Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bariatric surgery is considered effective for morbid obesity, and probiotic supplementation might provide some benefits. We aimed to revise the evidence regarding probiotic supplementation in patients with morbid obesity undergoing bariatric surgery. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and trial registers were searched up to April 1, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials, and outcomes of interest were weight change, quality of life, gastrointestinal symptoms, and adverse events. All stages of the review were done by 2 authors independently and we followed Cochrane Handbook guidance. We screened 2541 references and included 5 studies. Probiotics may have minor to no effect regarding percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) at 6 weeks (mean difference [MD],.28; 95% CI, −9.53 to 10.09; 44 participants, 2 studies), 3 months (MD, 5.47; 95% CI, −3.22 to 14.17; 165 participants, 3 studies), 6 months (MD,.46; 95% CI, −8.14 to 9.07; 115 participants, 2 studies), and 12 months post surgery (MD,.35; 95% CI, −8.66 to 9.37; 123 participants, 2 studies). We observed short-term improvement in gastrointestinal symptoms. There was no important effect on quality of life and no meaningful adverse events. Because probiotic supplementation might provide some benefit with respect to weight loss, might alleviate some gastrointestinal symptoms, and is associated with minor or no adverse events, continuous supplementation might be worth considering in certain individuals. Our findings are based on the body of evidence of very low certainty, and further well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to elucidate the effect and strengthen the certainty in the estimates. Probiotics may have minor to no effect with regard to %EWL Probiotic supplementation might alleviate some gastrointestinal symptoms Continuous probiotic supplementation might be worth considering in certain individuals Current evidence does not justify recommendation of routine probiotics usage post bariatric surgery [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bariatric surgery is considered the most effective treatment for people with morbid obesity, and certain interventions could enhance its long-term results. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and trial registers up to January 1, 2020. Randomized controlled trials, where behavioral lifestyle or nutritional interventions were provided perioperatively were included. Primary outcome was weight change. Two reviewers independently performed each stage of the review. Altogether 6652 references were screened. 31 studies were included for qualitative synthesis and 22 studies for quantitative synthesis. Interventions varied greatly, thus limiting possibility of synthesizing all results. Six groups of interventions were discerned, and we used standardized mean differences for synthesis. Low to very-low certainty evidence suggests that physical activity, nonvitamin nutritional interventions, vitamins, psychotherapy, and counseling but not combined interventions might bring some benefit regarding short-term postsurgery follow-ups (up to 12 mo), but the estimates varied and results were not statistically significant, except for 12 months follow-ups regarding counseling. Psychotherapy and counseling, but not vitamins and combined interventions, may provide some benefit at longer follow-ups (over 12 mo), but the certainty of evidence was low to very-low and statistically significant results were observed in comparisons including data from single studies with small sample sizes only. Included studies expressed an outcome "weight change" using 20 different measures. Misreporting of data and huge variety of outcomes do not benefit systematic analyses and may possibly lead to confusion of both researchers and readers. We suggest that authors follow a predefined set of outcomes when reporting the results of their studies. The initiative to produce "core outcome set" for clinical trials in bariatric surgery trials is currently underway. Evidence on efficacy of perioperative interventions in patients undergoing bariatric surgery is inconclusive Studies on bariatric surgery use a wide array of outcomes to express weight loss Clinical trials should use a predefined set of outcomes for reporting of the results [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]