Search

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) require a comprehensive and reproducible strategy to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. This research-on-research study evaluated the methods used to assess research quality by SRs and MAs published in leading neurosurgical journals, and identified factors associated with the publication of a comprehensive and reproducible assessment. We systematically surveyed SRs published in the 10 leading neurosurgical journals between 01/11/2019 and 31/12/2021. PubMed was used to search the MEDLINE database, which was supplemented by individual journal searches. Included SRs were assessed using a standardised data extraction tool. Descriptive statistics were utilised to identify factors associated with methodological and reporting quality of the tool-based quality assessment. A total of 564 SRs were included in the analysis. 326 (57.80%) included MAs, 165 (29.26%) included at least one Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) and 29 (5.14%) included only RCTs. Scales were the most commonly used tool for methodological quality assessment (32.45%), followed by domain-based tools (24.82%) and checklists (9.93%). The number of included studies was inversely associated with multiple methodological quality assessment metrics. A positive association was observed between the number of included patients and multiple methodological quality assessment metrics. We established that the methodological and reporting quality of tool-based quality assessment requires improvement. This issue is particularly pertinent for SRs limited to non-randomised studies, which account for the vast majority of neurosurgical SRs. We recommend the use of domain-based tools for methodological quality assessment as these provide a more nuanced assessment of methodological quality., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: Multiple tools exist for assessing the methodological quality of diagnosis and prognosis research. It can be challenging to decide on when to use which tool. We aimed to provide an overview of existing methodological quality assessment (QA) tools for diagnosis and prognosis studies, highlight the overlap and differences among these tools, and to provide guidance for choosing the appropriate tool., Study Design and Setting: We performed a methodological review of tools designed for assessing risk of bias, applicability, or other aspects related to methodological quality in studies investigating tests/factors/markers/models for classifying or predicting a current (diagnosis) and/or future (prognosis) health state. Tools focusing exclusively on causal research or on reporting quality were excluded. Guidance was subsequently developed to assist in choosing an appropriate QA tool., Results: We identified 14 QA tools, eight of which were developed for assessment of diagnosis studies, four for prognosis studies, and two addressing both. We propose a set of five questions to help guide the process of choosing a QA tool based on the purpose or question of the user: whether the focus is on (1) diagnosis, prognosis, or another domain; (2) a prediction model versus a test/factor/marker; (3) evaluating simply the performance of a test/factor/marker versus assessing its added value over other variables; (4) comparing two or more tests/factors/markers/models; and (5) whether the user aims to assess only risk of bias or also other quality aspects., Conclusion: Existing QA tools for appraising diagnosis and prognosis studies vary in purpose, scope, and contents. Our guidance may help researchers, systematic reviewers, health policy makers, and guideline developers in specifying their purpose and question to select the most appropriate QA tool for their assessment., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Over the past two decades, modern spine surgery has become increasingly intellectualized and minimally invasive. However, whether using robots in spine surgery results in more accurate pedicle screw placement remains a topic of debate. This study aimed to evaluate the certainty and quality of the available evidence on the efficacy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement., Methods: We performed an overview of reviews including systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) regarding the accuracy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement. Regarding the SRs/MAs, five electronic databases were searched from inception to 28 April 2023. There were no restrictions on the language or population. The quality and certainty of the evidence were evaluated with PRISMA, AMSTAR-2, ROBIS, Veritas plot, and GRADE tools., Results: Fifteen SRs/MAs were analyzed. The findings indicated that the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in the robot-assisted group was not superior to that in the freehand group. All the SRs/MAs were of low or critically low quality. The main reasons for this include missing data, lack of transparency, lack of sensitivity analysis, and measurement of heterogeneity in the included studies, registration of reporting protocols, and deficiencies in the study inclusion methods and selection criteria., Conclusions: While there is potential for robot-assisted pedicle screw placement to offer superior accuracy compared to conventional surgery, the current evidence is limited by methodological shortcomings. The quality of the studies analyzed was insufficient to provide a robust basis for developing clinical guidelines. Further high-quality research is necessary to confirm the benefits and establish clearer recommendations.

Background: This study aimed to synthesize the recommendations for prediction models in cardiovascular clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and assess the methodological quality of the relevant primary modeling studies., Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of all available cardiovascular CPGs published between 2018 and 2023 that presented specific recommendations (whether in support or non-support) for at least one multivariable clinical prediction model. For the guideline-recommended models, the assessment of the methodological quality of their primary modeling studies was conducted using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST)., Results: In total, 46 qualified cardiovascular CPGs were included, with 69 prediction models and 80 specific recommendations. Of the 80 specific recommendations, 74 supported 57 models (53 were fully recommended and 4 were conditionally recommended) in cardiovascular practice with moderate to strong strength. Most of the guideline-recommended models were focused on predicting prognosis outcomes (53/57, 93%) in primary and tertiary prevention, focusing primarily on long-term risk stratification and prognosis management. A total of 10 conditions and 7 types of target population were involved in the 57 models, while heart failure (14/57, 25%) and a general population with or without cardiovascular risk factor(s) (12/57, 21%) received the most attention from the guidelines. The assessment of the methodological quality of 57 primary studies on the development of the guideline-recommended models revealed that only 40% of the modeling studies had a low risk of bias (ROB). The causes of high ROB were mainly in the analysis and participant domains., Conclusions: Global cardiovascular CPGs presented an unduly positive appraisal of the existing prediction models in terms of ROB, leading to stronger recommendations than were warranted. Future cardiovascular practice may benefit from well-established clinical prediction models with better methodological quality and extensive external validation., Competing Interests: XL reported receiving grants from National Natural Science Foundation of China, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, and China Center for Evidence Based Traditional Chinese Medicine. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2024 Jing, Zhang, Feng, Li, Liang, Hu and Liao.)

