[Review of Reviews (Umbrella Reviews): Step-by-Step Guide]. / Revisão das Revisões (Revisões Umbrella): Guia Passo a Passo.

In recent years, as a result of the dramatic increase in the number of systematic reviews, a new type of systematic review, the 'systematic reviews of systematic reviews', also known as umbrella reviews, reviews of reviews, meta-reviews or synthesis of review, was developed. The aim of this article is to provide recommendations on how this type of systematic review should be conducted and reported to ensure its quality and usefulness. These reviews are designed to compile evidence from multiple systematic reviews of interventions into an accessible and usable document and are one of the highest levels of evidence synthesis.

Nos últimos anos, em consequência do aumento dramático do número de revisões sistemáticas, surgiu um novo tipo de revisões sistemáticas, as revi- sões sistemáticas das revisões sistemáticas, também conhecidas como umbrella reviews, reviews of reviews, meta-reviews, ou synthesis of review. O objetivo deste artigo é fornecer recomendações sobre como este tipo de revisão sistemática deve ser conduzido e relatado para garantir a sua qualidade e utilidade. Estas revisões são concebidas para compilar evidências de múltiplas revisões sistemáticas de intervenções num documento acessível e utilizável e constituem um dos níveis mais elevados de síntese de evidência.

Exploring decision-makers' challenges and strategies when selecting multiple systematic reviews: insights for AI decision support tools in healthcare.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are being published at an accelerated rate. Decision-makers may struggle with comparing and choosing between multiple SRs on the same topic. We aimed to understand how healthcare decision-makers (eg, practitioners, policymakers, researchers) use SRs to inform decision-making and to explore the potential role of a proposed artificial intelligence (AI) tool to assist in critical appraisal and choosing among SRs. METHODS: We developed a survey with 21 open and closed questions. We followed a knowledge translation plan to disseminate the survey through social media and professional networks. RESULTS: Our survey response rate was lower than expected (7.9% of distributed emails). Of the 684 respondents, 58.2% identified as researchers, 37.1% as practitioners, 19.2% as students and 13.5% as policymakers. Respondents frequently sought out SRs (97.1%) as a source of evidence to inform decision-making. They frequently (97.9%) found more than one SR on a given topic of interest to them. Just over half (50.8%) struggled to choose the most trustworthy SR among multiple. These difficulties related to lack of time (55.2%), or difficulties comparing due to varying methodological quality of SRs (54.2%), differences in results and conclusions (49.7%) or variation in the included studies (44.6%). Respondents compared SRs based on the relevance to their question of interest, methodological quality, and recency of the SR search. Most respondents (87.0%) were interested in an AI tool to help appraise and compare SRs. CONCLUSIONS: Given the identified barriers of using SR evidence, an AI tool to facilitate comparison of the relevance of SRs, the search and methodological quality, could help users efficiently choose among SRs and make healthcare decisions.

A guide to interpreting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in neurosurgery and surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are methods of data analysis used to synthesize information presented in multiple publications on the same topic. A thorough understanding of the steps involved in conducting this type of research and approaches to data analysis is critical for appropriate understanding, interpretation, and application of the findings of these reviews. METHODS: We reviewed reference texts in clinical neuroepidemiology, neurostatistics and research methods and other previously related articles on meta-analyses (MAs) in surgery. Based on existing theories and models and our cumulative years of expertise in conducting MAs, we have synthesized and presented a detailed pragmatic approach to interpreting MAs in Neurosurgery. RESULTS: Herein we have briefly defined SRs sand MAs and related terminologies, succinctly outlined the essential steps to conduct and critically appraise SRs and MAs. A practical approach to interpreting MAs for neurosurgeons is described in details. Based on summary outcome measures, we have used hypothetical examples to illustrate the Interpretation of the three commonest types of MAs in neurosurgery: MAs of Binary Outcome Measures (Pairwise MAs), MAs of proportions and MAs of Continuous Variables. Furthermore, we have elucidated on the concepts of heterogeneity, modeling, certainty, and bias essential for the robust and transparent interpretation of MAs. The basics for the Interpretation of Forest plots, the preferred graphical display of data in MAs are summarized. Additionally, a condensation of the assessment of the overall quality of methodology and reporting of MA and the applicability of evidence to patient care is presented. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of pragmatic guides to appraise MAs for surgeons who are non-statisticians. This article serves as a detailed guide for the interpretation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses with examples of applications for clinical neurosurgeons.

