-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jul 2009Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity...
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Topics: Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Publishing; Quality Control; Review Literature as Topic; Terminology as Topic
PubMed: 19622552
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2700 -
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Oct 2009Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The...
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Topics: Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Publishing; Quality Control; Review Literature as Topic; Terminology as Topic
PubMed: 19631507
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 -
PLoS Medicine Jul 2009Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The...
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Topics: Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Publishing; Quality Control; Review Literature as Topic; Terminology as Topic
PubMed: 19621070
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Nov 2019Medical procedures often evoke pain and anxiety in pediatric patients. Virtual reality (VR) is a relatively new intervention that can be used to provide distraction... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Medical procedures often evoke pain and anxiety in pediatric patients. Virtual reality (VR) is a relatively new intervention that can be used to provide distraction during, or to prepare patients for, medical procedures. This meta-analysis is the first to collate evidence on the effectiveness of VR on reducing pain and anxiety in pediatric patients undergoing medical procedures.
METHODS
On April 25, 2018, we searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO with the keywords "VR," "children," and "adolescents." Studies that applied VR in a somatic setting with participants ≤21 years of age were included. VR was defined as a fully immersive 3-dimensional environment displayed in surround stereoscopic vision on a head-mounted display (HMD). We evaluated pain and anxiety outcomes during medical procedures in VR and standard care conditions.
RESULTS
We identified 2889 citations, of which 17 met our inclusion criteria. VR was applied as distraction (n = 16) during venous access, dental, burn, or oncological care or as exposure (n = 1) before elective surgery under general anesthesia. The effect of VR was mostly studied in patients receiving burn care (n = 6). The overall weighted standardized mean difference (SMD) for VR was 1.30 (95% CI, 0.68-1.91) on patient-reported pain (based on 14 studies) and 1.32 (95% CI, 0.21-2.44) on patient-reported anxiety (based on 7 studies). The effect of VR on pediatric pain was also significant when observed by caregivers (SMD = 2.08; 95% CI, 0.55-3.61) or professionals (SMD = 3.02; 95% CI, 0.79-2.25). For anxiety, limited observer data were available.
CONCLUSIONS
VR research in pediatrics has mainly focused on distraction. Large effect sizes indicate that VR is an effective distraction intervention to reduce pain and anxiety in pediatric patients undergoing a wide variety of medical procedures. However, further research on the effect of VR exposure as a preparation tool for medical procedures is needed because of the paucity of research into this field.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anxiety; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Pain Management; Publication Bias; Virtual Reality; Young Adult
PubMed: 31136330
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004165 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Apr 2022The applications of artificial intelligence (AI) processes have grown significantly in all medical disciplines during the last decades. Two main types of AI have been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The applications of artificial intelligence (AI) processes have grown significantly in all medical disciplines during the last decades. Two main types of AI have been applied in medicine: symbolic AI (eg, knowledge base and ontologies) and nonsymbolic AI (eg, machine learning and artificial neural networks). Consequently, AI has also been applied across most obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) domains, including general obstetrics, gynecology surgery, fetal ultrasound, and assisted reproductive medicine, among others.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to provide a systematic review to establish the actual contributions of AI reported in OB/GYN discipline journals.
METHODS
The PubMed database was searched for citations indexed with "artificial intelligence" and at least one of the following medical subject heading (MeSH) terms between January 1, 2000, and April 30, 2020: "obstetrics"; "gynecology"; "reproductive techniques, assisted"; or "pregnancy." All publications in OB/GYN core disciplines journals were considered. The selection of journals was based on disciplines defined in Web of Science. The publications were excluded if no AI process was used in the study. Review, editorial, and commentary articles were also excluded. The study analysis comprised (1) classification of publications into OB/GYN domains, (2) description of AI methods, (3) description of AI algorithms, (4) description of data sets, (5) description of AI contributions, and (6) description of the validation of the AI process.