Background: Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREM) have become a critical component in assessing healthcare quality from the patient's perspective. Accurate and reproducible assessment tools are essential for generating robust and reliable results for evaluating peri-anesthesia patient experiences, identifying associated factors, and assessing the impact of healthcare interventions. However, there is currently no systematic review that consolidates all existing peri-anesthesia PREMs and evaluates their psychometric properties., Objective: To identify and assess the psychometric properties of PREMs for peri-anesthesia patients., Design: Systematic review of measurement properties following the COSMIN guidelines., Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from January 1, 1993, to April 15, 2024. Studies reporting on the development and/or validation of any PREMs for use in the peri-anesthesia period were considered eligible. The measurement properties extracted included data on the item development process, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity, reliability, hypothesis testing and responsiveness. For the same PREM across different studies, reliability coefficients were analyzed using a meta-analysis. The quality assessment, rating of measurement properties, synthesis, and modified grading of the evidence were carried out following the COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews., Results: A total of 26 studies encompassing 16 PREMs were included. Among them, the Patient Satisfaction with Perioperative Anesthetic Care questionnaire (PSPACq), Perception of Quality in Anesthesia (PQA), Sindhvananda General Anesthesia Satisfaction questionnaire, and Daycare Anesthesia Satisfaction (DAS) demonstrated moderate to high-quality evidence of adequate content validity and internal consistency, resulting in strong recommendations. Five PREMs exhibited high-quality evidence of inadequate structural validity and internal consistency, receiving a "not recommended" status. The remaining PREMs were weakly recommended., Conclusions: This systematic review identified PSPACq and PQA as effective tools for assessing peri-anesthesia experiences in surgical patients, suitable for both research and clinical use. Future studies should focus on thoroughly evaluating the measurement properties of these two PREMs, as many aspects remain underexplored. A high risk of bias was noted in other PREMs, particularly in content validity, structural validity, and reliability, which increases uncertainty in the evidence base., Registration: This study's protocol has been registered at PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42024537900., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest or personal affiliations that could have influenced the findings presented in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The aim of this work is to assess the quality of observational studies and to make direct and indirect comparisons of robotic surgery with other approaches., Method: We searched various databases between 2014 and 2024 for observational studies comparing robotic-assisted surgery to thoracoscopy or thoracotomy., Results: Eighteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. Risk of confounding bias was present in 90% of studies, while risk of classification bias appeared in 80%. Robotic-assisted surgery reduced the risk of conversion to thoracotomy compared with thoracoscopy with an odds ratio of 0.21 (95% confidence interval: 0.06-0.65), with high heterogeneity between studies (I 2 =80%). Robotic-assisted surgery did not significantly reduce postoperative complications or 30-day mortality compared with thoracotomy or thoracoscopy. For 5-year overall survival, comparisons of robotic-assisted surgery to thoracoscopy or thoracotomy were non-significant with I 2 of 55%., Conclusion: This work demonstrates the need for a randomized controlled trial to validate robotic surgery for the treatment of bronchial cancer., (Copyright © 2024 SPLF. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of acupuncture in treating allergic rhinitis (AR) in animal models of the disease, and to explore the underlying mechanism of acupuncture in AR., Methods: Related literature was retrieved from multiple databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang databases, SinoMed databases, VIP database, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, up to September 2023. The inclusion criteria were focused on animal experiments that investigated the effect of acupuncture therapy on animal models of AR. Studies combining acupuncture with other Chinese medicine therapies were excluded. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers using standardized forms. A total of 75 studies were finally included. The risk of bias in individual studies was evaluated using the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) tool, and the quality of reporting was evaluated according to Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. Meta-analyses and plotting were conducted using STATA 17.0 and RevMan 5.4. When heterogeneity was present, a random effects model was applied. Subgroup, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were also performed., Results: The SYRCLE scores ranged from 3 to 7, and the ARRIVE scores ranged from 6.5 to 11 points. Meta-analysis results demonstrated that acupuncture could significantly down-regulate EOS counts in both blood and nasal mucosa, and reduce the serum levels of IL-5, compared to the AR model group. The results of the qualitative analysis showed that acupuncture could reduce the behavior scores of AR, down-regulate serum levels of IL-4, IgE and sIgE, as well as up-regulate IFN-γ levels. Subgroup analysis results suggested that the different interventions might contribute to the observed heterogeneity., Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that acupuncture effectively alleviates the nasal allergic symptoms in animal models, inhibits immune and inflammatory signaling transduction, and reduces the release of inflammatory mediators. This study highlights the potential of acupuncture as a promising therapeutic option for AR, however, further studies are required to fully understand its mechanisms of action., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Objective: To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SR) of randomized controlled trials on esthetics and reconstructive breast surgery., Methods: Meta-research study with a broad search strategy was developed to retrieve all relevant systematic reviews. We evaluated the methodological and reporting guidance adopted by these reviews and assessed their adequacy to items from AMSTAR-2 (methodological quality) and PRISMA 2020 (reporting quality). The protocol of this study was prospectively published in: https://osf.io/preprints/osf/ucpgd., Results: After the selection process, 15 SR were included; eight (60%) referred the use of a methodological guide and five (33.3%) invertedly referred PRISMA as the methodological guide. Reporting guidelines were referred by none of the included systematic review. The median adequacy to PRISMA-2020 items was 42.9% (Q1 - 38.1%/Q3 - 95.2%) and to AMSTAR-2 items was 33.3% (Q1 - 23.3%/Q3 - 93.3%) which reflects overall low reporting and methodological quality of included SR. The overall confidence in the results using AMSTAR-2 framework was critically low in 73.3% of included SR. Although a small number of SR were included, a high correlation between the methodological and reporting quality was observed (Spearmean rho = 0.96, 95% bias-corrected confidence interval = 0.84 to 0.99)., Conclusion: Methodological and reposting quality of SR of randomized clinical trials on esthetic or reconstructive breast surgery is poor. Half of the authors referred to the use of valid guidance to plan and conduct their reviews and none of them referred the use of a guidance for reporting their results., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Abstract Introduction Several published systematic reviews have examined the potential associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking, but their methodological and/or reporting quality have not yet been assessed. This systematic quality review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2 to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews investigating potential associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking. Materials and methods PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched from 01 January 2007 to 24 June 2020. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2, and reporting quality was assessed using PRISMA guidelines. Results Of 331 potentially relevant systematic reviews, 20 met predefined inclusion criteria. Most reviews (n = 15; 75%) reported on e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking cessation, while three reported on e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking initiation (15%); and two reported on cigarette smoking initiation and cessation (10%). According to AMSTAR 2 guidelines, 18 of the 20 reviews (90%) were “critically low” in overall confidence of the results, while two were ranked “low.” Additionally, reporting quality varied across the reviews, with only 60% reporting at least half of the PRISMA items. Discussion Methodological limitations were identified across reviews examining potential associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking behaviors, indicating that findings from these reviews should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions Future systematic reviews in this field should strive to adhere to AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA guidelines, to provide high quality syntheses of the available data with transparent and complete reporting.

Fei-Yi Zhao,1– 3,* Wen-Jing Zhang,3,* Gerard A Kennedy,1,4,5 Russell Conduit,1 Zhen Zheng,1 Qiang-Qiang Fu6 1School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3083, Australia; 2Department of Nursing, School of International Medical Technology, Shanghai Sanda University, Shanghai, 201209, People’s Republic of China; 3Shanghai Municipal Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, 200071, People’s Republic of China; 4School of Science, Psychology and Sport, Federation University, Mount Helen, Victoria, Australia; 5Institute for Breathing and Sleep, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, 3084, Australia; 6Department of General Practice, Yangpu Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200090, People’s Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Zhen ZhengSchool of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, PO Box 71, Bundoora, Victoria, 3083, AustraliaTel +61 3 9925 7167Fax +61 3 9925 7178Email zhen.zheng@rmit.edu.auQiang-Qiang FuDepartment of General Practice, Yangpu Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200090, People’s Republic of ChinaTel +86 21-6569 0520Fax +86 21-6569 0520-813Email 286852271@qq.comObjective: To summarize and critically assess the reliability of the methodological quality and outcome measures from systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) and provide an overall verdict about the therapeutic value of acupuncture for perimenopausal insomnia (PMI).Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search for SRs/MAs of seven major databases (English and Chinese). For each included review, the methodological quality was appraised according to the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the evidence quality was classified on the basis of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), and reporting quality was evaluated complying with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2009 (PRISMA-2009). Veritas plots were used to quantify the quality of included SRs/MAs.Results: Nine SRs/MAs were deemed eligible for the present overview. Considering the assessment of results from the AMSTAR-2 checklist, the methodological quality of one SR/MA was considered low, and the remaining eight were critically low. Major methodological deficiencies were concentrated on item 2 (the lack of protocol and/or registration information), item 7 (the lack of a list of excluded studies), and item 10 (the lack of reports on funding sources for individual studies included in the SRs/MAs). For the GRADE system, of the 25 outcomes, only three (12%) were rated as moderate-quality, while the remaining 22 were rated between low- and very low-quality. The PRISMA-2009 statement indicated three major reporting quality limitations in most SRs/MAs, namely: 1) only search terms without specific retrieval strategy; 2) incomplete descriptions for study characteristics, particularly the specific dosage and frequency of interventions in treatment/control groups; and 3) inadequate investigation and explanation of the source of high heterogeneity among original randomized control trials included. According to Veritas plots, quality rank scores of included SRs/MAs ranged from 3.3 to 8.3, with an average score of 6.4 ± 1.7.Conclusion: Acupuncture appears to be beneficial for PMI management, but the quality of evidence is weakened by the unsatisfactory quality of both SRs/MAs and original trials included.Keywords: acupuncture, perimenopausal insomnia, systematic review, meta-analysis, methodological quality, quality of evidence

Abstract Background AMSTAR-2 is a 16-item assessment tool to check the quality of a systematic review and establish whether the most important elements are reported. ROBIS is another assessment tool which was designed to evaluate the level of bias present within a systematic review. Our objective was to compare, contrast and establish both inter-rater reliability and usability of both tools as part of two overviews of systematic reviews. Strictly speaking, one tool assesses methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) and the other assesses risk of bias (ROBIS), but there is considerable overlap between the tools in terms of the signalling questions. Methods Three reviewers independently assessed 31 systematic reviews using both tools. The inter-rater reliability of all sub-sections using each instrument (AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS) was calculated using Gwet’s agreement coefficient (AC1 for unweighted analysis and AC2 for weighted analysis). Results Thirty-one systematic reviews were included. For AMSTAR-2, the median agreement for all questions was 0.61. Eight of the 16 AMSTAR-2 questions had substantial agreement or higher (> 0.61). For ROBIS, the median agreement for all questions was also 0.61. Eleven of the 24 ROBIS questions had substantial agreement or higher. Conclusion ROBIS is an effective tool for assessing risk of bias in systematic reviews and AMSTAR-2 is an effective tool at assessing quality. The median agreement between raters for both tools was identical (0.61). Reviews that included a meta-analysis were easier to rate with ROBIS; however, further developmental work could improve its use in reviews without a formal synthesis. AMSTAR-2 was more straightforward to use; however, more response options would be beneficial.

