Search

At present, there have been many clinical trials and systematic reviews/Meta-analysis proving the good clinical efficacy of Shufeng Jiedu Capsules in the treatment of respiratory diseases, while comprehensive discussion is still required. This article overviews and analyzes the systematic reviews/Meta-analysis of Shufeng Jiedu Capsules to provide evidence support for clinical practice. The systematic reviews/Meta-analysis of Shufeng Jiedu Capsules were searched from CBM, Wanfang, CNKI, VIP, PubMed, EMbase and Cochrane Library. The AMSTAR 2 scale and GRADE system were respectively employed for the evaluation of methodological quality and the grading of evidence quality. Finally, 8 systematic reviews/Meta-analysis published during 2018-2021 were included for analysis. The diseases involved include acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, community-acquired pneumonia, acute tonsillitis, acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis and acute upper respiratory tract infection. The number of included RCTs studies ranged from 8 to 25. The results showed that Shufeng Jiedu Capsules combined with western medicine routine had better therapeutic effect than the latter alone in the treatment of the above five diseases. The reported adverse reactions caused by Shufeng Jiedu Capsules were mainly gastrointestinal discomforts such as mild nausea, diarrhoea and vomiting, with low incidence and mild symptoms, which can be relieved by drug withdrawal. The methodological quality of the included studies was extremely low, and the outcome indicators were mainly of low and very low grades. The efficacy and safety of Shufeng Jiedu Capsules in the clinical treatment of diseases still need to be verified based on more high-quality studies. The relevant clinical research and systematic review/Meta-analysis should pay more attention to methodological quality and reporting standards and strengthen the scientificity of research.

Objective: To overview the methodological quality, report quality and evidence quality of the systematic review (SR) of acupuncture for vascular cognitive impairment ( VCI )., Methods: The SRs regarding acupuncture for VCI were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, SinoMed, Wanfang and VIP databases. The retrieval period was from the establishment of the database to September 24, 2020. The report quality, methodological quality and evidence quality of the included SRs were evaluated by PRISMA statement, the AMSTAR 2 tool and the GRADE system., Results: A total of 22 SRs were included, including 102 outcome indexes. The methodological quality was generally low, with low scores on items 2, 5, 7, 10, 14, 15 and 16. The report quality was good, with scores ranging from 19 points to 24.5 points. The problems of report quality were mainly reflected in the aspects of structural abstract, program and registration, other analysis and funding sources. The level of outcome indexes of SRs was mostly low or very low, and the main leading factor was limitation, followed by inconsistency and inaccuracy., Conclusion: Acupuncture for VCI is supported by low quality evidence of evidence-based medicine, but the methodological quality and evidence body quality of relevant SRs are poor, and the standardization is needed to be improved.

Objective: To assess the methodological and reporting quality of Chinese- and English -language systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) published by Chinese authors between 2016 and 2018., Study Design and Setting: We searched MEDLINE and Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) for SRs/MAs led by Chinese authors published between 2016 and 2018. We used random sampling to select 10% of the eligible SRs/MAs published in each year from CSCD, and then matched the same number of SRs/MAs in MEDLINE. Reporting quality was evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) tool. Stratified analyses were conducted to compare the differences of quality between Chinese- and English language SRs/MAs., Results: We identified 336 SRs/MAs (168 in Chinese and 168 in English). The reporting quality in Chinese-language SRs/MAs was slightly lower than English-language SRs/MAs (mean PRISMA scores: 20.58 vs. 21.71 in 2016, 19.87 vs. 21.24 in 2017, and 21.29 vs. 22.38 in 2018). Less than half of both Chinese- and English-language SRs/MAs complied with item 5 (protocol and registration), item 7 (information sources), item 8 (search) and item 27 (funding)). The methodological quality in Chinese -language SRs/MAs was also slightly lower than English -language SRs/MAs (mean AMSTAR-2 scores: 8.07 vs. 9.36 in 2016; 9.21 vs. 10.26 in 2017; 8.86 vs. 9.28 in 2018). Three items (item 2: established a protocol; item 4: use a comprehensive literature search; and item 10: report the sources of funding) were adhered to by less than 10% of both Chinese- and English -language SRs/MAs. Only one (0.6%) Chinese-language SRs/MA and nine (5.4%) English-language SRs/MAs were rated as high methodological quality., Conclusion: The reporting and methodological quality of English-language SRs/MAs conducted by authors from China between 2016 and 2018 were slightly better than those of Chinese -language SRs/MAs., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To assess the methodological quality and the consideration of heterogeneity in systematic reviews (SRs)., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a methodological study (CRD42019134904) and searched three databases from January 2010 to July 2019. Interventional SRs with a statistically significant meta-analysis of at least four randomized controlled trials in advanced cancer patients were included. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 was used to evaluate the SRs' methodological quality. The consideration of heterogeneity was categorized in clinical or/and methodological heterogeneity and not explored., Results: From 6234 identified references, 261 SRs were included. Most SRs had a critically low quality (230, 88.1%). The majority of them (209, 80.1%) was classified as critically low because of non-registration (222, 85.1%) combined with the non-reporting of excluded full-texts and missing justifications for exclusion (218, 83.5%). Heterogeneity in trial results was not explored at all in 51 (19.5%) SRs whereas clinical heterogeneity was considered in 117 (44.8%), methodological heterogeneity in 13 (5.0%), and both clinical and methodological heterogeneity in 80 (30.7%) SRs., Conclusion: The consideration of these findings in trainings for review authors and peer reviewers could improve the awareness of quality criteria and the quality of future SRs., Trial Registration: PROSPERO-ID: CRD42019134904., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Qingkailing Injection is one of the most commonly used traditional Chinese medicine injections with significant clinical application for the treatment of multiple diseases. This study aims to analyze the systematic reviews( SRs) of Qingkailing Injection,in order to provide reference for the clinical application of Qingkailing Injection and the development of relevant clinical practice guidelines. We searched CNKI,CBM,Wanfang,VIP,Pub Med,Cochrane Library and EMbase to collect SRs from the time of database establishment to August 2020. The eligible SRs were included according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. AMSTAR 2 was used to assess the methodological quality. The diseases,drugs in combinations and results were extracted and analyzed. A total of 24 SRs were selected,including 10 for the treatment of acute cerebrovascular diseases,9 for respiratory infections,2 for viral hepatitis,1 for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,and two for the adverse effects of Qingkailing Injection. Only three entries of AMSTAR 2 item were fully reported by over 70%,and the rest were reported by less than 70%,with no report about item 2,3 and 10. Twenty-nine outcome indicators were correlated with the included SRs,of which three mostly frequent outcomes were effectiveness,adverse reaction,and neurological deficit scores,showing a good efficacy of Qingkailing Injection. The common severe adverse reaction was anaphylaxis,and mild adverse reactions were skin and mucous membrane reactions. The most frequently combined drug was antibiotics,mainly Penicillin and Penicillin+Pioneeromycin. The existing evidences showed that the methodological quality of SRs of Qingkailing Injection needed to be improved and Qingkailing Injection had an obvious efficacy. However,the selection of outcome indicators for clinical trials and SRs shall be standardized,and the reporting of basic information,such as drug combination,shall be strengthened to provide more powerful clinical services.

