-
PloS One 2013Interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β), a pro-inflammatory cytokine, is emerging as a key mediator of carcinogenesis that characterizes host-environment interactions.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β), a pro-inflammatory cytokine, is emerging as a key mediator of carcinogenesis that characterizes host-environment interactions. Epidemiological studies investigating the association between two polymorphisms of IL-1B (-511C/T and +3954C/T) and cancer susceptibility have shown conflicting results. The aim of this study is to derive a more precise estimation of the relationship.
METHODS
Related studies were identified through a systematic literature search of PubMed and Web of Science from their inception to September 15, 2012. Summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the IL-1B -511C/T and +3954C/T polymorphisms and cancer risk were calculated. Heterogeneity among studies and publication bias were also tested.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis included 91 case-control studies in 85 publications, 81 studies for the -511C/T (19547 cases and 23935 controls) and 26 studies for the +3954C/T polymorphisms (8083 cases and 9183). The pooled results indicated that IL-1B +3954C/T (dominant model: OR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01-1.30) was significantly associated with increased overall cancer risk, especially among hospital-based case-control studies (dominant model: OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.02-1.66). As for -511C/T, we observed an inverse relationship in cervical cancer (dominant model: OR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.35-2.23) and hepatocellular carcinoma (dominant model: OR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.47-0.99). Moreover, -511C/T was associated with risk of specific subtypes of gastric carcinoma.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis suggested that both the IL-1B -511C/T and +3954C/T polymorphisms might modulate cancer susceptibility. Further well-designed studies based on larger sample sizes should be performed to confirm the findings.
Topics: Genetic Association Studies; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Humans; Interleukin-1beta; Models, Genetic; Neoplasms; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; Publication Bias; Regression Analysis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 23704929
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063654 -
PloS One 2023In this study, we aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for vocal nodules, concerning qualitive overall efficacy and quantitative improvement on quality... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
In this study, we aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for vocal nodules, concerning qualitive overall efficacy and quantitative improvement on quality of voice. Four English and four Chinese databases were searched up to December 10th, 2022. Risk of bias among the included trials were evaluated by the Cochrane ROB tool. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were conducted based on the Cochrane systematic review method by using RevMan 5.4 Software, and trial sequential analyses were performed by TSA 0.9. Meta-influence analyses, subgroup-analyses, meta-regression, and evaluation of publication bias were performed for exploration of heterogeneity by Stata V.14. Quality of the results was accessed through the GRADE-pro GDT. Cluster analyses and correlation coefficient were performed by R 4.1.3. Finally, 15 trials involving 1,888 participants were included. Results showed that compared with western medicine alone or Chinese herbal medicine alone, acupuncture alone yielded significantly (p<0.05) higher clinical effective rate and more improvement on scores of voice analyses. However, reduction on scores of grade, roughness, and breathiness and voice handicap index during follow-ups, and results of clinical effective rate suggested that acupuncture was inferior to voice training. In addition, meta-regression and sub-group analyses firstly revealed advanced efficacies of acupuncture when performed with local and remote acupoints, compared with local acupoints only. Acupuncture specified adverse event was denied in six trials while it was not mentioned in other nine trials. Results of cluster analyses and correlation coefficient showed that Kai yin yi hao and He gu (LI-4) were the most frequently applied matching-acupoints in trials. In conclusion, compared with western medicine (level of evidence: low ⨁⨁◯◯, GRADE C) and Chinese herbal medicine (level of evidence: moderate ⨁⨁⨁◯, GRADE B), acupuncture is safe and of better efficacy for patients with vocal nodules, while there is also need for RCTs with improvements on designing and interventions in experimental and controls.
Topics: Male; Humans; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Acupuncture Therapy; Treatment Outcome; Acupuncture Points; Publication Bias
PubMed: 37922255
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288252 -
Nature Communications Feb 2021The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was...