Are You Intimidated by a Systematic Search?

Don't let fear get in the way of greatness.

Association between physical measures of spinopelvic alignment and physical functioning with patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) after total hip arthroplasty: Protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Prevalence of total hip arthroplasty (THA) has trended upwards over past decades and is projected to increase further. Optimizing outcomes after surgery is essential to avoid surgical revision and maximize outcomes. Low back pain is reported as a problem post THA. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used to evaluate THA outcomes but have limitations (e.g., ceiling effects). It is therefore important to assess a comprehensive range of outcomes. Physical outcome measures of spinopelvic alignment and physical functioning demonstrate potential value, but no evidence synthesis has investigated their association with PROMs. The objectives of this systematic review are to evaluate the association between spinopelvic alignment and physical outcome measures of physical functioning with PROMs and characteristics of low back pain after THA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol is aligned with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. Cross-sectional and longitudinal cohort studies evaluating the association between the physical outcome measures and PROMs (any outcome measures reported) following THA by any approach/implant will be included except surface replacement and revision THA. Studies investigating THA for developmental pathology and inflammatory conditions will be excluded. A systematic search in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the grey literature will be carried out from inception to July 31, 2023. Two independent reviewers will evaluate eligibility of retrieved articles, extract data and assess risk of bias (NIH quality assessment tool) of included studies. A third reviewer will mediate disagreements. Random-effects meta-analyses will be conducted if studies are sufficiently homogeneous in design, population, physical measures and PROMs; reporting odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Where meta-analyses are not possible, a narrative synthesis will be conducted. Confidence in cumulative evidence will be assessed using a modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO Registration number CRD42023412744.

Mapping scoping reviews in neurosurgery: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The realm of neurosurgery is currently witnessing a surge in primary research, underscoring the importance of adopting evidence-based approaches. Scoping reviews, as a type of evidence synthesis, offer a broad perspective and have become increasingly vital for managing the ever-expanding body of research in swiftly evolving fields. Recent research has indicated a rising prevalence of scoping reviews in healthcare literature. In this context, the concept of a 'review of scoping reviews' has emerged as a means to offer a higher level synthesis of insights. However, the field of neurosurgery appears to lack a comprehensive integration of scoping reviews. Therefore, the objective of this scoping review is to identify and evaluate the extent of scoping reviews within neurosurgery, pinpointing research gaps and methodological issues to enhance evidence-based practices in this dynamic discipline. METHODS: The method framework of Arksey and O'Malley will be used to conduct the scoping review. A thorough literature search will be performed on Medline, Scopus and Web of Science to find eligible studies using the keywords related to neurosurgery, scoping review and its variants. Two reviewers will independently revise all of the full-text articles, extract data and evaluate the study extent. A narrative overview of the findings from included studies will be given. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will involve secondary analysis of published literature, and therefore ethics approval is not required. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist will be used to guide translation of findings. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and presented in conferences via abstract and presentation.

