Search

Abstract Background The unprecedented volume and speed at which COVID-19-related systematic reviews (SRs) may have been produced has raised questions regarding the quality of this evidence. It is feasible that pandemic-related factors may have led to an impairment in quality (reduced internal validity, increased risk of bias [RoB]). This may have serious implications for decision-making related to public health and individual healthcare. Objective The primary objective was to compare the quality of SRs published during the pandemic that were related to COVID-19 with SRs published during the pandemic that were unrelated to COVID-19 (all of which were fully appraised in the KSR Evidence database of SRs in healthcare). Our secondary objective was to compare the quality of SRs published during the pandemic (regardless of research topic), with SRs published pre-pandemic. Methods We compared all SRs related to COVID-19 to all SRs unrelated to COVID-19 that (i) were published during the pandemic (between 1st March 2020 and September 14, 2022), (ii) were included in KSR Evidence, and (iii) had been appraised using the ROBIS tool. We then compared all SRs published during the pandemic (regardless of research topic) with a pre-pandemic sample of SRs. Results For SRs published during the pandemic, we found there was no statistically significant difference in quality between those SRs tagged as being related to COVID-19 and those that were not [relative risk (RR) of low RoB for COVID-19 versus COVID-19-unrelated reviews: 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66 to 1.34]. Generally, COVID-19 SRs and COVID-19-unrelated SRs were both of low quality with only 10% of COVID-19 reviews and 11% of COVID-19-unrelated reviews rated as low RoB. However, SRs (regardless of topic) published during the pandemic were of lower quality than those published pre-pandemic (RR for low RoB for ‘during pandemic’ versus ‘pre-pandemic’: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.34) with 11% of pandemic and 36% of pre-pandemic SRs rated as low RoB. Conclusion These results suggest COVID-19 and COVID-19-unrelated SRs published during the pandemic are equally of low quality. SRs published during the pandemic were generally lower quality compared with SRs published pre-pandemic irrespective of COVID-19 focus. Moreover, SR quality in general is seriously lacking, and considerable efforts need to be made to substantially improve the quality and rigour of the SR process.

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. 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). 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Numerous systematic reviews have been published comparing the outcomes of patients undergoing posterior stabilized (PS) versus cruciate-retaining (CR) procedures in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but with some overlaps and contradictions. The objectives of this study were (1) to perform an overview of current systematic reviews comparing PS versus CR in TKA, by evaluating their methodological quality and risk of bias, and (2) to provide recommendations through the best evidence. Methods: A systematic search of systematic reviews comparing PS and CR in TKA, published until June 2021 was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Included systematic reviews were assessed for methodological quality and risk of bias by the AMSTAR2 instrument and ROBIS tool, respectively. The choice of best evidence was conducted according to the Jadad decision algorithm. Results: A total of eight systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion in this study. The Jadad decision algorithm suggested that reviews with the highest AMSTAR2 scores should be selected. According to the ROBIS tool, there were three reviews with a low risk of bias and five with a high risk of bias. Consequently, one systematic review conducted by Verra et al. with the highest AMSTAR2 score and low risk of bias was selected as the best evidence. Conclusions: Although current systematic reviews demonstrated some statistical differences in clinical presentation and functional outcomes between PS and CR, the current outcome indicators cannot be taken to provide recommendations for undergoing PS or CR. The decision for prosthesis selection could be made mostly based on the surgeon's preference, indications and other indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract 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.

An increasing number of clinical trials, systematic analyses and clinical practice guidelines on acupuncture have reinvigorated the ancient healing art into an evidence-based medicine. The standardization of clinical trial formats and the development of increasingly rigorous research protocols and tools for systematic analysis of trial results have significantly raised the professional standards of clinicians and researchers. The result of this professional development as applied to acupuncture-related clinical trials is the achievement of an "inflection point" from which there is no return: high-quality clinical trials and systematic reviews continue to promote the credibility of acupuncture as a therapy and speed its integration into the medical establishment on a world-wide basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract 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.

