Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality.

OBJECTIVES To compare the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published in high- and low-impact factor (IF) Core Clinical Journals. In addition, we aimed to record the implementation of aspects of reporting, including Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram, reasons for study exclusion, and use of recommendations for interventions such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published in Core Clinical Journals between July 1 and December 31, 2012. We evaluated the methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. RESULTS Over the 6-month period, 327 interventional systematic reviews were identified with a mean AMSTAR score of 63.3% (standard deviation, 17.1%), when converted to a percentage scale. We identified deficiencies in relation to a number of quality criteria including delineation of excluded studies and assessment of publication bias. We found that SRs published in higher impact journals were undertaken more rigorously with higher percentage AMSTAR scores (per IF unit: β = 0.68%; 95% confidence interval: 0.32, 1.04; P < 0.001), a discrepancy likely to be particularly relevant when differences in IF are large. CONCLUSION Methodological quality of SRs appears to be better in higher impact journals. The overall quality of SRs published in many Core Clinical Journals remains suboptimal.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials: principles and pitfalls

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for a more transparent and objective appraisal of the evidence. They may decrease the number of false-negative results and prevent delays in the introduction of effective interventions into clinical practice. However, as for any other tool, their misuse can result in severely misleading results. In this article, we discuss the main steps that should be taken when conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, namely the preparation of a review protocol, identification of eligible trials, and data extraction, pooling of treatment effects across trials, investigation of potential reasons for differences in treatment effects across trials, and complete reporting of the review methods and findings. We also discuss common pitfalls that should be avoided, including the use of quality assessment tools to derive summary quality scores, pooling of data across trials as if they belonged to a single large trial, and inappropriate uses of meta-regression that could result in misleading estimates of treatment effects because of regression to the mean or the ecological fallacy. If conducted and reported properly, systematic reviews and meta-analyses will increase our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the available evidence, which may eventually facilitate clinical decision making.

Understanding the Sharing Economy: The Role of Response to Negative Reviews in the Peer-To-Peer Accommodation Sharing Network?

Recognizing the potentially ruinous effect of negative reviews on the reputation of the hosts as well as a subjective nature of the travel experience judgements, peer-to-peer accommodation sharing plat-forms, like Airbnb, have readily embraced the “response” option, empowering hosts with the voice to challenge, deny or at least apologize for the subject of critique. However, the effects of different re-sponse strategies on trusting beliefs towards the host remain unclear. To fill this gap, this study focus-es on understanding the impact of different response strategies and review negativity on trusting be-liefs towards the host in peer-to-peer accommodation sharing setting utilizing experimental methods. Examination of two different contexts, varying in the controllability of the subject of complaint, re-veals that when the subject of complaint is controllable by a host, such strategies as confession / apol-ogy and denial can improve trusting beliefs towards the host. However, when the subject of criticism is beyond the control of the host, denial of the issue does not yield guest’s confidence in the host, where-as confession and excuse have positive influence on trusting beliefs.

Time relevance, citation of reporting guidelines, and breadth of literature search in systematic reviews in orthodontics

INTRODUCTION As the importance of systematic review (SR) conclusions relies upon the scientific rigor of methods and the currency of evidence, we aimed to investigate the currency of orthodontic SRs using as proxy the time from the initial search to publication. Additionally, SR information regarding reporting guidelines, registration, and literature searches were recorded when available. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic PubMed search was carried out using the Clinical Queries page to identify orthodontic SRs cited between 1 January 2008 and 7 November 2013. Data related to reporting guidelines, review registration, dates of review processing, literature search, and abstract reporting were retrieved and classified by journal type. Survival analysis was used to assess the time to reach predefined manuscript stages for orthodontic and non-orthodontic journals. RESULTS One hundred twenty seven of the originally identified 585 SRs were considered eligible. The median interval from search until publication was 13.2 months (interquartile range: IQR = 9.7 months) irrespective of the journal type. There was evidence (P = 0.05) that SRs published by non-orthodontic journals appeared in PubMed faster than in orthodontic journals (non-orthodontic: median = 6.5 months; IQR = 5.7 months; orthodontic: median = 10.2 months; IQR = 5.6 months) from submission to publication and from acceptance to publication (non-orthodontic: median = 1.5 months; IQR = 2.4 months; orthodontic: median = 6.0 months; IQR = 6.2 months; P < 0.001). More than half of these SRs did not cite adherence to any reporting guidelines, whereas all but five studies were not prospectively registered. Search of unpublished research was undertaken in approximately 21 per cent and 29 per cent of the SRs published in non-orthodontic and orthodontic periodicals, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This study indicates that SR users should be aware that median time for orthodontic SRs from search to publication is 13.2 months. SRs published in non-orthodontic journals are likely to be more current in terms of submission until time to publication and acceptance until time to publication compared with those published in orthodontic journals.