ABO and Rhesus blood groups and multiple health outcomes: an umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between ABO and Rhesus (Rh) blood groups and various health outcomes. However, a comprehensive evaluation of the robustness of these associations is still lacking. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and several regional databases from their inception until Feb 16, 2024, with the aim of identifying systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies exploring associations between ABO and Rh blood groups and diverse health outcomes. For each association, we calculated the summary effect sizes, corresponding 95% confidence intervals, 95% prediction interval, heterogeneity, small-study effect, and evaluation of excess significance bias. The evidence was evaluated on a grading scale that ranged from convincing (Class I) to weak (Class IV). We assessed the certainty of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria (GRADE). We also evaluated the methodological quality of included studies using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). AMSTAR contains 11 items, which were scored as high (8-11), moderate (4-7), and low (0-3) quality. We have gotten the registration for protocol on the PROSPERO database (CRD42023409547). RESULTS: The current umbrella review included 51 systematic reviews with meta-analysis articles with 270 associations. We re-calculated each association and found only one convincing evidence (Class I) for an association between blood group B and type 2 diabetes mellitus risk compared with the non-B blood group. It had a summary odds ratio of 1.28 (95% confidence interval: 1.17, 1.40), was supported by 6870 cases with small heterogeneity (I2 = 13%) and 95% prediction intervals excluding the null value, and without hints of small-study effects (P for Egger's test > 0.10, but the largest study effect was not more conservative than the summary effect size) or excess of significance (P < 0.10, but the value of observed less than expected). And the article was demonstrated with high methodological quality using AMSTAR (score = 9). According to AMSTAR, 18, 32, and 11 studies were categorized as high, moderate, and low quality, respectively. Nine statistically significant associations reached moderate quality based on GRADE. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a potential relationship between ABO and Rh blood groups and adverse health outcomes. Particularly the association between blood group B and type 2 diabetes mellitus risk.

Efficacy and Safety of Acupoint Catgut Embedding for Knee Osteoarthritis: a Protocol for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Knee osteoarthritis causes physical dysfunction, and its prevalence increases with age. Although clinical studies examined acupoint catgut embedding in patients with knee osteoarthritis, no systematic reviews or meta-analyses have been conducted to date. We aim to comprehensively review the effects of acupoint catgut embedding on knee osteoarthritis. Methods: Eleven databases will be searched from inception to August 1, 2023, without language limitations. Additionally, two registration platforms-ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry-will be searched for ongoing trials. The primary outcomes will be assessed using the Visual Analog Scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Secondary outcomes include the total effective rate, Lysholm Score, and adverse effects. Two reviewers will independently select the studies, extract data, and evaluate the risk of bias and the quality of evidence. Discussion: This systematic review will provide evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of acupoint catgut embedding in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Pharmacological prevention of bone loss and fractures following solid organ transplantations: Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients can experience bone loss caused by underlying conditions and the use of immunosuppressants. As a result, SOT recipients are at risk for decreased bone mineral density (BMD) and increased fracture incidences. We propose a network meta-analysis (NMA) that incorporates all available randomized control trial (RCT) data to provide the most comprehensive ranking of anti-osteoporotic interventions according to their ability to decrease fracture incidences and increase BMD in SOT recipients. METHODS: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, CENTRAL and CNKI for relevant RCTs that enrolled adult SOT recipients, assessed anti-osteoporotic therapies, and reported relevant outcomes. Title and full-text screening as well as data extraction will be performed in-duplicate. We will report changes in BMD as weighted or standardized mean differences, and fracture incidences as risk ratios. SUCRA scores will be used to provide rankings of interventions, and quality of evidence will be examined using RoB2 and CINeMA. DISCUSSIONS: To our knowledge, this systematic review and NMA will be the most comprehensive quantitative analysis regarding the management of bone loss and fractures in SOT recipients. Our analysis should be able to provide physicians and patients with an up-to-date recommendation for pharmacotherapies in reducing incidences of bone loss and fractures associated with SOT. The findings of the NMA will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal.

