Protocol registration or development may benefit the design, conduct and reporting of dose-response meta-analysis: empirical evidence from a literature survey.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the prevalence of protocol registration (or development) among published dose-response meta-analyses (DRMAs), and whether DRMAs with a protocol are better than those not. METHODS: Three databases were searched for eligible DRMAs. The modified AMSTAR (14 items) and PRISMA checklists (26 items) were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality, with each item assigned 1 point if it met the requirement or 0 if not. We matched (1,2) DRMAs with registered or published protocol to those not, by region and publication years. The summarized quality score and compliance rate of each item were compared between the two groups. Multivariable regression was employed to see if protocol registration or development was associated with total quality score. RESULTS: We included 529 DRMAs, with 45 (8.51%) completed protocol registration or development. We observed a higher methodological score for DRMAs with protocol than the matched controls (9.47 versus 8.58, P <  0.01); this embodied in 4 out of 14 items of AMSTAR [e.g., Duplicate data extraction (rate difference, RD = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04, 0.30; P = 0.01). A higher reporting score (cubic transformed) for DRMAs with protocol than the matched controls was also observed (11,875.00 versus 10,229.53, P <  0.01); which embodied in 6 out of 26 items of PRISMA [e.g. Describe methods for publication bias (RD = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.14; P = 0.02)]. Regression analysis suggested positive association between protocol registration or development and total reporting score (P = 0.012) while not for methodological score (P = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of DRMAs completed protocol registration or development, and those with protocol were better reported than those not. Protocol registration or development is highly desirable.

Assessment of the abstract reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analysis: a literature survey.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing number of published systematic reviews (SR) of dose-response meta-analyses (DRMAs) over the past decades. However, the quality of abstract reporting of these SR-DRMAs remains to be understood. We conducted a literature survey to investigate the abstract reporting of SR-DRMAs. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and Wiley online Library were searched for eligible SR-DRMAs. The reporting quality of SR-DRMAs was assessed by the modified PRISMA-for-Abstract checklist (14 items). We summarized the adherence rate of each item and categorized them as well complied (adhered by 80% or above), moderately complied (50 to 79%), and poorly complied (less than 50%). We used total score to reflect the abstract quality and regression analysis was employed to explore the potential influence factors for it. RESULTS: We included 529 SR-DRMAs. Eight of 14 items were moderately (3 items) or poorly complied (5 items) while only 6 were well complied by these SR-DRMAs. Most of the SR-DRMAs failed to describe the methods for risk of bias assessment (30.2, 95% CI: 26.4, 34.4%) and the results of bias assessment (48.8, 95% CI: 44.4, 53.1%). Few SR-DRMAs reported the funding (2.3, 95% CI: 1.2, 3.9%) and registration (0.6, 95% CI: 0.1, 1.6%) information in the abstract. Multivariable regression analysis suggested word number of abstracts [> 250 vs. ≤ 250 (estimated ß = 0.31; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.61; P = 0.039)] was positively associated with the abstract reporting quality. CONCLUSION: The abstract reporting of SR-DRMAs is suboptimal, substantial effort is needed to improve the reporting. More word number may benefit for the abstract reporting. Given that reporting of abstract largely depends on the reporting and conduct of the SR-DRMA, review authors should also focus on the completeness of SR-DRMA itself.

Improving the quality of reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analyses: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Dose-response meta-analysis (DRMA) is a useful tool to investigate potential dose-response relationship between certain exposure or intervention and the outcome of interest. A large number of DRMAs have been published in the past several years. However, the standard of reporting for such studies is not known. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and Wiley Library were searched for systematic reviews with DRMAs (SR-DRMAs) published from January 2011 to July 2017. We used the combination of PRISMA and MOOSE statements, containing 33 items, to assess the reporting of included SR-DRMAs. The adherence of reporting was defined as the proportion of SR-DRMAs meeting the reporting requirement of an item. We explored the association between five pre-specified variables with the total score of reporting on both fully as well as each domain of the checklist. RESULTS: In total, 529 SR-DRMAs were eligible. Ten out of 33 items were under reported, and this mainly refers to the methods domain: only a small proportion of SR-DRMAs stated whether a review protocol existed (45, 8.5%); clarified the qualifications of searchers (1.7%); presented full electronic search strategy (25.9%); described any effort to include all available studies (22.9%), described methods for languages other than English (27.4%), and stated the process for selecting studies (20.2%). Multiple regression analysis suggested that studies with more authors (regression coefficient = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.35, 1.20; P <  0.001), published more recently (regression coefficient = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.47; trend P <  0.001), used reporting guideline (regression coefficient = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.32; P <  0.001), and involvement of methodologist (regression coefficient = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.32; P <  0.001) were associated with higher score of reporting. Further regression suggested that the improvement on the quality mainly concentrated on the methods and results domains. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of SR-DRMAs needs to be further improved, particularly in the issues refer to the methods. The quality of reporting may improve when involving more authors and methodologists and employing any reporting guidelines.

Mechanisms Underlying the Antidepressant Effect of Acupuncture via the CaMK Signaling Pathway.

