ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) about traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension. MethodsWe comprehensively searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane library (Issue 4, 2014), CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data to collect SRs of traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension from the establishment time of databases to April 30th, 2014. The AMSTAR tool was applied for methodological quality assessment of included studies, and the GRADE system was applied for evidence quality assessment of included outcomes of SRs. ResultsA total of 12 SRs involving 31 outcomes were included, of which 11 SRs focused on the comparison of therapeutic effects between traditional Chinese medicine combined with western medicine and western medicine alone. Nine SRs adopted Jadad tool to assess methodological quality of included original studies. The results of assessment using AMSTAR showed that, among 11 items, there were the most problems concerning Item 1 "Was an 'a prior' design provided?" (none of the 12 SRs provided it); followed by Item 11 "Were potential conflict of interest included?" (nine SRs didn't described it), and Item 6 "Were the characteristics of included studies provided" (six SRs didn't provided it). The results of grading showed that, 29 outcomes were graded as "low" or "very low" quality. The main factors contributed to downgrading evidence quality were limitations (31 outcomes), followed by imprecision (12 outcomes), and inconsistency (13 outcomes). ConclusionCurrently, the methodological quality of SRs about traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension was poor on the whole, with low quality of evidence as well as lack of enough attention to the end outcomes of patients with essential hypertension. Thus, physicians should apply the evidence to make decision about traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension with caution in clinical practice.
ObjectivesTo overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of effectiveness and safety of spinal manipulation for low back pain or neck pain. MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2015), CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP to collect SRs/MAs of spinal manipulation for low back pain or neck pain from inception to January 30th, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and then AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included SRs/MAs. ResultsA total of 21 SRs/MAs were included. Twenty of them assessed the methodological quality of included original randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with different tools:2 used Jadad scale, 5 used PEDro scale, 6 used Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and 7 used other tools. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that:among 11 items, the item 1 of "Was an ‘a priori’ design provided" (18 SRs/MAs did not provide) and item 4 of "Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided" (18 SRs/MAs did not provide) appeared to be the most problematic, followed by item 10 of "Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed" (14 SRs/MAs did not assess the publication bias) and item 11 of "Was the conflict of interest stated" (14 SRs/MAs did not provide the conflict of interest and 4 were incomplete). ConclusionThe methodological quality of included SRs/MAs is poor. The limited evidence showed that spinal manipulation is more effective for acute low back pain than chronic low back pain, and the short term effect is better than the long term one. Different spinal manipulation techniques have various effects but are all safe. Chiropractic manipulation may have the best effect. Due to the limitation of quality and quantity of included SRs/MAs, there may be potential bias in the above conclusion that needs more high quality studies to verify.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the risk of bias and reliability of conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) of lung cancer screening. MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2016), Web of Knowledge, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI to collect SRs of lung cancer screening from inception to February 29th, 2016. The ROBIS tool was applied to assess the risk of bias of included SRs, and then GRADE system was used for evidence quality assessment of outcomes of SRs. ResultsA total of 11 SRs involving 5 outcomes (mortality, detection rate, survival rate, over-diagnosis and potential benefits and harms) were included. The results of risk of bias assessment by ROBIS tool showed:Two studies completely matched the 4 questions of phase 1. In the phase 2, 6 studies were low risk of bias in the including criteria field; 8 studies were low risk of bias in the literature search and screening field; 3 studies were low risk of bias in the data abstraction and quality assessment field; and 5 studies were low risk of bias in the data synthesis field. In the phase 3 of comprehensive risk of bias results, 5 studies were low risk. The results of evidence quality assessment by GRADE system showed:three studies had A level evidence on the outcome of mortality; 1 study had A level evidence on detection; 1 study had A level evidence on survival rate; 3 studies on over-diagnosis had C level evidence; and 2 studies on potential benefits and harms had B level evidence. ConclusionThe risk of bias of SRs of lung cancer screening is totally modest; however, the evidence quality of outcomes of these SRs is totally low. Clinicians should cautiously use these evidence to make decision based on local situation.