ObjectiveTo overview of systematic reviews of the efficacy and safety of antimicrobials in the prevention of postpartum infection after vaginal delivery, and to provide evidence for the rational use of antimicrobials. MethodsThe CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect systematic reviews/meta-analyses on antibiotic prophylaxis for transvaginal delivery from inception to June 25, 2023. The data of the included systematic reviews were extracted by 2 investigators independently, and the methodological quality, risk of bias, and report quality were evaluated by AMSTAR 2.0 scale, ROBIS tool, and PRISMA, respectively. And a pool of outcomes for assessing the effectiveness of antimicrobials in prevention of postpartum infection after transvaginal delivery was developed. ResultsA total of 7 systematic reviews were included. And the AMSTAR 2.0 indicated that most studies (5/7) were from very low quality to low quality. The ROBIS tool showed 3 studies with low risk of bias, 3 with high risk of bias, and 1 with unclear risk of bias. The results of the PRISMA statement showed that the included system evaluation reports were relatively complete. The present evidence showed that prophylactic use of antimicrobials may be beneficial and recommended in women with Ⅲ-Ⅳ perineal fissures, with no significant benefit in women with manual placenta removal, but prophylactic use of antimicrobials was recommended considering their invasive nature, but it was controversial whether antimicrobials should be used in the categories of vaginal assisted delivery, perineal lateralization, and spontaneous delivery (without complications). ConclusionAntimicrobial prophylaxis may not be recommended for all the pregnant women undergoing vaginal delivery to prevent the postpartum infection, but considering the low methodological quality of the included systematic review and the inconsistent outcomes in this field, the conclusion should be further verified by future research with high-quality.
ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews of the efficacy of cancer patient decision aids (PDAs) for treatment decision-making. MethodsThe PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, JBI, CNKI, VIP, CBM and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect the systematic reviews relevant to the objective from inception to September 2023. Literature screening, data extraction, methodological quality assessment of the included literature, and summary and grading of the evidence were carried out independently by two researchers, and duplication of original studies in the included systematic evaluations was investigated using the corrected covered area (CCA). ResultsA total of 17 systematic reviews were included, of which 13 (76.47%) were low- or very low-quality studies. A total of 64 pieces of evidence were included, of which only 26 (40.62%) were of moderate quality, and the original studies included in the included literature had a low degree of overlap (CCA=0.05). The results of meta-analysis showed that PDAs could increase decision-related knowledge, reduce decision conflict and regret in cancer patients' treatment decision (P<0.05). However, there was no significant difference in decision satisfaction, anxiety or depression (P>0.05). ConclusionPDAs can improve cancer patients' knowledge related to treatment decision, reduce decision conflicts and regrets, and have no significant negative effects on decision preparation, satisfaction, anxiety, and depression. However, the existing systematic reviews are of low quality and limited to a few cancer types.
The systematic review/meta-analysis database of traditional Chinese medicine (SMD-TCM) was focused on incubation and application of the secondary research achievement. At present, the establishment of front and back websites, evidence input and evaluation have been completed. In the near future, the automation of overview and the visual presentation of evidence information will be realized, which provides the technical support for integration, analysis and application of evidence in the secondary research of TCM. This paper introduces the construction of SMD-TCM database which includes: requirements of construction, design principles, working process, evidence processing, ensuring quality of data input, data analysis and application, etc.
ObjectiveTo re-evaluate the systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MAs) of the efficacy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement. MethodsThe CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were electronically searched to collect SR/MAs of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement from inception to April 28, 2023. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and then assessed the quality of reports, methodological quality, risk of bias, and the strength of evidence quality by using PRISMA, AMSTAR-Ⅱ, ROBIS, and GRADE tool. ResultsA total of 20 SR/MAs were included. The results of the included studies showed that robot-assisted pedicle screw placement was more accurate and had a lower number of complications compared with freehand pedicle screw placement. The quality of reports, methodology, and evidence for pedicle screw placement efficiency in all SR/MAs were low or extremely low, with a high risk of bias. The main reasons included high heterogeneity of included studies, unclear research methods and selection criteria, and missing key reporting processes. ConclusionRobot-assisted pedicle screw placement may have better clinical efficiency than traditional freehand pedicle screw placement. But the quality of relational SR/MAs is low.
Objective To overview the systematic reviews of the effectiveness and safety of the charged-particle radiation therapy. Methods Databases including CNKI, WanFang Data, PubMed, and EMbase were electronically searched from January 2007 to November 2020. Two investigators independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies by AMSTAR 2, and then reported results through a narrative synthesis of outcomes. Results A total of 6 systematic reviews were identified. One systematic review demonstrated moderate quality and the other 5 demonstrated critically low quality. The charged-particle radiation therapy had a wide range of applications. Its effectiveness was superior to traditional radiotherapy methods on various types of tumors in various regions of the body, with acceptable side effects. Specifically, the effectiveness and safety outcomes of carbon ion radiotherapy was superior to those of proton radiotherapy. Conclusions Current evidence shows that the charged-particle radiation therapy has superior effectiveness and limited toxicity, though the studies are of relatively low quality. High quality and larger sample size researches are required in the future.