Abstract Background An increasing number of systematic reviews assessed the safety of surgical interventions over time. How well these systematic reviews were designed and conducted determines the reliability of evidence. In this study, we aimed to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews on the safety of surgical interventions. Methods We searched PubMed for systematic reviews of surgical interventions with safety as the exclusive outcome from 1st-Jan, 2015 to 1st-Jan, 2020. The methodological quality of eligible systematic reviews was evaluated according to the AMSTAR 2.0 instrument. The primary outcomes were the number of methodological weaknesses and the global methodological quality. The proportion of each methodological weakness among eligible systematic reviews was compared by three pre-defined stratification variables. The absolute difference of the proportion (PD) was used as the effect estimator, with the two-tailed z-test for the significance. Results We identified 127 systematic reviews from 18,636 records. None (n = 0, 0.00%) of them could be rated as “high” in terms of the global methodological quality; in contrast, they were either rated as “low” (n = 18, 14.17%) or as “critically low” (n = 109, 85.83%). The median number of methodological weaknesses of these systematic reviews was 8 (interquartile range, IQR: 6 to 9), in which 4 (IQR: 2 to 4) were critical weaknesses. Systematic reviews that used any reporting guideline (e.g., domain 13, PD = -0.22, 95% CI: − 0.39, − 0.06; p = 0.01) and developed a protocol in advance (e.g., domain 6, PD = -0.20, 95% CI: − 0.39, − 0.01; p = 0.04) were less likely to have methodological weakness in some domains but not for the rest (e.g., domain 8, PD = 0.04, 95% CI: − 0.14, 0.21; p = 0.68; with protocol vs. without). Conclusions The methodological quality of current systematic reviews of adverse events with surgical interventions was poor. Further efforts, for example, encouraging researchers to develop a protocol in advance, are needed to enhance the methodological quality of these systematic reviews.