The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was paramount, concerns have been raised regarding the scientific rigor in published reports. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the methodological quality of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. A total of 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis. Comparative analysis of COVID-19 to historical articles reveals a shorter time to acceptance (13.0[IQR, 5.0-25.0] days vs. 110.0[IQR, 71.0-156.0] days in COVID-19 and control articles, respectively; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, methodological quality scores are lower in COVID-19 articles across all study designs. COVID-19 clinical studies have a shorter time to publication and have lower methodological quality scores than control studies in the same journal. These studies should be revisited with the emergence of stronger evidence.
Topics: Animals; COVID-19; Clinical Studies as Topic; Data Accuracy; Humans; Pandemics; Peer Review, Research; Periodicals as Topic; Research Design; Time Factors
PubMed: 33574258
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-21220-5 -
BMJ Open Mar 2018To determine whether methodological and reporting quality are associated with surrogate measures of publication impact in the field of dementia biomarker studies. (Review)
Review
Are methodological quality and completeness of reporting associated with citation-based measures of publication impact? A secondary analysis of a systematic review of dementia biomarker studies.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether methodological and reporting quality are associated with surrogate measures of publication impact in the field of dementia biomarker studies.
METHODS
We assessed dementia biomarker studies included in a previous systematic review in terms of methodological and reporting quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD), respectively. We extracted additional study and journal-related data from each publication to account for factors shown to be associated with impact in previous research. We explored associations between potential determinants and measures of publication impact in univariable and stepwise multivariable linear regression analyses.
OUTCOME MEASURES
We aimed to collect data on four measures of publication impact: two traditional measures-average number of citations per year and 5-year impact factor of the publishing journal and two alternative measures-the Altmetric Attention Score and counts of electronic downloads.
RESULTS
The systematic review included 142 studies. Due to limited data, Altmetric Attention Scores and electronic downloads were excluded from the analysis, leaving traditional metrics as the only analysed outcome measures. We found no relationship between QUADAS and traditional metrics. Citation rates were independently associated with 5-year journal impact factor (β=0.42; p<0.001), journal subject area (β=0.39; p<0.001), number of years since publication (β=-0.29; p<0.001) and STARD (β=0.13; p<0.05). Independent determinants of 5-year journal impact factor were citation rates (β=0.45; p<0.001), statement on conflict of interest (β=0.22; p<0.01) and baseline sample size (β=0.15; p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Citation rates and 5-year journal impact factor appear to measure different dimensions of impact. Citation rates were weakly associated with completeness of reporting, while neither traditional metric was related to methodological rigour. Our results suggest that high publication usage and journal outlet is not a guarantee of quality and readers should critically appraise all papers regardless of presumed impact.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Biomarkers; Conflict of Interest; Dementia; Humans; Journal Impact Factor; Periodicals as Topic; Sample Size
PubMed: 29572396
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020331 -
Systematic Reviews Jun 2015Automation of the parts of systematic review process, specifically the data extraction step, may be an important strategy to reduce the time necessary to complete a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Automation of the parts of systematic review process, specifically the data extraction step, may be an important strategy to reduce the time necessary to complete a systematic review. However, the state of the science of automatically extracting data elements from full texts has not been well described. This paper performs a systematic review of published and unpublished methods to automate data extraction for systematic reviews.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, IEEEXplore, and ACM Digital Library to identify potentially relevant articles. We included reports that met the following criteria: 1) methods or results section described what entities were or need to be extracted, and 2) at least one entity was automatically extracted with evaluation results that were presented for that entity. We also reviewed the citations from included reports.
RESULTS
Out of a total of 1190 unique citations that met our search criteria, we found 26 published reports describing automatic extraction of at least one of more than 52 potential data elements used in systematic reviews. For 25 (48 %) of the data elements used in systematic reviews, there were attempts from various researchers to extract information automatically from the publication text. Out of these, 14 (27 %) data elements were completely extracted, but the highest number of data elements extracted automatically by a single study was 7. Most of the data elements were extracted with F-scores (a mean of sensitivity and positive predictive value) of over 70 %.