• Using critical appraisal to ensure systematic review rigor. • Using quality assessment tools to methodically appraise systematic review. • Considerations for peer reviewing manuscripts. Methodological transparency and reproducibility are essential for systematic reviews. Peer review of systematic review manuscripts ensures researchers achieve transparency and reproducibility. Using critical appraisal and quality assessment tools is a methodological way for peer reviewers to conduct a thorough critique to assess the rigor and transparency of the systematic review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

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]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Systematic reviews (SRs) are the backbone of evidence-based health care, but no gold standard exists to assess their methodological quality. Although the AMSTAR tool is accepted for analyzing the quality of SRs, the ROBIS instrument was recently developed. This study compared the capacity of both instruments to capture the quality of SRs of interventions for improving vaccination coverage. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search in the Cochrane Library and PubMed. Two reviewers independently screened the search output, assessed study eligibility, and extracted data from eligible SRs; resolving differences through consensus. We conducted Principal Component Analysis (PCA) in Stata 14 to determine similarities and differences between AMSTAR and ROBIS. Results: A total of 2322 records were identified through the search and 75 full-text publications were assessed for eligibility, of which 57 met inclusion criteria. Using AMSTAR, we found 32%, 60% and 9% of SRs to have high, moderate and low quality, respectively. With ROBIS, we judged 74%, 14% and 12% of SRs to have low, unclear and high risk of bias. PCA showed that SRs with low risk of bias in ROBIS clustered together with SRs having high-quality in AMSTAR, and SRs with high risk of bias in ROBIS clustered with low-quality SRs in AMSTAR. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that there is an association between methodological quality and risk of bias in SRs of interventions focused on improving vaccination coverage. Therefore, either AMSTAR or ROBIS checklists can be used to evaluate methodological quality of SRs in vaccinology.

Abstract Background Infantile 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. Methods Medline, 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. Results Sixteen 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. Conclusion There 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 registration PROSPERO: 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: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Falls play a pivotal role in the cause of injury or death and have become a public health problem, especially for older people. Tai Chi may be an effective approach to improving balance and reducing falls. However, the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) have been inconsistent and the quality needs to be appraised critically. To provide an overview of the methodological quality, risk of bias and reporting quality as well as quality of evidence of SRs of Tai Chi for improving balance and reducing falls. We conducted a systematic search of English- and Chinese-language SRs in 8 electronic databases, from inception to October 2019. The methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality and the quality of evidence were independently assessed by 2 reviewers who used the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (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). Primary outcomes were fall rate and the Berg Balance Scale score in older people and people with Parkinson disease. Secondary outcomes included these outcomes in stroke, osteoarthritis and heart failure. A total of 14 relevant SRs were included: 13 were rated critically low quality and 1 was rated low quality by AMSTAR 2. By the ROBIS, all SRs were rated low risk in Phase 1 (assessing relevance) and Domain 1 of Phase 2 (study eligibility criteria). With regard to Domain 2, assessing the identification and selection of studies, 3 (21.4%) SRs were rated low risk. Eleven (71.4%) were rated low risk in Domain 3 (data collection and study appraisal), 11 (71.4%) were rated low risk in Domain 4 (synthesis and findings), and 9 (64.3%) were rated low risk in Phase 3 (risk of bias in the review). According to PRISMA, the reporting was relatively complete, but there were still some reporting flaws in the topic of protocol and registration (2/14, 14.3%), search strategy (5/14, 35.7%), risk of bias (6/14, 42.9%), additional analyses (6/14, 42.9%) and funding (4/14, 28.6%). Among the 14 SRs, Tai Chi had benefits for improving balance and reducing falls in older people and people with Parkinson disease; however, no definitive conclusions could be drawn for its effectiveness in stroke, osteoarthritis and heart failure. The level of evidence for fall rate was "moderate" to "high" for older people and "low" for those with Parkinson disease. The level of evidence of the Berg Balance Scale was "low" to "moderate" for older people and "low" for those with Parkinson disease. Among the downgraded factors, imprecision was the most common, followed by inconsistency and publication bias. Tai Chi may be beneficial for improving balance and reducing falls in older people and those with Parkinson disease. Because of limitations and inconsistent conclusions, further rigorous, normative and comprehensive SRs are needed to provide robust evidence for definitive conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: High‐quality systematic reviews (SR) and meta‐analyses (MA) are considered to be reliable sources of information. This study aims to assess the quality of studies published as SR or MA in the field of bariatrics in 2016 and 2017. We identified SR and MA in the field of bariatrics by searching electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). Eligible studies were those identified as SR/MA in the title/abstract, which aimed to assess any outcome in patients with morbid obesity undergoing or scheduled to undergo bariatric surgery. Two authors independently reviewed all titles and abstracts, assessed full texts of potentially eligible studies, and assessed the quality of included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved by the third reviewer. We evaluated the quality and risk of bias of each SR/MA using AMSTAR 2 checklist and ROBIS tool, respectively. Seventy‐eight of 4236 references met inclusion criteria and were assessed for their quality/risk of bias. The methodological quality of 99% of all papers was classified as "critically low." A total of 6% of the studies were at low risk of bias, and 78% were assessed as being at high risk of bias. The methodological quality of studies published in 2016 and 2017 as SR/MA is highly unsatisfactory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Fibromyalgia (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. Methods Five 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. Results We 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. Conclusions Overall, 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 registration PROSPERO CRD42016035846 .

