Reporting guidance considerations from a statistical perspective: overview of tools to enhance the rigour of reporting of randomised trials and systematic reviews

Hutton, Brian; Wolfe, Dianna; Moher, David; Shamseer, Larissa

doi:10.1136/eb-2017-102666

Cited by 34 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This study was conducted in accordance with the MOOSE (meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology)29 and PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) guidelines 30…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis

Wilson

Middleton

Abram

et al. 2019

BMJ

231

206

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To present a clear and comprehensive summary of the published data on unicompartmental knee replacement (UKA) or total knee replacement (TKA), comparing domains of outcome that have been shown to be important to patients and clinicians to allow informed decision making. Design Systematic review using data from randomised controlled trials, nationwide databases or joint registries, and large cohort studies. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and Clinical Trials.gov, searched between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2018. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies published in the past 20 years, comparing outcomes of primary UKA with TKA in adult patients. Studies were excluded if they involved fewer than 50 participants, or if translation into English was not available. Results 60 eligible studies were separated into three methodological groups: seven publications from six randomised controlled trials, 17 national joint registries and national database studies, and 36 cohort studies. Results for each domain of outcome varied depending on the level of data, and findings were not always significant. Analysis of the three groups of studies showed significantly shorter hospital stays after UKA than after TKA (−1.20 days (95% confidence interval −1.67 to −0.73), −1.43 (−1.53 to −1.33), and −1.73 (−2.30 to −1.16), respectively). There was no significant difference in pain, based on patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), but significantly better functional PROM scores for UKA than for TKA in both non-trial groups (standard mean difference −0.58 (−0.88 to −0.27) and −0.29 (−0.46 to −0.11), respectively). Regarding major complications, trials and cohort studies had non-significant results, but mortality after TKA was significantly higher in registry and large database studies (risk ratio 0.27 (0.16 to 0.45)), as were venous thromboembolic events (0.39 (0.27 to 0.57)) and major cardiac events (0.22 (0.06 to 0.86)). Early reoperation for any reason was higher after TKA than after UKA, but revision rates at five years remained higher for UKA in all three study groups (risk ratio 5.95 (1.29 to 27.59), 2.50 (1.77 to 3.54), and 3.13 (1.89 to 5.17), respectively). Conclusions TKA and UKA are both viable options for the treatment of isolated unicompartmental osteoarthritis. By directly comparing the two treatments, this study demonstrates better results for UKA in several outcome domains. However, the risk of revision surgery was lower for TKA. This information should be available to patients as part of the shared decision making process in choosing treatment options. Systematic review registration PROSPERO number CRD42018089972.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis

Wilson

Middleton

Abram

et al. 2019

BMJ

231

206

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The quality of CTs and research transparency can be improved by adopting the reporting guidelines. 42 The main factor for poor quality of the studies was the absence of assessor blinding. A study may be conducted according to the highest possible standards, yet still have an important risk of bias.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship between implant stability measurements obtained by insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis: A systematic review

Lages

Oliveira

Costa

2017

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The comparative effectiveness was evaluated using the network meta‐analysis methodology. First, we summarized the geometry of the network of evidence using network plots for the main outcome. Second, we conducted contrast‐based analyses to assess comparative efficacy and acceptability.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Relative risks (RRs) and SMDs were reported with their 95% CIs. The ranking of treatment formats was estimated according to the “surface under the cumulative ranking” (SUCRA), based on the estimated multivariate random effects models. We checked the consistency of the network using tests of local and global inconsistency.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A network meta‐analysis of the effects of psychotherapies, pharmacotherapies and their combination in the treatment of adult depression

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

No network meta‐analysis has examined the relative effects of psychotherapies, pharmacotherapies and their combination in the treatment of adult depression, while this is a very important clinical issue. We conducted systematic searches in bibliographical databases to identify randomized trials in which a psychotherapy and a pharmacotherapy for the acute or long‐term treatment of depression were compared with each other, or in which the combination of a psychotherapy and a pharmacotherapy was compared with either one alone. The main outcome was treatment response (50% improvement between baseline and endpoint). Remission and acceptability (defined as study drop‐out for any reason) were also examined. Possible moderators that were assessed included chronic and treatment‐resistant depression and baseline severity of depression. Data were pooled as relative risk (RR) using a random‐effects model. A total of 101 studies with 11,910 patients were included. Depression in most studies was moderate to severe. In the network meta‐analysis, combined treatment was more effective than psychotherapy alone (RR=1.27; 95% CI: 1.14‐1.39) and pharmacotherapy alone (RR=1.25; 95% CI: 1.14‐1.37) in achieving response at the end of treatment. No significant difference was found between psychotherapy alone and pharmacotherapy alone (RR=0.99; 95% CI: 0.92‐1.08). Similar results were found for remission. Combined treatment (RR=1.23; 95% CI: 1.05‐1.45) and psychotherapy alone (RR=1.17; 95% CI: 1.02‐1.32) were more acceptable than pharmacotherapy. Results were similar for chronic and treatment‐resistant depression. The combination of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy seems to be the best choice for patients with moderate depression. More research is needed on long‐term effects of treatments (including cost‐effectiveness), on the impact of specific pharmacological and non‐pharmacological approaches, and on the effects in specific populations of patients.

show abstract

Reporting guidance considerations from a statistical perspective: overview of tools to enhance the rigour of reporting of randomised trials and systematic reviews

Cited by 34 publications

References 56 publications

Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis

Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis

Relationship between implant stability measurements obtained by insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis: A systematic review

A network meta‐analysis of the effects of psychotherapies, pharmacotherapies and their combination in the treatment of adult depression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About