Application of magnetic resonance imaging radiomics in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: We aimed to systematically assess the methodological quality and clinical potential application of published magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based radiomics studies about endometrial cancer (EC). METHODS: Studies of EC radiomics analyses published between 1 January 2000 and 19 March 2023 were extracted, and their methodological quality was evaluated using the radiomics quality score (RQS) and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pairwise correlation analyses and separate meta-analyses of studies exploring differential diagnoses and risk prediction were also performed. RESULTS: Forty-five studies involving 3 aims were included. The mean RQS was 13.77 (range: 9-22.5); publication bias was observed in the areas of 'index test' and 'flow and timing'. A high RQS was significantly associated with therapy selection-aimed studies, low QUADAS-2 risk, recent publication year, and high-performance metrics. Raw data from 6 differential diagnosis and 34 risk prediction models were subjected to meta-analysis, revealing diagnostic odds ratios of 23.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.48-66.83) and 18.23 (95% CI 13.68-24.29), respectively. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of radiomics studies involving patients with EC is unsatisfactory. However, MRI-based radiomics analyses showed promising utility in terms of differential diagnosis and risk prediction.

Risk of bias in cross-sectional studies: Protocol for a scoping review of concepts and tools.

Cross-sectional studies are commonly used to study human health and disease, but are especially susceptible to bias. This scoping review aims to identify and describe available tools to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in cross-sectional studies and to compile the key bias concepts relevant to cross-sectional studies into an item bank. Using the JBI scoping review methodology, the strategy to locate relevant RoB concepts and tools is a combination of database searches, prospective review of PROSPERO registry records; and consultation with knowledge users and content experts. English language records will be included if they describe tools, checklists, or instruments which describe or permit assessment of RoB for cross-sectional studies. Systematic reviews will be included if they consider eligible RoB tools or use RoB tools for RoB of cross-sectional studies. All records will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by one researcher and checked by a second. An analytic framework will be used to structure the extraction of data. Results for the scoping review are pending. Results from this scoping review will be used to inform future selection of RoB tools and to consider whether development of a new RoB tool for cross-sectional studies is needed.

Transitivity, coherence, and reliability of network meta-analyses comparing proximal humerus fracture treatments: a meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Network meta-analyses can be valuable for decision-makers in guiding clinical practice. However, for network meta-analysis results to be reliable, the assumptions of both transitivity and coherence must be met, and the methodology should adhere to current best practices. We aimed to assess whether network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interventions for proximal humerus fractures provide reliable estimates of intervention effects. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for network meta-analyses comparing interventions for proximal humerus fractures. We critically assessed the methodology regarding the development of a protocol, search strategy, trial inclusion, outcome extraction, and the methods used to conduct the network meta-analyses. We assessed the transitivity and coherence of the network graphs for the Constant score (CS), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (DASH), and additional surgery. Transitivity was assessed by comparing probable effect modifiers (age, gender, fracture morphology, and comorbidities) across intervention comparisons. Coherence was assessed using Separating Indirect from Direct Evidence (SIDE) (Separating Indirect from Direct Evidence) and the design-by-treatment interaction test. We used CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-analyses) to assess the confidence in the results. RESULTS: None of the three included network meta-analyses had a publicly available protocol or data-analysis plan, and they all had methodological flaws that could threaten the validity of their results. Although we did not detect incoherence for most comparisons, the transitivity assumption was violated for CS, DASH, and additional surgery in all three network meta-analyses. Additionally, the confidence in the results was 'very low' primarily due to within-study bias, reporting bias, intransitivity, imprecision, and heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Current network meta-analyses of RCTs comparing interventions for proximal humerus fractures do not provide reliable estimates of intervention effects. We advise caution in using these network meta-analyses to guide clinical practice. To improve the utility of network meta-analyses to guide clinical practice, journal editors should require that network meta-analyses are done according to a predefined analysis plan in a publicly available protocol and that both coherence and transitivity have been adequately assessed and reported.

A critical overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of extracorporeal shockwave therapy for knee osteoarthritis.

