Issues related to the conduct of systematic reviews: a focus on the nutrition field. Systematic Reviews of Animal Studies; Missing Link in Translational Research? Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study Scoping review of systematic reviews of complementary medicine for musculoskeletal and mental health conditions A comprehensive approach to rehabilitation interventions following breast cancer treatment - a systematic review of systematic reviews Efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabis‐based medicines for chronic pain management – An overview of systematic reviews Updating Systematic Reviews: An International Survey Reporting of Sex Effects by Systematic Reviews on Interventions for Depression, Diabetes, and Chronic Pain Outcome Measures of Chinese Herbal Medicine for Hypertension: An Overview of Systematic Reviews
Systematic review s ( SRs ) are an increasingly popular evidence -based tool and are often used to answer complex research questions across many different research domains . Early SR methodology was advanced by social scientists , and the term meta- analysis was coined by a social scientist who also conducted research in psychology . SRs have recently become popular in healthcare and are likely to be beneficial in any field . The aim of this report is to highlight issues in SR conduct with a focus on the field of nutrition and to make recommendations on improving SR conduct in this area . Development of the research question is probably the most important step in conducting an SR . The 4 main components of an answerable question are 1 ) the patient , population , or problem ; 2 ) the intervention , independent variable , or exposure ; 3 ) the comparators ; and 4 ) the dependent variables or outcomes of interest . The question will be used to determine the optimal methods for conducting the SR . SRs often include study design s beyond r and omized trials and do not always include a meta- analysis of the results . Other topics explored include underst and ing and interpreting discordant review s and the importance of reporting tools [ eg , QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses ( QUOROM Statement ) or CONsoli date d St and ards Of Reporting of Trials ( CONSORT Statement ) ] . Recommendations are then provided , such as developing a capacity-building program , search ing the primary literature for research gaps , and extending reporting tools such as the QUOROM Statement to the field of nutrition Background The method ological quality of animal studies is an important factor hampering the translation of results from animal studies to a clinical setting . Systematic review s of animal studies may provide a suitable method to assess and thereby improve their method ological quality . Objectives The aims of this study were : 1 ) to evaluate the risk of bias assessment in animal-based systematic review s , and 2 ) to study the internal validity of the primary animal studies included in these systematic review s. Data Sources We systematic ally search ed Pubmed and Embase for SRs of pre clinical animal studies published between 2005 and 2012 . Results A total of 91 systematic review s met our inclusion criteria . The risk of bias was assessed in 48 ( 52.7 % ) of these 91 systematic review s. Thirty-three ( 36.3 % ) SRs provided sufficient information to evaluate the internal validity of the included studies . Of the evaluated primary studies , 24.6 % was r and omized , 14.6 % reported blinding of the investigator/caretaker , 23.9 % blinded the outcome assessment , and 23.1 % reported drop-outs . Conclusions To improve the translation of animal data to clinical practice , systematic review s of animal studies are worthwhile , but the internal validity of primary animal studies needs to be improved . Furthermore , risk of bias should be assessed by systematic review s of animal studies to provide insight into the reliability of the available evidence Background Systematic review s ( SRs ) can help decision makers interpret the deluge of published biomedical literature . However , a SR may be of limited use if the methods used to conduct the SR are flawed , and reporting of the SR is incomplete . To our knowledge , since 2004 there has been no cross-sectional study of the prevalence , focus , and completeness of reporting of SRs across different specialties . Therefore , the aim of our study was to investigate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a more recent cross-section of SRs . Methods and Findings We search ed MEDLINE to identify potentially eligible SRs indexed during the month of February 2014 . Citations were screened using prespecified eligibility criteria . Epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a r and om sample of 300 SRs were extracted by one review er , with a 10 % sample extracted in duplicate . We compared characteristics of Cochrane versus non-Cochrane review s , and the 2014 sample of SRs versus a 2004 sample of SRs . We identified 682 SRs , suggesting that more than 8,000 SRs are being indexed in MEDLINE annually , corresponding to a 3-fold increase over the last decade . The majority of SRs addressed a therapeutic question and were conducted by authors based in China , the UK , or the US ; they included a median of 15 studies involving 2,072 participants .  