skipped breakfast (mean difference 0.44 kg, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.82), but there was some inconsistency across trial results (I2=43%). Participants assigned to breakfast had a higher total daily energy intake than those assigned to skip breakfast (mean difference 259.79 kcal/day, 78.87 to 440.71; 1 kcal=4.18 kJ), despite substantial inconsistency across trial results (I2=80%). All of the included trials were at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain and had only short term follow-ups (mean period seven weeks for weight, two weeks for energy intake). As the quality of the included studies was mostly low, the findings should be interpreted with caution.ConclusionThis study suggests that the addition of breakfast might not be a good strategy for weight loss, regardless of established breakfast habit. Caution is needed when recommending breakfast for weight loss in adults, as it could have the opposite effect. Further randomised controlled trials of high quality are needed to examine the role of breakfast eating in the approach to weight management.Study registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42017057687.
- Published
- 2019
41. Effect of alcohol consumption on food energy intake: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Author
-
Alastair Kwok, Matthew J. Page, Aimee L. Dordevic, Gemma Paton, and Helen Truby
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,Adolescent ,Alcohol Drinking ,Medicine (miscellaneous) ,Alcohol ,chemistry.chemical_compound ,Eating ,Young Adult ,Environmental health ,Medicine ,Ingestion ,Humans ,Consumption (economics) ,Nutrition and Dietetics ,business.industry ,Feeding Behavior ,Middle Aged ,Alcoholic beverage consumption ,Study heterogeneity ,Systematic review ,chemistry ,Meta-analysis ,Food energy ,Female ,business ,Energy Intake - Abstract
The relationship between alcohol consumption and body weight is complex and inconclusive being potentially mediated by alcohol type, habitual consumption levels and sex differences. Heavy and regular alcohol consumption has been positively correlated with increasing body weight, although it is unclear whether this is due to alcohol consumption per se or to additional energy intake from food. This review explores the effects of alcohol consumption on food energy intake in healthy adults. CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO were searched through February 2018 for crossover and randomised controlled trials where an alcohol dose was compared with a non-alcohol condition. Study quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. A total of twenty-two studies involving 701 participants were included from the 18 427 papers retrieved. Studies consistently demonstrated no compensation for alcoholic beverage energy intake, with dietary energy intake not decreasing due to alcoholic beverage ingestion. Meta-analyses using the random-effects model were conducted on twelve studies and demonstrated that alcoholic beverage consumption significantly increased food energy intake and total energy intake compared with a non-alcoholic comparator by weighted mean differences of 343 (95 % CI 161, 525) and 1072 (95 % CI 820, 1323) kJ, respectively. Generalisability is limited to younger adults (18–37 years), and meta-analyses for some outcomes had substantial statistical heterogeneity or evidence of small-study effects. This review suggests that adults do not compensate appropriately for alcohol energy by eating less, and a relatively modest alcohol dose may lead to an increase in food consumption.