Current State of Reporting Pain Outcomes in Cochrane Reviews of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions and Considerations for an OMERACT Research Agenda.

OBJECTIVE To assess the current state of reporting of pain outcomes in Cochrane reviews on chronic musculoskeletal painful conditions and to elicit opinions of patients, healthcare practitioners, and methodologists on presenting pain outcomes to patients, clinicians, and policymakers. METHODS We identified all reviews in the Cochrane Library of chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions from Cochrane review groups (Back, Musculoskeletal, and Pain, Palliative, and Supportive Care) that contained a summary of findings (SoF) table. We extracted data on reported pain domains and instruments and conducted a survey and interviews on considerations for SoF tables (e.g., pain domains, presentation of results). RESULTS Fifty-seven SoF tables in 133 Cochrane reviews were eligible. SoF tables reported pain in 56/57, with all presenting results for pain intensity (20 different outcome instruments), pain interference in 8 SoF tables (5 different outcome instruments), and pain frequency in 1 multiple domain instrument. Other domains like pain quality or pain affect were not reported. From the survey and interviews [response rate 80% (36/45)], we derived 4 themes for a future research agenda: pain domains, considerations for assessing truth, discrimination, and feasibility; clinically important thresholds for responder analyses and presenting results; and establishing hierarchies of outcome instruments. CONCLUSION There is a lack of standardization in the domains of pain selected and the manner that pain outcomes are reported in SoF tables, hampering efforts to synthesize evidence. Future research should focus on the themes identified, building partnerships to achieve consensus and develop guidance on best practices for reporting pain outcomes.

Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVES To assess discrepancies in the analyzed outcomes between protocols and published reviews within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews (COHG) on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING All COHG systematic reviews on the CDSR and the corresponding protocols were retrieved in November 2014 and information on the reported outcomes was recorded. Data was collected at the systematic review level by two reviewers independently. RESULTS One hundred and fifty two reviews were included. In relation to primary outcomes, 11.2% were downgraded to secondary outcomes, 9.9% were omitted altogether in the final publication and new primary outcomes were identified in 18.4% of publications. For secondary outcomes, 2% were upgraded to primary, 12.5% were omitted and 30.9% were newly introduced in the publication. Overall, 45.4% of reviews had at least one discrepancy when compared to the protocol; these were reported in 14.5% reviews. The number of review updates appears to be associated with discrepancies between final review and protocol (OR: 3.18, 95% CI: 1.77, 5.74, p<0.001). The risk of reporting significant results was lower for both downgraded outcomes [RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.17, 1.58, p = 0.24] and upgraded or newly introduced outcomes [RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.36, 1.64, p = 0.50] compared to outcomes with no discrepancies. The risk of reporting significant results was higher for upgraded or newly introduced outcomes compared to downgraded outcomes (RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.65, 2.16, p = 0.57). None of the comparisons reached statistical significance. CONCLUSION While no evidence of selective outcome reporting was found in this study, based on the present analysis of SRs published within COHG systematic reviews, discrepancies between outcomes in pre-published protocols and final reviews continue to be common. Solutions such as the use of standardized outcomes to reduce the prevalence of this issue may need to be explored.

