Search

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

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

The assessment of methodological quality (MQ) in biomedical research is an area that has undergone dynamic development in the last 20 years on a global scale. MQ can be defined as a multidimensional and complex construct composed of items and domains. Different research groups have proposed tools for its assessment, among which our team is included with the development of the MInCir scales. Over the years, we have developed and validated scales to assess MQ in treatment or therapeutic procedure studies (MInCir-T), in diagnostic studies (MInCir-Dg), and prognosis studies (MInCir-Pr in its two versions, MInCir-Pr1 and MInCir-Pr2). However, as is the case with any measurement instrument, it is crucial to specify in a detailed and precise manner how it is applied, aiming to standardize measurements and minimize information biases. A detailed description is provided for the 4 domains and 8 items comprising the MInCir-Pr2 scale, specifying for each of them the characteristics to be assessed and scored in primary prognosis articles. The scale total score ranges from 7 to 60 points, with a cutoff point of 33 points (dichotomous) to define the MQ construct. This cutoff point allows classification into either adequate or high MQ (when the evaluated article receives a score of 33 points or higher), and inadequate or low MQ if the score is 32 points or less. The aim of this article was to elucidate and clarify the application of the MInCir-Pr2 scale for MQ in prognosis studies, through a guide intended to standardize MQ measurements using the MInCir-Pr2 scale, with the goal of enhance both intra- and interobserver reliability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Introduction: Open access (OA) publishing provides the benefits of increased visibility, accessibility, and impact of research findings. Despite the rapidly growing number of OA journals in dentistry, there are rising concerns about their quality. Our aim is to evaluate the methodological quality of clinical endodontic studies published in OA journals and to compare them to traditional subscription (TS) journals from January 2010 to December 2022. Materials and Methods: Clinical endodontic studies published in four journals, two from OA and two from TS categories were included in this review. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for randomized trials and the methodological index for nonrandomized studies instrument for nonrandomized studies. Data were analyzed with SPSS, utilizing independent samples t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for statistical comparisons. Results: A total of 80 articles were included, 40 from each OA and TS journals. The majority of research articles originated from Asia (48.7%) and were primarily focused on endodontic outcomes (47.5%). A significant difference in methodological quality was noted between TS and OA journals (t-test, P = 0.022). TS journals exhibited a higher mean methodological quality score of 1.64 (±0.30) compared to 1.49 (±0.27) of OA journals. Variance in methodological quality scores among journals was also statistically significant (ANOVA, P = 0.002). Conclusion: Clinical studies published in TS journals had higher methodological quality compared to those published in OA journals. Enhancements in peer review may be necessary to ensure appropriate methodological quality in OA publications in endodontics.

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

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

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

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

BackgroundThis 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.MethodsWe 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).ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsGlobal 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.

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.

Background General practice has significant interdisciplinary characteristics, both qualitative research and mixed methods research are applicable to scientific research in this field. In recent years, there has been a steady increase in the number of relevant academic papers published in China, but the overall quality of the literature has not been systematically assessed. Objective To explore the methodological quality of qualitative and mixed methods research literature published in the field of primary care and general practice. Methods From August 2022 to April 2023, four investigators analyzed and assessed the methodological quality of qualitative and mixed methods research published in the field of primary care and general practice in China in 2021 using the qualitative assessment tools of Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), respectively. The researchers were grouped in pairs and independently for information extraction and quality evaluation. Results A total of 35 qualitative research and 9 mixed methods research were included. Among the qualitative research, 23 literature (65.71%) did not sufficiently considered ethical issues; recruitment of participants was not discussed in 94.29% (33/35) of the research; the relationship between the researcher and the participants was not adequately considered in 82.86% (29/35) of the research; 42.86% (15/35) of the research had a sample size of

Background At a time when healthcare reforms are being implemented in the new era, the scientific research output in the field of general practice and primary care in China has grown rapidly in recent years. However, the methodological quality of the literature is unclear. Objective To evaluate the methodological quality of representative quantitative studies and systematic reviews/guidelines in the field of general practice and primary care in China in 2021, to reveal the overall methodological quality characteristics of scientific papers in this field. Methods A sample of 449 papers was selected from a total of 3 122 papers collected in the Primary Care and General Practice Research Paper Productivity Report in China in 2021. A methodological quality assessment group consisting of 22 researchers in the field of public health and general practice from different institutions was organized to evaluate the quality of 320 of these papers (71.3%) using six different quality assessment tools for different study designs (cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, pre- and post-intervention studies, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, guidelines and consensus) by working in pairs and under the training and guidance of an expert in evidence-based medical methodology. Descriptive statistics method was used to report the overall quality assessment results of the various types of research papers. Results Of the 114 cross-sectional research papers, quality issues were prevalent in the areas of "whether the source population was representative of the study's target population" (41.2%) , "whether the reliability and validity of the survey instrument could be conclusively demonstrated" (32.5%) , "whether the survey is clinically meaningful" (26.3%) ; of the 25 cohort study papers, quality issues were more concentrated in the areas of "whether the cohort was adequately followed up" (44.0%) and "whether the co-intervention was similar among groups" (56.0%) ; of the 34 pre- and post-intervention studies, quality issues were mostly found in the areas of "whether the target outcome was measured multiple times before and after the intervention" (97.1%) , "whether the sample size was large enough to generate confidence in the study results" (82.4%) , and "whether the study participants were representative of the eligible population" (61.8%) ; of the 122 randomized controlled trials, quality concerns were mostly in the areas of "blinding of different stakeholders" (25.4%-61.5%) , "adequate concealment of random allocation" (41.8%) , and "other risks of bias" (72.1%) ; of the 19 systematic reviews, quality issues were mostly found in the areas "is the source of funding for the included studies reported" (100.0%) , "were the methods of the review developed before the start of the review" (94.7%) , "was heterogeneity reasonably discussed and explained" (84.2%) , and "was the risk of bias of individual studies considered" (84.2%) . Finally, the quality of all six clinical guidelines/consensus was rated low. Conclusion The scientific research output of recent years in the field of primary care and general practice in China is still of limited quality in general, which is particularly evident in the categories of cross-sectional studies, pre- and post-intervention studies, randomized controlled trials, guidelines and consensus. This highlights the urgency and importance of strengthening systematic training in basic research in this area of research in China, increasing the importance of research and evidence-based reporting standards, and developing pragmatic methodological specifications for the development of guidelines.