- Published
- 2019
42. Association of Anorexia Nervosa With Risk of Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- Author
-
Ferrán Catalá-López, Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos, Adolfo Alonso-Arroyo, Alfonso Valencia, Eduard Vieta, Jose M Valderas, Matthew J. Page, Manuel Ridao, Diego Macías Saint-Gerons, Jane A. Driver, Ricard Gènova-Maleras, Brian Hutton, Jaume Forés-Martos, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, CIBERSAM, Generalitat Valenciana, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canadian Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, Red de Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas (España), Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red - CIBERSAM (Salud Mental), Generalitat Valenciana (España), United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (España), National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and Red de Investigación Cooperativa en Investigación en Servicios de Salud en Enfermedades Crónicas
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Anorexia Nervosa ,Population ,behavioral disciplines and activities ,Young Adult ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Breast cancer ,Neoplasms ,Internal medicine ,Observational study ,mental disorders ,Humans ,Medicine ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Sex Distribution ,Young adult ,education ,Original Investigation ,Aged ,Cancer ,education.field_of_study ,business.industry ,Research ,Mortality rate ,digestive, oral, and skin physiology ,General Medicine ,Middle Aged ,medicine.disease ,3. Good health ,Online Only ,Meta-analysis ,Oncology ,Anorexia nervosa (differential diagnoses) ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Systematic review ,Female ,Epidemiologic Methods ,business ,hormones, hormone substitutes, and hormone antagonists ,Cohort study - Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the association of anorexia nervosa with the cancer incidence and mortality among study populations with anorexia nervosa compared with the general population or those without anorexia nervosa., Key Points Question Are people with anorexia nervosa at a higher risk of developing or dying of cancer compared with those without anorexia and the general population? Findings In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 7 cohort studies including more than 42 000 participants with anorexia nervosa, there was no association of anorexia nervosa with overall cancer incidence or mortality. Anorexia nervosa was inversely associated with breast cancer incidence but positively associated with risk of developing lung and esophageal cancer. Meaning There was no association of anorexia nervosa with risk of cancer overall and few associations of anorexia nervosa with risk of site-specific cancer., Importance Anorexia nervosa is recognized as an important cause of morbidity in young people. However, the risk of cancer in people with anorexia nervosa remains uncertain. Objective To evaluate the association of anorexia nervosa with the risk of developing or dying of cancer. Data Sources MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science from database inception to January 9, 2019. Study Selection Published observational studies in humans examining the risk of cancer in people with anorexia nervosa compared with the general population or those without anorexia nervosa. Studies needed to report incidence or mortality rate ratios (RRs). Data Extraction and Synthesis Screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment were performed by at least 2 researchers independently. A random-effects model was used to synthesize individual studies. Heterogeneity (I2) was assessed and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were calculated. Main Outcomes and Measures All cancer incidence and cancer mortality associated with anorexia nervosa. Secondary outcomes were site-specific cancer incidence and mortality. Results Seven cohort studies published in 10 articles (42 602 participants with anorexia nervosa) were included. Anorexia nervosa was not associated with risk of developing any cancer (4 studies in women; RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.06; P = .53; I2, 0%; 95% PI, 0.80-1.18; moderate confidence). Anorexia nervosa was associated with decreased breast cancer incidence (5 studies in women; RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.50-0.80; P
- Published
- 2019
43. Systematic reviews in dentistry: Current status, epidemiological and reporting characteristics
- Author
-
Rafael Sarkis-Onofre, Andrea C. Tricco, Matthew J. Page, Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira, David Moher, and Rafaela Bassani
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Descriptive statistics ,business.industry ,Oral surgery ,Abstracting and Indexing ,Specialty ,Dentistry ,030206 dentistry ,Dental Specialty ,Confidence interval ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Systematic review ,Bias ,Relative risk ,parasitic diseases ,Epidemiology ,medicine ,Odds Ratio ,030212 general & internal medicine ,business ,General Dentistry ,Brazil ,Systematic Reviews as Topic - Abstract
Objective This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) in dentistry indexed within PubMed during the year 2017. Methods We searched for SRs in dentistry indexed within PubMed in 2017. Study selection was undertaken by two reviewers independently. Data related to epidemiological and reporting characteristics were extracted by one of three reviewers. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed. Characteristics of SRs were analyzed considering all SRs included and subgrouped by dental specialties. In addition, we explored if the reporting of 24 characteristics of treatment/therapeutic SRs was associated with the self-reported use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement calculating the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval for each characteristic. Results 495 articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The main specialty considered was Oral Surgery numbering 75 articles. Brazil presented the highest contribution with 117 SRs (23.6%). The reporting quality was variable. Items such as, use of the term “systematic review”, or “meta-analysis” in the title or abstract was well reported. In contrast, the study risk of bias/quality assessment method was not reported in 40.5% of SRs. In addition, only four reporting characteristics were described more often in those SR that reported using the PRISMA Statement. Conclusion A large number of SRs were published in dentistry in 2017 and the reporting and epidemiological characteristics varied among dental specialties. There is a mandatory need to improve the quality of reporting and conduct of SRs in dentistry. Clinical significance Poor reporting and conduction of SRs could generate SRs with imprecise and biased results.