This study aimed to analyze the methodological quality of systematic reviews of Shuxuening Injection and evaluate the efficacy and adverse reactions of Shuxuening Injection in the treatment of different diseases,in order to provide supportive evidence for clinical practice. Three Chinese databases and three English databases were retrieved to identify systematic reviews and Meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of Shuxuening Injection in the treatment of diseases. The AMSTAR 2( a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews 2) tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews,and tables were created to present the results of Meta-analyses. Twenty-four systematic reviews were included,all with very low methodological quality. Among the 16 AMSTAR-2 items,only 5 items had a compliance rate greater than 60. 0%,and 8 items had a compliance rate less than 50. 0%. For patients with cerebral infarction,Shuxuening Injection combined with conventional treatment was more effective than conventional treatment alone in terms of clinical efficiency and neurological deficit improvement. For patients with angina pectoris,Shuxuening Injection was superior to Danshen/Compound Danshen Injection in terms of the total effective rate of angina pectoris and total effective rate of ECG. The efficacy of Shuxuening Injection combined with conventional treatment is significantly better than conventional treatment.Shuxuening Injection( alone or combined with conventional treatments) was better than conventional treatments for cerebral hemorrhage,ischemic cerebrovascular disease,chronic pulmonary heart disease,vertigo and sudden deafness. Shuxuening Injection had better efficacy and lower incidence of adverse reactions,but the methodological quality of included systematic reviews was low. The results of this study still need to be verified by high-quality systematic reviews.

Although earlier meta-analysis studies have provided evidence-based information useful for decision-making, debate regarding their quality continues. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of meta-analysis studies in the field of dance therapy (DT) using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and AMSTAR 2 assessment tools. Meta-analysis studies on DT were collected from various databases. Seven meta-analysis studies were selected for this study. Our findings showed that the quality level of the meta-analysis studies related to DT was "High" on the AMSTAR evaluation, but their quality decreased to "Low" on the AMSTAR 2 evaluation. Moreover, using AMSTAR 2, 71.43% of the studies fell within the category of "Moderate" or below. There was no statistically significant difference in the quality scores of the characteristics of these studies. Our results suggest that (1) education on meta-analysis guidelines is required to improve the quality of DT-related meta-analysis studies, and (2) methodological caution is warranted, since different outcomes in evaluation scores for each tool may be obtained when using AMSTAR and AMSTAR 2. Based on this study, it is expected that common and specific guidelines for meta-analysis in DT can be established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: Systematic review., Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades., Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria., Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality., Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.

Objectives: A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (SRs) 2 (AMSTAR 2) allows for deriving the overall confidence in an SR. We investigated how authors derived the overall confidence rating and whether different schemes lead to different results., Study Design and Setting: We compared three different schemes (original 7-item scheme, a self-developed 5-item scheme, and the AMSTAR Web site) to derive the overall confidence in AMSTAR 2 using two distinct samples of SRs. Multiple bibliographic databases were searched for articles to analyze how AMSTAR 2 was applied by others., Results: In both samples (n = 60 and n = 58), the Friedman test revealed a significant difference between the schemes (P < 0.001). The Web site scheme was the least strict one, whereas between the 5-item and 7-item scheme, no differences were found in post hoc analyses. We included 53 publications applying AMSTAR 2 identified in our literature search. Only 37 of them (70%) used the original 7-item scheme. Less than half of them (18 of 37) reported how they derived the overall rating., Conclusion: Authors should clearly report how they have derived the overall rating when applying AMSTAR 2. Reporting should allow for reproducing the overall ratings for editors, peer reviewers, and readers., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the inter-rater and intercenter reliability, usability, and utility of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), AMSTAR 2, and Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS)., Study Design and Setting: This is a prospective evaluation using 30 systematic reviews of randomized trials, undertaken at three international centers., Results: Reviewers completed AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS in median (interquartile range) 15.7 (11.3), 19.7 (12.1), and 28.7 (17.4) minutes and reached consensus in 2.6 (3.2), 4.6 (5.3), and 10.9 (10.8) minutes, respectively. Across all centers, inter-rater reliability was substantial to almost perfect for 8/11 AMSTAR, 9/16 AMSTAR 2, and 12/24 ROBIS items. Intercenter reliability was substantial to almost perfect for 6/11 AMSTAR, 12/16 AMSTAR 2, and 7/24 ROBIS items. Intercenter reliability for confidence in the results of the review or overall risk of bias was moderate (Gwet's first-order agreement coefficient (AC1) 0.58, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.30 to 0.85) to substantial (AC1 0.74, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.85) for