BackgroundAs a community of practice (CoP), medical education depends on its research literature to communicate new knowledge, examine alternative perspectives, and share methodological innovations. As a key route of communication, the medical education CoP must be concerned about the rigor and validity of its research literature, but prior studies have suggested the need to improve medical education research quality. Of concern in the present study is the question of how responsive the medical education research literature is to changes in the CoP. We examine the nature and extent of changes in the quality of medical education research over a decade, using a widely cited study of research quality in the medical education research literature as a benchmark to compare more recent quality indicators.MethodsA bibliometric analysis was conducted to examine the methodologic quality of quantitative medical education research studies published in 13 selected journals from September 2013 to December 2014. Quality scores were calculated for 482 medical education studies using a 10-item Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) that has demonstrated strong validity evidence. These data were compared with data from the original study for the same journals in the period September 2002 to December 2003. Eleven investigators representing 6 academic medical centers reviewed and scored the research studies that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Primary outcome measures include MERSQI quality indicators for 6 domains: study design, sampling, type of data, validity, data analysis, and outcomes.ResultsThere were statistically significant improvements in four sub-domain measures: study design, type of data, validity and outcomes. There were no changes in sampling quality or the appropriateness of data analysis methods. There was a small but significant increase in the use of patient outcomes in these studies.ConclusionsOverall, we judge this as equivocal evidence for the responsiveness of the research literature to changes in the medical education CoP. This study identified areas of strength as well as opportunities for continued development of medical education research.

: Systematic reviews (SRs) are an increasingly important format in the scientific literature. Commentaries on improvements to the SR format have focused on methodological quality, but a greater concern is a frequent lack of critical analysis. A structured critical analysis (SCA) was described as a solution to this deficiency. : Recommendations and conclusions of a recent SR were analyzed with a SCA to address common problems previously reported with the SR format. : Errors in the component studies and their interpretation by the SR that led to erroneous recommendations were presented. The 5-part SCA provided comprehensive analysis that corrected the SR, which had accepted the component study conclusions verbatim. : The SCA is a logical approach to provide critical thinking in SRs to ensure appropriate conclusions. This is especially important, as many SRs report contradictory evidence. Also, the reader can use the SCA format to better understand existing literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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

To assess the clinical data on the effectiveness of stem cell therapy for diabetic foot (DF) based on recent systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (SRs/MAs). SRs/MAs that evaluate the clinical evidence on the efficacy of stem cell therapy for DF were identified through a systematic search in public databases. The methodological quality and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs were assessed separately by two researchers. Eight SRs/MAs were included in this analysis. Since there were no registered protocol or exclusion criteria for the included SRs/MAs, the methodological quality was rated as critically low. There was no high‐quality evidence available for the outcomes, and the evidence quality ranged from critically low to moderate. Evidence degradation was most commonly caused by the risk of bias, followed by imprecision, publication bias and inconsistency. In conclusion, stem cell therapy may be effective for DF. However, this conclusion should be approached with caution, considering the quality of the supporting SRs/MAs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJCETIVE: To re-evaluate the systematic review/ Meta-analysis on method of reinforcing earth to generate metal in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in stable stage, so as to provide evidence-based basis for the selection of method of reinforcing earth to generate metal in the treatment of COPD in the stable stage. METHODS: Seven Chinese and English databases were retrieved, and the time limit was from the establishment of the database to Jun. 1st, 2023. After literature screening and data extraction, the methodological quality of included literature was evaluated by AMSTAR 2, and the evidence quality of all outcome indicators was graded by GRADE system tool. RESULTS: A total of 13 systematic review/ Meta-analysis and 109 outcome indicators were included. AMSTAR 2 showed that 1 article was of low quality and 11 articles were of extremely low quality. GRADE classification showed 11 outcome indicators of moderate grade, 58 outcome indicators of low grade, and 40 outcome indicators of extremely low grade. CONCLUSIONS: The method of reinforcing earth to generate metal has advantages and high safety in the intervention of COPD in stable stage, yet the methodological quality and evidence quality of the research are low. Therefore, high quality research should be performed in the future. In addition, the writing of systematic review should be objective and normative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