Ein häufiges Merkmal von Checklisten zur methodischen Qualität ist, dass Studien, bei denen einige oder alle Teilnehmer*innen nicht verblindet sind, herabgestuft werden. Die Verblindung in RCTs („randomized controlled trials") wird seit Jahrzehnten als ein Kriterium für methodische Qualität postuliert, ohne dass Untersuchungen dazu ausreichend gesicherte Ergebnisse geliefert hätten. Die Ergebnisse einer meta-epidemiologischen Studie stellen die gängige Praxis auf eindrucksvolle Weise in Frage. A common feature of methodological quality checklists is that studies in which some or all participants are not blinded are downgraded. Blinding in RCTs („randomized controlled trials") has been postulated as a criterion for methodological quality for decades, without studies having provided sufficiently robust results in this context. The results of a meta-epidemiological study impressively question the current practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the highest level of evidence and inform evidence-based decision making in health care. Earlier studies found association with industry to be negatively associated with methodological quality of SRs. However, this has not been investigated in SRs on vaccines. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE and EMBASE in March 2020. The results were restricted to those published between 2016 and 2019 with no language restrictions. Study characteristics were extracted by one person and checked by an experienced reviewer. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool by multiple reviewers after a calibration exercise was performed. A summary score for each SR was calculated. The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test were performed to compare both groups. Results: Out of 185 SRs that met all inclusion criteria, 27 SRs were industry funded. Those were matched with 30 non-industry funded SRs resulting in a total sample size of 57. The mean AMSTAR 2 summary score across all SRs was 0.49. Overall, the median AMSTAR 2 summary score was higher for the non-industry funded SRs than for the industry-funded SRs (0.62 vs. 0.36; p <.00001). Lower ratings for industry funded SRs were consistent across all but one AMSTAR 2 item, though significantly lower only for three specific items. Conclusion: The methodological quality of SRs in vaccination is comparable to SRs in other fields, while it is still suboptimal. We are not able to provide a satisfactory explanation why industry funded SRs had a lower methodological quality than non-industry funded SRs over recent years. Industry funding is an important indicator of methodological quality for vaccine SRs and should be carefully considered when appraising SR quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Restrictions in systematic reviews (SRs) can lead to bias and may affect conclusions. Therefore, it is important to report whether and which restrictions were used. This study aims to examine the use of restrictions regarding language, publication period, and study type, as well as the transparency of reporting in SRs of effectiveness.Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted with a random sample of 535 SRs of effectiveness indexed in PubMed between 2000 and 2019. The use of restrictions and their reporting were analysed using descriptive statistics.Results: Of the total 535 SRs included, four out of every ten (41.3%) lacked information on at least one of the three restrictions considered (language, publication period, or study type). Overall, 14.6% of SRs did not provide information on restrictions regarding publication period, 19.1% regarding study type, and 18.3% regarding language. Of all included SRs, language was restricted in 46.4%, and in more than half of the SRs with restricted language (130/248), it was unclear whether the restriction was applied during either the search or the screening process, or both. The restrictions were justified for publication period in 22.2% of the respective SRs (33/149), study type in 6.5% (28/433), and language in 3.2% (8/248). Differences in reporting were found between countries as well as between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.Conclusions: This study suggests that there is a lack of transparency in reporting on restrictions in SRs. Authors as well as editors and reviewers should be encouraged to improve the reporting and justification of restrictions to increase the transparency of SRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the growing global participation of females in basketball and number of studies conducted on the topic, no research has summarized the external and internal load variables encountered by female basketball players during training and games. Objective: To collate existing literature investigating external and internal load variables during training and games in female basketball players according to playing level (club, high-school, representative, collegiate, semi-professional, and professional) and playing position (backcourt and frontcourt players). Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science to identify studies published from database inception until June 11, 2021. Studies eligible for inclusion were observational and cross-sectional studies, published in English, reporting external and/or internal load variables during training sessions and/or games. Methodological quality and bias were assessed for each study prior to data extraction using a modified Downs and Black checklist. Weighted means according to playing level and playing position were calculated and compared if a load variable was reported across two or more player samples and were consistent regarding key methodological procedures including the seasonal phase monitored, minimum exposure time set for including player data (playing time during games), approach to measure session duration, and approach to measure session intensity. Results: The search yielded 5513 studies of which 1541 studies were duplicates. A further 3929 studies were excluded based on title and abstract review, with 11 more studies excluded based on full-text review. Consequently, 32 studies were included in our review. Due to the wide array of methodological approaches utilized across studies for examined variables, comparisons could only be made according to playing level for blood lactate concentration during games, revealing backcourt players experienced higher lactate responses than frontcourt players (5.2 ± 1.9 mmol·L−1 vs. 4.4 ± 1.8 mmol·L−1). Conclusions: Inconsistencies in the methods utilized to measure common load variables across studies limited our ability to report and compare typical external and internal loads during training and games according to playing level and position in female basketball players. It is essential that standardized methodological approaches are established for including player data as well as measuring session duration (e.g., total time, live time) and intensity (e.g., consistent rating of perceived exertion scales, intensity zone cut points) in future female basketball research to permit meaningful interpretation and comparisons of load monitoring data across studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several quantitative systematic reviews of Kanglaite (KLT), an herb preparation used to treat cancer and malignant pleural effusion, have been published in recent years. However, the clinical evidence reported in these studies has not been pursued further and the methodological quality of these meta-analyses remains unknown. Therefore, an overview was designed to map the evidence landscape based on the published meta-analyses on KLT in cancer treatment. Methods: Two bibliographic databases (PubMed and Embase) were searched from inception to 25 November 2021. Two independent reviewers were involved in study selection, data abstraction, and methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR 2. The principal features of publications and the clinical outcomes of efficacy and safety were synthesized narratively, and results of methodological quality were reported as frequencies and percentages with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The evidence map was used to visualize the overall quality. Excel 2016 and Stata 17/SE were used for data analysis. Results: Thirteen meta-analyses published in English were included for in-depth analysis. Among them, the year of publication ranged from 2008 to 2021, and the number of included patients ranged from 488 to 2,964. Regarding the cancer type, seven articles focused on non-small cell lung cancer, two on malignant pleural effusion, and four reviews on digestive system malignancies, such as hepatocellular carcinoma and pancreatic cancer. Almost all included meta-analyses reported that KLT as adjunctive therapy could improve various efficacy outcomes (such as disease response rates, quality of life, immune indicators) and reduce the rate of occurrence of adverse reactions, such as nausea and vomiting, leukopenia, and anemia. In terms of their methodological quality, three meta-analyses were of low quality, whereas 10 studies were critically low in quality. The methodological flaws main involved items 2 ("predesigned protocol and registration informatio"), 3 ("rationale of study design for inclusion"), 4 ("comprehensive search strategy"), 5 ("literature selection in duplicate"), 7 ("list of excluded studies with reasons"), 8 ("adequate information on included studies"), 10 ("funding support for included primary studies"), and 12 ("evaluation of the potential impact of risk of bias") based on the AMSTAR 2 tool. Conclusion: Current evidence reveals that KLT is effective and safe as an adjunctive treatment for non-small cell lung cancer, malignant pleural effusion, and digestive system malignancies (such as hepatocellular carcinoma). However, the results assessed in this overview should be further verified using well-designed and clearly reported clinical trials and meta-analyses of KLT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical guidelines need high-quality studies to support clinical decision making, in which the evidence often was collected from systematic reviews (SRs) and/or meta-analyses (MAs). At present, the methodological quality and risk of bias (RoB) of SRs/MAs on stem cell therapy for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) has been poorly investigated. This study aims to strictly evaluate the methodological quality and RoB in SRs/MAs of stem cell therapy for KOA. Four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases) were searched, from inception to October 5, 2021. SRs/MAs involving randomized control trials or cohort studies on stem cell therapy for the treatment of KOA were included. The methodological quality and RoB were assessed using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tool, respectively. In total, 22 SRs/MAs were included. According to the results obtained by AMSTAR 2 tool, all SRs/MAs were rated as "Critically low." Main methodological weaknesses were as follows: up to 81.82% did not meet protocol registration requirements, only 13.64% provided a list of excluded studies and justification, and 13.64% investigated and discussed the publication bias. ROBIS-based RoB assessment showed that all the SRs/MAs were rated as "High." Besides, the lack of following the implementation of the PRISMA reporting guideline seems to reduce the methodological quality of the studies. The overall methodological quality of the SRs/MAs concerning the application of stem cell therapy in treating KOA is "Critically low," while the RoB is high. It is difficult to provide effective evidence for the formulation of guidelines for KOA treatment. We suggest that the relevant methodological quality assessment should be carried out in the future before the SRs/MAs are used as clinical evidence. In addition, it may be necessary for many journals to include the checklist with a submitted article. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021246924 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Systematic reviews can apply the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool to critically appraise clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for treating low back pain (LBP); however, when appraisals differ in CPG quality rating, stakeholders, clinicians, and policy-makers will find it difficult to discern a unique judgement of CPG quality. We wanted to determine the proportion of overlapping CPGs for LBP in appraisals that applied AGREE II. We also compared inter-rater reliability and variability across appraisals.Methods: For this meta-epidemiological study we searched six databases for appraisals of CPGs for LBP. The general characteristics of the appraisals were collected; the unit of analysis was the CPG evaluated in each appraisal. The inter-rater reliability and the variability of AGREE II domain scores for overall assessment were measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient and descriptive statistics.Results: Overall, 43 CPGs out of 106 (40.6%) overlapped in seventeen appraisals. Half of the appraisals (53%) reported a protocol registration. Reporting of AGREE II assessment was heterogeneous and generally of poor quality: overall assessment 1 (overall CPG quality) was rated in 11 appraisals (64.7%) and overall assessment 2 (recommendation for use) in four (23.5%). Inter-rater reliability was substantial/perfect in 78.3% of overlapping CPGs. The domains with most variability were Domain 6 (mean interquartile range [IQR] 38.6), Domain 5 (mean IQR 28.9), and Domain 2 (mean IQR 27.7).Conclusions: More than one third of CPGs for LBP have been re-appraised in the last six years with CPGs quality confirmed in most assessments. Our findings suggest that before conducting a new appraisal, researchers should check systematic review registers for existing appraisals. Clinicians need to rely on updated CPGs of high quality and confirmed by perfect agreement in multiple appraisals.Trial Registration: Protocol Registration OSF: https://osf.io/rz7nh/. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Exercise under hypoxia and the physiological impact compared to normoxia or hypoxia has gained attention in the last decades. However, methodological quality assessment of articles in this area is lacking in the literature. Therefore, this article aimed to evaluate the methodologic quality of trials studying exercise under hypoxia. An electronic search was conducted until December 2021. The search was conducted in PubMed, CENTRAL, and PEDro using the PICO model. (P) Participants had to be healthy, (I) exercise under normobaric or hypobaric hypoxia had to be (C) compared to exercise in normoxia or hypoxia on (O) any physiological outcome. The 11-item PEDro scale was used to assess the methodological quality (internal validity) of the studies. A linear regression model was used to evaluate the evolution of trials in this area, using the total PEDro score of the rated trials. A total of n = 81 studies met the inclusion criteria and were processed in this study. With a mean score of 5.1 ± 0.9 between the years 1982 and 2021, the mean methodological quality can be described as "fair." Only one study reached the highest score of 8/10, and n = 2 studies reached the lowest observed value of 3/10. The linear regression showed an increase of the PEDro score of 0.1 points per decade. A positive and small tendency toward increased methodologic quality was observed. The current results demonstrate that a positive and small tendency can be seen for the increase in the methodological quality in the field of exercise science under hypoxia. A "good" methodological quality, reaching a PEDro score of 6 points can be expected in the year 2063, using a linear regression model analysis. To accelerate this process, future research should ensure that methodological quality criteria are already included during the planning phase of a study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) has become a public health problem. Several systematic reviews (SRs) have reported that duloxetine may be an effective treatment for improving pain and depressive symptoms in patients with KOA. Aim: To evaluate the available results and provide scientific evidence for the efficacy and safety of duloxetine for KOA. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was conducted across eight databases from inception to 31 December 2021. Two researchers independently selected eligible studies, collected data and evaluated those included SRs' quality. For assessing methodological quality, the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) was employed. Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) was used to assess the risk of bias. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) was utilized for assessing reporting quality. In addition, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to determine primary outcome indicators' evidence quality. Results: Totally 6 SRs were contained in this overview. After assessment based on AMSTAR 2, ROBIS, and PRISMA, unsatisfactory results in terms of methodological quality, risk of bias as well as reporting quality, were obtained. Limitations included a search of grey literature, the reasons for selecting the study type, an excluded study list and the specific reasons, reporting bias assessment, and reporting of potential sources of conflict of interest. According to the GRADE results, the evidence quality was high in 0, moderate in 5, low in 19, and very low in 36. Limitations were the most commonly downgraded factor, followed by publication bias and inconsistency. Conclusion: Duloxetine may be an effective treatment for improving pain and depressive symptoms in KOA patients with acceptable adverse events. However, due to the low quality of the available evidence, the original study design and the quality of evidence from SRs should be further improved, so as to provide strong scientific evidence for definitive conclusions. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO; (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/), identifier (CRD42021289823). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Experimental studies have a considerable impact on the educational policies and practices of many countries. In Turkey, policymakers are planning to initiate a STEM education reform in K-12 schools based on experimental studies. However, the methodological flaws in these studies may lead to biased outcomes and may mislead the STEM education community. Despite the importance of methodological quality, to the best of our knowledge, there are no studies that investigate the methodological quality of experimental STEM education articles published in scholarly journals. Therefore, in this study, we conducted a methodological review to examine the methodological quality of experimental STEM education articles published in refereed Turkish journals from 2014 to 2020. During the targeted period, we located 68 articles. We analyzed these articles by developing a coding framework. We found that the selected articles suffer seriously from various methodological flaws. We discuss the findings in light of the literature on methodological quality and suggest ways to improve the rigor of the experimental designs used. Ultimately, we discuss some implications for authors, journals editors, policymakers, and curriculum developers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Complete and transparent reporting is of critical importance for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The present study aimed to determine the reporting quality and methodological quality of RCTs for interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) and their protocols.Methods We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, CBMdisc, Wanfang Data, and CNKI from January 1, 2016, to November 11, 2020, to collect RCTs involving AI. We also extracted the protocol of each included RCT if it could be obtained. CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials–Artificial Intelligence) statement and Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias (ROB) were used to evaluate the reporting quality and methodological quality, respectively, and SPIRIT-AI (The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials–Artificial Intelligence) statement was used to evaluate the reporting quality of the protocols. The associations of the reporting rate of CONSORT-AI with the publication year, journal's impact factor (IF), number of authors, sample size, and first author's country were analyzed univariately using Pearson's chi-squared test, or Fisher's exact test if the expected values in any of the cells were below 5. The compliance of the retrieved protocols to SPIRIT-AI was presented descriptively.Results Overall, 29 RCTs and three protocols were considered eligible. The CONSORT-AI items “title and abstract” and “interpretation of results” were reported by all RCTs, with the items with the lowest reporting rates being “funding” (0), “implementation” (3.5%), and “harms” (3.5%). The risk of bias was high in 13 (44.8%) RCTs and not clear in 15 (51.7%) RCTs. Only one RCT (3.5%) had a low risk of bias. The compliance was not significantly different in terms of the publication year, journal's IF, number of authors, sample size, or first author's country. Ten of the 35 SPIRIT-AI items (funding, participant timeline, allocation concealment mechanism, implementation, data management, auditing, declaration of interests, access to data, informed consent materials and biological specimens) were not reported by any of the three protocols.Conclusions The reporting and methodological quality of RCTs involving AI need to be improved. Because of the limited availability of protocols, their quality could not be fully judged. Following the CONSORT-AI and SPIRIT-AI statements and with appropriate guidance on the risk of bias when designing and reporting AI-related RCTs can promote standardization and transparency.