The CaMK pathway has been proven to play an important role in regulating cognitive function and emotional response. Acupuncture through the CaMK pathway improves depression-like behavior and the molecular mechanism related to its antidepressant remains to be explored. In this study, we aimed to determine whether the ability of acupuncture at Baihui (GV20) and Shenting (GV24) points to treat depression is related to the regulation of key proteins in the CaMK pathway. A rat model of depression was induced by chronic unpredicted mild stress (CUMS). Model rats in the electroacupuncture group were subjected to acupuncture at the Baihui (GV20) and Shenting (GV24) acupoints once a day for 20 min. Model rats in the fluoxetine group were gavaged with fluoxetine (1.8 mg/kg). Immunohistochemistry and Western blotting assays were used to evaluate immunoreactivity for and the protein expression levels of CaMKII, CaMKIV, and CaM. The results showed that electroacupuncture had a significant effect in rats with depression. Electroacupuncture and fluoxetine regulated the expression of key proteins in the CaMK signaling pathway, which is related to depression, in the hippocampi of rats. This indicates that acupuncture at Baihui (GV20) and Shenting (GV24) may alleviate depressive symptoms and reduce work- and life-related burdens and stress by regulating the CaMK signaling pathway.

The methodological quality of dose-response meta-analyses needed substantial improvement: a cross-sectional survey and proposed recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate methodological quality of published dose-response meta-analysis (DRMA) and explore study characteristics associated with the quality. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched three databases for published DRMAs and used a modified AMSTAR (15 items) checklist to assess the methodological quality. We summarized the compliance of those DRMAs to the AMSTAR items and used multivariable regression analysis to explore the association between prespecified study characteristics with the overall methodological quality. RESULTS: We identified 529 DRMAs. Of the methodological quality items, six were well complied (80% or more) and six poorly complied (30% or fewer) by these DRMAs. The median score was nine points [first and third quartile: 7, 10] and only 64/529 had score over 10 points. Regression analysis suggested that studies with more authors (ß = 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05, 0.33), published more recently (ß = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.36), with financial support (ß = 0.41; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.70), conducted by authors from European (other regions vs. European, ß = -0.68; 95% CI: -1.05, -0.31) were associated with better methodological quality. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of published DRMAs was suboptimal. Substantial efforts are warranted to improve the quality, including developing methodology guideline, involving more methodological trained authors, and so forth.

The risk of lung cancer among cooking adults: a meta-analysis of 23 observational studies.

PURPOSE: Cooking has been regarded as a potential risk factor for lung cancer. We aim to investigate the evidence of cooking oil fume and risk of lung cancer. METHODS: Medline and Embase were searched for eligible studies. We conducted a meta-analysis to summarize the evidences of case-control or cohort studies, with subgroup analysis for the potential discrepancy. Sensitivity analysis was employed to test the robustness. RESULTS: We included 23 observational studies, involving 9411 lung cancer cases. Our meta-analysis found that, for cooking female, the pooled OR of cooking oil fume exposure was 1.98 (95% CI 1.54, 2.54, I 2 = 79%, n = 15) among non-smoking population and 2.00 (95% CI 1.46, 2.74, I 2 = 75%, n = 10) among partly smoking population. For cooking males, the pooled OR of lung cancer was 1.15 (95% CI 0.71, 1.87; I 2 = 80%, n = 4). When sub grouped by ventilation condition, the pooled OR for poor ventilation was 1.20 (95% CI 1.10, 1.31, I 2 = 2%) compared to good ventilation. For different cooking methods, our results suggested that stir frying (OR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.23, 2.90; I 2 = 66%) was associated with increased risk of lung cancer while not for deep frying (OR = 1.41, 95% CI 0.87, 2.29; I 2 = 5%). Sensitivity analysis suggested our results were stable. CONCLUSION: Cooking oil fume is likely to be a risk factor for lung cancer for female, regardless of smoking status. Poor ventilation may increase the risk of lung cancer. Cooking methods may have different effect on lung cancer that deep frying may be healthier than stir frying.

Literature review on clinical decision support system reducing medical error.

OBJECTIVES: Quite a number of studies on clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been published in recent years to assess the characteristics and architecture of CDSS and evaluate the effects of CDSS on clinical work. However, until now there have been no relevant studies to investigate the quantity of these, and their contribution to present day thinking. The aim of this study was to explore the areas of theme, and the study design of research on CDSS in literature published in English and Chinese-language journals. METHODS: We searched the major database including MEDLINE, EMbase, Cochrane Library and four Chinese databases including Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Wanfang Data, Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Chinese Journals Full-text Database (CNKI) and to analyze the publication years, research themes, authors' affiliations and methodologies of studies. Quality and statistical method were only appraised by classification of study designs. RESULTS: A total of 616 studies published from 1990 to 2013 were included in our research. In the year of 2011 the number of studies reached its peak with 96 studies accounting for 15.58% of the years' publication. We grouped the included studies into six major topic areas of which computerized clinical decision support systems dominated the included studies accounting for 51.46% of all studies. Commentary reviews and cross-sectional studies which took up approximately 46.10% of the included studies, with 30.52% (188 studies) and 15.58% (96 studies) respectively. Most included studies on CDSS were conducted in the following four institutions: universities, hospitals, research institutions and companies. CONCLUSIONS: There is a growing change trend in the number of studies on CDSS research in recent two decades, most of which are non-comparative studies (46.10%) . Only 21 systematic reviews and 22 randomized controlled trails were published with the percentage of 3.41% and 3.57% of the included studies. More methodologically rigorous designs are needed to improve the research quality on CDSS.