Objectives Hospitalization is a vulnerable period for the elderly. During this period, they are at risk of falling. There are various clinical guidelines for fall prevention, whose usefulness depends on their quality and clinical acceptance. This study was to evaluate the methodological quality of selected clinical guidelines for fall prevention in hospitalized elderly people in Iran using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation (AGREE) checklist. Methods & Materials A systematic search was conducted for clinical guidelines published from 2009 to 2020 using the keywords clinical guideline, falling, prevention, aged, and hospitalization. Of 351 clinical guidelines identified, 4 guidelines were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and by a purposive sampling method. The quality of the selected guidelines was evaluated by 5 experts independently using the AGREE II checklist. Based on the quality scores, the guidelines were categorized as “highly recommended” or “recommended with modifications”. Results The "Falls Assessment and Prevention of Falls in Older People", "Preventing Falls and Harm From Falls in Older People", and "Preventing Falls and Reducing Injury from Falls" were categorized as highly recommended, while the "Post Fall Multidisciplinary Management Guidelines for Western Australian Health Care Settings" was categorized as “recommended with modifications”. Therefore, they can be localized and used to reduce the risk of falls in hospitalized elderly people in Iran. The mean overall scores of 6 domains for the guidelines were as follows: 91. 1% for “clarity of presentation”, 86. 6% for “scope and purpose”, 83. 6% for “stakeholder involvement” 72. 08% for “editorial independence”, 71. 14% for “rigor of development”, and 66. 66% for “applicability”. Conclusion Evaluation of the methodological quality of clinical guidelines using the AGREE tool should be done to be able to be used in clinical practice. It is recommended to use these tools in updating the current or future clinical guidelines to ensure their methodological quality.

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

Abstract Background Problems associated with alcohol use are multidimensional with psychiatric, psychological, physical, and social aspects, which makes it challenging to choose appropriate assessment scales. However, there has been no systematic evaluation of existing alcohol scales. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted for articles that assessed the psychometric properties of scales for alcohol use disorder on March 19, 2023, using Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. Only scales whose original development papers were cited more than 20 times were included. The methodological quality and psychometric properties of the scales were evaluated using COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. The overall rating of the scales were assessed with a score ranging from 0 to 18. Results In total, 314 studies and 40 scales were identified. These scales differ widely in measurement methods, target populations, and psychometric properties. The overall mean score was 6.3, and only the following three scales received >9 points suggesting a moderate level of evidence: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS), and Short Alcohol Dependence Data Questionnaire (SADD). Measurement error and responsiveness were not evaluated or reported in the included scales. Conclusions Although the AUDIT, ADS, and SADD were rated the highest among the 40 scales, they showed, at most, a moderate level of evidence. These findings underscore the need to accumulate further evidence to assure the quality of the scales. It may be advisable to select and combine scales to meet the purpose of the assessment.

Mohammed Alfaqeeh,1 Neily Zakiyah,1,2 Auliya A Suwantika,1– 3 Zahratu Shabrina4,5 1Department of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia; 2Center of Excellence for Pharmaceutical Care Innovation, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia; 3Center for Health Technology Assessment, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, Indonesia; 4Department of Geography, King’s College London, London, UK; 5Regional Innovation, Graduate School, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, IndonesiaCorrespondence: Neily Zakiyah, Department of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Padjadjaran, Bandung, 45363, Indonesia, Tel +62 22 84288888, Ext. 3510, Email neily.zakiyah@unpad.ac.idPurpose: The outbreak of COVID-19 has led to a global pandemic with millions of cases and deaths. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to establish effective therapies. However, the methodological quality of these trials is paramount, as it directly impacts the reliability of results. This systematic review and bibliometric analysis aim to assess the methodological approach, execution diversity, global trends, and distribution of COVID-19 treatment RCTs post-outbreak, covering the period from the second wave and onward up to the present.Methods: We utilize articles from three electronic databases published from September 1, 2020, to April 1, 2023. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify relevant RCTs. Data extraction involved the collection of various study details. Risk of Bias (RoB) 2 tool assessed methodological quality, while implementation variability was evaluated against registration information. Bibliometric analysis, including keyword co-occurrence and country distribution, used VOSviewer and Tableau software.Results: Initially, 501 studies were identified, but only 22 met the inclusion criteria, of which 19 had registration information. The methodological quality assessment revealed deficiencies in five main domains: randomization process (36%), deviations from intended interventions (9%), missing outcome data (4%), measurement of the outcome (18%), and selection of reported results (4%). An analysis of alignment between research protocols and registration data revealed common deviations in eight critical aspects. Bibliometric findings showcased global collaboration in COVID-19 treatment RCTs, with Iran and Brazil prominently contributing, while keyword co-occurrence analysis illuminated prominent research trends and terms in study titles and abstracts.Conclusion: This study offers valuable insights into the evaluation of COVID-19 treatment RCTs. The scarcity of high-quality RCTs highlights the importance of enhancing trial rigor and transparency in global health emergencies.Keywords: COVID-19, randomized controlled trials, methodological quality, diversity in execution, keyword trends, geographic distribution

