Search

Introduction: Systematic reviews (SR) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SRMA) can constitute the highest level of research evidence. Such evidence syntheses are relied upon heavily to inform the clinical knowledge base and to guide clinical practice for meningioma. This review evaluates the reporting and methodological quality of published meningioma evidence syntheses to date. Methods: Eight electronic databases/registries were searched to identify eligible meningioma SRs with and without meta-analysis published between January 1990 and December 2020. Articles concerning spinal meningioma were excluded. Reporting and methodological quality were assessed against the following tools: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2), and Risk Of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS). Results: 116 SRs were identified, of which 57 were SRMAs (49.1%). The mean PRISMA score for SRMA was 20.9 out of 27 (SD 3.9, 77.0% PRISMA adherence) and for SR without meta-analysis was 13.8 out of 22 (SD 3.4, 63% PRISMA adherence). Thirty-eight studies (32.8%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA. Methodological quality assessment against AMSTAR 2 revealed that 110 (94.8%) studies were of critically low quality. Only 21 studies (18.1%) were judged to have a low risk of bias against ROBIS. Conclusion: The reporting and methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses was poor. Established guidelines and critical appraisal tools may be used as an adjunct to aid methodological conduct and reporting of such reviews, in order to improve the validity and transparency of research which may influence clinical practice.

Objective Since current systematic reviews (SRs) show that results of effectiveness on Tai Chi for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are inconsistent, the purpose of this study is to find the reasons of the disparity by comprehensively appraising the related SRs. Methods Six databases were systematically searched from the inception date to April 17, 2021. The methodological quality, the risk of bias, the reporting quality, and the quality of evidence were independently assessed by two reviewers with the AMSTAR 2, ROBIS, PRISMA, and GRADE. Results A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria: 10 SRs were rated critically low quality and two SRs were low quality by AMSTAR 2. By the ROBIS, four out of 12 SRs were rated as "low risk". According to PRISMA, nine out of 12 SRs were adequately reported over 80%. With the GRADE tool, three out of 12 SRs rated the FEV1 as "Moderate", one out of 12 SRs (1/12, 9%) rated the FEV1/FVC (%) as "Moderate", three out of 12 SRs assessed the 6MWD as "Moderate", three out of 12 SRs evaluated the SGRQ as "Moderate", and the remaining evidence was fully rated as "Low" or "Very Low". Conclusion We found that the methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and quality of evidence of the included SRs on Tai Chi for COPD were suboptimal. These limitations may have a negative impact on SRs, consequently leading to inconsistent results. Further well-conducted SRs with less risk of bias, more rigorous methodology, normative reporting and high-quality of evidence are needed to provide robust evidence on Tai Chi for COPD. Registration number This study has been registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration number: CRD42019126600).

Objective: To overview the systematic reviews of acupuncture for Post-stroke Dysphagia. Methods: The Chinese and English databases were searched for the systematic reviews of dysphagia after acupuncture treatment. The retrieval time was until October 30, 2019. The final literature was evaluated for bias risk, methodology quality and evidence quality by using ROBIS tool, AMSTER-2 scale and GRADE method. Results: 9 systematic reviews and 36 outcomes were included. ROBIS bias risk assessment results show that all the studies are high bias risk; AMSTER-2 methodology quality assessment results show that all the systems are of very low quality; GRADE grading shows that there are only 7 intermediate evidences in 36 clinical evidences, the rest are low-level evidences or very low-level evidences, and there are multiple intermediate evidences in the clinical efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of dysphagia after stroke. In addition, acupuncture can significantly improve the scores of all kinds of swallowing function related scales, such as Tengdao food intake swallowing function grade, swallowing disorder specific quality of life score, standard swallowing function evaluation scale, and the incidence of adverse reactions is low. Conclusion: Acupuncture is effective in the treatment of dysphagia after stroke. It can improve the scores of various swallowing function scales and has high safety. However, the risk of systematic evaluation bias is high, the quality of methodology is low, and the level of clinical evidence is low as a whole. In the future, the relevant research design should be more rigorous, and the research report should be written in strict accordance with the PRISMA statement.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has already spread around the world. The modality of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) combined with Western medicine (WM) approaches is being used to treat COVID-19 patients in China. Several systematic reviews (SRs) are available highlighting the efficacy and safety of TCM combined with WM approaches in COVID-19 patients. However, their evidence quality is not completely validated.Purpose: We aimed to assess the methodological quality and the risk of bias of the included SRs, assess the evidence quality of outcomes, and present their trends and gaps using the evidence mapping method.Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, CBM, and Wanfang Data were searched from inception until March 2021 to identify SRs pertaining to the field of TCM combined with WM approaches for COVID-19. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), the risk of bias of the included SRs was assessed with the Risk of Bias in Systematic Review (ROBIS) tool, and the evidence quality of outcomes was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.Results: In total, 23 SRs were found eligible. Twenty-one were rated of moderate confidence by AMSTAR 2, while 12 were rated at low risk using the ROBIS tool. In addition, most outcomes were graded as having moderate quality using the GRADE system. We found that the combined use of TCM and WM approaches could improve the CT recovery rate, effective rate, viral nucleic acid negative conversion rate, and the disappearance rate of fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Also, these approaches could decrease the conversion rate from mild to critical, white blood cell counts, and lymphocyte counts and shorten the time to viral assay conversion and the length of hospital stay.Conclusion: TCM combined with WM approaches had advantages in efficacy, laboratory, and clinical symptom outcomes of COVID-19, but the methodological deficiencies of SRs should be taken into consideration. Therefore, to better guide clinical practice in the future, the methodological quality of SRs should still be improved, and high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies should also be carried out.

Systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are considered a reliable source of information in healthcare. We aimed to explore the association of several characteristics of SR/MAs addressing nutrition in cancer prevention and their quality/risk of bias (using assessments from AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools). The analysis included 101 SR/MAs identified in a systematic survey. Associations of each specified characteristic (e.g., information about the protocol, publication year, reported use of GRADE, or other methods for assessing overall certainty of evidence) with the number of AMSTAR-2 not met (‘No’ responses) and the number of ROBIS items met (‘Probably Yes’ or “Yes’ responses) were examined. Poisson regression was used to identify predictors of the number of ‘No’ answers (indicating lower quality) for all AMSTAR-2 items and the number of ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably Yes’ answers (indicating higher quality/lower concern for bias) for all ROBIS items. Logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with at least one domain assessed as ‘low concern for bias’ in the ROBIS tool. In multivariable analysis, SR/MAs not reporting use of any quality/risk of bias assessment instrument for primary studies were associated with a higher number of ‘No’ answers for all AMSTAR-2 items (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.45), and a lower number of ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably Yes’ answers for all ROBIS items (IRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66–0.87). Providing information about the protocol and search for unpublished studies was associated with a lower number of ‘No’ answers (IRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56–0.97 and IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59–0.95, respectively) and a higher number of ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably Yes’ answers (IRR 1.43, 95% CI 1.17–1.74 and IRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07–1.52, respectively). Not using at least one quality/risk of bias assessment tool for primary studies within an SR/MA was associated with lower odds that a study would be assessed as ‘low concern for bias’ in at least one ROBIS domain (odds ratio 0.061, 95% CI 0.007–0.527). Adherence to methodological standards in the development of SR/MAs was associated with a higher overall quality of SR/MAs addressing nutrition for cancer prevention.

Background AMSTAR-2 is a 16-item assessment tool to check the quality of a systematic review and establish whether the most important elements are reported. ROBIS is another assessment tool which was designed to evaluate the level of bias present within a systematic review. Our objective was to compare, contrast and establish both inter-rater reliability and usability of both tools as part of two overviews of systematic reviews. Strictly speaking, one tool assesses methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) and the other assesses risk of bias (ROBIS), but there is considerable overlap between the tools in terms of the signalling questions. Methods Three reviewers independently assessed 31 systematic reviews using both tools. The inter-rater reliability of all sub-sections using each instrument (AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS) was calculated using Gwet’s agreement coefficient (AC1 for unweighted analysis and AC2 for weighted analysis). Results Thirty-one systematic reviews were included. For AMSTAR-2, the median agreement for all questions was 0.61. Eight of the 16 AMSTAR-2 questions had substantial agreement or higher (> 0.61). For ROBIS, the median agreement for all questions was also 0.61. Eleven of the 24 ROBIS questions had substantial agreement or higher. Conclusion ROBIS is an effective tool for assessing risk of bias in systematic reviews and AMSTAR-2 is an effective tool at assessing quality. The median agreement between raters for both tools was identical (0.61). Reviews that included a meta-analysis were easier to rate with ROBIS; however, further developmental work could improve its use in reviews without a formal synthesis. AMSTAR-2 was more straightforward to use; however, more response options would be beneficial.