CONCLUSIONS
We found no unified information extraction framework tailored to the systematic review process, and published reports focused on a limited (1-7) number of data elements. Biomedical natural language processing techniques have not been fully utilized to fully or even partially automate the data extraction step of systematic reviews.
Topics: Data Mining; Humans; Information Storage and Retrieval; Publishing; Research Report; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 26073888
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-015-0066-7 -
Systematic Reviews Oct 2013In 1996, shortly after the founding of The Cochrane Collaboration, leading figures in test evaluation research established a Methods Group to focus on the relatively new... (Review)
Review
In 1996, shortly after the founding of The Cochrane Collaboration, leading figures in test evaluation research established a Methods Group to focus on the relatively new and rapidly evolving methods for the systematic review of studies of diagnostic tests. Seven years later, the Collaboration decided it was time to develop a publication format and methodology for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) reviews, as well as the software needed to implement these reviews in The Cochrane Library. A meeting hosted by the German Cochrane Centre in 2004 brought together key methodologists in the area, many of whom became closely involved in the subsequent development of the methodological framework for DTA reviews. DTA reviews first appeared in The Cochrane Library in 2008 and are now an integral part of the work of the Collaboration.
Topics: Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Information Services; Information Storage and Retrieval; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Publication Bias; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 24099098
DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-82 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Dec 2022The introduction of new medical technologies such as sensors has accelerated the process of collecting patient data for relevant clinical decisions, which has led to the...
BACKGROUND
The introduction of new medical technologies such as sensors has accelerated the process of collecting patient data for relevant clinical decisions, which has led to the introduction of a new technology known as digital biomarkers.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to assess the methodological quality and quality of evidence from meta-analyses of digital biomarker-based interventions.
METHODS
This study follows the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline for reporting systematic reviews, including original English publications of systematic reviews reporting meta-analyses of clinical outcomes (efficacy and safety endpoints) of digital biomarker-based interventions compared with alternative interventions without digital biomarkers. Imaging or other technologies that do not measure objective physiological or behavioral data were excluded from this study. A literature search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library was conducted, limited to 2019-2020. The quality of the methodology and evidence synthesis of the meta-analyses were assessed using AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations), respectively. This study was funded by the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund of Hungary.
RESULTS
A total of 25 studies with 91 reported outcomes were included in the final analysis; 1 (4%), 1 (4%), and 23 (92%) studies had high, low, and critically low methodologic quality, respectively. As many as 6 clinical outcomes (7%) had high-quality evidence and 80 outcomes (88%) had moderate-quality evidence; 5 outcomes (5%) were rated with a low level of certainty, mainly due to risk of bias (85/91, 93%), inconsistency (27/91, 30%), and imprecision (27/91, 30%). There is high-quality evidence of improvements in mortality, transplant risk, cardiac arrhythmia detection, and stroke incidence with cardiac devices, albeit with low reporting quality. High-quality reviews of pedometers reported moderate-quality evidence, including effects on physical activity and BMI. No reports with high-quality evidence and high methodological quality were found.
CONCLUSIONS
Researchers in this field should consider the AMSTAR-2 criteria and GRADE to produce high-quality studies in the future. In addition, patients, clinicians, and policymakers are advised to consider the results of this study before making clinical decisions regarding digital biomarkers to be informed of the degree of certainty of the various interventions investigated in this study. The results of this study should be considered with its limitations, such as the narrow time frame.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)
RR2-10.2196/28204.