- Published
- 2018
44. Providing services for acute low-back pain: A survey of Australian physiotherapists
- Author
-
Jennifer Lyn Keating, Matthew J. Page, Denise O'Connor, Simon D. French, Sally Green, Bruce F. Walker, Melanie Charity, and Joanne E. McKenzie
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Cross-sectional study ,medicine.medical_treatment ,Psychological intervention ,Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation ,Bed rest ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Lumbar ,Surveys and Questionnaires ,health services administration ,medicine ,Humans ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Physical Therapy Modalities ,Acute low back pain ,Aged ,Response rate (survey) ,business.industry ,Australia ,General Medicine ,Middle Aged ,Low back pain ,Physical Therapists ,Cross-Sectional Studies ,Treatment Outcome ,Vignette ,Practice Guidelines as Topic ,Physical therapy ,Female ,medicine.symptom ,business ,Low Back Pain ,human activities ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery - Abstract
Objective To determine whether physiotherapists avoid lumbar X-rays for acute non-specific low back pain and advise people to stay active. Methods We conducted a cross sectional survey of Australian physiotherapists. 880 physiotherapists were randomly sampled from Victoria (495), South Australia (158), and Western Australia (227). Physiotherapists were asked which investigations they would order and interventions they would provide for five acute low back pain (LBP) presentations described in vignettes. Four of the five vignettes represented people who would not require a plain lumbar X-ray and would benefit from advice to stay active; one described a patient with a suspected vertebral fracture and would require a plain X-ray. Participants selected from a list of response options or provided free text responses. Results Questionnaires were completed by 203 of 567 potentially eligible physiotherapists (response rate 36%). Across the four vignettes where an X-ray was not indicated, 75% (95%CI 71–78%) of physiotherapists reported they would practice concordant with the guidelines and not order an X-ray, and 62% (95%CI 57–66%) provided advice to stay active. Conclusions Most physiotherapists report intended compliance with recommendations in Australian clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding avoiding the use of X-rays and providing advice to stay active for people with simple acute low back pain, given a vignette based scenario. The majority of respondents reported that they would not advise bed rest. Possible opportunities to further enhance compliance need to be developed and tested to reinforce the role of CPGs in informing physiotherapy practice.
- Published
- 2016
45. Core domain and outcome measurement sets for shoulder pain trials are needed: systematic review of physical therapy trials
- Author
-
Rachelle Buchbinder, Arianne P. Verhagen, Dorcas E. Beaton, Stephen J Surace, Sally Green, Jessica Deitch, Nitin B. Jain, Joanne E. McKenzie, Matthew J. Page, Mario Lenza, and General Practice
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Epidemiology ,business.industry ,MEDLINE ,CINAHL ,medicine.disease ,Article ,law.invention ,Patient Outcome Assessment ,Clinical trial ,Capsulitis ,medicine.anatomical_structure ,Physical medicine and rehabilitation ,Randomized controlled trial ,Quality of life ,Shoulder Pain ,law ,medicine ,Physical therapy ,Humans ,Rotator cuff ,Adverse effect ,business ,Physical Therapy Modalities ,Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - Abstract
Objectives: To explore the outcome domains and measurement instruments reported in published randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions for shoulder pain (rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, or nonspecific shoulder pain). Study Design and Setting: We included trials comparing physical therapy to any other intervention for shoulder pain, indexed up to March 2015 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, or CINAHL Plus. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted information on the domains and measurement instruments reported. Results: We included 171 trials. Most trials measured pain (87%), function (72%), and range of movement (67%), whereas adverse events, global assessment of treatment success, strength, and health-related quality of life were measured in 18-27% of trials, and work disability and referral for surgery were measured in less than 5% of trials. Thirty-five different measurement instruments for pain and 29 for function were noted. Measurement of function increased markedly from 1973 to 2014. In rotator cuff disease trials, there was a more frequent measurement of pain and strength and a less frequent measurement of range of movement compared with adhesive capsulitis trials. Conclusions: There was wide diversity in the domains and measurement instruments reported. Our results provide the foundation for the development of a core domain and outcome measurement set for use in future shoulder pain trials. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
- Published
- 2015
46. Methods to select results to include in meta-analyses deserve more consideration in systematic reviews
- Author
-
Sally Green, Matthew J. Page, Joanne E. McKenzie, Andrew Forbes, and Marisa Chau
- Subjects
Research design ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Epidemiology ,business.industry ,Absolute risk reduction ,Information Storage and Retrieval ,Confidence interval ,law.invention ,Clinical trial ,Review Literature as Topic ,Systematic review ,Meta-Analysis as Topic ,Randomized controlled trial ,Research Design ,law ,Meta-analysis ,Statistics ,Medicine ,Medical physics ,business - Abstract
Objectives To investigate how often systematic reviewers encounter multiple trial effect estimates that are available for inclusion in a particular meta-analysis (multiplicity of results) and the methods they use to select effect estimates. Study Design and Setting We randomly sampled Cochrane and MEDLINE-indexed non-Cochrane reviews published between January 2010 and January 2012. The first presented meta-analysis of an effect measure for a continuous outcome in each review was identified, and methods to select results to include in this meta-analysis were extracted from review protocols and reviews. All effect estimates that were available for inclusion in the meta-analyses were extracted from trial reports. Results We examined 44 reviews. Multiplicity of results was common, occurring in 49% of trial reports ( n = 210). Prespecification of decision rules to select results from multiple measurement scales and intervention/control groups (in multi-arm trials) was uncommon (19% and 14% of 21 review protocols, respectively). Overall, 70% of reviews included at least one randomized controlled trial with multiplicity of results, but this occurred less frequently in reviews with a protocol (risk difference, −25%; 95% confidence interval: −52%, 1%). Conclusion Systematic reviewers are likely to encounter multiplicity of results in the included trials. We recommend that systematic reviewers always consider predefining methods to select results to include in meta-analyses. Methods focusing on selection of measurement scales and how to deal with multi-arm trials would be most valuable.
- Published
- 2015
47. Methodological quality of public health guideline recommendations on vitamin D and calcium : a systematic review protocol
- Author
-
Lisa Bero, Joanne E. McKenzie, Margaret Allman-Farinelli, Sally McDonald, Matthew J. Page, Zhaoli Dai, Cynthia M. Kroeger, and David Raubenheimer
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,vitamin D ,public health guidelines ,Rigour ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Protocol ,medicine ,Vitamin D and neurology ,Humans ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Methodological quality ,Protocol (science) ,calcium ,Descriptive statistics ,business.industry ,Health Policy ,Public health ,Vitamins ,General Medicine ,Grey literature ,Guideline ,guideline development methods ,3. Good health ,Calcium, Dietary ,Research Design ,Family medicine ,Practice Guidelines as Topic ,Public Health ,business ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery ,Systematic Reviews as Topic - Abstract