BackgroundInfantile colic is a distressing condition characterised by excessive crying in the first few months of life. The aim of this research was to update the synthesis of evidence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) research literature on infantile colic and establish what evidence is currently available.MethodsMedline, Embase and AMED (via Ovid), Web of Science and Central via Cochrane library were searched from their inception to September 2018. Google Scholar and OpenGrey were searched for grey literature and PROSPERO for ongoing reviews. Published systematic reviews that included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of infants aged up to 1 year, diagnosed with infantile colic using standard diagnostic criteria, were eligible. Reviews of RCTs that assessed the effectiveness of any individual CAM therapy were included. Three reviewers were involved in data extraction and quality assessment using the AMSTAR-2 scale and risk of bias using the ROBIS tool.ResultsSixteen systematic reviews were identified. Probiotics, fennel extract and spinal manipulation show promise to alleviate symptoms of colic, although some concerns remain. Acupuncture and soy are currently not recommended. The majority of the reviews were assessed as having high or unclear risk of bias and low confidence in the findings.ConclusionThere is clearly a need for larger and more methodologically sound RCTs to be conducted on the effectiveness of some CAM therapies for IC. Particular focus on probiotics in non-breastfed infants is pertinent.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO: CRD42018092966.

Background: In recent years, systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for psoriasis have continuously emerged. Their methods and evidence quality, however, are yet to be evaluated, and whether their conclusions can provide clinicians with reliable evidence is still debatable.Objectives: This overview aims to evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, and reporting quality of relevant SRs/MAs, as well as the current evidence of CHM for treating psoriasis.Methods: We searched nine electronic databases from their respective time of establishment to January 20, 2021, as well as the reference lists of the included SRs/MAs, protocol registries, and gray literature. Two reviewers independently used the following: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), and Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs.Results: This review included 14 SRs/MAs involving 45 outcomes, of which 12 (85.71%) SRs/MAs had a very low quality evaluated by AMSTAR 2 and 7 (50.00%) SRs/MAs had a high risk of bias assessed by ROBIS. The protocol and registration and funding statements were the major reporting flaws according to the PRISMA checklist. The evaluation with the GRADE system demonstrated no outcome of high-quality evidence, and inconsistent efficacy evaluations were found in this overview. Only 15 (33.33%) outcomes were moderate-quality evidence, supporting the claim that CHM plus Western medicine (WM) was superior to WM. Generally low quality of evidence showed no difference in the incidence of adverse events between the combined therapy and WM. However, the conclusion that CHM was superior to WM cannot be drawn due to the inconsistent results.Conclusion: Despite that CHM has the potential benefit and safety in the adjuvant treatment of psoriasis, the conclusion should be treated with caution because of the generally low quality of methodology and evidence. In the future, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be carried out, and the quality of relevant SRs should also be improved to promote their clinical application.

Background: Tai chi (TC) is a popular form of exercise among adults with chronic heart failure (CHF), yet services are greatly underutilized. The aim of the current study was to identify and summarize the existing evidence and to systematically determine the clinical effectiveness of Tai Chi in the management of CHF using a systematic overview.Methods: Both English and Chinese databases were searched for systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) on TC for CHF from their inception to June 2020. The methodological quality, reporting quality, and risk of bias of SRs/MAs were assessed using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, and Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS), respectively. The evidence quality of outcome measures was assessed by the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).Results: Six SRs/MAs using a quantitative synthesis to assess various outcomes of TC in CHF were included in this overview. The methodological quality, reporting quality and risk of bias of the SRs/MAs and the evidence quality of the outcome measures are generally unsatisfactory. The limitations of the past SRs/MAs included the lack of either the protocol or registration, the list of excluded studies, and the computational details of meta-analysis were inadequately reported. The critical problems were that qualitative data synthesis relied on trials with small sample sizes and critical low quality.Conclusions: TC may be a promising complementary treatment for CHF. However, further rigorous and comprehensive SRs/MAs and RCTs are required to provide robust evidence for definitive conclusions.

