Systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare interventions are now quite common. There are currently more than 2 600 full Cochrane reviews in The Cochrane Library, with protocols published for 1 600 more. There are also thousands of systematic reviews published in other journals. However, the science of systematic reviewing is still relatively young. Most of the reviews available today rely on randomised trials, but there are also some reviews of non-randomised trials and of diagnostic test accuracy and these may become more common in the next few years. In this essay, I discuss some of the challenges of doing these newer types of systematic review, and show how experience gained in the last few decades of systematic reviews of randomised trials might help to meet these challenges.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effects of closed drainage and simply closed drainage combined with pleurodesis in the treatment spontaneous pneumothorax. MethodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI from their inception to December 2nd, 2014, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of simple closed drainage versus closed drainage combined with pleurodesis in the treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies. Then, RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. ResultsA total of 5 RCTs including 499 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that:Compared with the simple closed drainage, the closed drainage combined with pleurodesis was superior in the effective rate of recurrence spontaneous pneumothorax (OR=6.85, 95%CI 3.26 to 14.39, P<0.000 01) and the recurrence rate of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (OR=0.32, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.57, P<0.001). But there were no statistical differences in both groups in the effective rate of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (OR=1.49, 95%CI 0.71 to 3.14, P=0.29), the hospital stays of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (SMD=0.08, 95%CI -0.16 to 0.31, P=0.52), the hospital stays of recurrence spontaneous pneumothorax (SMD=-1.67, 95%CI -3.96 to 0.61, P=0.15), and the duration of drainage of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (SMD=-0.11, 95%CI 0.79 to 0.58, P=0.76). ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that closed drainage combined with pleurodesis could improve the effective rate of recurrence spontaneous pneumothorax and decrease the recurrence rate of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Due to limited quantity and quality of included studies, the above conclusion should be validated by more high quality studies.
Objective To make an individualized treatment plan for newly diagnosed irritable bowel syndrome by means of evidence-based medicine. Methods After clinical problems were put forward, systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were collected from The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2008) and PubMed (1990 to 2008). Treatment protocol was produced by combining the evidence and the values of the patient. Results A total of 114 RCTs and 21 systematic reviews were identified. A rational treatment plan was made upon a serious evaluation of the data to control symptoms and improve the quality of life for the patient. After a sixteen-month follow-up, the plan proved to be optimal. Conclusion The treatment efficacy in diagnosed irritable bowel syndrome has been improved by determining an individualized treatment plan according to evidence-based methods.
Objective To review systematically the effectiveness and safety of astragaulus membranaceus in the treatment of diabetic nephropathy (DN). Methods A Cochrane systematic review of all relevant randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of astragaulus membranaceus for diabetic nephropathy was performed. Clinical trials were searched for in the Cochrane Central Refister of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Chinese Biological Medicine Database, and the Chinese Science and Technology Journal Full-text Database as well as in the references lists of all included trials. Two reviewers works independently to select studies, assess methodological quality and extract data. The following indexes were included to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of astragaulus membranaceus: 24-hour urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER), 24-hour urinary protein, clearance of creatinine (Ccr), serum creatinine (Scr), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), triglyceride (TG), total cholesterol (TC), and serious adverse events. Results Thirty-four clinical trials involving 2 356 patients met the inclusion criteria, but most of these trials were small and of low quality . A “funnel plot” showed asymmetry, which indicated possible publication bias, such that trials with negativeresults might not have been published. Meta-analyses showed that astragaulus membranaceus had some effects on the decrease of the 24-hour UAER, 24-hour urinary protein, Scr and BUN, and also on the improvement of Ccr. Therefore, astragaulus membranaceus, to a certain extent, was found to be effective in improving renal functions of DN patients. However, astragaulus membranaceus might have similar effects in decreasing the 24-hour UAER and Scr compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blockers. Compared with other Chinese medicines, astragaulus membranaceus was more effective in decreasing the 24-hour urinary protein. No serious adverse events were observed during the treatment period. Conclusion Astragaulus membranaceus has some effect and is relatively safe in treating patients with diabetic nephropathy. However, the present evidence was not enough to support the recommendation of astragaulus membranaceus as a routine drug in the clinical management of DN.Since most included trials are small and of low quality, high-quality, large-sample, multi-centre, randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled trials of astragaulus membranaceus for DN are needed.
ObjectivesTo survey the systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic evaluations.MethodsDatabases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase (Ovid), NHS EED (Ovid), CENTRAL, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and CBM were searched from inception to May 2018 to collect systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic evaluations. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. Data statistics and frequency analysis were then conducted on the basic characteristics of included literatures, which involves the publication journal type and influencing factors (IF), disease type, quality assessment tool, etc. The amended AMSTAR scale was used to assess the methodological quality of pharm-SR.ResultsOne hundred and forty-three systematic reviews were included in the overview. The UK had a large number of publications (39.8%), which were mostly published in the Health Technology Assessment and Pharmacoeconomics. Among the included literatures, most were evaluated tumor related pharmacoeconomics systematic reviews (20.8%). They searched on average 7.42±4.00 databases. The British Medical Journal checklist (20.15%) and the Drummond checklist (19.40) were the main tools for quality evaluation. The methodological qualities of these studies were not high.ConclusionsThe evidence shows that the number of systematic reviews of pharmacoeconomic is increasing and research methodology is gradually unifying. However, the quality is still required to be further improved.