Abstract Objectives This research-on-research substudy uses a data-driven approach to investigate the range of appraisal tools in non-Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Study design and setting A comprehensive web scraping of all completed non-Cochrane registrations in PROSPERO from February 2011 to December 2017 was performed. The focus was classifying the appraisal tools based on study type, assessment aspects, and research topics. Results After analyzing 17,708 complete records, we found a predominant use of methodological quality assessment tools compared to those for reporting quality or risk of bias (RoB). This indicates a greater emphasis on methodological rigor in the studied protocols. Various tools for assessing methodological quality were observed, reflecting the complexity of such evaluations. Instruments designed for evaluating methodological or reporting quality were mainly intended for non-randomized clinical trials or observational studies, unlike RoB tools more commonly used in randomized clinical trials. No distinct trends in tool usage were observed in specific research conditions or domains, suggesting that tool choice is influenced more by study design than research topic. Conclusion This study provides insights into the preferential use of various assessment tools in conducting non-Cochrane systematic reviews, as evidenced in PROSPERO records. The findings reveal various methodological assessment tools, underscoring their versatility across different study designs and research areas.

Introduction: Reliable systematic reviews are essential to inform clinical practice guidelines, policies and further research priorities in Africa. For systematic review findings to be trustworthy, they need to be conducted with methodological rigour and reported transparently. We assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in African emergency medicine journals, comparing them to those published in international emergency medicine journals. Additionally, we describe the types of review literature published in the African journals. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional methodological study of systematic reviews published in selected African and international emergency medicine journals from 2012 to 2021. Studies were eligible if they were i) a systematic review on an emergency medicine topic, ii) published in one of the top five emergency medicine journals in the African region or internationally and iii) published between January 2012 and December 2021 in English or French. We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases and hand-searched selected journals. Two authors screened titles, abstracts and full texts independently and in duplicate. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer, using a standardised form, after completing a calibration exercise. We described the characteristics of systematic reviews and assessed methodological quality using AMSTAR II. Results: We identified 34 (37%) African and 511 (54%) international systematic reviews from 92 and 948 review articles respectively across 10 journals. We included all 34 African and a random sample of 100 international systematic reviews. Methodological quality was low or critically low for all the African systematic reviews (n=34, 100%) and all but three international systematic reviews (n=97, 97%). The median number of critical domain weaknesses was 4 (IQR 4;5) and 2 (IQR 2;4) for African and international systematic reviews respectively. The most common weaknesses across both African and international systematic reviews were i) not establishing a priori review protocols, ii) unclear selection of study designs iii) not providing a list of excluded studies and iv) unclear reporting on funding sources for included studies. Conclusion: Emergency medicine systematic reviews published in African and international journals are lacking in methodological quality. Reporting an a priori protocol, developing a comprehensive search strategy, appropriate evidence synthesis and adequate assessment of risk of bias, heterogeneity and evidence certainty may improve the quality of systematic reviews.

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

Objective: The present study aimed to appraise the methodological quality of evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) in the cariology field. Materials and methods: A systematic search on electronic databases (MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, DARE and Epistemonikos), websites, and guideline organizations were undertaken. Evidence-based CPGs including at least one recommendation for clinical prevention and/or management of dental caries, developed for any clinical setting, were included. The quality of each guideline was evaluated using the AGREE II tool. Descriptive analysis was performed and the average overall score for each domain was calculated. Results: Thirty-two guidelines were included. Most of the CPGs achieved higher scores for the domains of clarity of presentation (66.7%, 95% IC 37.3–52.2) and scope and purpose (59.6%, 95% IC 53.7–65.5) domains; and lower scores for editorial independence (46.1%, 95% IC 37.8–55.7) and applicability domain (44.7%, 95% IC 37–55.3). The reviewers assessed 12 CPGs (37.5%) as recommended for use, 15 (46.9%) recommended with modifications, and 5 (15.6%) as not recommended. Conclusion: The overall methodological quality of evidence-based CPGs in the cariology field is moderate, and there is a need for improvements in reporting related to most domains. The poorest reporting was found in the description of the domains’ applicability of its recommendations and editorial independence. Clinical relevance: Clinical Practice Guidelines provide guidance to patients, healthcare professionals, and stakeholders. The quality of these documents is essential for establishing trust in their recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Objectives Hospitalization is a vulnerable period for the elderly. During this period, they are at risk of falling. There are various clinical guidelines for fall prevention, whose usefulness depends on their quality and clinical acceptance. This study was to evaluate the methodological quality of selected clinical guidelines for fall prevention in hospitalized elderly people in Iran using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation (AGREE) checklist. Methods & Materials A systematic search was conducted for clinical guidelines published from 2009 to 2020 using the keywords clinical guideline, falling, prevention, aged, and hospitalization. Of 351 clinical guidelines identified, 4 guidelines were selected based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and by a purposive sampling method. The quality of the selected guidelines was evaluated by 5 experts independently using the AGREE II checklist. Based on the quality scores, the guidelines were categorized as "highly recommended" or "recommended with modifications". Results The "Falls Assessment and Prevention of Falls in Older People", "Preventing Falls and Harm From Falls in Older People", and "Preventing Falls and Reducing Injury from Falls" were categorized as highly recommended, while the "Post Fall Multidisciplinary Management Guidelines for Western Australian Health Care Settings" was categorized as "recommended with modifications". Therefore, they can be localized and used to reduce the risk of falls in hospitalized elderly people in Iran. The mean overall scores of 6 domains for the guidelines were as follows: 91. 1% for "clarity of presentation", 86. 6% for "scope and purpose", 83. 6% for "stakeholder involvement" 72. 08% for "editorial independence", 71. 14% for "rigor of development", and 66. 66% for "applicability". Conclusion Evaluation of the methodological quality of clinical guidelines using the AGREE tool should be done to be able to be used in clinical practice. It is recommended to use these tools in updating the current or future clinical guidelines to ensure their methodological quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Education for Life / Yaşadıkça Eğitim Dergisi is the property of Istanbul Kultur Universitesi 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.)