The Quality of the Evidence According to GRADE Is Predominantly Low or Very Low in Oral Health Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVES The main objective was to assess the credibility of the evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) in oral health systematic reviews on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and elsewhere. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Systematic Reviews or meta-analyses (January 2008-December 2013) from 14 high impact general dental and specialty dental journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were screened for meta-analyses. Data was collected at the systematic review, meta-analysis and trial level. Two reviewers applied and agreed on the GRADE rating for the selected meta-analyses. RESULTS From the 510 systematic reviews initially identified 91 reviews (41 Cochrane and 50 non-Cochrane) were eligible for inclusion. The quality of evidence was high in 2% and moderate in 18% of the included meta-analyses with no difference between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, journal impact factor or year of publication. The most common domains prompting downgrading of the evidence were study limitations (risk of bias) and imprecision (risk of play of chance). CONCLUSION The quality of the evidence in oral health assessed using GRADE is predominantly low or very low suggesting a pressing need for more randomised clinical trials and other studies of higher quality in order to inform clinical decisions thereby reducing the risk of instituting potentially ineffective and/or harmful therapies.

Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent

OBJECTIVES To assess the use of quality assessment tools among a cross-section of systematic reviews (SRs) and to further evaluate whether quality was used as a parameter in the decision to include primary studies within subsequent meta-analysis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched PubMed for SRs (interventional, observational, and diagnostic) published in Core Clinical Journals between January 1 and March 31, 2014. RESULTS Three hundred nine SRs were identified. Quality assessment was undertaken in 222 (71.8%) with isolated use of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (26.1%, n = 58) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (15.3%, n = 34) most common. A threshold level of primary study quality for subsequent meta-analysis was used in 12.9% (40 of 309) of reviews. Overall, fifty-four combinations of quality assessment tools were identified with a similar preponderance of tools used among observational and interventional reviews. Multiple tools were used in 11.7% (n = 36) of SRs overall. CONCLUSION We found that quality assessment tools were used in a majority of SRs; however, a threshold level of quality for meta-analysis was stipulated in just 12.9% (n = 40). This cross-sectional analysis provides further evidence of the need for more active or intuitive editorial processes to enhance the reporting of SRs.

Reporting and handling missing outcome data in mental health: a systematic review of Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVES The purpose of the study was to provide empirical evidence about the reporting of methodology to address missing outcome data and the acknowledgement of their impact in Cochrane systematic reviews in the mental health field. METHODS Systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews after January 1, 2009 by three Cochrane Review Groups relating to mental health were included. RESULTS One hundred ninety systematic reviews were considered. Missing outcome data were present in at least one included study in 175 systematic reviews. Of these 175 systematic reviews, 147 (84%) accounted for missing outcome data by considering a relevant primary or secondary outcome (e.g., dropout). Missing outcome data implications were reported only in 61 (35%) systematic reviews and primarily in the discussion section by commenting on the amount of the missing outcome data. One hundred forty eligible meta-analyses with missing data were scrutinized. Seventy-nine (56%) of them had studies with total dropout rate between 10 and 30%. One hundred nine (78%) meta-analyses reported to have performed intention-to-treat analysis by including trials with imputed outcome data. Sensitivity analysis for incomplete outcome data was implemented in less than 20% of the meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS Reporting of the techniques for handling missing outcome data and their implications in the findings of the systematic reviews are suboptimal.

The evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthodontic literature. Where do we stand?

AIM To analyse meta-analyses included in systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) focusing on orthodontic literature and to assess the quality of the existing evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS Electronic searching was undertaken to identify SRs published in five major orthodontic journals and the CDSR between January 2000 and June 2014. Quality assessment of the overall body of evidence from meta-analyses was conducted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group (GRADE) tool. RESULTS One hundred and fifty-seven SRs were identified; meta-analysis was present in 43 of these (27.4 per cent). The highest proportion of SRs that included a meta-analysis was found in Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (6/13; 46.1 per cent), followed by the CDSR (12/33; 36.4 per cent) and the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics (15/44; 34.1 per cent). Class II treatment was the most commonly addressed topic within SRs in orthodontics (n = 18/157; 11.5 per cent). The number of trials combined to produce a summary estimate was small for most meta-analyses with a median of 4 (range: 2-52). Only 21 per cent (n = 9) of included meta-analyses were considered to have a high/moderate quality of evidence according to GRADE, while the majority were of low or very low quality (n = 34; 79.0 per cent). CONCLUSIONS Overall, approximately one quarter of orthodontic SRs included quantitative synthesis, with a median of four trials per meta-analysis. The overall quality of evidence from the selected orthodontic SRs was predominantly low to very low indicating the relative lack of high quality of evidence from SRs to inform clinical practice guidelines.