Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in Subfertility: A Comparison of Two Different Approaches

Popovich, I.; Windsor, B.; Jordan, Vanessa; Showell, Marian; Shea, Bev; Farquhar, Cindy

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050403

Cited by 37 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The AMSTAR provides a risk of bias assessment through 11 different domains. It has been shown to be adequately valid and reliable for use in assessing systematic reviews [13, 14]. Differences were settled through consensus.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Overview of Systematic Reviews on Prognostic Factors in Neck Pain: Results from the International Collaboration on Neck Pain (ICON) Project

Walton

Carroll²,

Kasch³

et al. 2013

TOORTHJ

118

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the challenges of chronic musculoskeletal pain and disability, establishing a clear prognosis in the acute stage has become increasingly recognized as a valuable approach to mitigate chronic problems. Neck pain represents a condition that is common, potentially disabling, and has a high rate of transition to chronic or persistent problems. As a field of research, prognosis in neck pain has stimulated several empirical primary research papers, and a number of systematic reviews. As part of the International Consensus on Neck (ICON) project, we sought to establish the general state of knowledge in the area through a structured, systematic review of systematic reviews (overview).An exhaustive search strategy was created and employed to identify the 13 systematic reviews (SRs) that served as the primary data sources for this overview. A decision algorithm for data synthesis, which incorporated currency of the SR, risk of bias assessment of the SRs using AMSTAR scoring and consistency of findings across SRs, determined the level of confidence in the risk profile of 133 different variables. The results provide high confidence that baseline neck pain intensity and baseline disability have a strong association with outcome, while angular deformities of the neck and parameters of the initiating trauma have no effect on outcome. A vast number of predictors provide low or very low confidence or inconclusive results, suggesting there is still much work to be done in this field. Despite the presence of multiple SR and this overview, there is insufficient evidence to make firm conclusions on many potential prognostic variables. This study demonstrates the challenges in conducting overviews on prognosis where clear synthesis critieria and a lack of specifics of primary data in SR are barriers.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Overview of Systematic Reviews on Prognostic Factors in Neck Pain: Results from the International Collaboration on Neck Pain (ICON) Project

Walton

Carroll²,

Kasch³

et al. 2013

TOORTHJ

118

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The maximum score is 11. Scores 0–4, 5–8, and 9–11 indicate low, moderate, and high quality reviews, respectively [46] . The appraisal was conducted independently by MP and JB-S.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Exceptions were the Cochrane reviews [16] , [33] , that were included and coauthored by JB-S, when MP and a collaborator (IC) (invited for this purpose) performed the independent appraisals. Assessments were conducted using guidelines for scoring AMSTAR questions [44] – [46] . Disagreements were resolved by discussion.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-Surgical Interventions for Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Płaszewski¹,

Bettany‐Saltikov

2014

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundNon-surgical interventions for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis remain highly controversial. Despite the publication of numerous reviews no explicit methodological evaluation of papers labeled as, or having a layout of, a systematic review, addressing this subject matter, is available.ObjectivesAnalysis and comparison of the content, methodology, and evidence-base from systematic reviews regarding non-surgical interventions for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis.DesignSystematic overview of systematic reviews.MethodsArticles meeting the minimal criteria for a systematic review, regarding any non-surgical intervention for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, with any outcomes measured, were included. Multiple general and systematic review specific databases, guideline registries, reference lists and websites of institutions were searched. The AMSTAR tool was used to critically appraise the methodology, and the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine and the Joanna Briggs Institute’s hierarchies were applied to analyze the levels of evidence from included reviews.ResultsFrom 469 citations, twenty one papers were included for analysis. Five reviews assessed the effectiveness of scoliosis-specific exercise treatments, four assessed manual therapies, five evaluated bracing, four assessed different combinations of interventions, and one evaluated usual physical activity. Two reviews addressed the adverse effects of bracing. Two papers were high quality Cochrane reviews, Three were of moderate, and the remaining sixteen were of low or very low methodological quality. The level of evidence of these reviews ranged from 1 or 1+ to 4, and in some reviews, due to their low methodological quality and/or poor reporting, this could not be established.ConclusionsHigher quality reviews indicate that generally there is insufficient evidence to make a judgment on whether non-surgical interventions in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis are effective. Papers labeled as systematic reviews need to be considered in terms of their methodological rigor; otherwise they may be mistakenly regarded as high quality sources of evidence.Protocol registry numberCRD42013003538, PROSPERO

show abstract

“…The maximum score is 11. Scores 0-4, 5-8 and 9-11 indicate low-, moderate-and high-quality reviews, respectively [42]. The appraisal was conducted independently by MP and JB-S, using guides for scoring AMSTAR questions [41,42].…”

Section: Methodological Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are current scoliosis school screening recommendations evidence-based and up to date? A best evidence synthesis umbrella review

Płaszewski¹,

Bettany‐Saltikov

2014

Eur Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Recommendations addressing school screening for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis are contradictory. Consequently a critical evaluation of the methodological quality of available systematic reviews, including those upon which these recommendations are based, was conducted. Methods Articles meeting the minimal criteria to be considered a systematic review were included for a best evidence synthesis, umbrella review of secondary studies. The primary outcome measure was ''any recommendation addressing the continuation, or not, of school screening programs''. Multiple general bibliographic databases, guideline registries, as well as websites of institutions were searched. The AMSTAR tool was used to critically appraise the methodology of included reviews. Venn diagrams were created to examine potential overlaps across included papers within different reviews. Results Six reviews undertaken between 2002 and 2011, scored as moderate to low quality, were included. The 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation against screening was found to be based on an outdated (2004) low-quality review, whilst two higher quality and more recent (2009 and 2010) reviews support the continuation of school screening programs.Conclusions As the existing recommendations supporting screening are based on moderate quality evidence whilst the recommendations against screening are based on lowquality evidence, the latter recommendations appear to be both unconvincing and methodologically invalid.

show abstract

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in Subfertility: A Comparison of Two Different Approaches

Cited by 37 publications

References 5 publications

An Overview of Systematic Reviews on Prognostic Factors in Neck Pain: Results from the International Collaboration on Neck Pain (ICON) Project

An Overview of Systematic Reviews on Prognostic Factors in Neck Pain: Results from the International Collaboration on Neck Pain (ICON) Project

Non-Surgical Interventions for Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Are current scoliosis school screening recommendations evidence-based and up to date? A best evidence synthesis umbrella review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About