ObjectiveTo describe the current status of the evaluation index for the performance of diagnostic reagents compared with gold standards in systematic reviews and develop the list of evaluation indexes. MethodsPubMed, Embase (OVID), Cochrane Library (OVID), CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were searched for systematic reviews about the performance of diagnostic reagents compared with gold standards from inception to 28th April, 2023. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. The frequency and ratio were used to describe the current status, while the qualitative synthesis was used to develop the list. ResultsA total of 133 systematic reviews were included. Sensitivity (133/133, 100.0%), specificity (131/133, 98.5%) and AUC (80/133, 60.2%) were used more frequently than 50%. Q index (6/133, 4.5%), false positive rate (3/133, 2.3%), Kappa value (2/133, 1.5%), false negative rate (1/133, 5%) and Youden's index were used less frequently than 5%. In order to evaluate the performance of diagnostic reagents compared with gold standards in systematic reviews comprehensively, a total of 14 index related to validity and predictability could be considered. ConclusionThe evaluation index for the performance of diagnostic reagents in systematic reviews are inconsistent and limited, so there is an urgent need to develop standardized evaluation indicators based on expert consensus.
ObjectiveTo understand the current status of research methods in disease burden systematic reviews, identify limitations and shortcomings of existing research methods, and provide suggestions to address relevant issues. MethodsA computer search of the PubMed database was conducted to collect systematic reviews on disease burden, with search limits set from database inception to December 21, 2023. Two independent researchers utilized Endnote 20 for literature screening and Excel 2019 for data extraction and descriptive analysis. ResultsA total of 216 articles were included in the review, revealing a year-on-year increase in the number of systematic reviews on disease burden since 2004. The journal PharmacoEconomics published the most articles (n=22), while research on certain infectious diseases and parasitic infections was the most prevalent (n=51). Only 31 articles provided a complete account of the entire systematic review process. The reporting rates for inclusion/exclusion criteria, information retrieval, literature screening, and statistical analysis steps were all 100%. However, the rate of protocol registration was relatively low at 19%. Eighty-eight percent of the articles utilized software such as Excel and Epidata for data extraction, yet only 32% adhered to the reproducibility principles outlined in AMSTAR-2. In terms of quality assessment, 105 articles underwent evaluation, with the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and Newcastle-Ottawa scale being the most commonly used quality assessment tools for epidemiological studies, while economic studies preferred the Drummond checklist (n=9). Regarding the details of inclusion/exclusion criteria, only 53% of studies reported their study design in detail, and less than one-sixth provided a comprehensive description of the interventions and control measures. Statistical analyses predominantly employed qualitative methods (80%), with quantitative analyses comprising a minority (20%), all of which were conducted using meta-analysis techniques, primarily utilizing R software (n=15). ConclusionThe number of systematic reviews on disease burden has shown a yearly increasing trend; however, most studies have failed to comprehensively adhere to the fundamental processes of systematic reviews, significantly limiting their quality. Currently, the primary issues include a lack of protocol registration, incomplete supplementary searches, mismatched quality assessment tools, and insufficiently comprehensive outcome measures. To address these challenges, it is essential to develop a methodological guideline for systematic reviews on disease burden that incorporates these concerns. Such a guideline would standardize researchers' practices and ensure strict adherence to systematic review methodologies, thereby enhancing the scientific rigor of the research and its support for clinical decision-making.
Objective To investigate the current status of systematic reviews/meta-analyses published by pharmacists in hospital in China by using bibliometric analysis and assessing the methodological quality of these studies. Methods The literatures were searched from CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, CBM, CMCI, PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2016) from the establishment to March 17th, 2016. According to the inclusive and exclusive criteria, the authors independently screened literature and extracted the data. Methodology quality and reporting quality were evaluated by using AMSTAR tool and PRIMSA statement. Data analysis was conducted by using Excel 2013 and SPSS 20.0 software. Results A total of 1 018 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included of which 871 were published in Chinese and 147 were in English. The published literature increased year by year, as well as the reporting quality and methodological quality. All of the included studies were published in 146 Chinese journals and 97 English journals. The authors were from 308 hospitals of 27 provinces. Drug effectiveness and drug safety were mainly assessed, and western medicine was the main category. Most of these studies were focused on anti-tummor drugs. Conclusion Evidenced-based drug evaluation by hospital pharmacists in China is rapidly increasing as well as the methodological quality and reporting quality, however, the development is unbalanced in China, and evidence-based medicine should be further promoted in the field of hospital pharmacy.
Evidence-informed decision making is one of the most common, objective and important health policy research methods used by policy makers. Its purpose is to promote the application and dissemination of research knowledge on health policy and systems to change traditional and subjective models of health policy making in order to improve national and regional health systems. Three elements will influence the effectiveness of health policy making:research evidence, available health resources and the value of policy formulation. This paper introduces some pragmatic evidence-based approaches, especially systematic reviews, priority setting and a combined approach matrix (CAM). Systematic reviews have a b impact on the decision process for policy makers. We hope that the application and development of evidence-informed methods will increase in China’s health policy research.
ObjectiveTo interpret ROBIS, a new tool to evaluate the risk of bias in systematic reviews, to promote the comprehension of it and its proper application. MethodsWe explained each item of ROBIS tool, used it to evaluate the risk of bias of a selected intervention review whose title was Cyclophosphamide for Primary Nephrotic Syndrome of Children: A Systematic Review, and judged the risk of bias in the review. ResultsThe selected systematic review as a whole was rated as “high risk of bias”, because there existed high risk of bias in domain 2 to 4, namely identification and selection of studies, data collection and study appraisal, synthesis and findings. The risk of bias in domain 1 (study eligibility criteria) was low. The relevance of identified studies and the review’s research question was appropriately considered and the reviewers avoided emphasizing results on the basis of their statistical significance. ConclusionROBIS is a new tool worthy of being recommended to evaluate risk of bias in systematic reviews. Reviewers should use ROBIS items as standards to conduct and produce high quality systematic reviews.