Knee Osteoarthritis (KOA) has become a serious health issue for elderly patients. Several systematic reviews (SRs) and Meta-Analyses (MAs) have reported extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) has widely been used in the treatment of KOA. This overview aims to summarize and evaluate the available evidence for the efficacy of ESWT for KOA. Eight databases were searched from inception to December 4, 2022. The methodological quality of the included SRs/MAs was assessed by Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies in terms of outcome indicators. Eight SRs/MAs were finally included in this study. The results of the methodological quality of the included SRs/MAs were generally unsatisfactory. The limitations were a lack of explaining the reasons for selection, a list of excluded literature, reporting bias assessment, and reporting the potential sources of conflict of interest. A total of 49 outcome indicators were assessed by using the GRADE tool. Only 3 items were assessed as moderate quality and the remaining indicators were rated as low and very low. Limitations were the most common downgraded factors. ESWT is regarded as a safe and therapeutically effective non-pharmacological method for the treatment of KOA. However, the reliability of the results is affected by the generally low methodological and evidential quality of the included SRs/MAs. Future researchers should improve the quality of original studies and SRs/MAs to provide a higher level of evidence-based medical evidence.

Most systematic reviews reporting adherence to AMSTAR 2 had critically low methodological quality: a cross-sectional meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the methodological quality and characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) that reported they were conducted in line with the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a cross-sectional meta-research study. We searched MEDLINE and Embase. We included full reports of SRs reporting the study was conducted, prepared, or designed in line with the AMSTAR 2. Eligible SRs were those published from January 1, 2018, until May 3, 2022. We assessed the methodological quality of the included SRs using AMSTAR 2. RESULTS: We included a total of 45 records. There were 43 SRs and 2 SR protocols. Among them, most were SRs of interventions that included primary studies on humans. More than half had a meta-analysis. According to our overall AMSTAR 2 assessments of included SRs, 35 SRs were of critically low confidence, 7 SRs were of low confidence, and one SR was of high confidence. There were no SRs of moderate confidence. CONCLUSION: Even when authors indicate in their manuscripts that the SR was conducted/prepared/designed in line with the AMSTAR 2, it does not necessarily imply it is of high or even moderate confidence according to AMSTAR 2. A self-assessment with AMSTAR 2 could be required for submission and carefully checked by the editors/peer reviewers.

Compound Kushen injection combined with transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: An evidence map and overview of systematic reviews.

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: For the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), compound Kushen injection (CKi) is commonly used in combination with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). AIMS OF THE STUDY: Our objective was to evaluate the reporting quality, methodological quality, risk of bias, and certainty of evidence for CKi combined with TACE for the treatment of patients with HCC by conducting systematic reviews (SRs). The purpose of this study was to improve the clinical application of CKis, strengthen clinical decision-making regarding CKis, and inform future research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used eight databases to systematically search SRs of CKi combined with TACE for HCC through February 21, 2023. The quality of reporting of SRs was evaluated using the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, methodological quality using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2, risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Review, and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment. Finally, the assessment results were visualized by the evidence mapping method. This overview has been registered on PROSPERO with the registration title "Compound Kushen injection for hepatocellular carcinoma: An overview of systematic reviews" and registration number CRD42022369120. RESULTS: A total of 12 SRs meeting the inclusion criteria were included. In terms of reporting quality, 42% of SRs reported relatively complete reports and 58% had certain deficiencies. The methodological quality of all SRs was " critically low". The risk of bias was evaluated as low in 33% of SRs and high in 67% of SRs. The results of the evidence synthesis showed that, in the "moderate" level of evidence, CKi combined with TACE resulted in a 12.7%-21.5% benefit for one-year survival rate, 11.7%-17.2% benefit for objective response rate (ORR), 20.5%-27.1% benefit for quality of life, 22.2% benefit for nausea and vomiting, and 24.7%-27.4% benefit for leukopenia in HCC patients. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, CKi combined with TACE improved survival, ORR and quality of life in patients with HCC, and reduced adverse events. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the low methodological quality of the included SRs. The clinical efficacy of CKis must be confirmed in a large number of randomized controlled trials.

Efficacy of stem cell therapy for diabetic foot: Clinical evidence from meta-analyses.

