Authors should clearly report how they derived the overall rating when applying AMSTAR 2—a cross-sectional study

Pieper, Dawid; Lorenz, Robert C.; Rombey, Tanja; Jacobs, Annelies; Rissling, Olesja; Freitag, Simone; Matthias, Katja

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.046

Cited by 51 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, the methodological quality of the included SRs was low to moderate as indicated by a mean summary score of 0.49. We acknowledge that calculating a summary score is not the recommended approach to derive the methodological quality; nevertheless, others have already started using this intuitive approach (90). Furthermore, for the purposes of statistical comparative research-on-research studies such as ours this method allows for the comparison of two groups of SRs by ruling out potential oor effects that might arise with the original rating system (27).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality and interpretation of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016–2019

Pieper

Hellbrecht

Zhao

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality and interpretation of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016–2019

Pieper

Hellbrecht

Zhao

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Items 4,9,11,12, and 15 were deemed critical domains with the rest being non-critical domains. 22,23 In accordance with the AMSTAR 2 recommendations and the weaknesses identified through the item appraisal, the overall confidence in each systematic review's results was rated as high (no or 1 non-critical weakness), moderate (more than 1 non-critical weakness), low (1 critical flaw with or without non-critical weaknesses), or critically low (more than one critical flaw with or without non-critical weaknesses). 21…”

Section: Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of digoxin on mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation: Overview of systematic reviews

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Once a routine part of atrial fibrillation (AF) management, digoxin use has declined.Likely hastening this decline are findings from several studies and systematic reviews identifying a potential association between digoxin use and all-cause mortality in AF populations. However, inconsistency exists within some of these studies potentially leading to confusion among clinicians. To critically evaluate the current literature to contextualize the associations between digoxin and mortality risk in patients with AF by performing an overview of systematic reviews. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Database of Systematic Reviews, and SCOPUS from their earliest date through October 12, 2020, to identify systematic reviews (SRs) that included studies enrolling patients with AF or atrial flutter and evaluated the association between digoxin use and all-cause mortality. We used the AMSTAR 2 tool to assess the risk of bias for each included SR. Results from reviews are qualitatively synthesized. Our search identified 10 SRs that met our inclusion criteria. Of the 41 unique AF studies included in these SRs, 41% were cohort studies, 29% were post hoc analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 15% were RCTs, and 15% were registry studies. Based on our AMSTAR 2 assessment, the overall confidence in the results of the 10 reviews was rated as "moderate" in three SRs, "low" in three SRs, and "critically low" in the rest. Except for one review, each included SR shows that digoxin use in AF is associated with a 15 to 38% higher risk of all-cause mortality. This association may be greater when AFonly populations are considered compared with a mix of AF and heart failure populations. Serum digoxin concentration (SDC) data were infrequently considered, but available data suggested a greater association between increasing SDC and all-cause mortality. This overview of reviews found general consistency regarding the association between digoxin use and higher all-cause mortality in AF populations. However, heterogeneity exists among and between SRs and an unmet need exists for additional study in a RCT setting with close monitoring and reporting of SDC to better inform clinical practice.

show abstract

“…Additionally, appraisal tools, such as a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR), have been proposed to assess the methodological validity of systematic reviews 30,31 . Although the overall quality of systematic reviews has generally improved after the implementation of the reporting guidelines and appraisal tools, 32,33 there is still room for improvement 34‐36 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…30,31 Although the overall quality of systematic reviews has generally improved after the implementation of the reporting guidelines and appraisal tools, 32,33 there is still room for improvement. [34][35][36] While rapid syntheses of existing evidence are imperative for understanding this novel disease, the quality of the current systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19 should be carefully and critically evaluated to ensure the reliability of the synthesized evidence. This metaepidemiological study aims to summarize the state of meta-analysis research on COVID-19 and inform the conduct of future meta-analyses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological assessment of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on COVID‐19: A meta‐epidemiological study

Rosenberger

Lin

2021

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale, aims, and objectives COVID‐19 has caused an ongoing public health crisis. Many systematic reviews and meta‐analyses have been performed to synthesize evidence for better understanding this new disease. However, some concerns have been raised about rapid COVID‐19 research. This meta‐epidemiological study aims to methodologically assess the current systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on COVID‐19. Methods We searched in various databases for systematic reviews with meta‐analyses published between 1 January 2020 and 31 October 2020. We extracted their basic characteristics, data analyses, evidence appraisal, and assessment of publication bias and heterogeneity. Results We identified 295 systematic reviews on COVID‐19. The median time from submission to acceptance was 33 days. Among these systematic reviews, 73.9% evaluated clinical manifestations or comorbidities of COVID‐19. Stata was the most used software programme (43.39%). The odds ratio was the most used effect measure (34.24%). Moreover, 28.14% of the systematic reviews did not present evidence appraisal. Among those reporting the risk of bias results, 14.64% of studies had a high risk of bias. Egger's test was the most used method for assessing publication bias (38.31%), while 38.66% of the systematic reviews did not assess publication bias. The I 2 statistic was widely used for assessing heterogeneity (92.20%); many meta‐analyses had high values of I 2 . Among the meta‐analyses using the random‐effects model, 75.82% did not report the methods for model implementation; among those meta‐analyses reporting implementation methods, the DerSimonian‐Laird method was the most used one. Conclusions The current systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on COVID‐19 might suffer from low transparency, high heterogeneity, and suboptimal statistical methods. It is recommended that future systematic reviews on COVID‐19 strictly follow well‐developed guidelines. Sensitivity analyses may be performed to examine how the synthesized evidence might depend on different methods for appraising evidence, assessing publication bias, and implementing meta‐analysis models.

show abstract

Authors should clearly report how they derived the overall rating when applying AMSTAR 2—a cross-sectional study

Cited by 51 publications

References 16 publications

Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality and interpretation of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016–2019

Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality and interpretation of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016–2019

Influence of digoxin on mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation: Overview of systematic reviews

Methodological assessment of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on COVID‐19: A meta‐epidemiological study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About