Abstract Background To develop and test an approach to test reproducibility of SRs. Methods Case study. We have developed an approach to test reproducibility retrospectively while focusing on the whole conduct of an SR instead of single steps of it. We replicated the literature searches and drew a 25% random sample followed by study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias (ROB) assessments performed by two reviewers independently. These results were compared narratively with the original review. Results We were not able to fully reproduce the original search resulting in minor differences in the number of citations retrieved. The biggest disagreements were found in study selection. The most difficult section to be reproduced was the RoB assessment due to the lack of reporting clear criteria to support the judgement of RoB ratings, although agreement was still found to be satisfactory. Conclusion Our approach as well as other approaches needs to undergo testing and comparison in the future as the area of testing for reproducibility of SRs is still in its infancy.

Exercise under hypoxia and the physiological impact compared to normoxia or hypoxia has gained attention in the last decades. However, methodological quality assessment of articles in this area is lacking in the literature. Therefore, this article aimed to evaluate the methodologic quality of trials studying exercise under hypoxia. An electronic search was conducted until December 2021. The search was conducted in PubMed, CENTRAL, and PEDro using the PICO model. (P) Participants had to be healthy, (I) exercise under normobaric or hypobaric hypoxia had to be (C) compared to exercise in normoxia or hypoxia on (O) any physiological outcome. The 11-item PEDro scale was used to assess the methodological quality (internal validity) of the studies. A linear regression model was used to evaluate the evolution of trials in this area, using the total PEDro score of the rated trials. A total of n = 81 studies met the inclusion criteria and were processed in this study. With a mean score of 5.1 ± 0.9 between the years 1982 and 2021, the mean methodological quality can be described as “fair.” Only one study reached the highest score of 8/10, and n = 2 studies reached the lowest observed value of 3/10. The linear regression showed an increase of the PEDro score of 0.1 points per decade. A positive and small tendency toward increased methodologic quality was observed. The current results demonstrate that a positive and small tendency can be seen for the increase in the methodological quality in the field of exercise science under hypoxia. A “good” methodological quality, reaching a PEDro score of 6 points can be expected in the year 2063, using a linear regression model analysis. To accelerate this process, future research should ensure that methodological quality criteria are already included during the planning phase of a study.

Background: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) has become a public health problem. Several systematic reviews (SRs) have reported that duloxetine may be an effective treatment for improving pain and depressive symptoms in patients with KOA.Aim: To evaluate the available results and provide scientific evidence for the efficacy and safety of duloxetine for KOA.Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was conducted across eight databases from inception to 31 December 2021. Two researchers independently selected eligible studies, collected data and evaluated those included SRs’ quality. For assessing methodological quality, the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) was employed. Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) was used to assess the risk of bias. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) was utilized for assessing reporting quality. In addition, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to determine primary outcome indicators’ evidence quality.Results: Totally 6 SRs were contained in this overview. After assessment based on AMSTAR 2, ROBIS, and PRISMA, unsatisfactory results in terms of methodological quality, risk of bias as well as reporting quality, were obtained. Limitations included a search of grey literature, the reasons for selecting the study type, an excluded study list and the specific reasons, reporting bias assessment, and reporting of potential sources of conflict of interest. According to the GRADE results, the evidence quality was high in 0, moderate in 5, low in 19, and very low in 36. Limitations were the most commonly downgraded factor, followed by publication bias and inconsistency.Conclusion: Duloxetine may be an effective treatment for improving pain and depressive symptoms in KOA patients with acceptable adverse events. However, due to the low quality of the available evidence, the original study design and the quality of evidence from SRs should be further improved, so as to provide strong scientific evidence for definitive conclusions.Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO; (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/), identifier (CRD42021289823).

High‐quality systematic reviews in the field of Dentistry provide the most definitive overarching evidence for clinicians, guideline developers and healthcare policy makers to judge the foreseeable risks, anticipated benefits, and potential harms of dental treatment. In the process of carrying out a systematic review, it is essential that authors appraise the methodological quality of the primary studies they include, because studies which follow poor methodology will have a potentially serious negative impact on the overall strength of the evidence and the recommendations that can be drawn. In Endodontology, systematic reviews of laboratory studies have used quality assessment criteria developed subjectively by the individual authors as there are no comprehensive, well‐structured, and universally accepted criteria that can be applied objectively and universally to individual studies included in reviews. Unfortunately, these subjective criteria are likely to be inaccurately defined, unreliably applied, inadequately analysed, unreasonably biased, defective, and non‐repeatable. The aim of the present paper is to outline the process to be followed in the development of comprehensive methodological quality assessment criteria to be used when evaluating laboratory studies, that is research not conducted in vivo on humans or animals, included in systematic reviews within Endodontology. The development of new methodological quality assessment criteria for appraising the laboratory‐based studies included in systematic reviews within Endodontology will follow a three‐stage process. First, a steering committee will be formed by the project leaders to develop a preliminary list of assessment criteria by modifying and adapting those already available, but with the addition of several new items relevant for Endodontology. The initial draft assessment criteria will be reviewed and refined by a Delphi Group (n = 40) for their relevance and inclusion using a nine‐point Likert scale. Second, the agreed items will then be discussed in an online or face‐to‐face meeting by a group of experts (n = 10) to further refine the assessment criteria. Third, based on the feedback received from the online/face‐to‐face meeting, the steering committee will revise the quality assessment criteria and subsequently a group of authors will be selected to pilot the new system. Based on the feedback collected, the criteria may be revised further before being approved by the steering committee. The assessment criteria will be published in relevant journals, presented at national and international congresses/meetings, and will be freely available on a dedicated website. The steering committee will update the assessment criteria periodically based on feedback received from end‐users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses the need to use systematic reviews to compare the data between several different laboratory-based studies to identify any outlying and presumably inaccurate results within the speciality of endodontology. Topics include methodological approaches to assess scientific studies, major challenge in developing new critieria to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in clinical studies, and how the most realistic assessment of laboratory studies in endodontology might be best achieved.