RESULTS
The PubMed search retrieved 579 citations and 66 publications met the selection criteria. All OB/GYN subdomains were covered: obstetrics (41%, 27/66), gynecology (3%, 2/66), assisted reproductive medicine (33%, 22/66), early pregnancy (2%, 1/66), and fetal medicine (21%, 14/66). Both machine learning methods (39/66) and knowledge base methods (25/66) were represented. Machine learning used imaging, numerical, and clinical data sets. Knowledge base methods used mostly omics data sets. The actual contributions of AI were method/algorithm development (53%, 35/66), hypothesis generation (42%, 28/66), or software development (3%, 2/66). Validation was performed on one data set (86%, 57/66) and no external validation was reported. We observed a general rising trend in publications related to AI in OB/GYN over the last two decades. Most of these publications (82%, 54/66) remain out of the scope of the usual OB/GYN journals.
CONCLUSIONS
In OB/GYN discipline journals, mostly preliminary work (eg, proof-of-concept algorithm or method) in AI applied to this discipline is reported and clinical validation remains an unmet prerequisite. Improvement driven by new AI research guidelines is expected. However, these guidelines are covering only a part of AI approaches (nonsymbolic) reported in this review; hence, updates need to be considered.
Topics: Artificial Intelligence; Female; Gynecology; Humans; Obstetrics; Periodicals as Topic; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35297766
DOI: 10.2196/35465 -
JAMA Network Open Dec 2023Contemporary studies raise concerns regarding the implications of excessive screen time on the development of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, the existing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Contemporary studies raise concerns regarding the implications of excessive screen time on the development of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, the existing literature consists of mixed and unquantified findings.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analyis of the association between screen time and ASD.
DATA SOURCES
A search was conducted in the PubMed, PsycNET, and ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global databases for studies published up to May 1, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
The search was conducted independently by 2 authors. Included studies comprised empirical, peer-reviewed articles or dissertations published in English with statistics from which relevant effect sizes could be calculated. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Two authors independently coded all titles and abstracts, reviewed full-text articles against the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and resolved all discrepancies by consensus. Effect sizes were transformed into log odds ratios (ORs) and analyzed using a random-effects meta-analysis and mixed-effects meta-regression. Study quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Publication bias was tested via the Egger z test for funnel plot asymmetry. Data analysis was performed in June 2023.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The 2 main variables of interest in this study were screen time and ASD. Screen time was defined as hours of screen use per day or per week, and ASD was defined as an ASD clinical diagnosis (yes or no) or ASD symptoms. The meta-regression considered screen type (ie, general use of screens, television, video games, computers, smartphones, and social media), age group (children vs adults or heterogenous age groups), and type of ASD measure (clinical diagnosis vs ASD symptoms).
RESULTS
Of the 4682 records identified, 46 studies with a total of 562 131 participants met the inclusion criteria. The studies were observational (5 were longitudinal and 41 were cross-sectional) and included 66 relevant effect sizes. The meta-analysis resulted in a positive summary effect size (log OR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.34 to 0.74]). A trim-and-fill correction for a significant publication bias (Egger z = 2.15; P = .03) resulted in a substantially decreased and nonsignificant effect size (log OR, 0.22 [95% CI, -0.004 to 0.44]). The meta-regression results suggested that the positive summary effect size was only significant in studies targeting general screen use (β [SE] = 0.73 [0.34]; t58 = 2.10; P = .03). This effect size was most dominant in studies of children (log OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.66 to 1.29]). Interestingly, a negative summary effect size was observed in studies investigating associations between social media and ASD (log OR, -1.24 [95% CI, -1.51 to -0.96]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that the proclaimed association between screen use and ASD is not sufficiently supported in the existing literature. Although excessive screen use may pose developmental risks, the mixed findings, the small effect sizes (especially when considering the observed publication bias), and the correlational nature of the available research require further scientific investigation. These findings also do not rule out the complementary hypothesis that children with ASD may prioritize screen activities to avoid social challenges.
