Within systematic reviews, when searching for relevant references, it is advisable to use multiple databases. However, searching databases is laborious and time-consuming, as syntax of search ...strategies are database specific. We aimed to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient searches in systematic reviews and whether the current practice in published reviews is appropriate. While previous studies determined the coverage of databases, we analyzed the actual retrieval from the original searches for systematic reviews.
Since May 2013, the first author prospectively recorded results from systematic review searches that he performed at his institution. PubMed was used to identify systematic reviews published using our search strategy results. For each published systematic review, we extracted the references of the included studies. Using the prospectively recorded results and the studies included in the publications, we calculated recall, precision, and number needed to read for single databases and databases in combination. We assessed the frequency at which databases and combinations would achieve varying levels of recall (i.e., 95%). For a sample of 200 recently published systematic reviews, we calculated how many had used enough databases to ensure 95% recall.
A total of 58 published systematic reviews were included, totaling 1746 relevant references identified by our database searches, while 84 included references had been retrieved by other search methods. Sixteen percent of the included references (291 articles) were only found in a single database; Embase produced the most unique references (n = 132). The combination of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar performed best, achieving an overall recall of 98.3 and 100% recall in 72% of systematic reviews. We estimate that 60% of published systematic reviews do not retrieve 95% of all available relevant references as many fail to search important databases. Other specialized databases, such as CINAHL or PsycINFO, add unique references to some reviews where the topic of the review is related to the focus of the database.
Optimal searches in systematic reviews should search at least Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar as a minimum requirement to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage.
Abstract Objective To develop ROBIS, a new tool for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews (rather than in primary studies). Study Design and Setting We used four-stage approach to develop ...ROBIS: define the scope, review the evidence base, hold a face-to-face meeting, and refine the tool through piloting. Results ROBIS is currently aimed at four broad categories of reviews mainly within health care settings: interventions, diagnosis, prognosis, and etiology. The target audience of ROBIS is primarily guideline developers, authors of overviews of systematic reviews (“reviews of reviews”), and review authors who might want to assess or avoid risk of bias in their reviews. The tool is completed in three phases: (1) assess relevance (optional), (2) identify concerns with the review process, and (3) judge risk of bias. Phase 2 covers four domains through which bias may be introduced into a systematic review: study eligibility criteria; identification and selection of studies; data collection and study appraisal; and synthesis and findings. Phase 3 assesses the overall risk of bias in the interpretation of review findings and whether this considered limitations identified in any of the phase 2 domains. Signaling questions are included to help judge concerns with the review process (phase 2) and the overall risk of bias in the review (phase 3); these questions flag aspects of review design related to the potential for bias and aim to help assessors judge risk of bias in the review process, results, and conclusions. Conclusions ROBIS is the first rigorously developed tool designed specifically to assess the risk of bias in systematic reviews.
A systematic review may evaluate different aspects of a health care intervention. To accommodate the evaluation of various research questions, the inclusion of more than one study design may be ...necessary. One aim of this study is to find and describe articles on methodological issues concerning the incorporation of multiple types of study designs in systematic reviews on health care interventions. Another aim is to evaluate methods studies that have assessed whether reported effects differ by study types.
We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Methodology Register on 31 March 2012 and identified 42 articles that reported on the integration of single or multiple study designs in systematic reviews. We summarized the contents of the articles qualitatively and assessed theoretical and empirical evidence. We found that many examples of reviews incorporating multiple types of studies exist and that every study design can serve a specific purpose. The clinical questions of a systematic review determine the types of design that are necessary or sufficient to provide the best possible answers. In a second independent search, we identified 49 studies, 31 systematic reviews and 18 trials that compared the effect sizes between randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, which were statistically different in 35%, and not different in 53%. Twelve percent of studies reported both, different and non-different effect sizes.
Different study designs addressing the same question yielded varying results, with differences in about half of all examples. The risk of presenting uncertain results without knowing for sure the direction and magnitude of the effect holds true for both nonrandomized and randomized controlled trials. The integration of multiple study designs in systematic reviews is required if patients should be informed on the many facets of patient relevant issues of health care interventions.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Introduction
Enhanced recovery pathways have been widely accepted and implemented for different types of surgery. Their overall effect in abdominal gynecologic surgery is still underdetermined. A ...systematic review and meta‐analysis were performed to provide an overview of current evidence and to examine their effect on postoperative outcomes in women undergoing open gynecologic surgery.
Material and methods
Searches were conducted using Embase, Medline, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library up to 27 June 2014. Reference lists were screened to identify additional studies. Studies were included if at least four individual items of an enhanced recovery pathway were described. Outcomes included length of hospital stay, complication rates, readmissions, and mortality. Quantitative analysis was limited to comparative studies. Effect sizes were presented as relative risks or as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Results
Thirty‐one records, involving 16 observational studies, were included. Diversity in reported elements within studies was observed. Preoperative education, early oral intake, and early mobilization were included in all pathways. Five studies, with a high risk of bias, were eligible for quantitative analysis. Enhanced recovery pathways reduced primary (MD −1.57 days, 95% CI CI −2.94 to −0.20) and total (MD −3.05 days, 95% CI −4.87 to −1.23) length of hospital stay compared with traditional perioperative care, without an increase in complications, mortality or readmission rates.
Conclusion
The available evidence based on a broad range of non‐randomized studies at high risk of bias suggests that enhanced recovery pathways may reduce length of postoperative hospital stay in abdominal gynecologic surgery.