To assess the clinical data on the effectiveness of stem cell therapy for diabetic foot (DF) based on recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs). SRs/MAs that evaluate the clinical evidence on the efficacy of stem cell therapy for DF were identified through a systematic search in public databases. The methodological quality and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs were assessed separately by two researchers. Eight SRs/MAs were included in this analysis. Since there were no registered protocol or exclusion criteria for the included SRs/MAs, the methodological quality was rated as critically low. There was no high-quality evidence available for the outcomes, and the evidence quality ranged from critically low to moderate. Evidence degradation was most commonly caused by the risk of bias, followed by imprecision, publication bias and inconsistency. In conclusion, stem cell therapy may be effective for DF. However, this conclusion should be approached with caution, considering the quality of the supporting SRs/MAs.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Librarian involvement in systematic reviews was associated with higher quality of reported search methods: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered the gold standard of evidence, but many published SRs are of poor quality. This study identifies how librarian involvement in SRs is associated with quality-reported methods and examines the lack of motivation for involving a librarian in SRs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched databases for SRs that were published by a first or last author affiliated to a Vancouver hospital or biomedical research site and published between 2015 and 2019. Corresponding authors of included SRs were contacted through an e-mail survey to determine if a librarian was involved in the SR. If a librarian was involved in the SR, the survey asked at what level the librarian was involved and if a librarian was not involved, the survey asked why. Quality of reported search methods was scored independently by two reviewers. A linear regression model was used to determine the association between quality of reported search methods scores and the level at which a librarian was involved in the study. RESULTS: One hundred ninety one SRs were included in this study and 118 (62%) of the SRs authors indicated whether a librarian was involved in the SR. SRs that included a librarian as a co-author had a 15.4% higher quality assessment score than SRs that did not include a librarian. Most authors (27; 75%) who did not include a librarian in their SR did not do so because they did not believe it was necessary. CONCLUSION: Higher level of librarian involvement in SRs is correlated with higher scores in reported search methods. Greater advocacy or changes at the policy level is necessary to increase librarian involvement in SRs and as a result the quality of their search methods.

Methodological quality of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in cariology.

OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to appraise the methodological quality of evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) in the cariology field. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search on electronic databases (MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, DARE and Epistemonikos), websites, and guideline organizations were undertaken. Evidence-based CPGs including at least one recommendation for clinical prevention and/or management of dental caries, developed for any clinical setting, were included. The quality of each guideline was evaluated using the AGREE II tool. Descriptive analysis was performed and the average overall score for each domain was calculated. RESULTS: Thirty-two guidelines were included. Most of the CPGs achieved higher scores for the domains of clarity of presentation (66.7%, 95% IC 37.3-52.2) and scope and purpose (59.6%, 95% IC 53.7-65.5) domains; and lower scores for editorial independence (46.1%, 95% IC 37.8-55.7) and applicability domain (44.7%, 95% IC 37-55.3). The reviewers assessed 12 CPGs (37.5%) as recommended for use, 15 (46.9%) recommended with modifications, and 5 (15.6%) as not recommended. CONCLUSION: The overall methodological quality of evidence-based CPGs in the cariology field is moderate, and there is a need for improvements in reporting related to most domains. The poorest reporting was found in the description of the domains' applicability of its recommendations and editorial independence. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinical Practice Guidelines provide guidance to patients, healthcare professionals, and stakeholders. The quality of these documents is essential for establishing trust in their recommendations.