Topics: Child; Adult; Humans; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Screen Time; Publication Bias
PubMed: 38064216
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.46775 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014People who are prescribed self administered medications typically take only about half their prescribed doses. Efforts to assist patients with adherence to medications... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
People who are prescribed self administered medications typically take only about half their prescribed doses. Efforts to assist patients with adherence to medications might improve the benefits of prescribed medications.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this review is to assess the effects of interventions intended to enhance patient adherence to prescribed medications for medical conditions, on both medication adherence and clinical outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated searches of The Cochrane Library, including CENTRAL (via http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cochranelibrary/search/), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO (all via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), and Sociological Abstracts (via ProQuest) on 11 January 2013 with no language restriction. We also reviewed bibliographies in articles on patient adherence, and contacted authors of relevant original and review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included unconfounded RCTs of interventions to improve adherence with prescribed medications, measuring both medication adherence and clinical outcome, with at least 80% follow-up of each group studied and, for long-term treatments, at least six months follow-up for studies with positive findings at earlier time points.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted all data and a third author resolved disagreements. The studies differed widely according to medical condition, patient population, intervention, measures of adherence, and clinical outcomes. Pooling results according to one of these characteristics still leaves highly heterogeneous groups, and we could not justify meta-analysis. Instead, we conducted a qualitative analysis with a focus on the RCTs with the lowest risk of bias for study design and the primary clinical outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
The present update included 109 new RCTs published since the previous update in January 2007, bringing the total number of RCTs to 182; we found five RCTs from the previous update to be ineligible and excluded them. Studies were heterogeneous for patients, medical problems, treatment regimens, adherence interventions, and adherence and clinical outcome measurements, and most had high risk of bias. The main changes in comparison with the previous update include that we now: 1) report a lack of convincing evidence also specifically among the studies with the lowest risk of bias; 2) do not try to classify studies according to intervention type any more, due to the large heterogeneity; 3) make our database available for collaboration on sub-analyses, in acknowledgement of the need to make collective advancement in this difficult field of research. Of all 182 RCTs, 17 had the lowest risk of bias for study design features and their primary clinical outcome, 11 from the present update and six from the previous update. The RCTs at lowest risk of bias generally involved complex interventions with multiple components, trying to overcome barriers to adherence by means of tailored ongoing support from allied health professionals such as pharmacists, who often delivered intense education, counseling (including motivational interviewing or cognitive behavioral therapy by professionals) or daily treatment support (or both), and sometimes additional support from family or peers. Only five of these RCTs reported improvements in both adherence and clinical outcomes, and no common intervention characteristics were apparent. Even the most effective interventions did not lead to large improvements in adherence or clinical outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Across the body of evidence, effects were inconsistent from study to study, and only a minority of lowest risk of bias RCTs improved both adherence and clinical outcomes. Current methods of improving medication adherence for chronic health problems are mostly complex and not very effective, so that the full benefits of treatment cannot be realized. The research in this field needs advances, including improved design of feasible long-term interventions, objective adherence measures, and sufficient study power to detect improvements in patient-important clinical outcomes. By making our comprehensive database available for sharing we hope to contribute to achieving these advances.
Topics: Drug Therapy; Humans; Medication Adherence; Patient Education as Topic; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Self Administration
PubMed: 25412402
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000011.pub4 -
Medical Education Jun 2021Over the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Over the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities.
METHOD
The authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA-ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review.
RESULTS
One hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA-ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal.
CONCLUSIONS
Scoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised.
Topics: Education, Medical; Humans; Knowledge; Publications
PubMed: 33300124
DOI: 10.1111/medu.14431 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Topical analgesic drugs are used for a variety of painful conditions. Some are acute, typically strains or sprains, tendinopathy, or muscle aches. Others are chronic,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Topical analgesic drugs are used for a variety of painful conditions. Some are acute, typically strains or sprains, tendinopathy, or muscle aches. Others are chronic, typically osteoarthritis of hand or knee, or neuropathic pain.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy and associated adverse events of topical analgesics (primarily nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), salicylate rubefacients, capsaicin, and lidocaine) applied to intact skin for the treatment of acute and chronic pain in adults.