In this study, we aimed to systematically review the current literature on radiomics applied to cross-sectional adrenal imaging and assess its methodological quality. Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science were searched to identify original research articles investigating radiomics applications on cross-sectional adrenal imaging (search end date February 2021). For qualitative synthesis, details regarding study design, aim, sample size and imaging modality were recorded as well as those regarding the radiomics pipeline (e.g., segmentation and feature extraction strategy). The methodological quality of each study was evaluated using the radiomics quality score (RQS). After duplicate removal and selection criteria application, 25 full-text articles were included and evaluated. All were retrospective studies, mostly based on CT images (17/25, 68%), with manual (19/25, 76%) and two-dimensional segmentation (13/25, 52%) being preferred. Machine learning was paired to radiomics in about half of the studies (12/25, 48%). The median total and percentage RQS scores were 2 (interquartile range, IQR = −5–8) and 6% (IQR = 0–22%), respectively. The highest and lowest scores registered were 12/36 (33%) and −5/36 (0%). The most critical issues were the absence of proper feature selection, the lack of appropriate model validation and poor data openness. The methodological quality of radiomics studies on adrenal cross-sectional imaging is heterogeneous and lower than desirable. Efforts toward building higher quality evidence are essential to facilitate the future translation into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Currently, many systematic reviews (SRs) of moxibustion as a treatment of KOA have been published. However, the evidence of different SRs of moxibustion to treat KOA has not been comprehensively evaluated. Aim: This overview aimed to evaluate the existing results and provide scientific evidence of the effectiveness and safety of moxibustion in the treatment of KOA. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and other databases until October 31, 2021. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to assess the methodological quality of SRs. Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was used to evaluate the reporting quality, and the risk of bias in SRs was evaluated by ROBIS Tool. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool to determine the strength of evidence and conducted a meta-analysis of the total effectiveness rate. Results: Finally, 10 qualified SRs were included, including 57 randomized controlled trials and 5,149 participants. All SRs evaluated by AMASTAR-2 had more than one critical deficiency, so all SRs were rated as critically low. In the PRISMA checklist, the manuscript structures of the included SRs were relatively complete. Including four SRs with a low risk of bias and six with a high risk of bias using the ROBIS tool. In GRADE, two items (6.25%) were rated as high quality, three (9.37%) as medium quality, 17 (53.12%) as low quality and 10 (31.25%) as very low quality. A re-meta-analysis showed that moxibustion and moxibustion combined treatment improved the total effectiveness rate in knee osteoarthritis (risk ratio = 1.17, 95% confidence interval 1.13–1.21, P < 0.001 and risk ratio = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.04–1.23, P < 0.001), with low heterogeneity (I 2 = 36.3%, P = 0.020, and I 2 = 0.0%, P = 0.956). A total of eight SRs reported adverse events, and no serious adverse events occurred in the moxibustion group and control group. Conclusion: Moxibustion seems to be effective in treating KOA. Four SRs reported 10 common discomfort symptoms caused by moxibustion, and these adverse events can spontaneously subside, even can be avoided, therefore, moxibustion for KOA appears to be safe. However, the reliability of the results is reduced by the high risk of bias of the original studies and the low methodological quality of SRs. Therefore, future studies should pay more attention to the quality of the original study and the evidence quality of the SRs to provide more powerful and scientific evidence of the effectiveness and safety of moxibustion treatment of KOA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many meta-analyses (MAs) on Chinese medicine (CM) as an adjunctive treatment for gastric cancer have been published in recent years. However, the pooled evidence reported in MAs and their methodological quality remain unknown. Therefore, we designed a study to comprehensively evaluate and summarize the current evidence of CMs for gastric cancer in published MAs. Methods: A systematic search on MAs published in English from inception to 1st September 2021 was conducted in PubMed and Embase. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included MAs, and the results of the quality assessment were visualized using the evidence mapping method. Stata 17/SE was used for statistical analysis (Registration number: INPLASY202190005). Results: A total of 20 MAs (16 pairwise and 4 network MAs) were included from 118 records. These MAs were published in 14 journals from 2013 to 2021, with the number of patients and trials ranging from 688 to 6,857, and from 10 to 85, respectively. A large number of CMs (e.g., AiDi, FuFangKuShen, and HuaChanSu) in combination with chemotherapy for gastric cancer were identified among the included MAs. According to the pooled results reported in MAs, when compared to chemotherapy alone, CMs in combination with chemotherapy not only improve various outcomes on efficacy (e.g., objective response rate, quality of life) but also reduce various adverse reactions (e.g., leucopenia, nausea and vomiting). Only 2 MAs were low in terms of the overall methodological quality, while the other 18 MAs were all critically low. The methodology was required to be advanced significantly, mainly involving: study protocol and registration, explanation for the inclusion of study design, list of excluded studies with justifications, adequate details of included studies, reporting on funding sources of primary studies, and evaluation of the potential impact of risk of bias. In addition, MAs that received funds support (β = 2.68; 95%CI: 0.40 to 4.96; p = 0.024) or were published in journals with higher impact factor (β = 2.81; 95%CI: 0.69 to 4.92; p = 0.012) had a higher score on the overall methodological quality in the univariate analysis, but the results were not statistically significant according to the multivariate analysis. Conclusion: Combining CMs with chemotherapy can potentially improve clinical outcomes and reduce the relevant adverse effects in patients with gastric cancer. However, the methodological quality of relevant MAs requires significant improvement, and the current evidence needs to be validated through multinational trials that are well-designed and have a large sample size. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Mini health technology assessment (HTA) reports have been used to support policy makers and health systems by providing a timely summary of scientific evidence. The objective of this meta-epidemiologic study was to evaluate the quality of reporting of mini-HTA reports published in Brazil.Methods: An electronic search for all mini-HTA reports published between 2014 and March 2019 was conducted in the SISREBRATS and CONITEC databases. The study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent assessors. The following data were extracted: bibliographic data; research question; characteristics of the population, health technologies and outcomes assessed; eligibility criteria; information about searches and study selection; risk of bias assessment; quality of evidence assessment; synthesis of results; and recommendation about the technology evaluated. A descriptive analysis was used to summarize the information retrieved from all the included mini-HTA reports.Results: We included 103 mini-HTA reports, the great majority of which (92.3 percent) focused on the coverage of the technologies in the healthcare system, with more than 60 percent being about drugs. Only five mini-HTA reports (4.8 percent) gave reasons for the choice of outcomes, and fifteen (14.5 percent) discriminated between primary and secondary outcomes. All mini-HTAs reported the databases searched and 99 percent of them reported using Medline. Sixty percent of the mini-HTA reported assessing the risk of bias, and 52 percent reported assessing the quality of evidence.Conclusion: The quality of reporting of the mini-HTA reports performed in Brazil is insufficient and needs to be improved to guarantee transparency and replicability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Physiotherapy Canada is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Several resources have been developed (e.g., reporting guidelines) to promote high-standard practices in health research. However, there was no continuous and systematic assessment of recommended practices in published systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SRMAs), which increases the usability of the available resources. Therefore, we aimed to assess the methodological and reporting standards in SRMAs of physical activity studies. This report presents the main results of the SEES Initiative in 2019. Methods: Our approach is based on a prospective systematic review methodology to implement post-publication surveillance of research practices in exercise sciences. Briefly, during the year 2019, pre-specified searches were conducted monthly (PubMed/MEDLINE) in journals from the exercise sciences (n = 9) and medicine (n = 5). The assessments were independently conducted by two authors, based on 36 items/practices derived from established statements/tools (PRISMA, AMSTAR 2, ROBIS). To be eligible, SRMAs should summarize studies that had, at least, one arm consisting of physical activity interventions/exposures and one health or behavioral outcome. Results: Out of 1028 studies assessed for eligibility, 103 SRMAs were included. The minimum adherence was 13/36 items, whereas only one SRMA adhered to all items. Some highly contemplated items included identification of title as SRMA (97.1%) and descriptions of the main outcome in the abstract (95.1%) and risk of bias (RoB) assessment (95.1%). Some poorly contemplated items included publicly available protocol (4.9%), discussion of the results in light of RoB in studies included (32.0%), and data sharing statements (35.9%). Conclusion: In summary, there is a suboptimal adherence to recommended practices on methodological quality and reporting standards in the SRMAs of physical activity intervention/exposure evaluated from the selected journals in 2019, which likely reduce the reproducibility and usefulness of these studies. This incipient evidence from our first 12 months of post-publication surveillance should serve as a call for attention and action for multiple stakeholders (e.g., authors, reviewers, editors, funders, academic institutions) in this important health research field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Mini health technology assessment (HTA) reports have been used to support policy makers and health systems by providing a timely summary of scientific evidence. The objective of this meta-epidemiologic study was to evaluate the quality of reporting of mini-HTA reports published in Brazil. Methods: An electronic search for all mini-HTA reports published between 2014 and March 2019 was conducted in the SISREBRATS and CONITEC databases. The study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent assessors. The following data were extracted: bibliographic data; research question; characteristics of the population, health technologies and outcomes assessed; eligibility criteria; information about searches and study selection; risk of bias assessment; quality of evidence assessment; synthesis of results; and recommendation about the technology evaluated. A descriptive analysis was used to summarize the information retrieved from all the included mini-HTA reports. Results: We included 103 mini-HTA reports, the great majority of which (92.3 percent) focused on the coverage of the technologies in the healthcare system, with more than 60 percent being about drugs. Only five mini-HTA reports (4.8 percent) gave reasons for the choice of outcomes, and fifteen (14.5 percent) discriminated between primary and secondary outcomes. All mini-HTAs reported the databases searched and 99 percent of them reported using Medline. Sixty percent of the mini-HTA reported assessing the risk of bias, and 52 percent reported assessing the quality of evidence. Conclusion: The quality of reporting of the mini-HTA reports performed in Brazil is insufficient and needs to be improved to guarantee transparency and replicability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fan Huang,1,* Mingwang Qiu,2,* Siyi Zhao,1,* Lin Dai,2 Yanpeng Xu,2 Yunying Yang,2 Liming Lu,2 Rusong Guo,1,3 Qiang Tian,1,3 Zhiyong Fan,1,3 Shan Wu1,3 1The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510405, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China; 2Clinical Medical College of Acupuncture Moxibustion and Rehabilitation, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510405, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China; 3Guangdong Province Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510120, People’s Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Zhiyong Fan; Shan Wu Guangdong Province Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510120, People’s Republic of China; Guangdong Province Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510120, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China Tel +86 188 9863 2932Email fzystrong@163.com; wushan6866@sina.comObjective: To evaluate systematic reviews (SRs) of acupuncture for low back pain (LBP) in terms of characteristics, reporting and methodological quality using a Veritas plot and to explore factors that may be associated with methodological quality and reporting quality.Study Design and Setting: We searched 8 electronic bibliographic databases to find all SRs, and we evaluated the SRs’ quality in 6 dimensions, including publication year, design type, homogeneity, risk of publication bias, methodological quality by Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 and reporting quality by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Excel 2010 and Adobe Illustrator CC were used to draw and optimize Veritas plots. Exploratory analysis was done using SPSS software version 23.0 to explore factors related to AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA scores. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence quality evaluation tool was used to grade all the outcome indicators in the included literature.Results: We included 19 SRs in the analysis. Literature quality rank scores ranged from 9.67 to 17.00, with an average score of 13.18 ± 2.35. The average score of AMSTAR-2 was 7.47, and the average score of PRISMA was 18.47. Overall, the main issues were research strategies, inclusion and exclusion criteria, publication bias, and registration in PROSPERO. The results of exploratory analysis showed that duplication of literature selected and appropriate tools to assess the risk of bias were related to the AMSTAR-2 score, and the summary of evidence was related to the PRISMA score. The GRADE quality evaluation results showed mainly low quality.Conclusion: The quality of SRs on acupuncture for low back pain should be improved, mainly by strengthening the methodological quality and reporting quality. The Veritas plot is an effective graphical evaluation method that is worth popularizing.Keywords: reporting quality, methodological quality, AMSTAR-2, low back pain, PRISMA, systematic review