Numerous systematic reviews investigating the effects of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in treating knee osteoarthritis (OA) have been published with controversial conclusion. The purpose of the overview was (1) to perform an overview of systematic reviews investigating MSCs for knee OA and (2) to synthesize evidence qualitatively to assess confidence in the review findings. A systematic search of systematic reviews published through Aug 2017 was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. The methodological quality and risk of bias of included systematic reviews was assessed by AMSTAR instrument and ROBIS tool, respectively. Best evidence choice procedure was conducted according to the Jadad decision algorithm. The systematic reviews with high methodological quality and low risk of bias were selected ultimately for further evidence synthesis based on the CERQual tool. Four systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion. According to the ROBIS tool, there was one systematic review with low risk of bias and three with high risk of bias. Thus, only one systematic review conducted by Pas et al. with highest AMSTAR score and low risk of bias was selected. For all outcomes after evidence synthesis via the CERQual tool, confidence for decision making was either low (self-reported measurement and MRI/histological outcome) or moderate (adverse events). The present study demonstrates that moderate confidence could be placed in safety of MSCs therapy for knee OA, but with low confidence in efficacy outcomes due to limitations of the current evidence. Further high-quality studies with high internal and external validity are still required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Several systematic reviews have been performed to investigate whether intra-articular steroid injections can increase the risk of infection in subsequent arthroplasty. However, the conclusions of these systematic reviews are discordant. The purpose of the present study was to select best evidence and consider risk of bias of these systematic reviews and to provide recommendations through the best evidence. Methods: The systematic reviews that compared the infection rates of arthroplasty with or without previous intra-articular steroid injection were identified. The methodological quality and risk of bias of included systematic reviews were assessed by the AMSTAR instrument and ROBIS tool, respectively. Heterogeneity information within each variable was extracted from the included studies. The Jadad algorithm was then used to determine which systematic reviews can provide the best evidence. Results: Six systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion. The Jadad decision-making tool suggested that two reviews with highest AMSTAR score should be selected. According to the ROBIS tool, there were three systematic reviews with low risk of bias and three with high risk of bias. As a result, two systematic reviews conducted by Charalambous et al. and Marsland et al. with highest AMSTAR scores and low risk of bias were selected as the best evidence. Conclusions: The present study demonstrates that intra-articular steroid injections prior to arthroplasty did not increase infection rates severely after the operation. However, the strength of recommendation is weak due to the limitations of current evidence. Further high-quality primary studies are still required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objectives: Numerous systematic reviews investigating the efficacy of platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) in treating knee osteoarthritis (OA) have been recently published. The purpose of the present study was (1) to perform an overview of overlapping systematic reviews investigating PRP for knee OA via evaluating methodological quality and risk of bias of systematic reviews and (2) to provide recommendations through the best evidence. Methods: A systematic search of systematic reviews published through Feb 2017 was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. The methodological quality and risk of bias of included systematic reviews were assessed by AMSTAR instrument and ROBIS tool respectively. Best evidence choice procedure was conducted according to the Jadad decision algorithm. The systematic reviews with high quality of methodology and low risk of bias were selected ultimately. Results: Ten systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion. The Jadad