AMSTAR 2 and poor (AC1 -0.21, 95% CI: -0.55 to 0.13) to moderate (AC1 0.56, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.83) for ROBIS. It is not clear whether using the appraisals of any tool as an inclusion criterion would alter an overview's findings., Conclusions: Improved guidance may be needed to facilitate the consistent interpretation and application of the newer tools (especially ROBIS)., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Several standards have been developed to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews (SR). One widely used tool is the AMSTAR. A recent update - AMSTAR 2 - is a 16 item evaluation tool that enables a detailed assessment of SR that include randomised (RCT) or non-randomised studies (NRS) of healthcare interventions., Methods: A cross-sectional study of SR on pharmacological or psychological interventions in major depression in adults was conducted. SR published during 2012-2017 were sampled from MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of SR. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Potential predictive factors associated with quality were examined., Results: In rating overall confidence in the results of 60 SR four reviews were rated "high", two were "moderate", one was "low" and 53 were "critically low". The mean AMSTAR 2 percentage score was 45.3% (standard deviation 22.6%) in a wide range from 7.1% to 93.8%. Predictors of higher quality were: type of review (higher quality in Cochrane Reviews), SR including only randomized trials and higher journal impact factor., Limitations: AMSTAR 2 is not intended to be used for the generation of a percentage score., Conclusions: According to AMSTAR 2 the overall methodological quality of SR on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement. Although there is a high need for summarized information in the field of mental health, this work demonstrates the need to critically assess SR before using their findings. Better adherence to established reporting guidelines for SR is needed., (© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Study Design: A systematic cross-sectional survey of systematic reviews (SRs)., Objective: To evaluate the methodological quality of spine surgery SRs published in 2018 using the updated AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal instrument., Methods: We identified the PubMed indexed journals devoted to spine surgery research in 2018. All SRs of spine surgical interventions from those journals were critically appraised for quality independently by 2 reviewers using the AMSTAR 2 instrument. We calculated the percentage of SRs achieving a positive response for each AMSTAR 2 domain item and assessed the levels of confidence in the results of each SR., Results: We identified 28 SRs from 4 journals that met our criteria for inclusion. Only 49.5% of the AMSTAR 2 domain items satisfied the AMSTAR 2 criteria. Critical domain items were satisfied less often (39.1%) compared with noncritical domain items (57.3%). Domain items most poorly reported include accounting for individual study risk of bias when interpreting results (14%), list and justification of excluded articles (18%), and an a priori establishment of methods prior to the review or registered protocol (18%). The overall confidence in the results was rated "low" in 2 SRs and "critically low" in 26., Conclusions: The credibility of a SR and its value to clinicians and policy makers are dependent on its methodological quality. This appraisal found significant methodological limitations in several critical domains, such that the confidence in the findings of these reviews is "critically low."

This article is aimed to reevaluate the systematic reviews(Meta-analysis) of traditional Chinese medicine in the treatment of ulcerative colitis, and provide reference for evidence-based decision-making of traditional Chinese medicine(TCM). According to the preferred reporting items for overviews(preferred reporting items for overview of systematic reviews, PRIO-harms), the main Chinese and English electronic literature databases(PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, CBM, etc.) were retrieved, supplemented by manual retrieval. Systematic reviews for the treatment of ulcerative colitis with Chinese medicine up to February 2019 were included. Two researchers independently performed literature screening and data extraction. The methodology quality, reporting quality and evidence quality of the literature were evaluated by AMSTAR 2 tool, PRISMA scale and GRADE system respectively. Subgroup analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software. A total of 21 systematic reviews were included, and the interventions mainly included TCM internal and external treatment, with 53 outcome indicators. The AMSTAR 2 results showed that 5 articles were of high quality, 9 of medium quality, 4 of low quality, and 3 of extremely low quality. The most problematic items were as follows: the list of excluded documents was not provided; the sources of funding for each study were not reported; and the research methods were not determined before implementation. PRISMA scale had an average score of(20.38±1.43) points, less than 22 points for 15 articles, with certain reporting defects. The GRADE system suggested that the quality of the evidence for the 30 outcome indicators was low or very low. The most important factors leading to degrading was the limitation, followed by publication bias and inconsistency. The results showed that as compared with conventional Western medicine, TCM oral or enema treatment for mild to moderate ulcerative colitis had better clinical efficacy and safety. Due to the quality limitations of the included studies, it is necessary to further strengthen the top-level design and follow the scientific research paradigm to provide a higher level of evidence for the clinical evidence-based decision-making of TCM.