Objectives To evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews on acupuncture for polycystic ovary syndrome. Methods We comprehensively searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data to collect systematic reviews on acupuncture for polycystic ovary syndrome from the establishment time of databases to January 5th, 2018. The AMSTAR tool was applied for methodological quality assessment of included studies and the GRADE system was applied for evidence quality assessment of included outcomes of systematic reviews. Results A total of 11 systematic reviews were included. The results of assessment using AMSTAR showed that, among the 11 items, most problems occurred in Item 5 " Were there any lists of research articles included and excluded”, followed by Item 1" Was an‘a prior’design provided?”and Item 11" Were potential conflict of interest included?”. GRADE grading results showed that quality of evidence for the outcome measure were" low”or" very low”. Conclusions Current acupuncture treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome has a certain effect, however, the quality of evidence is low. Thus, physicians should apply the evidence to make decision on acupuncture for polycystic ovary syndrome with caution in clinical practice and consider the actual situation, combined with the patient’s value preferences and economic factors.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) treatment for essential hypertension. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were searched to collect the SRs which focused on the TCM for essential hypertension from January 2015 to June 2019. PRISMA statement, AMSTAR 2 tool and GRADE system were respectively applied to evaluate report quality, methodological quality and evidence quality assessment of included outcomes of SRs.ResultsA total of 25 SRs involving 65 outcomes were included. PRISMA evaluation results showed that the quality of 25 SRs reports was good. However, all studies did not report item 5 " Was an ‘a prior’ design provided?”. AMSTAR 2 tool evaluation results showed that the 25 SRs of quality levels were markedly low, where most problems concerned item 2 " If there is ‘a prior’ published in advance”, item 3 " Were reasons about selection of the study designs explained”, item 7 " Were the list of exclude of studies and justify the exclusions provided”, item 10 " Were the sources of funding for the studies reported”, and item 12 " If meta-analysis was performed, whether the author assesses the potential impact of risk of bias”. The results of grading showed that most outcomes were graded as " low” or " very low” quality. The main factors contributing to downgrading evidence quality were limitations, followed by inconsistencies, inaccuracies and publication bias.ConclusionsCurrent evidences shows that the treatment of essential hypertension by TCM has been supported by low quality evidence-based medical evidence. However, the SRs methodology for the treatment of essential hypertension by TCM is generally poor in quality and the standardization still require improvement.
ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews on the timing of different surgical interventions for severe multidrug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis patients.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were searched for systematic reviews about the timing of different surgical interventions for severe multidrug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis patients from inception to December, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, evaluated the reporting and methodological qualities using the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR tool. After re-extraction of individual RCT data from included systematic reviews, meta-analysis was performed by Stata10.0 software.ResultsA total of 11 systematic reviews were included. The average methodological quality score was 8.13 in AMSTAR , the reporting quality score was from 19.5 to 25 in PRISMA. Re-performed meta-analysis showed that, the total success rate of operation was 93.3% (95%CI 92.9 to 93.8), the failure rate was 3.7% (95%CI 3.3 to 4.0), the mortality rate was 2.0% (95%CI 1.8 to 2.2), and the loss rate was 1.0% (95%CI 0.8 to 1.2). The cure rates of different surgical methods were all over 80%, among which single lobectomy (98.47%) and compound lobectomy (98.94%) had the higher cure rates than others. For the time of different surgical interventions, cure rate could be improved obviously in patients receiving surgery treatment after 1 months (OR=1.58, 95%CI 1.29 to 1.94, P=0.000 12), 1-8months (OR=1.66, 95%CI 1.30 to 2.12, P=0.000 05) and 9-24 months (OR=1.48, 95%CI 1.15 to 1.90, P=0.002) of anti-tuberculosis therapy compared with 0 month.There were significant differences between two groups.ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that operation is an effective way for severe multidrug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis. Operative opportunity should be selected after 1-24 months of anti-tuberculosis drug treatment when the operation time depending on whether the tuberculosis has turned negative or not. Operative mode should be decided by the location and the scope of the lesion, which ensures the maximum excision of lesions and retention of lung function.
To improve the comprehensive and accurate of overviews of reviews, BMJ published the guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: the PRIOR statement. This paper explained the background and core contents of PRIOR statement and interpreted each item with examples to provide references for domestic scholars to write overviews of reviews.
Objective To survey and analyze the quality assessment of the included studies in the Overviews of reviews (Overviews), so as to provide methodology references for Overviews authors. Methods A computerized search was performed for collecting Overviews in The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2010), PubMed, EMBASE, and CBM, and the search time ended by December, 2009. Then the relevant data, such as assessment standard etc, were extracted, and the staple standards were analyzed. Results A total of 43 typical Overviews were included. Thirty-two (74.4%) of them assessed the methodology quality of the included systematic reviews with different standards, including OQAQ (34.9%/15), AMSTAR (9.1%/3), Checklist from DARE (4.6%/2), Assendelft scale (4.6%/2), Effective Public Health Practice Project standards (2.3%/1), self-formulated standards (14.0%/ 6), syntaxic standards (2.3%/1), and other standards (4.6%/2). Ten Overviews (23.6%) assessed the quality of evidence, including eight (18.6%) applied the GRADE system. Only 7 studies (16.3%) assessed the quality of evidence and applied the GRADE system as well. Conclusion The quality assessment in Overviews includes the assessment of both methodological quality and evidence quality. But most Overviews do not assess comprehensively. The methodological quality standards applied in current Overviews are numerous and no standard is acknowledged. Yet, the OQAQ and AMSTAR are applied widely and recommended because they are comprehensive and easy to be conducted. It suggests that Overviews authors should choose appropriate methodological quality assessment standards according to concrete conditions. The GRADE system is much more comprehensive and systematic than other systems, so it is recommended that Overviews authors should apply GRADE to assess the quality of evidence in their studies in order to make the study results more comprehensive and easier for clinical application.