Objectives: This research-on-research substudy uses a data-driven approach to investigate the range of appraisal tools in non-Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Study design and setting: A comprehensive web scraping of all completed non-Cochrane registrations in PROSPERO from February 2011 to December 2017 was performed. The focus was classifying the appraisal tools based on study type, assessment aspects, and research topics. Results: After analyzing 17,708 complete records, we found a predominant use of methodological quality assessment tools compared to those for reporting quality or risk of bias (RoB). This indicates a greater emphasis on methodological rigor in the studied protocols. Various tools for assessing methodological quality were observed, reflecting the complexity of such evaluations. Instruments designed for evaluating methodological or reporting quality were mainly intended for non-randomized clinical trials or observational studies, unlike RoB tools more commonly used in randomized clinical trials. No distinct trends in tool usage were observed in specific research conditions or domains, suggesting that tool choice is influenced more by study design than research topic. Conclusion: This study provides insights into the preferential use of various assessment tools in conducting non-Cochrane systematic reviews, as evidenced in PROSPERO records. The findings reveal various methodological assessment tools, underscoring their versatility across different study designs and research areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Problems associated with alcohol use are multidimensional with psychiatric, psychological, physical, and social aspects, which makes it challenging to choose appropriate assessment scales. However, there has been no systematic evaluation of existing alcohol scales. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted for articles that assessed the psychometric properties of scales for alcohol use disorder on March 19, 2023, using Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. Only scales whose original development papers were cited more than 20 times were included. The methodological quality and psychometric properties of the scales were evaluated using COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. The overall rating of the scales were assessed with a score ranging from 0 to 18. Results: In total, 314 studies and 40 scales were identified. These scales differ widely in measurement methods, target populations, and psychometric properties. The overall mean score was 6.3, and only the following three scales received >9 points suggesting a moderate level of evidence: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), Alcohol Dependence Scale (ADS), and Short Alcohol Dependence Data Questionnaire (SADD). Measurement error and responsiveness were not evaluated or reported in the included scales. Conclusions: Although the AUDIT, ADS, and SADD were rated the highest among the 40 scales, they showed, at most, a moderate level of evidence. These findings underscore the need to accumulate further evidence to assure the quality of the scales. It may be advisable to select and combine scales to meet the purpose of the assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Reliable systematic reviews are essential to inform clinical practice guidelines, policies and further research priorities in Africa. For systematic review findings to be trustworthy, they need to be conducted with methodological rigour and reported transparently. We assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in African emergency medicine journals, comparing them to those published in international emergency medicine journals. Additionally, we describe the types of review literature published in the African journals. We performed a cross-sectional methodological study of systematic reviews published in selected African and international emergency medicine journals from 2012 to 2021. Studies were eligible if they were i) a systematic review on an emergency medicine topic, ii) published in one of the top five emergency medicine journals in the African region or internationally and iii) published between January 2012 and December 2021 in English or French. We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases and hand-searched selected journals. Two authors screened titles, abstracts and full texts independently and in duplicate. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer, using a standardised form, after completing a calibration exercise. We described the characteristics of systematic reviews and assessed methodological quality using AMSTAR II. We identified 34 (37%) African and 511 (54%) international systematic reviews from 92 and 948 review articles respectively across 10 journals. We included all 34 African and a random sample of 100 international systematic reviews. Methodological quality was low or critically low for all the African systematic reviews (n=34, 100%) and all but three international systematic reviews (n=97, 97%). The median number of critical domain weaknesses was 4 (IQR 4;5) and 2 (IQR 2;4) for African and international systematic reviews respectively. The most common weaknesses across both African and international systematic reviews were i) not establishing a priori review protocols, ii) unclear selection of study designs iii) not providing a list of excluded studies and iv) unclear reporting on funding sources for included studies. Emergency medicine systematic reviews published in African and international journals are lacking in methodological quality. Reporting an a priori protocol, developing a comprehensive search strategy, appropriate evidence synthesis and adequate assessment of risk of bias, heterogeneity and evidence certainty may improve the quality of systematic reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This protocol presents the planned methods and procedures for a meta-review that explores the methodological quality of education meta-analyses and their potential significance for research use. An ever-increasing number of meta-analyses are published every year while at the same time new approaches to enhance the validity and reproducibility of systematic reviews are in constant development. We aim to conduct a meta-review to examine the current practices of education meta-analyses in terms of review procedures, meta-analysis methods, and strategies for making meta-analyses useful for non-research audiences. We will focus on meta-analyses including randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental designs on the effects of K-12 school-based academic interventions on student academic achievement. A comprehensive search will be conducted to retrieve all studies that potentially meet our criteria. Study features will be coded to evaluate three main dimensions: the quality of the review process, which includes the practices used at each systematic review stage (e.g., search procedure, selection, and critical appraisal); the quality of the meta-analysis methods, including the methods used for synthesizing the results, exploring heterogeneity and additional analyses, such as publication bias assessment; the significance for research use, which includes evaluating the ways authors present findings to increase accessibility and relevance for practitioners (e.g., stakeholder engagement in the process, reporting of results). We will identify strengths and weaknesses of current meta-analysis practices and compare them across time, publication outlet, and funding status.

