Search

To establish whether items included in instruments published in the last decade assessing risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are indeed addressing risk of bias.We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus from 2010 to October 2021 for instruments assessing risk of bias of RCTs. By extracting items and summarizing their essential content, we generated an item list. Items that two reviewers agreed clearly did not address risk of bias were excluded. We included the remaining items in a survey in which 13 experts judged the issue each item is addressing: risk of bias, applicability, random error, reporting quality, or none of the above.Seventeen eligible instruments included 127 unique items. After excluding 61 items deemed as clearly not addressing risk of bias, the item classification survey included 66 items, of which the majority of respondents deemed 20 items (30.3%) as addressing risk of bias; the majority deemed 11 (16.7%) as not addressing risk of bias; and there proved substantial disagreement for 35 (53.0%) items.Existing risk of bias instruments frequently include items that do not address risk of bias. For many items, experts disagree on whether or not they are addressing risk of bias.

Objectives To assess the reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews, and to analyze trends and gaps in the quality, clinical topics, author countries, and populations of the reviews using an evidence mapping approach. Study Design and Setting A structured search for systematic reviews concerning COVID-19 was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Campbell Library, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI, and CQVIP from inception until June 2020. The quality of each review was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Results In total, 243 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, over 50% of which (128, 52.7%) were from 14 developing countries, with China contributing the most reviews (76, 31.3%). In terms of methodological quality of the studies, 30 (12.3%) were of moderate quality, 63 (25.9%) were of low quality, and 150 (61.7%) were of critically low quality. In terms of reporting quality, the median (interquartile range) PRISMA score was 14 (10–18). Regarding the topics of the reviews, 24 (9.9%) focused on the prevalence of COVID-19, 69 (28.4%) focused on the clinical manifestations, 30 (12.3%) focused on etiology, 43 (17.7%) focused on diagnosis, 65 (26.7%) focused on treatment, 104 (42.8%) focused on prognosis, and 25 (10.3%) focused on prevention. These studies mainly focused on general patients with COVID-19 (161, 66.3%), followed by children (22, 9.1%) and pregnant patients (18, 7.4%). Conclusion This study systematically evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews of COVID-19, summarizing and analyzing trends in their clinical topics, author countries, and study populations.

Despite common, serious, costly, and often fatal conditions affecting up to 50 % of older patients, delirium is often unrecognized and overlooked. We examine the accuracy of the 4AT for detecting older patients with delirium.We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases from inception to April 2020 and updated to January 2022. Four independently reviewers extracted study data and assessed the methodological quality using the revised quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2). Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated using a bivariate random effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with STATA version 15.1 and Meta-DiSc version 1.4 software.Eleven studies with 2789 participants were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.81-0.91) and 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.79-0.92), respectively, and the positive and negative likelihood ratios were 6.66 (95 % CI: 4.12-10.74) and 0.15 (95 % CI: 0.10-0.23), respectively. Deeks' test indicated no significant publication bias (t = 0.83, P = 0.43). Univariable meta-regression showed that patient selection and flow and timing significantly influenced the pooled sensitivity (P 0.05), settings significantly influenced the pooled specificity (P 0.05).Our meta-analysis demonstrates that 4AT is a sensitive and specific screening tool for delirium in older patients. Its brevity and simplicity support its use in routine clinical practice, particularly in time-poor settings. Clinicians should come to a conclusion based largely on the 4AT findings in conjunction with clinical judgment.

This review compared the efficacy and acceptability of different delivery formats for cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) in insomnia. We searched five databases for randomized clinical trials that compared one CBT-I delivery format against another format or control conditions for insomnia in adults. We used pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses with the random-effects model to synthesize data. A total of 61 unique trials including 11,571 participants compared six CBT-I delivery formats with four control conditions. At post-intervention, with low to high certainty evidence, individual, group, guided self-help, digital assisted, and unguided self-help CBT-I could significantly increase sleep efficiency and total sleep time (TST) and reduce sleep onset latency (SOL), wake after sleep onset (WASO), and insomnia severity compared with treatment as usual (MD range for sleep efficiency: 7.81%-12.45%; MD range for TST: 16.14-33.96 min; MD range for SOL: -22.42 to -13.81 min; MD range for WASO: -40.84 to -19.48 min; MD range for insomnia severity: -6.40 to -3.93) and waitlist (MD range for sleep efficiency: 7.68%-12.32%; MD range for TST: 12.67-30.49 min; MD range for SOL: -19.07 to -10.46 min; MD range for WASO: -47.10 to -19.15 min; MD range for insomnia severity: -7.59 to -5.07). The effects of different CBT-I formats persisted at short-term follow-up (4 wk-6 mo). Individual, group, and digital assisted CBT-I delivery formats would be the more appropriate choices for insomnia in adults, based on post-intervention and short-term effects. Further trials are needed to investigate the long-term effects of different CBT-I formats.

To assess the efficacy of electro-acupuncture (EA) relative to sham electro-acupuncture (sham EA) in treating chronic severe functional constipation (CSFC).A comprehensive search for relevant studies published between January 1, 1951 and May 14, 2020 was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Web of Science, and EMbase. Two investigators independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies. The software Endnote X9 was used for screening articles, and the Review Manager 5.3 for analyzing data.The meta-analyses involved 6 studies and 1457 individuals. The pooled results favored the EA group for the increase of complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs) per week in the fourth week (MD = 0.80, P = 0.001) during treatment, and further improved in the eight weeks (MD = 1.25, P0.001). During the follow-up period, significant changes in CSBMs per week were seen in the experimental group (MD = 1.38, P = 0.008); the effect decreased in the twelfth week (MD = 0.87, P0.001). There was no significant difference in the Bristol stool scale score between the two groups in the fourth week (MD = 0.40, P = 0.08), but significant differences were observed in the eighth week (MD = 0.40, P = 0.03). A significant reduction in patient assessment of constipation quality of life (PAC-QOL) score were observed in the EA group during treatment (SMD = -0.83, P0.001). No serious adverse events were reported.EA had favorable effects on CSFC, and the longer the treatment duration was, the better was the effect, but the effect showed a certain period of validity. However, the results may be influenced by the clinical heterogeneity of acupuncture points, depth of needling, intensity, and frequency of EA.