IntroductionCurrent recommendations for vitamin D and calcium in dietary guidelines and bone health guidelines vary significantly among countries and professional organisations. It is unknown whether the methods used to develop these recommendations followed a rigourous process and how the differences in methods used may affect the recommended intakes of vitamin D and calcium. The objectives of this study are (1) collate and compare recommendations for vitamin D and calcium across guidelines, (2) appraise methodological quality of the guideline recommendations and (3) identify methodological factors that may affect the recommended intakes for vitamin D and calcium. This study will make a significant contribution to enhancing the methodological rigour in public health guidelines for vitamin D and calcium recommendations.Methods and analysesWe will conduct a systematic review to evaluate vitamin D and calcium recommendations for osteoporosis prevention in generally healthy middle-aged and older adults. Methodological assessment will be performed for each guideline against those outlined in the 2014 WHO handbook for guideline development. A systematic search strategy will be applied to locate food-based dietary guidelines and bone health guidelines indexed in various electronic databases, guideline repositories and grey literature from 1 January 2009 to 28 February 2019. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise the data on intake recommendation and on proportion of guidelines consistent with the WHO criteria. Logistic regression, if feasible, will be used to assess the relationships between the methodological factors and the recommendation intakes.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as we will only extract published data or information from the published guidelines. Results of this review will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019126452
- Published
- 2019
48. Tools for assessing risk of reporting biases in studies and syntheses of studies:A systematic review
- Author
-
Matthew J. Page, Julian P T Higgins, and Joanne E. McKenzie
- Subjects
Funnel plot ,Biomedical Research ,Judgement ,PsycINFO ,Risk Assessment ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Bias ,Research Methods ,Outcome Assessment, Health Care ,Humans ,Medicine ,030212 general & internal medicine ,bias (epidemiology) ,publication bias ,Actuarial science ,Scope (project management) ,Information Dissemination ,business.industry ,Research ,review literature as topic ,General Medicine ,Publication bias ,Checklist ,Reporting bias ,business ,Risk assessment ,checklist ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery - Abstract
BackgroundSeveral scales, checklists and domain-based tools for assessing risk of reporting biases exist, but it is unclear how much they vary in content and guidance. We conducted a systematic review of the content and measurement properties of such tools.MethodsWe searched for potentially relevant articles in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO and Google Scholar from inception to February 2017. One author screened all titles, abstracts and full text articles, and collected data on tool characteristics.ResultsWe identified 18 tools that include an assessment of the risk of reporting bias. Tools varied in regard to the type of reporting bias assessed (eg, bias due to selective publication, bias due to selective non-reporting), and the level of assessment (eg, for the study as a whole, a particular result within a study or a particular synthesis of studies). Various criteria are used across tools to designate a synthesis as being at ‘high’ risk of bias due to selective publication (eg, evidence of funnel plot asymmetry, use of non-comprehensive searches). However, the relative weight assigned to each criterion in the overall judgement is unclear for most of these tools. Tools for assessing risk of bias due to selective non-reporting guide users to assess a study, or an outcome within a study, as ‘high’ risk of bias if no results are reported for an outcome. However, assessing the corresponding risk of bias in a synthesis that is missing the non-reported outcomes is outside the scope of most of these tools. Inter-rater agreement estimates were available for five tools.ConclusionThere are several limitations of existing tools for assessing risk of reporting biases, in terms of their scope, guidance for reaching risk of bias judgements and measurement properties. Development and evaluation of a new, comprehensive tool could help overcome present limitations.