Background AMSTAR-2 (‘A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2’) and ROBIS (‘Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews’) are independent instruments used to assess the quality of conduct of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs). The degree of overlap in methodological constructs together with the reliability and any methodological gaps have not been systematically assessed and summarized in the field of nutrition. Methods We performed a systematic survey of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for SR/MAs published between January 2010 and November 2018 that examined the effects of any nutritional intervention/exposure for cancer prevention. We followed a systematic review approach including two independent reviewers at each step of the process. For AMSTAR-2 (16 items) and ROBIS (21 items), we assessed the similarities, the inter-rater reliability (IRR) and any methodological limitations of the instruments. Our protocol for the survey was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019121116). Results We found 4 similar domain constructs based on 11 comparisons from a total of 12 AMSTAR-2 and 14 ROBIS items. Ten comparisons were considered fully overlapping. Based on Gwet’s agreement coefficients, six comparisons provided almost perfect (> 0.8), three substantial (> 0.6), and one a moderate level of agreement (> 0.4). While there is considerable overlap in constructs, AMSTAR-2 uniquely addresses explaining the selection of study designs for inclusion, reporting on excluded studies with justification, sources of funding of primary studies, and reviewers’ conflict of interest. By contrast, ROBIS uniquely addresses appropriateness and restrictions within eligibility criteria, reducing risk of error in risk of bias (RoB) assessments, completeness of data extracted for analyses, the inclusion of all necessary studies for analyses, and adherence to predefined analysis plan. Conclusions Among the questions on AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS, 70.3% (26/37 items) address the same or similar methodological constructs. While the IRR of these constructs was moderate to perfect, there are unique methodological constructs that each instrument independently addresses. Notably, both instruments do not address the reporting of absolute estimates of effect or the overall certainty of the evidence, items that are crucial for users’ wishing to interpret the importance of SR/MA results.

Background: To evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) or meta-analysis of trastuzumab-based therapy for breast cancer. Methods: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of science, Cochrane library, international prospective register of systematic reviews, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, Wan Fang, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and VIP database for SRs or meta-analysis. The methodological quality of included literatures was appraised by risk of bias in systematic review (ROBIS) tool. Results: Twenty three eligible systematic reviews or meta-analysis were included. Only 2 systematic reviews provided protocol. The most frequently searched databases were PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane. The two-reviewers model described in the screening for eligible original articles, data extraction, and methodological quality evaluation had 30%, 61%, and 26%, respectively. In methodological quality assessment, 52% SRs or meta-analysis used the Jadad scoring or Cochrane reviewer’ handbook. Research question were well matched to all SRs or meta-analysis in phase 1 and 35% of them evaluated “high” risk bias in study eligibility criteria. The “high” risk of bias in all non-Cochrane SRs or meta-analyses, which involve methods used to identify and/or select studies. And more than half SRs or meta-analysis had a high risk of bias in data collection and study appraisal. More than two-third of SRs or meta-analysis were accomplished with high risk of bias in the synthesis and findings. Conclusions: The study indicated poor methodological and reporting quality of SRs/meta-analysis assessing trastuzumab-based therapy for breast cancer. Registration or publishing the protocol and the reporting followed the PRISMA checklist are recommended in future research.