Patients with substantive bleeding usually require transfusion and/or (re-)operation. Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is independently associated with a greater risk of infection, morbidity, ...increased hospital stay and mortality. ROTEM (ROTEM® Delta, TEM International GmbH, Munich, Germany; www.rotem.de), TEG (TEG® 5000 analyser, Haemonetics Corporation, Niles, IL, USA; www.haemonetics.com) and Sonoclot (Sonoclot® coagulation and platelet function analyser, Sienco Inc., Arvada, CO) are point-of-care viscoelastic (VE) devices that use thromboelastometry to test for haemostasis in whole blood. They have a number of proposed advantages over standard laboratory tests (SLTs): they provide a result much quicker, are able to identify what part of the clotting process is disrupted, and provide information on clot formation over time and fibrinolysis.
This assessment aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of VE devices to assist with the diagnosis, management and monitoring of haemostasis disorders during and after cardiac surgery, trauma-induced coagulopathy and post-partum haemorrhage (PPH).
Sixteen databases were searched to December 2013: MEDLINE (OvidSP), MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily Update (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), BIOSIS Previews (Web of Knowledge), Science Citation Index (SCI) (Web of Science), Conference Proceedings Citation Index (CPCI-S) (Web of Science), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) HTA programme, Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility (ARIF), Medion, and the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed for quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Prediction studies were assessed using QUADAS-2. For RCTs, summary relative risks (RRs) were estimated using random-effects models. Continuous data were summarised narratively. For prediction studies, the odds ratio (OR) was selected as the primary effect estimate. The health-economic analysis considered the costs and quality-adjusted life-years of ROTEM, TEG and Sonoclot compared with SLTs in cardiac surgery and trauma patients. A decision tree was used to take into account short-term complications and longer-term side effects from transfusion. The model assumed a 1-year time horizon.
Thirty-one studies (39 publications) were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Eleven RCTs (n=1089) assessed VE devices in patients undergoing cardiac surgery; six assessed thromboelastography (TEG) and five assessed ROTEM. There was a significant reduction in RBC transfusion RR 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 0.96; six studies, platelet transfusion (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.89; six studies) and fresh frozen plasma to transfusion (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.65; five studies) in VE testing groups compared with control. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of other blood products transfused. Continuous data on blood product use supported these findings. Clinical outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. There were no apparent differences between ROTEM or TEG; none of the RCTs evaluated Sonoclot. There were no data on the clinical effectiveness of VE devices in trauma patients or women with PPH. VE testing was cost-saving and more effective than SLTs. For the cardiac surgery model, the cost-saving was £43 for ROTEM, £79 for TEG and £132 for Sonoclot. For the trauma population, the cost-savings owing to VE testing were more substantial, amounting to per-patient savings of £688 for ROTEM compared with SLTs, £721 for TEG, and £818 for Sonoclot. This finding was entirely dependent on material costs, which are slightly higher for ROTEM. VE testing remained cost-saving following various scenario analyses.
VE testing is cost-saving and more effective than SLTs, in both patients undergoing cardiac surgery and trauma patients. However, there were no data on the clinical effectiveness of Sonoclot or of VE devices in trauma patients.
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005623.
The NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.
Abstract Objectives To assess the association between infant size or growth and subsequent obesity and to determine if any association has been stable over time. Design Systematic review. Data ...sources Medline, Embase, bibliographies of included studies, contact with first authors of included studies and other experts. Inclusion criteria Studies that assessed the relation between infant size or growth during the first two years of life and subsequent obesity. Main outcome measure Obesity at any age after infancy. Results 24 studies met the inclusion criteria (22 cohort and two case-control studies). Of these, 18 assessed the relation between infant size and subsequent obesity, most showing that infants who were defined as “obese” or who were at the highest end of the distribution for weight or body mass index were at increased risk of obesity. Compared with non-obese infants, in those who had been obese odds ratios or relative risks for subsequent obesity ranged from 1.35 to 9.38. Ten studies assessed the relation of infant growth with subsequent obesity and most showed that infants who grew more rapidly were at increased risk of obesity. Compared with other infants, in infants with rapid growth odds ratios and relative risks of later obesity ranged from 1.17 to 5.70. Associations were consistent for obesity at different ages and for people born over a period from 1927 to 1994. Conclusions Infants who are at the highest end of the distribution for weight or body mass index or who grow rapidly during infancy are at increased risk of subsequent obesity.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these ...reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Purpose
In current cancer care, there is a growing debate about the value of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in daily clinical follow-up. A systematic review of the literature was ...conducted to assess the evidence of the effectiveness of the routine use of PROMs in daily cancer care in terms of patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators and to identify the effect of giving feedback about PROM findings to patients and/or health care professionals (HCPs).
Methods
A systematic search was performed. Studies were eligible for inclusion when they (1) used a PROM as an intervention, with or without feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with not using a PROM, and (2) used a PROM as an intervention with feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with using a PROM without giving feedback to patients and/or HCPs.
Results
After screening of 8341 references, 22 original studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies found a positive effect on survival, symptoms, HRQoL and patient satisfaction. In general, using feedback to patient and/or HCPs about the PROM results led to better symptom control, HRQoL, patient satisfaction and patient-doctor communication. The majority of included studies had insufficient power to detect significant differences in the outcomes assessed.
Conclusion
This review shows that predominantly positive findings were found in the use of a PROM in daily cancer care. Additionally, more positive effects were seen when feedback is provided to patient and/or health care professionals, and it is thus highly recommended that this is always done.
PDF