BACKGROUND: The wide range of clinical applications and controversial scientific evidence associated with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy in musculoskeletal medicine requires an examination of the most commonly cited studies within this field. PURPOSE: To identify the 50 most cited articles on PRP, assess their study design, and determine any correlations between the number of citations and level of evidence (LoE) or methodological quality. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: The Web of Science database was queried to identify the top 50 most cited articles on PRP in orthopaedic surgery. Bibliometric characteristics, number of citations, and LoE were recorded. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS), Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS), and Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics (MIBO). The Pearson correlation coefficient and Spearman correlation coefficient (r S) were used to determine the degree of correlation between the number of citations or citation density and LoE, MCMS, MINORS score, and MIBO score. Student t tests were performed for 2-group comparisons. RESULTS: The top 50 articles were published between 2005 and 2016 in 21 journals. The mean number of citations and citation density were 241 ± 94 (range, 151-625) and 23 ± 8, respectively, and the mean LoE was 2.44 ± 1.67, with 15 studies classified as LoE 1. The mean MCMS, MINORS score, and MIBO score were 66.9 ± 12.6, 16 ± 4.7, and 12.4 ± 3.7, respectively. No correlation was observed between the number of citations or citation density and LoE, MCMS, MINORS score, and MIBO score. A significant difference (P = .02) was noted in LoE in articles from the United States (3.56 ± 1.7) versus outside the United States (2 ± 1.5). Seven of the 8 in vivo studies were published between 2005 and 2010, whereas 19 of the 25 clinical outcome investigations were published between 2011 and 2016. Studies that were published more recently were found to significantly correlate with number of citations (r S = -0.38; P = .01), citation density (r S = 0.36; P = .01), and higher LoE (r S = 0.47; P = .01). CONCLUSION: The top 50 most cited articles on PRP consisted of high LoE and fair methodological quality. There was a temporal shift in research from in vivo animal studies toward investigations focused on clinical outcomes.

ObjectiveTo analyze the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews of prediction models published in Chinese journals, with the aim of providing reference for enhancing the overall quality of Chinese systematic reviews of prediction models.MethodsWe searched the CNKI, WanFang Data, CBM, and VIP databases for Chinese systematic reviews of prediction models from inception to July 20, 2023. After two independent reviewers screened literature and extracted data, the AMSTAR(A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) and PRISMA 2020(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020) tools were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the included reviews.ResultsA total of 55 systematic reviews published between 2015 and 2023 were included, 12 of which were meta-analysis. The reviews covered various topics, mainly including cardiovascular diseases, stroke, and diabetes. The identified systematic reviews exhibited obvious deficiencies: items 1, 4, 5, 6, and 10 of AMSTAR showed poor methodological quality, and items 7, 10a, 12, 13a-f, 14, 15, 16a-b, 17, 20b-d, 21, 22, 23d, 24a-c, 25 and 26 of PRISMA 2020 needed improvement in reporting quality. Furthermore, a moderate positive correlation (r=0.58, P < 0.001) was observed between the methodological and reporting quality. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that a greater number of pages, more recent publications, and funding support were associated with higher methodological quality (P < 0.05). Similarly, a greater number of pages, more recent publications, qualitative systematic reviews, and funding support were associated with higher reporting quality, but the number of authors showed a negative association (P < 0.05).ConclusionThe methodological and reporting quality of existing systematic reviews of prediction models published in Chinese journals is relatively poor and demands improvement.

Abstract Background This study aimed to assess the methodological quality of the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) using A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) and to explore the potential influencing factors. Methods PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies. AMSTAR2 was used for evaluating the methodological quality of eligible SRs/MAs. Differences between methodological characteristics of SRs/MAs were compared using chi-square tests. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess reviewer agreement in the pre-experiment. Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify potential factors affecting methodological quality. Results A total of 45 SRs/MAs were included. After AMSTAR2 evaluation, only two (4.4%) of 45 SRs/MAs were moderate, three (6.7%) were rated as low quality, and the remainder 40 (88.9%) were rated as critically low quality. Among the 16 items of AMSTAR2, item 3 and item 10 had the poorest adherence. Item 4 received the most significant number of "Partial Yes" responses. Univariable analysis indicated that there were significant differences in methodological quality in SRs between different continents (P = 0.027) as well as between preregistered SRs and those that were not (P = 0.004). However, in multivariate analysis, there was no significant association between methodological quality and the following research characteristics: publication year, continent, whether reporting followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), preregistration, funding support, randomized controlled trials (RCT) enrollment, whether SR was published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and whether with meta-analysis. Additionally, subgroup analysis based on interventional SRs/MAs showed that continent was independently associated with the methodological quality of SRs/MAs of CP/CPPS via univariable and multivariate analysis. Conclusions Our study demonstrates that the methodological quality of SRs/MAs of CP/CPPS was generally poor. SRs/MAs of CP/CPPS should adopt the AMSTAR2 to enhance their methodological quality.