Hintergrund und Ziel: Edukation scheint in der Behandlung chronischer muskuloskelettaler Schmerzpatient*innen eine Schlüsselrolle zu spielen. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird die Auswirkung von Pain Neuroscience Education (PNE), einer modernen, biopsychosozialen Schulungsform, auf schmerzassoziierte Kognitionen Betroffener untersucht. Methodik: Der Aufbau dieser Bachelorarbeit ist an jenen eines Overviews of Systematic Reviews (SRs) angelehnt. Die Datenbanksuche ergab 469 Ergebnisse, von denen sechs SRs inkludiert wurden. Für die Beurteilung der methodischen Qualität der eingeschlossenen Publikationen fand nebst zweier validierter Assessment Tools (AMSTAR 2 und ROBIS) und der Beurteilung der Adäquanz der Review-Konklusionen auch der Jadad Decision Algorithm Anwendung. Ergebnisse: Die Umsetzung von PNE bei Proband*innen mit chronischen muskuloskelettalen Schmerzen (CMP) scheint Kinesiophobie kurzfristig und Schmerz-Katastrophisieren mittelfristig geringgradig positiv beeinflussen zu können. Langfristige Resultate stehen aktuell noch nicht zur Verfügung. Conclusio: Um die Entwicklung eines klaren PNE-Leitfadens zu ermöglichen und eine damit einhergehende Behandlungsoptimierung zu erreichen, sollten sich künftige Forschungsbemühungen auf die Identifikation der idealen Applikationsdauer und Therapie-Kombination, sowie die Untersuchung der Langzeiteffekte von PNE fokussieren. Background and Objective: Education seems to play a key role in the treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain. In this thesis, the impact of Pain Neuroscience Education (PNE), a modern, biopsychosocial form of education, on pain-associated cognitions of patients is investigated. Methodology: The structure of this bachelor thesis is based on that of an Overview of Systematic Reviews (SRs). The database search yielded 469 results, of which six SRs were included. For the assessment of the methodological quality of the included publications, the Jadad Decision Algorithm was applied in addition to two validated assessment tools (AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS) and the evaluation of the adequacy of the review conclusions. Results: Implementation of PNE in subjects with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) appears to positively influence kinesiophobia in the short term and pain catastrophizing in the medium term to a small degree. Long-term results are currently not available. Conclusion: To enable the development of a clear PNE guideline and to achieve an associated treatment optimization, future research efforts should focus on the identification of the ideal application duration and therapy combination, as well as the investigation of the long-term effects of PNE.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text, Primary osteoporosis (PO) is a common disease that was characterized by a systemic impairment of bone mass and microarchitecture that results in fragility fractures and constitutes a pressing public health problem. But the effect of acupuncture or moxibustion treatment for PO is controversial. To provide a comprehensive systematic overview of current evidence from systematic reviews (SR)/Meta-analysis of acupuncture treatment for PO pertaining to risk of bias, quality of evidence and report quality. A total of 9 international and Chinese databases were searched for SR/meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The risk of bias of SR/meta-analysis was appraised using the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) instrument, the quality of the evidence was evaluated via Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE), and the report quality of the included studies are estimated by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). According to ROBIS, only 2 articles were with risk of low bias; according to PRISMA, and most articles were reported incomplete, mainly in Q2, Q7, Q24, and Q27; according to GRADE, a total of 28 outcome indicators were evaluated under 4 different interventions of experimental group and control group: the evidence quality of bone mineral density (BMD) from treatment of acupuncture and moxibustion/acupuncture and moxibustion plus was high or moderate; Visual Analogue Score (VAS) of acupuncture plus moxibustion or acupuncture plus moxibustion plus other was low or very low; clinical effectiveness of acupuncture plus moxibustion or acupuncture plus moxibustion plus other was uncertain. Acupuncture and moxibustion can improve the BMD of PO patients according to high-quality evidence, and may benefit VAS, pain score, clinical efficacy based on moderate or low-quality evidence. Further research that provides higher quality evidence of SR/RCTs of acupuncture and moxibustion treatment for PO is required.

© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)., Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the inter-rater and intercenter reliability, usability, and utility of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), AMSTAR 2, and Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS). Study design and setting: This is a prospective evaluation using 30 systematic reviews of randomized trials, undertaken at three international centers. Results: Reviewers completed AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS in median (interquartile range) 15.7 (11.3), 19.7 (12.1), and 28.7 (17.4) minutes and reached consensus in 2.6 (3.2), 4.6 (5.3), and 10.9 (10.8) minutes, respectively. Across all centers, inter-rater reliability was substantial to almost perfect for 8/11 AMSTAR, 9/16 AMSTAR 2, and 12/24 ROBIS items. Intercenter reliability was substantial to almost perfect for 6/11 AMSTAR, 12/16 AMSTAR 2, and 7/24 ROBIS items. Intercenter reliability for confidence in the results of the review or overall risk of bias was moderate (Gwet's first-order agreement coefficient (AC1) 0.58, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.30 to 0.85) to substantial (AC1 0.74, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.85) for AMSTAR 2 and poor (AC1 -0.21, 95% CI: -0.55 to 0.13) to moderate (AC1 0.56, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.83) for ROBIS. It is not clear whether using the appraisals of any tool as an inclusion criterion would alter an overview's findings. Conclusions: Improved guidance may be needed to facilitate the consistent interpretation and application of the newer tools (especially ROBIS).

Background: Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is the most common complication and sequela of herpes zoster (HZ) that greatly affects the life and emotional experience of patients. Acupuncture therapy has been confirmed as an effective and safe treatment for PHN. Several systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analysis (MAs) have reported the evidence of acupuncture therapy for treating PHN. However, the evidence has not been systematically synthesized. This overview aims to synthesize and assess the reliability of evidence generated from these SRs and MAs of acupuncture therapy for PHN. Methods: We will conduct a systematic search of the China Biology Medicine (CBM), VIP database, Wangfang database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Excerpt Medical Database (Embase), and Web of Science to identify eligible SRs and MAs, from their inception to October 31, 2020. We will use Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR2) for methodological quality assessment, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for report quality assessment, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) for the quality of evidence assessment, and ROBIS for the bias assessment. Our reviewers will conduct systematic reviews, qualification evaluation, data extraction, methodological quality, and evidence quality screening in pairs. The outcomes include pain intensity, Quality of life (QoL), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), Global impression, and adverse events. All the extracted data will be provided in tabular form to summarize characteristics of each review. The evidence will be a narrative synthesis of the type and content of the intervention and the results reported. Results: The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Conclusions: This overview will provide comprehensive evidence of acupuncture therapy for patients with PHN. Ethics and dissemination: This review will not involve private information of participants, so the ethical approval will not be required. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal or conference presentation. Important protocol modifications will be updated on PROSPERO. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020178738.