METHODS
We identified systematic reviews in acute and chronic pain published to February 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the Cochrane Library). The primary outcome was at least 50% pain relief (participant-reported) at an appropriate duration. We extracted the number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNT) for efficacy outcomes for each topical analgesic or formulation, and the number needed to treat for one additional harmful outcome (NNH) for adverse events. We also extracted information on withdrawals due to lack of efficacy or adverse events, systemic and local adverse events, and serious adverse events. We required information from at least 200 participants, in at least two studies. We judged that there was potential for publication bias if the addition of four studies of typical size (400 participants) with zero effect increased NNT compared with placebo to 10 (minimal clinical utility). We extracted GRADE assessment in the original papers, and made our own GRADE assessment.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen Cochrane Reviews (206 studies with around 30,700 participants) assessed the efficacy and harms from a range of topical analgesics applied to intact skin in a number of acute and chronic painful conditions. Reviews were overseen by several Review Groups, and concentrated on evidence comparing topical analgesic with topical placebo; comparisons of topical and oral analgesics were rare.For at least 50% pain relief, we considered evidence was moderate or high quality for several therapies, based on the underlying quality of studies and susceptibility to publication bias.In acute musculoskeletal pain (strains and sprains) with assessment at about seven days, therapies were diclofenac Emulgel (78% Emulgel, 20% placebo; 2 studies, 314 participants, NNT 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.5 to 2.1)), ketoprofen gel (72% ketoprofen, 33% placebo, 5 studies, 348 participants, NNT 2.5 (2.0 to 3.4)), piroxicam gel (70% piroxicam, 47% placebo, 3 studies, 522 participants, NNT 4.4 (3.2 to 6.9)), diclofenac Flector plaster (63% Flector, 41% placebo, 4 studies, 1030 participants, NNT 4.7 (3.7 to 6.5)), and diclofenac other plaster (88% diclofenac plaster, 57% placebo, 3 studies, 474 participants, NNT 3.2 (2.6 to 4.2)).In chronic musculoskeletal pain (mainly hand and knee osteoarthritis) therapies were topical diclofenac preparations for less than six weeks (43% diclofenac, 23% placebo, 5 studies, 732 participants, NNT 5.0 (3.7 to 7.4)), ketoprofen over 6 to 12 weeks (63% ketoprofen, 48% placebo, 4 studies, 2573 participants, NNT 6.9 (5.4 to 9.3)), and topical diclofenac preparations over 6 to 12 weeks (60% diclofenac, 50% placebo, 4 studies, 2343 participants, NNT 9.8 (7.1 to 16)). In postherpetic neuralgia, topical high-concentration capsaicin had moderate-quality evidence of limited efficacy (33% capsaicin, 24% placebo, 2 studies, 571 participants, NNT 11 (6.1 to 62)).We judged evidence of efficacy for other therapies as low or very low quality. Limited evidence of efficacy, potentially subject to publication bias, existed for topical preparations of ibuprofen gels and creams, unspecified diclofenac formulations and diclofenac gel other than Emulgel, indomethacin, and ketoprofen plaster in acute pain conditions, and for salicylate rubefacients for chronic pain conditions. Evidence for other interventions (other topical NSAIDs, topical salicylate in acute pain conditions, low concentration capsaicin, lidocaine, clonidine for neuropathic pain, and herbal remedies for any condition) was very low quality and typically limited to single studies or comparisons with sparse data.We assessed the evidence on withdrawals as moderate or very low quality, because of small numbers of events. In chronic pain conditions lack of efficacy withdrawals were lower with topical diclofenac (6%) than placebo (9%) (11 studies, 3455 participants, number needed to treat to prevent (NNTp) 26, moderate-quality evidence), and topical salicylate (2% vs 7% for placebo) (5 studies, 501 participants, NNTp 21, very low-quality evidence). Adverse event withdrawals were higher with topical capsaicin low-concentration (15%) than placebo (3%) (4 studies, 477 participants, NNH 8, very low-quality evidence), topical salicylate (5% vs 1% for placebo) (7 studies, 735 participants, NNH 26, very low-quality evidence), and topical diclofenac (5% vs 4% for placebo) (12 studies, 3552 participants, NNH 51, very low-quality evidence).In acute pain, systemic or local adverse event rates with topical NSAIDs (4.3%) were no greater than with topical placebo (4.6%) (42 studies, 6740 participants, high quality evidence). In chronic