Abstract Background An increasing number of systematic reviews (SRs) in the environmental field have been published in recent years as a result of the global concern about the health impacts of air pollution and temperature. However, no study has assessed and compared the methodological and reporting quality of SRs on the health effects of air pollutants and extreme temperatures. This study aims to assess and compare the methodological and reporting quality of SRs on the health effects of ambient air pollutants and extreme temperatures. Methods PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Epistemonikos databases were searched. Two researchers screened the literature and extracted information independently. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed through A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). The reporting quality was assessed through Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Results We identified 405 SRs (286 for air pollution, 108 for temperature, and 11 for the synergistic effects). The methodological and reporting quality of the included SRs were suboptimal, with major deficiencies in protocol registration. The methodological quality of SRs of air pollutants was better than that of temperature, especially in terms of satisfactory explanations for any heterogeneity (69.6% v. 45.4%). The reporting quality of SRs of air pollution was better than temperature, however, adherence to the reporting of the assessment results of risk of bias in all SRs (53.5% v. 34.3%) was inadequate. Conclusions Methodological and reporting quality of SRs on the health effect of air pollutants were higher than those of temperatures. However, deficiencies in protocol registration and the assessment of risk of bias remain an issue for both pollutants and temperatures. In addition, developing a risk-of-bias assessment tool applicable to the temperature field may improve the quality of SRs.

Abstract Background The increasing global prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) has led to a growing demand for stroke prevention strategies, resulting in higher healthcare costs. High-quality economic evaluations of stroke prevention strategies can play a crucial role in maximising efficient allocation of resources. In this systematic review, we assessed the methodological quality of such economic evaluations. Methods We searched electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Econ Lit to identify model-based economic evaluations comparing the left atrial appendage closure procedure (LAAC) and oral anticoagulants published in English since 2000. Data on study characteristics, model-based details, and analyses were collected. The methodological quality was evaluated using the modified Economic Evaluations Bias (ECOBIAS) checklist. For each of the 22 biases listed in this checklist, studies were categorised into one of four groups: low risk, partial risk, high risk due to inadequate reporting, or high risk. To gauge the overall quality of each study, we computed a composite score by assigning + 2, 0, − 1 and − 2 to each risk category, respectively. Results In our analysis of 12 studies, majority adopted a healthcare provider or payer perspective and employed Markov Models with the number of health states varying from 6 to 16. Cost-effectiveness results varied across studies. LAAC displayed a probability exceeding 50% of being the cost-effective option in six out of nine evaluations compared to warfarin, six out of eight evaluations when compared to dabigatran, in three out of five evaluations against apixaban, and in two out of three studies compared to rivaroxaban. The methodological quality scores for individual studies ranged from 10 to − 12 out of a possible 24. Most high-risk ratings were due to inadequate reporting, which was prevalent across various biases, including those related to data identification, baseline data, treatment effects, and data incorporation. Cost measurement omission bias and inefficient comparator bias were also common. Conclusions While most studies concluded LAAC to be the cost-effective strategy for stroke prevention in AF, shortcomings in methodological quality raise concerns about reliability and validity of results. Future evaluations, free of these shortcomings, can yield stronger policy evidence.

Yuntian Ye,1,2 Aifeng Liu1,2 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, First Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin, 300381, People’s Republic of China; 2National Clinical Research Center for Chinese Medicine Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Tianjin, 300381, People’s Republic of ChinaCorrespondence: Aifeng Liu, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, First Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, No. 88 Changling Road, Xiqing District, Tianjin, 300381, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86-13803091533, Email draifeng@163.comBackground: Knee Osteoarthritis (KOA) has become a serious health issue for elderly patients. Several systematic reviews (SRs) have reported Tai Chi has widely been used in the treatment of KOA. However, the methodology and conclusions of these SRs are controversial. This overview aims to summarize and evaluate the available evidence for the efficacy and safety of Tai Chi for KOA.Methods: Two independent researchers searched eight databases from the inception to April 30, 2022. The included SRs were assessed respectively by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool, and the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to assess the quality of the included SRs in terms of outcome indicators.Results: Six SRs were finally included in this overview. The results of methodological quality, reporting quality, and risk of bias of the included SRs were generally unsatisfactory. The limitations were a lack of explaining the reasons for selection, a list of excluded literature, reporting bias assessment, and reporting the potential sources of conflict of interest. In addition, only 1 item was assessed as moderate quality by using the GRADE tool. Limitations were the most common downgraded factors.Conclusion: Tai Chi is effective as a non-pharmacological intervention in the integrative treatment of KOA. However, the quality of evidence and methodological quality of SRs is generally unsatisfactory, suggesting that these results must be interpreted with caution.Trial Registration/Protocol Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022315146.Keywords: Tai Chi, knee osteoarthritis, integrative treatment, systematic review, methodological quality

The aim of this article is to explore up to seven parameters related to the methodological quality and reproducibility of thematic bibliometric research published in the two most productive journals in bibliometrics, Sustainability (a journal outside the discipline) and Scientometrics, the flagship journal in the field.