Patient and public involvement in systematic reviews: frequency, determinants, stages, barriers, and dissemination.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the frequency, determinants, stages, and barriers of patient and public involvement (PPI) in systematic reviews and to explore its association with the dissemination of reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We examined systematic reviews that required the inclusion of a PPI declaration, published in The BMJ between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022. Multivariable analysis was used to assess the association between PPI and key variables. We investigated the association between PPI and the dissemination of reviews using Altmetric scores, citations, and full-text views. RESULTS: A total of 217 systematic reviews were included, of which 56 (25.8%, 95% CI 20.0%-31.6%) included PPI, with a steady increase from 5.9% (1/17) in 2015 to 44.4% (4/35) in 2022. Of the 217 systematic reviews, 160 (73.7%) involved methodologists as co-authors. Factors significantly associated with a higher proportion of PPI included the publication year after 2019 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.46, 95% CI 1.26-4.83), the involvement of methodologist (aOR 3.08; 95% CI 1.27-7.47), and being led by researchers from high-income countries (aOR 5.47; 95% CI 1.23-24.30). Reviews that included PPI had higher Altmetric scores per month (6.6 vs 3.4, P = .002) and more monthly full-text (1048.6 vs 636.5, P < .001) and PDF (217.7 vs 129.0, P < .001) views than reviews without PPI. However, there was no difference in the monthly citations (2.2 vs 2.0, P = .365) between reviews with and without PPI. CONCLUSION: The proportion of systematic reviews reporting PPI in The BMJ has increased over time, possibly due to journal policies, but it still remains at a low level. Reviews led by researchers from high-income countries or involving methodologists are associated with a higher frequency of PPI within The BMJ. Furthermore, reviews incorporating PPI within The BMJ have a higher potential for broad dissemination.

Development of quality assessment tool for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of real-world studies: a Delphi consensus survey.

The increasing adoption of real-world studies in healthcare for decision making and planning has further necessitated the need for a specific quality assessment tool for evidence synthesis. This study aimed to develop a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) involving real-world studies (QATSM-RWS) using a formal consensus method. Based on scoping review, the authors identified a list of items for possible inclusion in the quality assessment tool. A Delphi survey was formulated based on the identified items. A total of 89 experts, purposively recruited, with research experience in real-world data were invited to participate in the first round of Delphi survey. The participants who responded in the first Delphi round were invited to participate (n = 15) in the phrasing of the items. Strong level of agreement was found on the proposed list of items after the first round of Delphi. A rate of agreement ≥ 0.70 was used to define which items to keep in the tool. A list of 14 items emerged as suitable for QATSM-RWS. The items were structured under five domains: introduction, methods, results, discussions, and others. All participants agreed with the proposed phrasing of the items. This is the first study that has developed a specific tool that can be used to appraise the quality of SR and MA involving real-world studies. QATSM-RWS may be used by policymakers, clinicians, and practitioners when evaluating and generating real-world evidence. This tool is now undergoing validation process.

A brief step-by-step guide on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic model studies.

Prognostic models provide an avenue to predict the risk of individual patients and support shared-decision making. Many prognostic models are published annually, and systematic reviews provide an avenue to collate the existing evidence behind prognostic models to determine whether a model demonstrates adequate predictive performance and is ready for real-world use. This article provides a brief step-by-step guide on how to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic model studies and how these reviews differ from systematic reviews of therapy and diagnosis.

Study found increasing use of core outcome sets in Cochrane systematic reviews and identified facilitators and barriers.

