The scatter of research: cross sectional comparison of randomised trials and systematic reviews across specialties (original) (raw)
Related papers
Identifying Otolaryngology Systematic Review Research Gaps
JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, 2015
esearch priority setting is essential for efficient and equitable use of limited health resources. 1 This is a challenging process because of the large number of stakeholders involved, the numerous methods available for prioritization, and the lack of consensus on which method is appropriate. 1 Some factors that contribute to decision making regarding research funding and efforts include interest group advocacy, disease transmissibility, political support, infrastructure building, and portfolio diversification. 2,3 The appropriate allocation of available resources is in the best interest of all those involved with the health system. This system includes policy makers, health professionals, and patients, with research and service provision funds coming from the same pool of scarce health resources. 1,4 There are various efforts under way to help drive agendas and priorities within the field of otolaryngology. For instance, ENT UK 5 launched the GENERATE project to raise awareness of the importance of otolaryngologic research and to partner with patients and professionals to prioritize future research. This project determines what questions people want answered through surveys, focus groups, and interviews. The information collected is used to prioritize, develop, and find funding for the top projects based on popular interest. In addition, the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) Disorders Group 6 has partnered with the James Lind Alliance 7 to identify and prioritize the top 10 uncertainties about the effects of treatments that they agree are most important. This effort brings together patients and clinicians to drive research agen-IMPORTANCE Burden of disease should inform research prioritization. OBJECTIVE To determine whether systematic reviews and protocols published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) appropriately reflect disease burden for otolaryngologic conditions as measured by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 project. DESIGN Two investigators independently assessed 10 otolaryngologic conditions in CDSR for systematic review and protocol representation from March to June 2014. The otolaryngologic diseases were matched to their respective GBD 2010 disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) to assess their correlation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Relationship of CDSR representation (based on systematic reviews and protocols) with percentage of total 2010 DALYs, 2010 DALY rank, and DALY percentage change from 1990 to 2010 for 10 otolaryngologic conditions. RESULTS All 10 otolaryngologic conditions were represented by at least 1 systematic review in CDSR. The number of reviews and protocols in CDSR was well matched with GBD 2010 disability metrics for only 1 disease, mouth cancer. Upper respiratory infections, otitis media, thyroid cancer, and cleft lip and cleft palate were overrepresented in CDSR, and esophageal cancer, "other hearing loss," nasopharynx cancer, larynx cancer, and "cancer of other part of pharynx and oropharynx" were underrepresented. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The representation of otolaryngologic conditions in CDSR correlates poorly with DALY metrics. The results of this study may guide future research prioritization and allocation of funds.
Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2018
Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines. Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)...
Publication bias in otorhinolaryngology meta-analyses in 2021
IntroductionOne concern in meta-analyses is the presence of publication bias (PB) which leads to the dissemination of inflated results. In this study, we assessed how much the meta-analyses in the field of otorhinolaryngology in 2021 evaluated the presence of PB.MethodsSix of the most influential journals in the field were selected. A search was conducted, and data were extracted from the included studies. In cases where PB was not assessed by the authors, we evaluated the risk of its presence by designing funnel plots and performing statistical tests.Results75 systematic reviews were included. 51% of them used at least one method for assessing the risk of PB, with the visual inspection of a funnel plot being the most frequent method used. 29% of the studies reported a high risk of PB presence. We replicated the results of 11 meta-analyses that did not assess the risk of PB and found that 63.6% were at high risk.DiscussionOur results indicate that systematic reviews published in som...
Systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study of location and citation counts
BMC Medicine, 2003
Background: Systematic reviews summarize all pertinent evidence on a defined health question. They help clinical scientists to direct their research and clinicians to keep updated. Our objective was to determine the extent to which systematic reviews are clustered in a large collection of clinical journals and whether review type (narrative or systematic) affects citation counts.
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2014
Objectives: To describe the use of systematic reviews or overviews (systematic reviews of systematic reviews) to synthesize quantitative evidence of intervention effects across multiple indications (multiple-indication reviews) and to highlight issues pertaining to such reviews. Study Design and Setting: MEDLINE was searched from 2003 to January 2014. We selected multiple-indication reviews of interventions of allopathic medicine that included evidence from randomized controlled trials. We categorized the subject areas evaluated by these reviews and examined their methodology. Utilities and caveats of multiple-indication reviews are illustrated with examples drawn from published literature. Results: We retrieved 52 multiple-indication reviews covering a wide range of interventions. The method has been used to detect unintended effects, improve precision by pooling results across indications, and examine scientific hypotheses across disease classes. Conclusion: Systematic reviews of interventions are typically used to evaluate the effects of treatments, one indication at a time. Here, we argue that, with due attention to methodological caveats, much can be learned by comparing the effects of a given treatment across many related indications.
The IJA system for systematic reviews: “the whys and hows”
International Journal of Audiology, 2017
All of us are recipients of health care, and most of IJA readers also provide health/ audiological services. As patients and providers we expect that the service being rendered stands on a solid scientific base. Nowadays, with the expansion of publications and communication channels, we hear a lot about evidence-based practice (EBP) and systematic reviews. These terms have become commonplace, however, evidence being presented to support effectiveness can range from a "success story" based on a single example, to high quality evidence involving formalized testing in carefully conducted experimental designs. Such inconsistency can become an obstacle for real evidence-based practice. The
Aims: Guidelines have been designed to prepare best quality systematic review and meta-analysis reports to provide rational concise predictions about elaborate and complex of clinical trial data. Latest update in these guidelines is given by PRISMA-P 2015, which we wish to analyze for predicting its acceptability over the old PRISMA 2009. Methods: We studied 287 articles from 143 Journals listed in Pubmed and sorted them on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria to predict the number of articles published in 2015 which followed the latest PRISMA-P checklist. Results: Out of 287 articles 208 relevant articles were selected from which 182 (87.5%) followed the old PRISMA 2009 statement, 4(1.9%) did not follow PRISMA guideline, while 14 (6.7%) partially followed the same. Only 8 (3.8%) of the articles published in 2015 after February, followed the updated PRISMA-P statement. Conclusion: Results of the present study predicts probable apprehension of authors towards PRISMA-P 2015 statement.