Meta- analysis was performed in 63 % of SRs , mostly using st and ard pairwise methods . Study risk of bias/ quality assessment was performed in 70 % of SRs but was rarely incorporated into the analysis ( 16 % ) . Few SRs ( 7 % ) search ed sources of unpublished data , and the risk of publication bias was considered in less than half of SRs . Reporting quality was highly variable ; at least a third of SRs did not report use of a SR protocol , eligibility criteria relating to publication status , years of coverage of the search , a full Boolean search logic for at least one data base , methods for data extraction , methods for study risk of bias assessment , a primary outcome , an abstract conclusion that incorporated study limitations , or the funding source of the SR . Cochrane SRs , which accounted for 15 % of the sample , had more complete reporting than all other types of SRs . Reporting has generally improved since 2004 , but remains suboptimal for many characteristics . Conclusions An increasing number of SRs are being published , and many are poorly conducted and reported . Strategies are needed to help reduce this avoidable waste in research Objective To identify potentially effective complementary approaches for musculoskeletal (MSK)–mental health ( MH ) comorbidity , by synthesis ing evidence on effectiveness , cost-effectiveness and safety from systematic review s ( SRs ) . Design Scoping review of SRs . Methods We search ed literature data bases , registries and reference lists , and contacted key authors and professional organisations to identify SRs of r and omised controlled trials for complementary medicine for MSK or MH . Inclusion criteria were : published after 2004 , study ing adults , in English and scoring > 50 % on Assessing the Method ological Quality of Systematic Review s ( AMSTAR ) ; quality appraisal checklist ) . SRs were synthesis ed to identify research priorities , based on moderate/good quality evidence , sample size and indication of cost-effectiveness and safety . Results We included 84 MSK SRs and 27 MH SRs . Only one focused on MSK – MH comorbidity . Meditative approaches and yoga may improve MH outcomes in MSK population s. Yoga and tai chi had moderate/good evidence for MSK and MH conditions . SRs reported moderate/good quality evidence ( any comparator ) in a moderate/large population for :  low back pain ( LBP )  ( yoga , acupuncture , spinal manipulation/mobilisation , osteopathy ) , osteoarthritis ( OA ) ( acupuncture , tai chi ) , neck pain  ( acupuncture , manipulation/manual therapy ) , myofascial trigger point pain ( acupuncture ) , depression ( mindfulness-based stress reduction ( MBSR ) , meditation , tai chi , relaxation ) , anxiety ( meditation/MBSR , moving meditation , yoga ) , sleep disorders ( meditative/mind – body movement ) and stress/distress ( mindfulness ) . The majority of these complementary approaches had some evidence of safety — only three had evidence of harm . There was some evidence of cost-effectiveness for spinal manipulation/mobilisation and acupuncture for LBP , and manual therapy/manipulation for neck pain , but few SRs review ed cost-effectiveness and many found no data . Conclusions Only one SR studied MSK – MH comorbidity . Research priorities for complementary medicine for both MSK and MH ( LBP , OA , depression , anxiety and sleep problems ) are yoga , mindfulness and tai chi . Despite the large number of SRs and the prevalence of comorbidity , more high- quality , large r and omised controlled trials in comorbid population s are needed Background Breast cancer ( BC ) is the most common type of cancer in women worldwide . Post-treatment , patients suffer from side effects and have various rehabilitation needs , which means that individualization is fundamental for optimal rehabilitation . This systematic review ( SR ) of SRs aims to evaluate the current evidence on rehabilitation interventions in female patients following BC treatment . Methods Full-text SRs published in English from 2009 were search ed in Embase , PubMed , Cinahl Complete , PsycINFO , AMED , SCOPUS , and Cochrane Library . Inclusion criteria : SRs of r and omized or non-r and omized controlled trials investigating the effects of  rehabilitation interventions in women following BC treatment . All outcomes were considered . Method ological quality was evaluated using the AMSTAR 2 tool and interrater agreement was evaluated . Out of 1269 citations retrieved , 37 SRs were included . Results Five rehabilitation areas were identified : exercise and physical activity ( PA ) , complementary and alternative medicine ( CAM ) , yoga , lymphoedema treatment , and psychosocial interventions . The most solid evidence was found in exercise/PA and yoga . Exercise interventions improved outcomes such as shoulder mobility , lymphoedema , pain , fatigue and quality of life ( QoL ) . Effects of yoga were shown on QoL , anxiety , depression , sleep disturbance , fatigue and gastrointestinal symptoms . The effect of CAM was shown on nausea , pain , fatigue , anger and anxiety but these results need to be interpreted with caution because of low method ological quality in included studies in the SRs . Among the lymphoedema treatments , positive effects were seen for resistance training on volume reduction and muscle strength and psychosocial interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy had positive effects on QoL , anxiety , depression and mood disturbance . Conclusions This SR of SRs show solid positive effects of exercise/PA and yoga for women following BC treatment , and provides extended knowledge of the effects of CAM , yoga , lymphoedema treatment and psychosocial interventions . It is evident that more than one intervention could have positive effects on a specific symptom and that the effects depend not only on intervention type but also on how and when the intervention is provided . The results can be used as a foundation for individualized rehabilitation and aid health care professionals in meeting patients ’ individual needs and preferences . Trial registration PROSPERO ( CRD42017060912 ) Medicinal cannabis has already entered mainstream medicine in some countries . This systematic review ( SR ) aim ed at evaluating the efficacy , acceptability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management . Qualitative systematic review of SRs of r and omized controlled trials with cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management . The Cochrane data bases of SRs , Data base of Abstract s of Review s of Effects and PubMed were search ed for SR published in the period January 2009 to January 2017 . Assessment of the method ological quality of SR was performed by the AMSTAR checklist . Out of 748 papers identified , 10 SRs met the inclusion criteria . The method ological quality was high in four and moderate in six SRs . There were inconsistent findings of four SRs on the efficacy of cannabis-based medicines in neuropathic pain and of one SR for painful spasms in multiple sclerosis . There were consistent results that there was insufficient evidence of any cannabis-based medicine for pain management in patients with rheumatic diseases ( three SRs ) and in cancer pain ( two SRs ) . Cannabis-based medicines undoubtedly enrich the possibilities of drug treatment of chronic pain conditions . It remains the responsibility of the health care community to continue to pursue rigorous study of cannabis-based medicines to provide evidence that meets the st and ard of 21st century clinical care . SIGNIFICANCE We provide an overview of systematic review s on the efficacy , tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management . There are inconsistent findings of the efficacy of cannabinoids in neuropathic pain and painful spasms in multiple sclerosis . There are inconsistent results on tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for any chronic pain Background Systematic review s ( SRs ) should be up to date to maintain their importance in informing healthcare policy and practice . However , little guidance is available about when and how to up date SRs . Moreover , the updating policies and practice s of organizations that commission or produce SRs are unclear . Methodology /Principal Findings The objective was to describe the updating practice s and policies of agencies that sponsor or conduct SRs . An Internet-based survey was administered to a purposive non-r and om sample of 195 healthcare organizations within the international SR community . Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics . The completed response rate was 58 % ( n = 114 ) from across 26 countries with 70 % ( 75/107 ) of participants identified as producers of SRs . Among responders , 79 % ( 84/107 ) characterized the importance of updating as high or very-high and 57 % ( 60/106 ) of organizations reported to have a formal policy for updating . However , only 29 % ( 35/106 ) of organizations made reference to a written policy document . Several groups ( 62/105 ; 59 % ) reported updating practice s as irregular , and over half ( 53/103 ) of organizational respondents estimated that more than 50 % of their respective SRs were likely out of date . Authors of the original SR ( 42/106 ; 40 % ) were most often deemed responsible for ensuring SRs were current . Barriers to updating included re source constraints , review er motivation , lack of academic credit , and limited publishing formats . Most respondents ( 70/100 ; 70 % ) indicated that they supported central ization of updating efforts across institutions or agencies . Furthermore , 84 % ( 83/99 ) of respondents indicated they favoured the development of a central registry of SRs , analogous to efforts within the clinical trials community . Conclusions / Significance Most organizations that sponsor and /or carry out SRs consider updating important . Despite this recognition , updating practice s are not regular , and many organizations lack a formal written policy for updating SRs . This research marks the first baseline data available on updating from an organizational perspective Differences in disease prevalence , clinical manifestations , and health outcomes exist between men and women . Sources for this variation range from biological differentiation at the cellular level to behavioral differences influenced by societal gender norms . Typically , biologically based differences between men and women are called sex differences , whereas gender differences describe health differences related , at least in part , to societal constructs of gender ( 13 ) . For example , biological events unique to women , such as pregnancy and menopause , are probably associated with sex differences in occurrence of certain conditions or in response to some medical therapies ( 48 ) . Gender differences probably exist in health-related perceptions and behaviors for women and men with medical conditions that are prevalent for both sexes ( for example , heart disease and chronic pain ) ( 9 –16 ) . Although sex and gender differences are theoretically distinct , they remain difficult to disentangle when differences between men and women in health outcomes and treatment