OBJECTIVES: In 2019, only 7% of Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) cited a core outcome set (COS) in relation to choosing outcomes, even though a relevant COS existed but was not mentioned (or cited) for a further 29% of SRs. Our objectives for the current work were to (1) examine the extent to which authors are currently considering COS to inform outcome choice in Cochrane protocols and completed SRs, and (2) understand author facilitators and barriers to using COS. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We examined all completed Cochrane SRs published in the last 3 months of 2022 and all Cochrane protocols published in 2022 for the extent to which they: (a) cited a COS, (b) searched for COS, (c) used outcomes from existing COS, and (d) reported outcome inconsistency among included studies and/or noted the need for COS. One investigator extracted information; a second extractor verified all information, discussing discrepancies to achieve consensus. We then conducted an online survey of authors of the included SRs to assess awareness of COS and identify facilitators and barriers to using COS to inform outcome choice. RESULTS: Objective 1: We included 294 SRs of interventions (84 completed SRs and 210 published SR protocols), of which 13% cited specific COS and 5% did not cite but mentioned searching for COS. A median of 83% of core outcomes from cited COS (interquartile range [IQR] 57%-100%) were included in the corresponding SR. We identified a relevant COS for 39% of SRs that did not cite a COS. A median of 50% of core outcomes from noncited COS (IQR 35%-72%) were included in the corresponding SR. Objective 2: Authors of 236 (80%) of the 294 eligible SRs completed our survey. Seventy-seven percent of authors noted being aware of COS before the survey. Fifty-five percent of authors who did not cite COS but were aware of them reported searching for a COS. The most reported facilitators of using COS were author awareness of the existence of COS (59%), author positive perceptions of COS (52%), and recommendation in the Cochrane Handbook regarding COS use (48%). The most reported barriers related to matching of the scope of the COS and the SR: the COS target population was too narrow/broad relative to the SR population (29%) or the COS target intervention was too narrow/broad relative to the SR intervention (21%). Most authors (87%) mentioned that they would consider incorporating missing core outcomes in the SR/update. CONCLUSION: Since 2019, there is increasing consideration and awareness of COS when choosing outcomes for Cochrane SRs of interventions, but uptake remains low and can be improved further. Use of COS in SRs is important to improve outcome standardization, reduce research waste, and improve evidence syntheses of the relevant effects of interventions across health research.

A methodological framework for rigorous systematic reviews: Tailoring comprehensive analyses to clinicians and healthcare professionals.

Systematic reviews represent a fundamental study design, providing the highest level of evidence across diverse research inquiries, encompassing both public health and clinical research and practice. However, for healthcare professionals, the process of selecting, synthesizing, and interpreting evidence can be challenging, and requires specialized skills. Therefore, it is imperative to explore innovative solutions aimed at simplifying and making the traditional systematic review process more accessible while ensuring the validity and reliability of results. In this perspective, our research objective is to develop a systematic review framework that, while maintaining a rigorous methodological approach, streamlines the process for healthcare professionals. This study describes such approach in every phase, from the collection of evidence to the writing of the text, creating a guide for the healthcare professional who approaches this type of research. The qualitative and organizational analysis tools are also described, providing useful information for the use of non-paid programs. This systematic review aims to develop a framework with a rigorous methodological approach that allows simplify the process for clinicians and healthcare professionals. The implementation of this methodology in clinical practice offers new perspectives to ensure a thoughtful consideration and application of scientific evidence and opens the way to innovative and easily accessible solutions to facilitate the conduct of systematic reviews in the clinical care setting.

An international modified Delphi process supported updating the web-based "right review" tool.

OBJECTIVES: The proliferation of evidence synthesis methods makes it challenging for reviewers to select the ''right'' method. This study aimed to update the Right Review tool (a web-based decision support tool that guides users through a series of questions for recommending evidence synthesis methods) and establish a common set of questions for the synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative studies (https://rightreview.knowledgetranslation.net/). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A 2-round modified international electronic modified Delphi was conducted (2022) with researchers, health-care providers, patients, and policy makers. Panel members rated the importance/clarity of the Right Review tool's guiding questions, evidence synthesis type definitions and tool output. High agreement was defined as at least 70% agreement. Any items not reaching high agreement after round 2 were discussed by the international Project Steering Group. RESULTS: Twenty-four experts from 9 countries completed round 1, with 12 completing round 2. Of the 46 items presented in round 1, 21 reached high agreement. Twenty-seven items were presented in round 2, with 8 reaching high agreement. The Project Steering Group discussed items not reaching high agreement, including 8 guiding questions, 9 review definitions (predominantly related to qualitative synthesis), and 2 output items. Three items were removed entirely and the remaining 16 revised and edited and/or combined with existing items. The final tool comprises 42 items; 9 guiding questions, 25 evidence synthesis definitions and approaches, and 8 tool outputs. CONCLUSION: The freely accessible Right Review tool supports choosing an appropriate review method. The design and clarity of this tool was enhanced by harnessing the Delphi technique to shape ongoing development. The updated tool is expected to be available in Quarter 1, 2025.