ObjectivesTo overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of effectiveness and safety of spinal manipulation for low back pain or neck pain. MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2015), CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP to collect SRs/MAs of spinal manipulation for low back pain or neck pain from inception to January 30th, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and then AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included SRs/MAs. ResultsA total of 21 SRs/MAs were included. Twenty of them assessed the methodological quality of included original randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with different tools:2 used Jadad scale, 5 used PEDro scale, 6 used Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and 7 used other tools. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that:among 11 items, the item 1 of "Was an ‘a priori’ design provided" (18 SRs/MAs did not provide) and item 4 of "Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided" (18 SRs/MAs did not provide) appeared to be the most problematic, followed by item 10 of "Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed" (14 SRs/MAs did not assess the publication bias) and item 11 of "Was the conflict of interest stated" (14 SRs/MAs did not provide the conflict of interest and 4 were incomplete). ConclusionThe methodological quality of included SRs/MAs is poor. The limited evidence showed that spinal manipulation is more effective for acute low back pain than chronic low back pain, and the short term effect is better than the long term one. Different spinal manipulation techniques have various effects but are all safe. Chiropractic manipulation may have the best effect. Due to the limitation of quality and quantity of included SRs/MAs, there may be potential bias in the above conclusion that needs more high quality studies to verify.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) of lanthanum carbonate in the treatment of chronic kidney disease with hyperphosphatemia. MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data and VIP to collect systematic reviews and meta-analysis about lanthanum carbonate in the treatment of chronic kidney disease with hyperphosphatemia from inception to August 31st, 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data, then AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies and the GRADE tool was used to grade the evidence quality of outcome measures included in the SRs. ResultsA total of eight relevant SRs were included and containing three main outcome measures. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that:four SRs were of high quality, and the other four were of medium quality. GRADE results showed:for serum phosphorus level, compared with placebo, the quality of the evidence of three SRs were medium, low and very low; compared with calcium carbonate or conventional phosphorus binder, four SRs were low, low, low and very low; compared with sevelamer, one SR was low. For serum calcium level, compared with placebo, the quality of the evidence of three SRs were high, medium and low, respectively; compared with calcium carbonate or conventional phosphorus binder, five SRs were low, low, low, very low and very low; compared with sevelamer, one SR was very low. For serum iPTH level, compared with placebo, the quality of the evidence of three SRs were medium, low and very low; compared with calcium carbonate or conventional phosphorus binder, five SRs were medium, low, low, very low and very low; compared with sevelamer, one SR was low. ConclusionAt present, methodological quality assessment for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease with lanthanum carbonate is generally not high and the level of evidence for the conclusion is generally low. In drug safety, especially in the occurrence of adverse events of the digestive system is still controversial, and a large amount of high quality experimental is needed to demonstrate the safety of its long-term use. Clinicians need to be cautious in using these evidence to make clinical decisions.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) on the treatment for acute gout.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect published systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating drug interventions therapy in acute gout from inception to April 8th 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, assessed the methodological quality of included SRs by the AMSTAR tool, and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome by the GRADE approach.ResultsA total of seven relevant SRs were included, which contains three main outcome measures. Four SRs contained non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), three SRs contained colchicine and two SRs contained glucocorticoids. All SRs assessed risk of bias of included original studies. Two used the Jadad scale or modified Jadad scale in this assessment while others used the " assessing risk of bias” tool recommended by Cochrane Collaboration. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that: three SRs were considered high quality (scores≥9), and the other four were considered moderate quality. GRADE results showed: the quality of the evidence of 11 outcomes was low or very low, and five outcomes was moderate.ConclusionsThe current evidence confirms the effectiveness and safety of several drug interventions in the treatment of acute gout, however, the priority of these drugs is still unclear. We suggest conducting new SRs and updating relevant SRs, to systematically compare different drug interventions therapy in acute gout with the latest evidence. In addition, we still expect to put more efforts in conducting high-quality original studies, in order to fill the gap of relevant fields and improve the level of evidence quality.
Objectives To evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) on urate-lowering therapy (ULT) for chronic gout. Methods PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect published systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating urate-lowering drugs in chronic gout from inception to April 8th 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, assessed the methodological quality of included SRs using the AMSTAR tool, and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. Results A total of 11 relevant SRs/Mets were included, containing 3 main outcome measures. All these SRs contained allopurinol. Ten SRs contained febuxostat, 3 SRs contained benzbromarone and 1 SR contained probenecid. Ten SRs assessed the risk of bias of included original studies. Eight SRs used the" assessing risk of bias”tool recommended by Cochrane Collaboration for this assessment while 2 used other tools. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool showed: the scores of 4 SRs were ≥9, and the others were ≤8. GRADE results showed: the quality of the evidence of 20 outcomes was low or very low, 10 outcomes was moderate and two outcomes was high. Conclusions Moderate quality evidence shows that febuxostat is beneficial in achieving target serum uric acid levels when comparing to allopurinol, and high quality evidence shows the incidence of gout flares is not significantly different between the two groups. High quality evidence also shows that the safety of febuxostat is better than allopurinol. Evidence of SRs is still insufficient to support the effectiveness and safety of other urate-lowering drugs. It is expected that more scientific and rigorous researches will be performed in the future, for which more high quality evidence will be produced to fill relevant gaps.