decision making tool suggested that the reviews with highest AMSTAR score should be selected. According to the ROBIS tool, there were 4 systematic reviews with low risk of bias and 6 with high risk of bias. As a result, two systematic reviews conducted by Dai et al and Meheux et al with highest AMSTAR score and low risk of bias were selected as the best evidence. Conclusions: The present overview demonstrates that PRP is an effective intervention in treating knee OA without increased risk of adverse events. Therefore, the present conclusions may help decision makers interpret and choose PRP with more confidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objectives: Intra‐articular injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) is a common, yet controversial therapeutic option in treating knee osteoarthritis (OA). The purpose of the present study was to assess the risk of bias (RoB) of systematic reviews (SRs) and to summarize available evidence of HA in treating knee OA. Methods: A systematic search of SRs published through to December 2016 was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. The RoB of included SRs was assessed by ROBIS tool. In addition, the methodological quality of primary studies in SRs with low RoB was evaluated according to the Cochrane Handbook. The evidence quality of each primary outcome of SRs with low RoB was determined by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. Results: Thirty‐one SRs were eligible for inclusion. According to the ROBIS tool, there were 13 SRs with low RoB, 16 with high RoB and two with unclear RoB. The methodological quality of a total of 135 primary studies was evaluated and summarized. Forty‐two outcomes from these 13 SRs were classified into the four following quality levels based on the GRADE approach: three outcomes with high quality, eight with moderate quality, 12 with low quality and 19 with very low quality. Conclusions: This study evaluated RoB in SRs for managing knee OA with HA and assessed the evidence quality of each primary outcome in SRs with low RoB. These results can help users of SRs to improve the process of SR assessment in developing overviews or guidelines, leading to more reliable recommendations for improvements in treating knee OA. Registration: PROSPERO ( (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO) [CRD42017057384]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fibromyalgia (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. Methods: Five 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-todate 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. Results: We 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. Conclusions: Overall, 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Kuntai Capsules in the treatment of perimenopausal syndrome. Systematic reviews on Kuntai Capsules in the treatment of perimenopausal syndrome were retrieved from Chinese and English databases from database establishment to August 31, 2020. AMSTER-2 scale, GRADE scale and ROBIS tools were used respectively to evaluate the methodological quality, evidence quality level and bias risk of the finally included systematic reviews. A total of 6 systematic reviews with 28 outcome indicators were included. The results of AMSTER-2 methodological quality assessment showed that one of the six systematic reviews was of low quality, and the other five were of extremely low quality. GRADE scale showed that 28 clinical outcome indicators were evaluated, three of which were intermediate-level ones, and the rest were low-level or very low-level ones. Two evidences of the three intermediate evidences were total efficiency, and the other intermediate evidence was Kupperman score. ROBIS bias risk assessment showed all the included studies were of high risk. The results showed that, Kuntai Capsules were effective in the treatment of perimenopausal symptoms, such as hot flashes and sweating. The improvement of E_2 level was not as good as that in the menopause hormone therapy group, but the incidence of adverse reactions was lower than that in the menopause hormone therapy group. However, the quality of evidence needs to be improved due to the low quality of methodology and high risk of bias. It is suggested that systematic review and reasonable design should be carried out in the future, and attention should be paid to the registration of research schemes. In addition, the research reports shall be prepared according to PRISMA statement.