effectiveness are being examined . For this reason , and for brevity , we hereafter refer to sex and gender differences collectively as sex effects . In the past 2 decades , recognition of the importance of sex effects for health outcomes and treatment heterogeneity has been growing . Beginning in 1993 , the National Institutes of Health has issued policies requiring the inclusion of women and minorities in all clinical research and trial design s with valid analysis of sex effects or differences between racial and ethnic groups ( 17 , 18 ) . Since then , the inclusion of women in clinical trials has increased ( 19 , 20 ) , and sex effects have been identified for medications , such as nicotine replacement therapy , analgesics , and aspirin ( 13 , 14 , 21 ) . Recently , sex effects in adverse reactions led to sex-specific dosage recommendations for a widely used sedative ( 7 ) . Despite this progress , representation of women in clinical studies remains inadequate for many conditions ( 22 ) . Further , published clinical trials infrequently report sex effects or discuss the appropriateness of sex-specific analyses ( 19 , 20 , 23 ) . To advance the clinical evidence base and improve health outcomes for women , clinical research must include adequate numbers of women , appropriately conduct sex-specific analyses , and consistently report sex effects . Systematic review s ( SRs ) are a key source of information for clinicians , research ers , and guideline panels . By synthesizing the overall body of evidence for key clinical and research questions , SRs could potentially make a unique contribution to the evaluation of sex effects . To our knowledge , however , the reporting of sex effects by SRs has not been previously examined . Here , we use evidence mapping to systematic ally evaluate the reporting of sex effects by SRs examining a diverse set of interventions for chronic conditions common to women ( that is , depression , diabetes , and chronic pain ) . Evidence mapping is an emerging approach that describes key characteristics of studies for a broad area of medicine ( 2426 ) . Our evidence map addresses the volume and characteristics of eligible SRs , including the representation of women in primary studies , whether and how review s reported sex effects , and findings about sex effects . Methods This work was part of a larger report for the Veterans Health Administration ( VHA ) Evidence -based Synthesis Program ( ESP ) . The complete technical report is available online ( www.hsrd . research .va.gov/publications/esp ) and includes additional information on our methods . We focused on SRs to determine the reporting of sex effects , provide high-level information about the volume of current clinical evidence , and summarize information about actual sex effects . Prioritization of Conditions for Inclusion We used forced-ranking prioritization ( 27 ) with our VHA stakeholders to determine our conditions of interest . These stakeholders included representatives from the Health Services Research & Development Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation , Implementation and Policy ; Health Services Research & Development Women 's Health Research Network ; Women 's Health Research in the Office of Research & Development ; Women 's Health Services ; and Mental Health Services . We initially selected 34 conditions ( Appendix Table 1 ) based on disease prevalence in women , disease burden in women , availability and breadth of effective treatments for men or women , and women veterans ' priorities for gender-specific care . Stakeholders ranked this initial set of conditions , discussed the rankings , and reranked conditions that initially received intermediate priority rankings . After 2 rounds of iterative prioritization , the following conditions were selected : depressive disorders , type 2 diabetes mellitus , and chronic pain ( that is , chronic low back pain , fibromyalgia , and chronic knee pain due to osteoarthritis ) . Appendix Table 1 . Conditions Presented to Stakeholders for Prioritization * Data Sources and Search es In collaboration with an expert reference librarian , we search ed PubMed and Cochrane Data base of Systematic Review s to identify eligible SRs published after 1 October 2009 through 31 October 2014 for depression , 13 February 2015 for diabetes , and 27 February 2015 for chronic pain . Search strategies used Medical Subject Headings and free-text terms for the conditions of interest , eligible interventions , and SRs ( Appendix Table 2 ) . We restricted the search to the past 6 years because SRs are typically out date d within 5 years of publication ( 28 ) , and our goal was to describe the current state of the clinical literature . In addition to electronic search ing , we screened published review s of review s for eligible articles . Appendix Table 2 . Search Strategies Study Selection and Quality Assessment Eligible SRs evaluated interventions in several broad categories ( that is , medications , behavioral interventions , supervised exercise , and quality improvement or organizational interventions ) . We also included condition-specific interventions , such as bariatric surgery for diabetes . Review s that evaluated mixed conditions or multiple interventions must have reported results separately for at least 1 eligible condition or intervention . We included review s of interventions in any setting , with any type of active or inactive comparator , and with any duration of follow-up . Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria are provided in Appendix Table 3 . Appendix Table 3 . Detailed Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Review Eligibility Two investigators screened citations for eligibility , and citations that were considered to be relevant by either person were retained for full-text review . Full-text articles were review ed by 2 investigators , and disagreements were resolved through discussion or adjudicated by a third person . Formal assessment of review quality was beyond the scope of this project . However , we noted whether review s originated from organizations known for high- quality review s ( that is , Cochrane Collaboration , Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence -based Practice Centers , and VHA ESP ) . For review s reporting sex effects , we also assessed industry funding and whether statistical power was considered . Data Abstract ion Data were abstract ed by 1 investigator and review ed by a second person . Disagreements were resolved by discussion or by a third review er . Abstract ed data included the analysis method ( that is , qualitative synthesis , meta- analysis , network meta- analysis , or individual-patient data [ IPD ] meta- analysis ) ; clinical conditions ; interventions ; main outcomes ; number and design of primary studies ( for example , r and omized , controlled trials [ RCTs ] or observational cohorts ) ; proportion of women in the included primary studies ; and if sex effects were part of the study aims , analysis plan , or results . For review s reporting sex effects , we also recorded the number of primary studies used for sex-specific analyses , effect estimates , and the method used ( for example , metaregression , subgroup analysis , or IPD meta- analysis ) . All eligible review s on depressive disorders and chronic pain conditions were fully abstract ed . All diabetes review s of nonpharmacologic interventions were also fully abstract ed . For eligible diabetes medication review s ( n= 120 ) , we applied an additional prioritization procedure before full abstract ion . We prioritized review s that examined multiple classes of medications or evaluated a single class of medications when 6 or fewer eligible review s were identified . For SRs evaluating a single class ( > 6 eligible review s were identified ) , we used additional prioritization criteria ( for example , the most recent review published in a high-impact journal or work done by an organization known for high- quality review s ) . The remaining unselected but eligible review s ( n= 58 ) had a keyword text search for sex effects and were fully abstract ed only when this search yielded positive results ( n= 13 ) . Data Synthesis and Analysis of SRs We grouped eligible review s by intervention category and described the overall volume of clinical literature for interventions addressing each condition of interest . We also determined the number of review s reporting sex effects and summarized these results . Time trends for the proportion of these review s were examined for depression and diabetes . Examination of Primary RCTs for Selected Interventions We anticipated that some interventions for each condition would have few or no eligible SRs that addressed sex effects . Thus , for a subset of interventions for each condition , we evaluated primary RCTs to determine the feasibility of conducting a future review to evaluate sex effects . Specifically , we examined  quality improvement interventions and psychotherapy for depression ; diet , physical activity , and culturally tailored psychoeducation for diabetes ; behavioral interventions for chronic low back pain ; and exercise interventions Objective . The aim of this overview was to summarize the outcome measures of Chinese herbal medicine ( CHM ) for the treatment of hypertension based on available systematic review s ( SRs ) , so as to evaluate the potential benefits and advantages of CHM on hypertension . Methods . Literature search es were conducted in the Cochrane Data base of Systematic Review s , MEDLINE , and 4 data bases in Chinese . SRs of CHM for hypertension were included . Two independent review ers ( J. Wang and X. J. Xiong ) extracted the data . Results . 10 SRs were included . 2 SRs had primary endpoints , while others focused on secondary endpoints to evaluate CHM for hypertension such as blood pressure ( BP ) and Traditional Chinese Medicine ( TCM ) syndrome . 6 SRs have reported the adverse effects , whereas the other 4 SRs have not mentioned it at all . Many CHM appeared to have significant effect on improving BP , TCM syndrome , and so on . However , most SRs failed to make a definite conclusion for the effectiveness of CHM for hypertension due to poor evidence . Conclusion . Primary endpoints have not been widely used currently . The benefits of CHM for hypertension need to be confirmed in the future with r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) of more persuasive primary endpoints and high- quality SRs
The reporting quality of SRs has improved 3 y after publication of SR reporting st and ards , but the reporting of nutrition variables has not .
Improved adherence to consensus methods and reporting st and ards should improve the utility of nutrition SRs
BACKGROUND The quality of nutrition-related systematic review s ( SRs ) is an unstudied but important factor affecting their usefulness .
OBJECTIVES The objectives were to evaluate the reporting quality of published SRs and to identify areas of improvement .