Reasons and factors associated with inconclusiveness of systematic reviews about interventions for neuropathic pain

Došenović, Svjetlana; Dujmic, Andria; Nujić, Danijela; Vuka, Ivana; Tintor, Goran; Kadić, Antonia Jeličić; Puljak, Livia

doi:10.2217/cer-2020-0165

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The same applies to systematic reviews which are frequently inconclusive 36 . Conclusiveness of evidence was higher in systematic reviews which included more participants and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), searched more databases, conducted meta-analysis, and examined the quality of evidence 37 . diabetes reported an eye examination within the previous 2 years, whereas only 50% reported that their feet were examined by a health care professional in the previous year 39 .…”

Section: Implementation Of Guidelines Into Clinical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Screening, diagnosis and management of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy in clinical practice: International expert consensus recommendations

Ziegler

Tesfaye

Spallone

et al. 2022

Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

show abstract

Section: Implementation Of Guidelines Into Clinical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Screening, diagnosis and management of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy in clinical practice: International expert consensus recommendations

Ziegler

Tesfaye

Spallone

et al. 2022

Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, a new tool to assess discordance should take into consideration the conclusiveness, or the stability of the results, of the SRs under question [62][63][64][65]. For example, the Cochrane logo shows the summary results from a conclusive SR called "Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth" [66].…”

Section: Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

How can clinicians choose between conflicting and discordant systematic reviews? A replication study of the Jadad algorithm

Lunny

Thirugnanasampanthar

Kanji

et al. 2022

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SRs) presents challenges for decision makers seeking to answer clinical, public health or policy questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad et al. to choose the best SR across multiple. Our study aims to replicate author assessments using the Jadad algorithm to determine: (i) if we chose the same SR as the authors; and (ii) if we reach the same results. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and Cochrane Database of SRs. We included any study using the Jadad algorithm. We used consensus building strategies to operationalise the algorithm and to ensure a consistent approach to interpretation. Results We identified 21 studies that used the Jadad algorithm to choose one or more SRs. In 62% (13/21) of cases, we were unable to replicate the Jadad assessment and ultimately chose a different SR than the authors. Overall, 18 out of the 21 (86%) independent Jadad assessments agreed in direction of the findings despite 13 having chosen a different SR. Conclusions Our results suggest that the Jadad algorithm is not reproducible between users as there are no prescriptive instructions about how to operationalise the algorithm. In the absence of a validated algorithm, we recommend that healthcare providers, policy makers, patients and researchers address conflicts between review findings by choosing the SR(s) with meta-analysis of RCTs that most closely resemble their clinical, public health, or policy question, are the most recent, comprehensive (i.e. number of included RCTs), and at the lowest risk of bias.

show abstract

How can clinicians choose between conflicting and discordant systematic reviews? A replication study of the Jadad algorithm

Lunny

Thirugnanasampanthar

Kanji

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The exponential growth of published SRs (SRs) presents challenges for clinicians seeking to answer clinical questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad et al. to choose the best SR across multiple but similar SRs with conflicting results. Our study aims to replicate assessments done by authors using the Jadad algorithm to determine: (i) if we chose the same SR as the authors; and (ii) if we would reach the same results.Methods and Analysis: We searched MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and Cochrane Database of SRs. We included any study using the Jadad algorithm. We used consensus building strategies to operationalise the algorithm and to ensure a consistent approach to interpretation.Results: We identified 21 studies that used the Jadad algorithm to choose one or more SRs. In 62% (13/21) of cases, we were unable to replicate the Jadad assessment and ultimately chose a different SR than the authors. Overall, 18 out of the 21 (86%) independent Jadad assessments agreed in direction of the findings despite 13 having chosen a different SR.Conclusions: Our results suggest that the Jadad algorithm is not reproducible between users as there are no prescriptive instructions about how to operationalise the algorithm. In the absence of a validated algorithm, we recommend that healthcare providers, policy makers, patients and researchers address conflicts between review findings by choosing the SR(s) with meta-analysis of RCTs that most closely resemble their clinical, public health, or policy question, are the most recent, comprehensive (i.e. in terms of number of included RCTs), and at the lowest risk of bias.

show abstract

Reasons and factors associated with inconclusiveness of systematic reviews about interventions for neuropathic pain

Cited by 4 publications

References 37 publications

Screening, diagnosis and management of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy in clinical practice: International expert consensus recommendations

Screening, diagnosis and management of diabetic sensorimotor polyneuropathy in clinical practice: International expert consensus recommendations

How can clinicians choose between conflicting and discordant systematic reviews? A replication study of the Jadad algorithm

How can clinicians choose between conflicting and discordant systematic reviews? A replication study of the Jadad algorithm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About