pain local adverse events with topical capsaicin low concentration (63%) were higher than topical placebo (5 studies, 557 participants, number needed to treat for harm (NNH) 2.6), high quality evidence. Moderate-quality evidence indicated more local adverse events than placebo in chronic pain conditions with topical diclofenac (NNH 16) and local pain with topical capsaicin high-concentration (NNH 16). There was moderate-quality evidence of no additional local adverse events with topical ketoprofen over topical placebo in chronic pain. Serious adverse events were rare (very low-quality evidence).GRADE assessments of moderate or low quality in some of the reviews were considered by us to be very low because of small numbers of participants and events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is good evidence that some formulations of topical diclofenac and ketoprofen are useful in acute pain conditions such as sprains or strains, with low (good) NNT values. There is a strong message that the exact formulation used is critically important in acute conditions, and that might also apply to other pain conditions. In chronic musculoskeletal conditions with assessments over 6 to 12 weeks, topical diclofenac and ketoprofen had limited efficacy in hand and knee osteoarthritis, as did topical high-concentration capsaicin in postherpetic neuralgia. Though NNTs were higher, this still indicates that a small proportion of people had good pain relief.Use of GRADE in Cochrane Reviews with small numbers of participants and events requires attention.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Capsaicin; Chronic Pain; Diclofenac; Humans; Ketoprofen; Musculoskeletal Pain; Neuralgia; Numbers Needed To Treat; Osteoarthritis; Piroxicam; Publication Bias; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28497473
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008609.pub2 -
Systematic Reviews Dec 2017Within systematic reviews, when searching for relevant references, it is advisable to use multiple databases. However, searching databases is laborious and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Within systematic reviews, when searching for relevant references, it is advisable to use multiple databases. However, searching databases is laborious and time-consuming, as syntax of search strategies are database specific. We aimed to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient searches in systematic reviews and whether the current practice in published reviews is appropriate. While previous studies determined the coverage of databases, we analyzed the actual retrieval from the original searches for systematic reviews.
METHODS
Since May 2013, the first author prospectively recorded results from systematic review searches that he performed at his institution. PubMed was used to identify systematic reviews published using our search strategy results. For each published systematic review, we extracted the references of the included studies. Using the prospectively recorded results and the studies included in the publications, we calculated recall, precision, and number needed to read for single databases and databases in combination. We assessed the frequency at which databases and combinations would achieve varying levels of recall (i.e., 95%). For a sample of 200 recently published systematic reviews, we calculated how many had used enough databases to ensure 95% recall.
RESULTS
A total of 58 published systematic reviews were included, totaling 1746 relevant references identified by our database searches, while 84 included references had been retrieved by other search methods. Sixteen percent of the included references (291 articles) were only found in a single database; Embase produced the most unique references (n = 132). The combination of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar performed best, achieving an overall recall of 98.3 and 100% recall in 72% of systematic reviews. We estimate that 60% of published systematic reviews do not retrieve 95% of all available relevant references as many fail to search important databases. Other specialized databases, such as CINAHL or PsycINFO, add unique references to some reviews where the topic of the review is related to the focus of the database.
CONCLUSIONS
Optimal searches in systematic reviews should search at least Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar as a minimum requirement to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage.
Topics: Databases, Bibliographic; Humans; Information Storage and Retrieval; Prospective Studies; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 29208034
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y