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to determine the interrater reliability (IRR) of assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) 2 for reviews of pharmacological or psychological interventions for the treatment of major depression, to compare it to that of AMSTAR and risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS), and to assess the convergent validity between the appraisal tools., Study Design and Setting: Two groups of four raters were each assigned one of two samples of 30 systematic reviews. All eight raters applied AMSTAR 2 to their sample. Each group also applied either AMSTAR or ROBIS. Fleiss' kappa and Gwet's AC 1 were calculated, and agreement between the tools was assessed., Results: The median kappa values as a measure of IRR indicated a moderate agreement for AMSTAR 2 (median = 0.51), a substantial agreement for AMSTAR (median = 0.62), and a fair agreement for ROBIS (median = 0.27). Validity results showed a positive association for AMSTAR and AMSTAR 2 (r = 0.91) as well as ROBIS and AMSTAR 2 (r = 0.84). For the overall rating, AMSTAR 2 showed a high concordance with ROBIS and a lower concordance with AMSTAR., Conclusion: The IRR of AMSTAR 2 was found to be slightly lower than the IRR of AMSTAR and higher than the IRR of ROBIS. Validity measurements indicate that AMSTAR 2 is closely related to both ROBIS and AMSTAR., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of the study was to investigate the general characteristics and methodological and reporting quality of network meta-analyses (NMAs) published in the Cochrane library., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a comprehensive search of the Cochrane library in April 2018 and included 42 NMAs. We used the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 to assess methodological quality and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA)-NMA for reporting quality. Stratified analysis and correlation analysis were conducted to explore the factors that might affect the quality., Results: A total of 42 NMAs investigated 29 topics. The compliance of PRISMA-NMA was moderate. Only 26.2% NMAs described the geometry of network, 64.3% presented the network plot, and 33.3% fully assessed the inconsistency. The overall methodological quality was low. Only 11.9% NMAs explained the selection of study designs, and 40.5% investigated the publication bias. The compliance of PRISMA-NMA was higher with the increase of the AMSTAR 2 compliance rates (Spearman's ρ = 0.630, P = 0.000). NMAs with statistical or epidemiological authors often better reported the titles (P = 0.032). Compared with nonfunding NMAs, nonindustry funding NMAs often better reported data collection process (P = 0.028), planned methods of analysis (P = 0.034), and synthesis of results (P = 0.028)., Conclusion: The quality still needs to be further improved, especially referring to the assessment of publication bias, the geometry of network, and assessment and exploration of inconsistency., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) with a tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) in terms of validity, reliability, and applicability., Study Design and Setting: We analyzed 30 systematic reviews (SRs) that included randomized and nonrandomized studies, with Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs sampled in 1:1 ratio. Four reviewers assessed independently all 30 SRs with AMSTAR 2, followed by ROBIS. We calculated Fleiss' Kappa as a measure of inter-rater reliability (IRR) across 4 raters., Results: The IRR for scoring the overall confidence in the SRs with AMSTAR 2 and the overall domain in ROBIS was fair (AMSTAR 2: κ = 0.30, 95% [confidence interval] CI: 0.17 to 0.43; ROBIS: κ = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.42). AMSTAR 2 confidence in review ratings strongly correlated with the overall domain rating in ROBIS (Spearman r s  = 0.84). Mean time for scoring AMSTAR 2 was slightly higher than for ROBIS (18 vs. 16 min), with huge differences between the reviewers., Conclusion: Both AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS can be applied to SRs including both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs. Measurement properties of ROBIS seemed not to be much different when comparing with other studies that include only SRs of RCTs., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)