Background: Psoriasis is a chronic recurrent dermatological disease that patents always suffer from different commorbidities. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has been commonly used in the treatment of psoriasis for a long history. Previous systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) have showed that CHM may benefit the patients with psoriasis. This overview aims to summarize the evidence from published SRs/MAs for clinical application and to provide some directions for future researches. Methods: Nine electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, AMED, CINAHL, CBM, CNKI, VIP Database, Wanfang Databases) will be searched from their inceptions to September 2020 without language restrictions. At least two reviewers will independently conducted the study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. The methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality and evidence quality will be respectively evaluated by the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results: The results of this overview will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. Conclusions: We expect to compile current evidence from published SRs/MAs of CHM for patients with psoriasis in an accessible and useful document. Ethics and dissemination: This study is a protocol for overview of SRs/MAs that did not involve individual data. Thus, the ethical approval is not required. Abbreviations: CHM: Chinese herbal medicine, SRs: systematic reviews, MAs: meta-analyses, AMSTAR 2: Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2, ROBIS: Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews, PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, GRADE: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Key words: Chinese herbal medicine, psoriasis, overview, AMSTAR 2, ROBIS, PRISMA, GRADE

3 Komponenten wissenschaftlichen Publizierens: ihre Vernetzung, Verwaltung und technische Untersetzung am HZDR

The proper management of research data is imperative to ensure that scientific findings are findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR). The national and international research organizations support the long-term safeguarding of and the open access to research data from publicly funded research, as laid down in the "Berlin Declaration on Open Access” of 2003 and the “Guidelines on Data Management in Horizon 2020”. The Alliance of German Science Organizations, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Helmholtz Association took up this idea in their guide- lines for the handling of research data. The HZDR approves the principle of open access to research data. The HZDR supports its guests in the fulfillment of the requirements of funders and of the scientific community. To this end, it pro- vides the necessary infrastructure for data management and regulates the access to research data by these terms and conditions. Open access to research data should be ensured wherever possible taking the pathway of the citable data publication.

BackgroundFibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic, debilitating pain disorder. Dissatisfaction with conventional medicine can lead people with FM to turn to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Two previous overviews of systematic reviews of CAM for FM have been published, but they did not assessed for risk of bias in the review process.MethodsFive databases Medline, Embase, AMED (via OVID), Web of Science and Central were searched from their inception to December 2015. Reference lists were hand-searched. We had two aims: the first was to provide an up-to-date and rigorously conducted synthesis of systematic reviews of CAM literature on FM; the second was to evaluate the quality of the available systematic review evidence using two different tools: AMSTAR (Shea et al. BMC Med Res Methodol 15; 7:10, 2007) and a more recently developed tool ROBIS (Whiting et al. J Clin Epidemiol 69:225-34, 2016) specifically designed to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews. Any review that assessed one of eight CAM therapies for participants diagnosed with FM was considered. The individual studies had to be randomised controlled trials where the intervention was compared to placebo, treatment as usual or waitlist controls to be included. The primary outcome measure was pain, and the secondary outcome measure was adverse events.ResultsWe identified 15 reviews that met inclusion criteria. There was low-quality evidence that acupuncture improves pain compared to no treatment or standard treatment, but good evidence that it is no better than sham acupuncture. The evidence for homoeopathy, spinal manipulation and herbal medicine was limited.ConclusionsOverall, five reviews scored 6 or above using the AMSTAR scale and the inter-rater agreement was good (83.6%), whereas seven reviews achieved a low risk of bias rating using ROBIS and the inter-rater agreement was fair (60.0%). No firm conclusions were drawn for efficacy of either spinal manipulation or homoeopathy for FM. There is limited evidence for topical Capsicum, but further research is required. There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of acupuncture for FM, but further high-quality trials are needed to investigate its benefits, harms and mechanisms of action, compared with no or standard treatment.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016035846.