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) of lanthanum carbonate in the treatment of chronic kidney disease with hyperphosphatemia. MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, PROSPERO, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data and VIP to collect systematic reviews and meta-analysis about lanthanum carbonate in the treatment of chronic kidney disease with hyperphosphatemia from inception to August 31st, 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data, then AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies and the GRADE tool was used to grade the evidence quality of outcome measures included in the SRs. ResultsA total of eight relevant SRs were included and containing three main outcome measures. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that:four SRs were of high quality, and the other four were of medium quality. GRADE results showed:for serum phosphorus level, compared with placebo, the quality of the evidence of three SRs were medium, low and very low; compared with calcium carbonate or conventional phosphorus binder, four SRs were low, low, low and very low; compared with sevelamer, one SR was low. For serum calcium level, compared with placebo, the quality of the evidence of three SRs were high, medium and low, respectively; compared with calcium carbonate or conventional phosphorus binder, five SRs were low, low, low, very low and very low; compared with sevelamer, one SR was very low. For serum iPTH level, compared with placebo, the quality of the evidence of three SRs were medium, low and very low; compared with calcium carbonate or conventional phosphorus binder, five SRs were medium, low, low, very low and very low; compared with sevelamer, one SR was low. ConclusionAt present, methodological quality assessment for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease with lanthanum carbonate is generally not high and the level of evidence for the conclusion is generally low. In drug safety, especially in the occurrence of adverse events of the digestive system is still controversial, and a large amount of high quality experimental is needed to demonstrate the safety of its long-term use. Clinicians need to be cautious in using these evidence to make clinical decisions.
Objective To overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses of efficacy of FNB used as a postoperative analgesic technique among patients undergoing TKR. Methods We electronically searched databases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP from inception to July, 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. The primary outcome was pain scores and the consumption of opoid medicine to evaluate the effectiveness of FNB. Results A total of 16 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included, involving the FNBvs. LIA, PMDI, EA, PCA and ACB, respectively. The results of quality assessment indicated medium scores with 3 to 9 scores. The overviews’ results showed that: at rest, FNB was not superior to LIA at 6h after TKR; it was superior to PMDI at 12h after TKR; it was also superior to PCA and LIA, but not superior to ACB at 24h after TKR. On movement, FNB was superior to PCA and LIA at 24h after TKR; it was also superior to PCA at 48h after TKR. As to the consumption of opoid medicine, the consumption in FNB group was more than LIA group at 12h after TKR. In addition, the consumption in FNB group was less than PCA and LIA at 24h after TKR, and it was also less than PCA and ACB at 48h. The satisfaction of patients who received FNB was better than ACB, EA and PCA. Conclusion The current overview shows that FNB is more effective than PCA and LIA, the patients’ satisfaction is better. Due to the limitations of the quantity and quality of included studies, the above conclusions are needed to be verified by more studies.
Objectives To overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses of safety of femoral nerve block (FNB) used as a postoperative analgesic technique in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods We searched databases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP from inception to July, 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and used AMSTAR to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. The major indexes used to evaluate the safety of FNB were the incidence rates of symptoms including nausea, vomiting, sedation, retention of urine, dizziness, pruritus, hypotension, falls, nenous thromboembolism and deep infection. Results A total of 12 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included.They assessed the safety of FNB compared with local infiltration analgesia (LIA), periarticular multimodal drug injection (PMDI), epidural analgesia (EA), patient-controlled intravenous analgesia of opioids (PCA) and adductor canal block (ACB), respectively. The methodological quality of included studies were medium, with the scores between 3 to 10. The results of overview indicated that: FNB had lower incidence rates of nausea and vomiting compared with EA and PCA, but had higher than ACB. FNB had lower incidence rates of sedation and retention of urine compared with EA and PCA. FNB had lower incidence rates of dizziness compared with EA and PCA, and lower incidence rate of hypotension compared with EA. Conclusion Current evidence suggests that FNB is safer than EA and PCA. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusions are needed to be verified by more high-quality studies.
ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4) in treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsDatabase including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were searched from inception to December 2016 to collect SRs/MAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DPP-4 for the treatment of T2DM. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the reporting and methodological qualities using the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR tool.ResultsTwenty-seven SRs/MAs of DPP-4 for the treatment of T2DM were included in this overview. The average score of AMSTAR was 7.04. The worst score were the item 1 (26 studies didn't provide an ‘a priori’ design), item 4 (10 studies didn't provide whether the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?), item 10 and item 11 (15 studies didn't assess the likelihood of publication bias and the potential conflicts of interest). The PRISMA score ranged from 17.0 to 24.5. The main problems of reporting were protocol and registration, search, additional analyses and funding.ConclusionThe evidence shows that the reporting and methodological quality of the SRs/MAs of DPP-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes are not high.
Objective To overview the systematic reviews about the efficacy and safety of respiratory fluoroquinolones for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Methods We electronically searched databases including China National Knowledge Internet, WanFang Data, VIP, PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Library to collect systematic reviews or Meta-analyses about respiratory fluoroquinolones for CAP from inception to November 2, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literatures, extracted data, and then AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Results A total of 18 systematic reviews/Meta-analyses were included. The results of quality assessment indicated the scores ranged from 5 to 10. Among the 11 items, the item 1 of " Was an ‘a priori’ design provided” and item 4 " Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion” appeared to be the most problematic. The results of overview suggested that: the efficacy of respiratory fluoroquinolones might be similar to β-lactams plus macrolides combination treatment for CAP. However, respiratory fluoroquinolones might be more safety. In addition, the efficacy of respiratory fluoroquinolones sequential therapy for CAP was similar to that of continuous intravenous therapy, but the adverse reactions of the former were fewer. Conclusions Respiratory fluoroquinolones might be similar in efficacy for CAP to other antibiotics recommended by the guidelines with less adverse reactions. However, it can increase multi-drug resistance and potential tuberculosis drug resistance, we should strictly follow the principle of rational use of antibiotics to avoid abuse.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) on the treatment for acute gout.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect published systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating drug interventions therapy in acute gout from inception to April 8th 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, assessed the methodological quality of included SRs by the AMSTAR tool, and assessed the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome by the GRADE approach.ResultsA total of seven relevant SRs were included, which contains three main outcome measures. Four SRs contained non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), three SRs contained colchicine and two SRs contained glucocorticoids. All SRs assessed risk of bias of included original studies. Two used the Jadad scale or modified Jadad scale in this assessment while others used the " assessing risk of bias” tool recommended by Cochrane Collaboration. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that: three SRs were considered high quality (scores≥9), and the other four were considered moderate quality. GRADE results showed: the quality of the evidence of 11 outcomes was low or very low, and five outcomes was moderate.ConclusionsThe current evidence confirms the effectiveness and safety of several drug interventions in the treatment of acute gout, however, the priority of these drugs is still unclear. We suggest conducting new SRs and updating relevant SRs, to systematically compare different drug interventions therapy in acute gout with the latest evidence. In addition, we still expect to put more efforts in conducting high-quality original studies, in order to fill the gap of relevant fields and improve the level of evidence quality.
Objectives To evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews on acupuncture for polycystic ovary syndrome. Methods We comprehensively searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data to collect systematic reviews on acupuncture for polycystic ovary syndrome from the establishment time of databases to January 5th, 2018. The AMSTAR tool was applied for methodological quality assessment of included studies and the GRADE system was applied for evidence quality assessment of included outcomes of systematic reviews. Results A total of 11 systematic reviews were included. The results of assessment using AMSTAR showed that, among the 11 items, most problems occurred in Item 5 " Were there any lists of research articles included and excluded”, followed by Item 1" Was an‘a prior’design provided?”and Item 11" Were potential conflict of interest included?”. GRADE grading results showed that quality of evidence for the outcome measure were" low”or" very low”. Conclusions Current acupuncture treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome has a certain effect, however, the quality of evidence is low. Thus, physicians should apply the evidence to make decision on acupuncture for polycystic ovary syndrome with caution in clinical practice and consider the actual situation, combined with the patient’s value preferences and economic factors.