Background Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a common disease of the digestive system. With the improvements of living standards and breakthroughs in viral hepatitis research, NAFLD has replaced viral hepatitis as the most common chronic liver disease. Guidance documents can provide clinical staff with standard and reliable diagnosis and treatment approaches. The screening and development of high-quality guidance documents is of great importance to standardise the clinical practice of NAFLD. Objective To analyze the methodological quality and reporting quality of guidance documents for NAFLD, summarize and compare the recommendations, so as to provide a reference for the development and report of future guidelines for NAFLD. Methods PubMed, CNKI, CBM, Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, VIP Database were searched for clinical guidelines and consensuses on NAFLD supplemented by WHO, GIN, NICE, SIGN and Medlive from 2012-01-01 to 2022-01-01. Two researchers in the field of liver disease screened the literature, extracted the data and independently evaluated the methodological quality and reporting quality of the included guideline documents using AGREE Ⅱ and RIGHT, respectively. The recommendations of the higher quality guideline documents were collated and compared by the two researchers. Results A total of 19 publications were enrolled, including 12 guidelines and 7 consensuses; 6 in Chinese and 13 in English; 10 of which were developed using an evidence-based approach. The average scores for each domain of AGREE Ⅱ were 42.84% for scope and purpose, 31.43% for participants, 31.25% for rigour, 60.67% for clarity, 32.68% for application and 37.50% for independence. The average scores of RIGHT in each area were 59.65% for basic information, 66.12% for background, 42.11% for evidence, 39.85% for recommendations, 17.11% for review and quality assurance, 18.42% for funding and conflict of interest statement and management, 47.37% for other aspects. The average scores in AGREEⅡ and reporting qualities in RIGHT of evidence-based guidance documents were both higher than non-evidence-based guidance documents. The average scores in AGREEⅡ and reporting qualities in RIGHT of foreign guidance documents were higher than domestic guidance documents. The main recommendations relate to screening and diagnosis, assessment, management (non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment) and surgical treatment. Conclusion The methodological quality and reporting quality of the published guidance documents for NAFLD still need to be improved, and there are still gaps between domestic guidance documents and international guidance documents. The development of TCM guidance documents should follow an evidence-based approach. Further reference should be made to international standards such as AGREE Ⅱ and RIGHT in the development and reporting of guidelines. Clinical screening awareness for high-risk population of NAFLD and a comprehensive system for early non-invasive diagnosis and assessment should be established. Multidimensional treatment plans for lifestyle, liver function and metabolic disorders should be provided for patients with NAFLD.

本文结合临床预测模型领域专家指出的现有研究中的不恰当做法，介绍了临床预测模型研究中的常见误区，解析了为什么特定的做法会对模型质量产生不良影响，以及如何避免重蹈覆辙。同时，通过评价ChatGPT给出的答案，探讨ChatGPT用于提供方法学指导的可行性。 Abstract: Taking the inappropriate practices in existing research pointed out by a leading expert in clinical prediction models as examples, this paper introduced common misunderstandings in clinical prediction model research, explained why specific practices will jeopardize the model quality, and how to avoid repeating the same mistakes in future studies. The feasibility of using ChatGPT to provide methodological guidance is discussed by evaluating the answers given by ChatGPT.

Abstract Objectives The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Methods Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Results A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality. Conclusions Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic saw a steep increase in the number of rapidly published scientific studies, especially early in the pandemic. Some have suggested COVID-19 trial reporting is of lower quality than typical reports, but there is limited evidence for this in terms of primary outcome reporting. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of completely defined primary outcomes reported in registry entries, preprints, and journal articles, and to assess consistent primary outcome reporting between these sources. Methods This is a descriptive study of a cohort of registered interventional clinical trials for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, drawn from the DIssemination of REgistered COVID-19 Clinical Trials (DIRECCT) study dataset. The main outcomes are: 1) Prevalence of complete primary outcome reporting; 2) Prevalence of consistent primary outcome reporting between registry entry and preprint as well as registry entry and journal article pairs. Results We analyzed 87 trials with 116 corresponding publications (87 registry entries, 53 preprints and 63 journal articles). All primary outcomes were completely defined in 47/87 (54%) registry entries, 31/53 (58%) preprints and 44/63 (70%) journal articles. All primary outcomes were consistently reported in 13/53 (25%) registry-preprint pairs and 27/63 (43%) registry-journal article pairs. No primary outcome was specified in 13/53 (25%) preprints and 8/63 (13%) journal articles. In this sample, complete primary outcome reporting occurred more frequently in trials with vs. without involvement of pharmaceutical companies (76% vs. 45%), and in RCTs vs. other study designs (68% vs. 49%). The same pattern was observed for consistent primary outcome reporting (with vs. without pharma: 56% vs. 12%, RCT vs. other: 43% vs. 22%). Conclusions In COVID-19 trials in the early phase of the pandemic, all primary outcomes were completely defined in 54%, 58%, and 70% of registry entries, preprints and journal articles, respectively. Only 25% of preprints and 43% of journal articles reported primary outcomes consistent with registry entries.

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