Abstract Background Many systematic reviews of clinical trials on acupuncture were performed within the Cochrane Collaboration, the evidence-based medicine (EBM) most recognized organization. Objective of the article was to systematically collect and identify systematic reviews of acupuncture published in the Cochrane Library and assess their quality from a methodological perspective. Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify the reviews of acupuncture conducted until June 2019. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, an evaluation tool for systematic reviews. Results Out of a total of 126 eligible reviews, 50 systematic reviews were included. According to the AMSTAR 2, 52% of Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) were of low quality, due to the presence of one or more weaknesses in at least one of the domains defined as critical for the methodological quality assessment. The less satisfied critical domain was inadequate investigation and discussion of publication bias. Declaration of potential sources of conflict of interest, and funding of the authors of the review and of the included studies were other important weaknesses. Conclusions The main methodological flaws in the included CSRs were related to topics of relatively new concern in the conduction of systematic reviews of the literature. However, both, lack of attention about retrieval of negative studies, and statements about conflict of interests are crucial point for the evaluation of therapeutic interventions according to EBM methodology.

Abstract Background Network meta-analyses using individual participant data (IPD-NMAs) have been increasingly used to compare the effects of multiple interventions. Although there have been many studies on statistical methods for IPD-NMAs, it is unclear whether there are statistical defects in published IPD-NMAs and whether the reporting of statistical analyses has improved. This study aimed to investigate statistical methods used and assess the reporting and methodological quality of IPD-NMAs. Methods We searched four bibliographic databases to identify published IPD-NMAs. The methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2 and reporting quality assessed based on PRISMA-IPD and PRISMA-NMA. We performed stratified analyses and correlation analyses to explore the factors that might affect quality. Results We identified 21 IPD-NMAs. Only 23.8% of the included IPD-NMAs reported statistical techniques used for missing participant data, 42.9% assessed the consistency, and none assessed the transitivity. None of the included IPD-NMAs reported sources of funding for trials included, only 9.5% stated pre-registration of protocols, and 28.6% assessed the risk of bias in individual studies. For reporting quality, compliance rates were lower than 50.0% for more than half of the items. Less than 15.0% of the IPD-NMAs reported data integrity, presented the network geometry, or clarified risk of bias across studies. IPD-NMAs with statistical or epidemiological authors often better assessed the inconsistency (P = 0.017). IPD-NMAs with a priori protocol were associated with higher reporting quality in terms of search (P = 0.046), data collection process (P = 0.031), and syntheses of results (P = 0.006). Conclusions The reporting of statistical methods and compliance rates of methodological and reporting items of IPD-NMAs were suboptimal. Authors of future IPD-NMAs should address the identified flaws and strictly adhere to methodological and reporting guidelines.

Abstract Background There is a notable lack of methodological and reporting guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data. This information void has the potential to result in reviews that are inconsistent and inadequate to inform healthcare policy and decision making. The aim of this meta-epidemiological study is to describe the methodology of recently published prevalence systematic reviews. Methods We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from February 2017 to February 2018 for systematic reviews of prevalence studies. We included systematic reviews assessing the prevalence of any clinical condition using patients as the unit of measurement and we summarized data related to reporting and methodology of the reviews. Results A total of 235 systematic reviews of prevalence were analyzed. The median number of authors was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4–7), the median number of databases searched was 4 (3–6) and the median number of studies included in each review was 24 (IQR 15–41.5). Search strategies were presented for 68% of reviews. Forty five percent of reviews received external funding, and 24% did not provide funding information. Twenty three percent of included reviews had published or registered the systematic review protocol. Reporting guidelines were used in 72% of reviews. The quality of included studies was assessed in 80% of reviews. Nine reviews assessed the overall quality of evidence (4 using GRADE). Meta-analysis was conducted in 65% of reviews; 1% used Bayesian methods. Random effect meta-analysis was used in 94% of reviews; among them, 75% did not report the variance estimator used. Among the reviews with meta-analysis, 70% did not report how data was transformed; 59% percent conducted subgroup analysis, 38% conducted meta-regression and 2% estimated prediction interval; I2 was estimated in 95% of analysis. Publication bias was examined in 48%. The most common software used was STATA (55%). Conclusions Our results indicate that there are significant inconsistencies regarding how these reviews are conducted. Many of these differences arose in the assessment of methodological quality and the formal synthesis of comparable data. This variability indicates the need for clearer reporting standards and consensus on methodological guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data.

Abstract Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment is an important step before study initiation usage. Therefore, accurately judging study type is the first priority, and the choosing proper tool is also important. In this review, we introduced methodological quality assessment tools for randomized controlled trial (including individual and cluster), animal study, non-randomized interventional studies (including follow-up study, controlled before-and-after study, before-after/ pre-post study, uncontrolled longitudinal study, interrupted time series study), cohort study, case-control study, cross-sectional study (including analytical and descriptive), observational case series and case reports, comparative effectiveness research, diagnostic study, health economic evaluation, prediction study (including predictor finding study, prediction model impact study, prognostic prediction model study), qualitative study, outcome measurement instruments (including patient - reported outcome measure development, content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/ measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, and responsiveness), systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline. The readers of our review can distinguish the types of medical studies and choose appropriate tools. In one word, comprehensively mastering relevant knowledge and implementing more practices are basic requirements for correctly assessing the methodological quality.

BackgroundCurrently, many systematic reviews (SRs) of moxibustion as a treatment of KOA have been published. However, the evidence of different SRs of moxibustion to treat KOA has not been comprehensively evaluated.AimThis overview aimed to evaluate the existing results and provide scientific evidence of the effectiveness and safety of moxibustion in the treatment of KOA.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and other databases until October 31, 2021. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to assess the methodological quality of SRs. Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was used to evaluate the reporting quality, and the risk of bias in SRs was evaluated by ROBIS Tool. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool to determine the strength of evidence and conducted a meta-analysis of the total effectiveness rate.ResultsFinally, 10 qualified SRs were included, including 57 randomized controlled trials and 5,149 participants. All SRs evaluated by AMASTAR-2 had more than one critical deficiency, so all SRs were rated as critically low. In the PRISMA checklist, the manuscript structures of the included SRs were relatively complete. Including four SRs with a low risk of bias and six with a high risk of bias using the ROBIS tool. In GRADE, two items (6.25%) were rated as high quality, three (9.37%) as medium quality, 17 (53.12%) as low quality and 10 (31.25%) as very low quality. A re-meta-analysis showed that moxibustion and moxibustion combined treatment improved the total effectiveness rate in knee osteoarthritis (risk ratio = 1.17, 95% confidence interval 1.13–1.21, P < 0.001 and risk ratio = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.04–1.23, P < 0.001), with low heterogeneity (I2 = 36.3%, P = 0.020, and I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.956). A total of eight SRs reported adverse events, and no serious adverse events occurred in the moxibustion group and control group.ConclusionMoxibustion seems to be effective in treating KOA. Four SRs reported 10 common discomfort symptoms caused by moxibustion, and these adverse events can spontaneously subside, even can be avoided, therefore, moxibustion for KOA appears to be safe. However, the reliability of the results is reduced by the high risk of bias of the original studies and the low methodological quality of SRs. Therefore, future studies should pay more attention to the quality of the original study and the evidence quality of the SRs to provide more powerful and scientific evidence of the effectiveness and safety of moxibustion treatment of KOA.