- Published
- 2018
49. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting
- Author
-
Matthew J. Page, Larissa Shamseer, and Andrea C. Tricco
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,Registration ,lcsh:Medicine ,Medicine (miscellaneous) ,Sample (statistics) ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Primary outcome ,Funding source ,medicine ,Humans ,030212 general & internal medicine ,biology ,business.industry ,Publications ,lcsh:R ,Methodology ,Systematic reviews ,Prospero ,biology.organism_classification ,Quality ,3. Good health ,Systematic review ,Reporting ,Bibliometrics ,Family medicine ,business ,030217 neurology & neurosurgery ,Systematic Reviews as Topic - Abstract
Background The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) was launched in February 2011 to increase transparency of systematic reviews (SRs). There have been few investigations of the content and use of the database. We aimed to investigate the number of PROSPERO registrations from inception to 2017, and website usage in the last year. We also aimed to explore the epidemiological characteristics of and completeness of primary outcome pre-specification in a sample of PROSPERO records from 2017. Methods The PROSPERO database managers provided us with data on the annual and cumulative number of SR registrations up to October 10, 2017, and the number of visits to the PROSPERO website over the year preceding October 10, 2017. One author collected data on the focus of the SR (e.g. therapeutic, diagnostic), health area addressed, funding source and completeness of outcome pre-specification in a random sample of 150 records of SRs registered in PROSPERO between April 1, 2017 and September 30, 2017. Results As of October 10, 2017, there were 26,535 SRs registered in PROSPERO; guided by current monthly submission rates, we anticipate this figure will reach over 30,000 by the end of 2017. There has been a 10-fold increase in registrations, from 63 SRs per month in 2012 to 800 per month in 2017. In the year preceding October 10, 2017, the PROSPERO website received more than 1.75 million page views. In the random sample of 150 registered SRs, the majority were focused on a therapeutic question (78/150 [52%]), while only a few focused on a diagnostic/prognostic question (11/150 [7%]). The 150 registered SRs addressed 18 different health areas. Any information about the primary outcome other than the domain (e.g. timing, effect measures) was not pre-specified in 44/150 records (29%). Conclusions Registration of SRs in PROSPERO increased rapidly between 2011 and 2017, thus benefiting users of health evidence who want to know about ongoing SRs. Further work is needed to explore how closely published SRs adhere to the planned methods, whether greater pre-specification of outcomes prevents selective inclusion and reporting of study results, and whether registered SRs address necessary questions.
- Published
- 2018
50. Outcome reporting in randomized trials for shoulder disorders:literature review to inform the development of a core outcome set
- Author
-
Matthew J. Page, Joel Gagnier, Arianne P. Verhagen, Rachelle Buchbinder, Hsiaomin Huang, Rehabilitation Medicine, and General Practice
- Subjects
Research design ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Endpoint Determination ,MEDLINE ,Psychological intervention ,law.invention ,03 medical and health sciences ,Disability Evaluation ,0302 clinical medicine ,Physical medicine and rehabilitation ,Return to Work ,Rheumatology ,Quality of life ,Randomized controlled trial ,law ,Shoulder Pain ,medicine ,Humans ,Rotator cuff ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Muscle Strength ,Range of Motion, Articular ,Pain Measurement ,Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ,030203 arthritis & rheumatology ,business.industry ,Shoulder Joint ,Recovery of Function ,medicine.disease ,Biomechanical Phenomena ,medicine.anatomical_structure ,Capsulitis ,Treatment Outcome ,Research Design ,Physical therapy ,Quality of Life ,Joint Diseases ,Shoulder Injuries ,Range of motion ,business - Abstract
ObjectivesTo explore the outcome domains and measurement instruments reported across randomized trials of any interventions for various shoulder disorders.MethodsWe searched for shoulder trials included in Cochrane reviews published up to Issue 10, 2015, or indexed in PubMed between 2006 and 2015. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they focused on any intervention for rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, shoulder instability, glenohumeral or acromioclavicular osteoarthritis, shoulder dislocation, proximal humeral or humeral head fractures, or unspecified shoulder pain. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted information on the domains and measurement instruments reported, with consensus discussion among all authors where required.ResultsWe included 409 trials, published between 1954 and 2015. Across the trials, we identified 319 different instruments that were classified into 32 domains. Most trials reported a measure of pain (90%), range of motion (78%), and physical function (71%). Measurement of adverse events was reported in only 31% of trials. Muscle strength was reported in 44% of trials and imaging outcomes were reported in 21% of trials. Other patient-reported outcome measures such as global assessment of treatment success, health-related quality of life, work ability, and psychological functioning, were each reported in 15% or fewer trials. Most domains were reported at a similar frequency across different shoulder disorders.ConclusionThere was wide diversity in the domains and measurement instruments reported. Our results provide the foundation for the development of a core outcome set for use in future trials across all shoulder disorders.
- Published
- 2018
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.