Evaluation of Global Post-Outbreak COVID-19 Treatment Interventions: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Purpose: The outbreak of COVID-19 has led to a global pandemic with millions of cases and deaths. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to establish effective therapies. However, the methodological quality of these trials is paramount, as it directly impacts the reliability of results. This systematic review and bibliometric analysis aim to assess the methodological approach, execution diversity, global trends, and distribution of COVID-19 treatment RCTs post-outbreak, covering the period from the second wave and onward up to the present. Methods: We utilize articles from three electronic databases published from September 1, 2020, to April 1, 2023. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify relevant RCTs. Data extraction involved the collection of various study details. Risk of Bias (RoB) 2 tool assessed methodological quality, while implementation variability was evaluated against registration information. Bibliometric analysis, including keyword co-occurrence and country distribution, used VOSviewer and Tableau software. Results: Initially, 501 studies were identified, but only 22 met the inclusion criteria, of which 19 had registration information. The methodological quality assessment revealed deficiencies in five main domains: randomization process (36%), deviations from intended interventions (9%), missing outcome data (4%), measurement of the outcome (18%), and selection of reported results (4%). An analysis of alignment between research protocols and registration data revealed common deviations in eight critical aspects. Bibliometric findings showcased global collaboration in COVID-19 treatment RCTs, with Iran and Brazil prominently contributing, while keyword co-occurrence analysis illuminated prominent research trends and terms in study titles and abstracts. Conclusion: This study offers valuable insights into the evaluation of COVID-19 treatment RCTs. The scarcity of high-quality RCTs highlights the importance of enhancing trial rigor and transparency in global health emergencies.

Evolution of appraisal tool usage preferences in PROSPERO records: a study of non-Cochrane systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: This research-on-research substudy uses a data-driven approach to investigate the range of appraisal tools in non-Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A comprehensive web scraping of all completed non-Cochrane registrations in PROSPERO from February 2011 to December 2017 was performed. The focus was classifying the appraisal tools based on study type, assessment aspects, and research topics. RESULTS: After analyzing 17,708 complete records, we found a predominant use of methodological quality assessment tools compared to those for reporting quality or risk of bias (RoB). This indicates a greater emphasis on methodological rigor in the studied protocols. Various tools for assessing methodological quality were observed, reflecting the complexity of such evaluations. Instruments designed for evaluating methodological or reporting quality were mainly intended for non-randomized clinical trials or observational studies, unlike RoB tools more commonly used in randomized clinical trials. No distinct trends in tool usage were observed in specific research conditions or domains, suggesting that tool choice is influenced more by study design than research topic. CONCLUSION: This study provides insights into the preferential use of various assessment tools in conducting non-Cochrane systematic reviews, as evidenced in PROSPERO records. The findings reveal various methodological assessment tools, underscoring their versatility across different study designs and research areas.

Appraisal methods and outcomes of AMSTAR 2 assessments in overviews of systematic reviews of interventions in the cardiovascular field: A methodological study.

This study aimed to assess the methods and outcomes of The Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 appraisals in overviews of reviews (overviews) of interventions in the cardiovascular field and identify factors that are associated with these outcomes. MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched until November 2022. Eligible were overviews of cardiovascular interventions, analyzing systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Extracted data included characteristics of overviews and SRs and AMSTAR 2 appraisal methods and outcomes. Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to explore potential associations between the characteristics of SRs and extracted AMSTAR 2 overall ratings ("High-Moderate" vs. "Low-Critically low"). The original results on individual AMSTAR 2 items were entered into the official AMSTAR 2 online tool and the recalculated overall confidence ratings were compared to those provided in overviews. All 34 overviews identified were published between 2019 and 2022. Rating of overall confidence following the algorithm suggested by AMSTAR 2 developers was noted in 74% of overviews. The 679 unique included SRs were mainly of "Critically low" (53%) or "Low" (18.7%) confidence and underperformed in items 2 (Protocol, no = 65.2%) and 7 (List of excluded studies, no = 84%). The following characteristics of SRs were significantly associated with higher overall ratings: Cochrane origin, pharmacological interventions, including exclusively RCTs, citation of methodological and reporting guidelines, protocol, absence of funding and publication after AMSTAR 2 release. Generally, overviews' authors tended to deviate from the original rating scheme and ascribe higher ratings to SRs compared to the official AMSTAR 2 online tool. Most SRs included in overviews of cardiovascular interventions have critically low or low confidence in their results. Overviews' authors should be more transparent about the methods used to derive the overall confidence in SRs.

Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on health effects of air pollutants were higher than extreme temperatures: a comparative study.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of systematic reviews (SRs) in the environmental field have been published in recent years as a result of the global concern about the health impacts of air pollution and temperature. However, no study has assessed and compared the methodological and reporting quality of SRs on the health effects of air pollutants and extreme temperatures. This study aims to assess and compare the methodological and reporting quality of SRs on the health effects of ambient air pollutants and extreme temperatures. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Epistemonikos databases were searched. Two researchers screened the literature and extracted information independently. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed through A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). The reporting quality was assessed through Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: We identified 405 SRs (286 for air pollution, 108 for temperature, and 11 for the synergistic effects). The methodological and reporting quality of the included SRs were suboptimal, with major deficiencies in protocol registration. The methodological quality of SRs of air pollutants was better than that of temperature, especially in terms of satisfactory explanations for any heterogeneity (69.6% v. 45.4%). The reporting quality of SRs of air pollution was better than temperature, however, adherence to the reporting of the assessment results of risk of bias in all SRs (53.5% v. 34.3%) was inadequate. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological and reporting quality of SRs on the health effect of air pollutants were higher than those of temperatures. However, deficiencies in protocol registration and the assessment of risk of bias remain an issue for both pollutants and temperatures. In addition, developing a risk-of-bias assessment tool applicable to the temperature field may improve the quality of SRs.

The methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome using AMSTAR2.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the methodological quality of the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) using A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) and to explore the potential influencing factors. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies. AMSTAR2 was used for evaluating the methodological quality of eligible SRs/MAs. Differences between methodological characteristics of SRs/MAs were compared using chi-square tests. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess reviewer agreement in the pre-experiment. Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify potential factors affecting methodological quality. RESULTS: A total of 45 SRs/MAs were included. After AMSTAR2 evaluation, only two (4.4%) of 45 SRs/MAs were moderate, three (6.7%) were rated as low quality, and the remainder 40 (88.9%) were rated as critically low quality. Among the 16 items of AMSTAR2, item 3 and item 10 had the poorest adherence. Item 4 received the most significant number of "Partial Yes" responses. Univariable analysis indicated that there were significant differences in methodological quality in SRs between different continents (P = 0.027) as well as between preregistered SRs and those that were not (P = 0.004). However, in multivariate analysis, there was no significant association between methodological quality and the following research characteristics: publication year, continent, whether reporting followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), preregistration, funding support, randomized controlled trials (RCT) enrollment, whether SR was published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and whether with meta-analysis. Additionally, subgroup analysis based on interventional SRs/MAs showed that continent was independently associated with the methodological quality of SRs/MAs of CP/CPPS via univariable and multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that the methodological quality of SRs/MAs of CP/CPPS was generally poor. SRs/MAs of CP/CPPS should adopt the AMSTAR2 to enhance their methodological quality.

A scoping review and critical evaluation of the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines on nutrition in the preconception.

Introduction: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) contain recommendations for specific clinical circumstances, including maternal malnutrition. This study aimed to identify the CPGs that provide recommendations for preventing, diagnosing, and treating women's malnutrition. Additionally, we sought to assess the methodological quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. Methods: An online search for CPGs was performed, looking for those that contained lifestyle and nutritional recommendations to prevent, diagnose and treat malnutrition in women during the preconception period using PubMed and different websites. The reviewers utilized the AGREE II instrument to appraise the quality of the CPGs. We defined high-quality guidelines with a final score of > 70%. Results: The titles and abstracts from 30 guidelines were screened for inclusion, of which 20 guidelines were fully reviewed for quality assessment. The overall quality assessment of CPGs was 73%, and only 55% reached a high-quality classification. The domains in the guidelines classified as high-quality had the highest scores in "Scope and Purpose" and "Clarity of Presentation" with a median of 98.5 and 93%, respectively. Discussion: Further assessment is needed to improve the quality of the guidelines, which is an opportunity to strengthen them, especially in the domains with the lowest scores.

Cost-effectiveness of left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review appraising the methodological quality.

