Reporting quality in systematic reviews of <i>in vitro</i> studies: a systematic review

Elshafay, Abdelrahman; Omran, Esraa Salah; Abdelkhalek, Mariam; El-Badry, Mohamed Omar; Eisa, Heba Gamal; Salma, Y.; Dang, Thao; Ghanem, Mohammad A. T.; Elbadawy, Maha; Elhady, Mohamed Tamer; Vuong, Nguyen Lam; Hirayama, Kenji; Huy, Nguyen Tien

doi:10.1080/03007995.2019.1607270

Cited by 21 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 94 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Few MAs in this study reported limitations, but most highlighted issues related to the quality of the included studies (study level bias) rather than weaknesses in approach or conduct (review level bias). Bias may be introduced in the literature search, study selection appraisal and data analysis process of a MAs [2] . Discussion all potential bias was important to improve the generalizability of MAs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While MAs may mislead the healthcare decisions if they were poor reported. Transparent reporting of MAs is a critical issue as the reported information could crucially impacts on the decision-making of users [2] . Related study showed that compared with MAs with adequate reporting, the inadequately reported MAs yielded exaggerated estimates of treatment effect [3] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Enhancing the Reporting Quality of Meta-Analyses for Trustworthy Decision of Breast Cancer Intervention: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Zhu

Shi

Zhang³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Meta-analysis of RCTs has been widely employed to evaluate effectiveness of the interventions for breast cancer, but little is known of their reporting validity. Related studies showed that meta-analysis may mislead clinical practice when the reporting is uninformative. The purpose of the study was to assess the reporting quality of meta-analyses of RCTs for breast cancer intervention, and explore potential factors associated with the reporting.Method We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews from inception to November 2019 for published meta-analysis of RCTs for breast cancer intervention. The PRISMA checklist (27-items) was used for the measuring of the reporting quality. The adherence of eligible meta-analyses under each reporting item from PRISMA were evaluated and those with an adherence ≥ 80% were regarded as well reported while less than 30% were poor reported. The proportion of reporting issues were summarized and compared in pre-defined settings measured by rate difference (RD).Result A total of 296 meta-analyses were included. For the 27 reporting items, there were only 6 items were identified as well-reported, while as much as 9 items were poorly reported by these meta-analyses. The reporting issues mainly embodied in the methods and results section. Our further analysis suggested that those published more recently (RD=-0.07, 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.03), complied with reporting guideline (RD=-0.04, 95% CI: -0.07 to -0.02), and pre-specified protocol (RD=-0.09, 95% CI: -0.09 to -0.01) were associated with less reporting issues.Conclusion The reporting of the meta-analyses for breast cancer intervention was uninformative to support the decision-making. Although improvement has seen over times, further efforts are still needed. Some easy-to-implement measures could be considered such as referring to a reporting guideline, develop a protocol in advance to help further researchers to improve the reporting of their meta-analysis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the Reporting Quality of Meta-Analyses for Trustworthy Decision of Breast Cancer Intervention: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Zhu

Shi

Zhang³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In most of the SWSRs, only the screening process was described, with no indication of the criteria applied for screening. The latter incurs a greater risk of bias [17, 18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The collaboration and reporting quality of social welfare systematic reviews in the Campbell Collaboration online library

Wei

Zhang

Yang

et al. 2019

Health Qual Life Outcomes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo analyze the collaboration and reporting quality of the systematic reviews of social welfare in the Campbell collaboration online library.MethodsThe Campbell collaboration online library was searched for systematic reviews of social welfare and the basic information extracted in order to assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews using a MOOSE checklist. BICOMS-2 and UCINET software were used to produce the social network, and Comprehensive Meta Analysis (Version 2) and STATA 13.0 were used to analyze the related data.ResultsFifty-seven systematic reviews of social welfare were included. Twenty-eight items of the included social welfare systematic reviews were rated as complete (≥70%). There were significant differences between ≤2013 and ≥ 2014 in five items. These differences were as follows: research published by one organization or more than one organization in one item, more than three authors or less than four authors in two items, and one country or more than one country in six items. It’s completed about researches with more than one organization, three authors or more than one country. Some items were found to have a low reporting rate of studies published before 2014, by one organization, with less than four authors or one country, respectively. The social network of authors and organizations showed good collaboration.ConclusionsSome items could be further improved with regard to the rate of reporting systematic reviews of social welfare in the Campbell collaboration online library. This could improve the overall quality of social welfare systematic reviews.

show abstract

“…A table of the 10 risk of bias domains is provided in the Appendix (Table 3). To date, no validated tool is available for the evaluation of risk of bias for in vitro studies, which is mainly driven by poor reporting of in vitro studies, limiting the assessment of internal validity, and the complexity/non-reproducible nature of many in-vitro experiments [ 42 ]. However, an adaptation based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and previous risk of bias assessments for in vitro systematic reviews to describe risk of bias elements that are relevant to in vitro studies is under development by our group [ 43 – 45 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of freshly cultured versus freshly thawed (cryopreserved) mesenchymal stem cells in preclinical in vivo models of inflammation: a protocol for a preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are multipotent cells that demonstrate therapeutic potential for the treatment of acute and chronic inflammatory-mediated conditions. Especially for acute conditions, it is critical to have a readily available freshly thawed (cryopreserved) MSC product for rapid administration. Although controversial, some studies suggest that MSCs may lose their functionality with cryopreservation which in turn could render them non-efficacious. Objective In controlled preclinical in vivo models of inflammation, to determine if there are differences in surrogate measures of preclinical efficacy between freshly cultured and freshly thawed MSCs Methods/design A systematic search for pre-clinical in vivo inflammatory model studies will compare freshly cultured to freshly thawed MSCs from any source. The primary outcomes will include measures of in vivo preclinical efficacy; secondary outcomes will include measures of in vitro MSC potency. Electronic searches for MEDLINE and EMBASE will be constructed and reviewed by the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) process. If applicable, study outcomes will be meta-analyzed using a random effects model. Risk of bias will be assessed by the SYRCLE “Risk of Bias” assessment tool for preclinical in vivo studies. Discussion The results of this systematic review will provide translational scientists, clinical trialists, health regulators, and the clinical and public community with the current pre-clinical evidence base related to the efficacy and potency of freshly cultured versus freshly thawed MSCs, help identify evidence gaps, and guide future related research. Systematic review registration Protocol is submitted to PROSPERO for registration (pending confirmation) and will be submitted to Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies (CAMARADES) for public posting.

show abstract

Reporting quality in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: a systematic review

Cited by 21 publications

References 94 publications

Enhancing the Reporting Quality of Meta-Analyses for Trustworthy Decision of Breast Cancer Intervention: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Enhancing the Reporting Quality of Meta-Analyses for Trustworthy Decision of Breast Cancer Intervention: A Cross-Sectional Survey

The collaboration and reporting quality of social welfare systematic reviews in the Campbell Collaboration online library

Comparison of freshly cultured versus freshly thawed (cryopreserved) mesenchymal stem cells in preclinical in vivo models of inflammation: a protocol for a preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About