Abstract Purpose To determine the 50 most cited studies on posterior tibial slope (PTS) in joint preserving knee surgery and assess their level of evidence, objective study quality scores as well as to examine whether the study quality correlated with the citation count and citation density in the top 50 list. Methods A literature search on Web of Science was performed to determine the 50 most cited studies on the topic of PTS in joint preserving knee surgery between 1990 and 2022. The studies were evaluated for their bibliographic parameters, level of evidence rating (LOE), citation counts, the Modified Coleman Methodological Score (MCMS), the Methodological Index for Non‐Randomized Studies (MINORS), and the Radiologic Methodology and Quality Scale (MQCSRE). Results Of the top 50 list, 16 studies were published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine. A total of 23 studies were produced in the United States (46%). Of 10 different study types, case control studies (n = 16, 32%) and cadaveric studies (n = 10, 20%) were most common. 15 studies (30%) were purely radiological studies. 6 studies were level II (12%), 23 level III (46%), 15 level IV (30%), and 6 level V studies (12%), respectively. The number of citations ranged from 42 to 447 (mean 105.6 ± 79.2 citations) and showed a mean citation density of 10.3 ± 5.2, composed of the decades 1994 – 2000 (8.3 ± 4.1), 2001 – 2010 (11.1 ± 5.9), 2011 – 2019 (10.1 ± 5.1). Mean quality scores were 55.9 ± 13.0 for MCMS (n = 18), 14.5 ± 3.2 for MINORS (n = 18) and 18.1 ± 3.7 for MQCSRE (n = 20), respectively. High citation counts did not correlate with higher study quality scores (p > 0.05). Radiological studies were not significantly cited more often than non‐radiological studies (mean 116.9 ± 88.3 vs. 100.8 ± 75.8 citations; p > 0.05). Conclusion In joint preserving knee surgery, the 50 most cited studies on PTS did not represent a ranking of the highest methodological quality scores. Citation counts and citation density over the past three decades did not significantly differ, even though the number of articles in the presented list multiplied over the same period. This list can serve as a reference tool for orthopedic surgeons aiming to review PTS literature.

Background: Many meta-analyses (MAs) on Chinese medicine (CM) as an adjunctive treatment for gastric cancer have been published in recent years. However, the pooled evidence reported in MAs and their methodological quality remain unknown. Therefore, we designed a study to comprehensively evaluate and summarize the current evidence of CMs for gastric cancer in published MAs.Methods: A systematic search on MAs published in English from inception to 1st September 2021 was conducted in PubMed and Embase. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included MAs, and the results of the quality assessment were visualized using the evidence mapping method. Stata 17/SE was used for statistical analysis (Registration number: INPLASY202190005).Results: A total of 20 MAs (16 pairwise and 4 network MAs) were included from 118 records. These MAs were published in 14 journals from 2013 to 2021, with the number of patients and trials ranging from 688 to 6,857, and from 10 to 85, respectively. A large number of CMs (e.g., AiDi, FuFangKuShen, and HuaChanSu) in combination with chemotherapy for gastric cancer were identified among the included MAs. According to the pooled results reported in MAs, when compared to chemotherapy alone, CMs in combination with chemotherapy not only improve various outcomes on efficacy (e.g., objective response rate, quality of life) but also reduce various adverse reactions (e.g., leucopenia, nausea and vomiting). Only 2 MAs were low in terms of the overall methodological quality, while the other 18 MAs were all critically low. The methodology was required to be advanced significantly, mainly involving: study protocol and registration, explanation for the inclusion of study design, list of excluded studies with justifications, adequate details of included studies, reporting on funding sources of primary studies, and evaluation of the potential impact of risk of bias. In addition, MAs that received funds support (β = 2.68; 95%CI: 0.40 to 4.96; p = 0.024) or were published in journals with higher impact factor (β = 2.81; 95%CI: 0.69 to 4.92; p = 0.012) had a higher score on the overall methodological quality in the univariate analysis, but the results were not statistically significant according to the multivariate analysis.Conclusion: Combining CMs with chemotherapy can potentially improve clinical outcomes and reduce the relevant adverse effects in patients with gastric cancer. However, the methodological quality of relevant MAs requires significant improvement, and the current evidence needs to be validated through multinational trials that are well-designed and have a large sample size.

Introduction: Systematic reviews (SRs) are the backbone of evidence-based health care, but no gold standard exists to assess their methodological quality. Although the AMSTAR tool is accepted for analyzing the quality of SRs, the ROBIS instrument was recently developed. This study compared the capacity of both instruments to capture the quality of SRs of interventions for improving vaccination coverage. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search in the Cochrane Library and PubMed. Two reviewers independently screened the search output, assessed study eligibility, and extracted data from eligible SRs; resolving differences through consensus. We conducted Principal Component Analysis (PCA) in Stata 14 to determine similarities and differences between AMSTAR and ROBIS. Results: A total of 2322 records were identified through the search and 75 full-text publications were assessed for eligibility, of which 57 met inclusion criteria. Using AMSTAR, we found 32%, 60% and 9% of SRs to have high, moderate and low quality, respectively. With ROBIS, we judged 74%, 14% and 12% of SRs to have low, unclear and high risk of bias. PCA showed that SRs with low risk of bias in ROBIS clustered together with SRs having high-quality in AMSTAR, and SRs with high risk of bias in ROBIS clustered with low-quality SRs in AMSTAR. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that there is an association between methodological quality and risk of bias in SRs of interventions focused on improving vaccination coverage. Therefore, either AMSTAR or ROBIS checklists can be used to evaluate methodological quality of SRs in vaccinology.

Introduction: Several published systematic reviews have examined the potential associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking, but their methodological and/or reporting quality have not yet been assessed. This systematic quality review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2 to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews investigating potential associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking. Materials and methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched from 01 January 2007 to 24 June 2020. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2, and reporting quality was assessed using PRISMA guidelines. Results: Of 331 potentially relevant systematic reviews, 20 met predefined inclusion criteria. Most reviews (n = 15; 75%) reported on e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking cessation, while three reported on e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking initiation (15%); and two reported on cigarette smoking initiation and cessation (10%). According to AMSTAR 2 guidelines, 18 of the 20 reviews (90%) were "critically low" in overall confidence of the results, while two were ranked "low." Additionally, reporting quality varied across the reviews, with only 60% reporting at least half of the PRISMA items. Discussion: Methodological limitations were identified across reviews examining potential associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking behaviors, indicating that findings from these reviews should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions: Future systematic reviews in this field should strive to adhere to AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA guidelines, to provide high quality syntheses of the available data with transparent and complete reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An increasing number of systematic reviews assessed the safety of surgical interventions over time. How well these systematic reviews were designed and conducted determines the reliability of evidence. In this study, we aimed to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews on the safety of surgical interventions.Methods: We searched PubMed for systematic reviews of surgical interventions with safety as the exclusive outcome from 1st-Jan, 2015 to 1st-Jan, 2020. The methodological quality of eligible systematic reviews was evaluated according to the AMSTAR 2.0 instrument. The primary outcomes were the number of methodological weaknesses and the global methodological quality. The proportion of each methodological weakness among eligible systematic reviews was compared by three pre-defined stratification variables. The absolute difference of the proportion (PD) was used as the effect estimator, with the two-tailed z-test for the significance.Results: We identified 127 systematic reviews from 18,636 records. None (n = 0, 0.00%) of them could be rated as "high" in terms of the global methodological quality; in contrast, they were either rated as "low" (n = 18, 14.17%) or as "critically low" (n = 109, 85.83%). The median number of methodological weaknesses of these systematic reviews was 8 (interquartile range, IQR: 6 to 9), in which 4 (IQR: 2 to 4) were critical weaknesses. Systematic reviews that used any reporting guideline (e.g., domain 13, PD = -0.22, 95% CI: - 0.39, - 0.06; p = 0.01) and developed a protocol in advance (e.g., domain 6, PD = -0.20, 95% CI: - 0.39, - 0.01; p = 0.04) were less likely to have methodological weakness in some domains but not for the rest (e.g., domain 8, PD = 0.04, 95% CI: - 0.14, 0.21; p = 0.68; with protocol vs. without).Conclusions: The methodological quality of current systematic reviews of adverse events with surgical interventions was poor. Further efforts, for example, encouraging researchers to develop a protocol in advance, are needed to enhance the methodological quality of these systematic reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]