BACKGROUND: The increasing global prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) has led to a growing demand for stroke prevention strategies, resulting in higher healthcare costs. High-quality economic evaluations of stroke prevention strategies can play a crucial role in maximising efficient allocation of resources. In this systematic review, we assessed the methodological quality of such economic evaluations. METHODS: We searched electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Econ Lit to identify model-based economic evaluations comparing the left atrial appendage closure procedure (LAAC) and oral anticoagulants published in English since 2000. Data on study characteristics, model-based details, and analyses were collected. The methodological quality was evaluated using the modified Economic Evaluations Bias (ECOBIAS) checklist. For each of the 22 biases listed in this checklist, studies were categorised into one of four groups: low risk, partial risk, high risk due to inadequate reporting, or high risk. To gauge the overall quality of each study, we computed a composite score by assigning + 2, 0, - 1 and - 2 to each risk category, respectively. RESULTS: In our analysis of 12 studies, majority adopted a healthcare provider or payer perspective and employed Markov Models with the number of health states varying from 6 to 16. Cost-effectiveness results varied across studies. LAAC displayed a probability exceeding 50% of being the cost-effective option in six out of nine evaluations compared to warfarin, six out of eight evaluations when compared to dabigatran, in three out of five evaluations against apixaban, and in two out of three studies compared to rivaroxaban. The methodological quality scores for individual studies ranged from 10 to - 12 out of a possible 24. Most high-risk ratings were due to inadequate reporting, which was prevalent across various biases, including those related to data identification, baseline data, treatment effects, and data incorporation. Cost measurement omission bias and inefficient comparator bias were also common. CONCLUSIONS: While most studies concluded LAAC to be the cost-effective strategy for stroke prevention in AF, shortcomings in methodological quality raise concerns about reliability and validity of results. Future evaluations, free of these shortcomings, can yield stronger policy evidence.

The Effectiveness of Tai Chi for Knee Osteoarthritis: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Background: Knee Osteoarthritis (KOA) has become a serious health issue for elderly patients. Several systematic reviews (SRs) have reported Tai Chi has widely been used in the treatment of KOA. However, the methodology and conclusions of these SRs are controversial. This overview aims to summarize and evaluate the available evidence for the efficacy and safety of Tai Chi for KOA. Methods: Two independent researchers searched eight databases from the inception to April 30, 2022. The included SRs were assessed respectively by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool, and the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to assess the quality of the included SRs in terms of outcome indicators. Results: Six SRs were finally included in this overview. The results of methodological quality, reporting quality, and risk of bias of the included SRs were generally unsatisfactory. The limitations were a lack of explaining the reasons for selection, a list of excluded literature, reporting bias assessment, and reporting the potential sources of conflict of interest. In addition, only 1 item was assessed as moderate quality by using the GRADE tool. Limitations were the most common downgraded factors. Conclusion: Tai Chi is effective as a non-pharmacological intervention in the integrative treatment of KOA. However, the quality of evidence and methodological quality of SRs is generally unsatisfactory, suggesting that these results must be interpreted with caution. Trial Registration/Protocol Registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022315146.

Assessment and trends in the methodological quality of the top 50 most cited articles in shoulder arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Shoulder arthroplasty is increasingly frequent, and the associated literature is abundant. Citation rate is often considered a good means of assessing impact and scientific value. However, analysis of methodological quality is also essential in evidence-based medicine. OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify the 50 most cited articles on shoulder arthroplasty, and (2) to assess the correlation between citation rate and methodological quality. The study hypothesis was that there is no correlation between citation rate and methodological quality. METHOD: Articles were retrieved from PubMed and Google Scholar, identifying the 50 most cited articles on shoulder arthroplasty via the keywords "shoulder joint replacement", "shoulder arthroplasty", "anatomic shoulder prothesis", "reverse shoulder prothesis", and "glenohumeral arthritis". Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS) and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) were calculated. RESULTS: Mean citation rate for the 50 articles was 312.4±169.5 (range, 151-841.5), with a mean citation density of 18.8±10.6 (range, 4.7-46.7). 56% of the studies (28/50) were retrospective case series with level of evidence IV. There was no correlation between citation rate and methodological quality. DISCUSSION: The 50 most cited articles on shoulder arthroplasty mostly showed low levels of methodological quality. There was no correlation between citation rate and methodological quality: the literature needs to be read with a critical eye. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.