Topics: Humans; Bias; Hungary; Technology; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Biomarkers
PubMed: 36542427
DOI: 10.2196/41042 -
PloS One 2014Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR) is emerging as major challenge facing tuberculosis control programs worldwide particularly in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (MDR) is emerging as major challenge facing tuberculosis control programs worldwide particularly in Asia and Africa. Findings from different studies on associations of HIV co-infection and drug resistance among patients with TB have been contradictory (discordant). Some institution based studies found strongly increased risks for multi-drug resistant TB (MDR TB) among patients co-infected with TB and HIV, whereas other studies found no increased risk (it remains less clear in community based studies. The aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between multi-drug resistant tuberculosis and HIV infection.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Systematic review of the published literature of observational studies was conducted. Original studies were identified using databases of Medline/Pubmed, Google Scholar and HINARI. The descriptions of original studies were made using frequency and forest plot. Publication bias was assessed using Funnel plot graphically and Egger weighted and Begg rank regression tests statistically. Heterogeneity across studies was checked using Cochrane Q test statistic and I(2). Pool risk estimates of MDR-TB and sub-grouping analysis were computed to analyze associations with HIV. Random effects of the meta-analysis of all 24 observational studies showed that HIV is associated with a marginal increased risk of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis (estimated Pooled OR 1.24; 95%, 1.04-1.43). Subgroup analyses showed that effect estimates were higher (Pooled OR 2.28; 95%, 1.52-3.04) for primary multi-drug resistance tuberculosis and moderate association between HIV/AIDS and MDR-TB among population based studies and no significant association in institution settings.
CONCLUSIONS
This study demonstrated that there is association between MDR-TB and HIV. Capacity for diagnosis of MDR-TB and initiating and scale up of antiretroviral treatment, and collaborations between HIV and TB control programs need to be considered and strengthened.
Topics: Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome; Confidence Intervals; Genetic Heterogeneity; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Publication Bias; Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant
PubMed: 24416139
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082235 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016Improper practices and unprofessional conduct in clinical research have been shown to waste a significant portion of healthcare funds and harm public health. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Improper practices and unprofessional conduct in clinical research have been shown to waste a significant portion of healthcare funds and harm public health.
OBJECTIVES
Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of educational or policy interventions in research integrity or responsible conduct of research on the behaviour and attitudes of researchers in health and other research areas.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS and CINAHL health research bibliographical databases, as well as the Academic Search Complete, AGRICOLA, GeoRef, PsycINFO, ERIC, SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. We performed the last search on 15 April 2015 and the search was limited to articles published between 1990 and 2014, inclusive. We also searched conference proceedings and abstracts from research integrity conferences and specialized websites. We handsearched 14 journals that regularly publish research integrity research.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included studies that measured the effects of one or more interventions, i.e. any direct or indirect procedure that may have an impact on research integrity and responsible conduct of research in its broadest sense, where participants were any stakeholders in research and publication processes, from students to policy makers. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, such as controlled before-and-after studies, with comparisons of outcomes in the intervention versus non-intervention group or before versus after the intervention. Studies without a control group were not included in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. To assess the risk of bias in non-randomized studies, we used a modified Cochrane tool, in which we used four out of six original domains (blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, other sources of bias) and two additional domains (comparability of groups and confounding factors). We categorized our primary outcome into the following levels: 1) organizational change attributable to intervention, 2) behavioural change, 3) acquisition of knowledge/skills and 4) modification of attitudes/perceptions. The secondary outcome was participants' reaction to the intervention.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-one studies involving 9571 participants, described in 33 articles, met the inclusion criteria. All were published in English. Fifteen studies were randomized controlled trials, nine were controlled before-and-after studies, four were non-equivalent controlled studies with a historical control, one was a non-equivalent controlled study with a post-test only and two were non-equivalent controlled studies with pre- and post-test findings for the intervention group and post-test for the control group. Twenty-one studies assessed the effects of interventions related to plagiarism and 10 studies assessed interventions in research integrity/ethics. Participants included undergraduates, postgraduates and academics from a range of research disciplines and countries, and the studies assessed different types of outcomes.We judged most of the included randomized controlled trials to have a high risk of bias in at least one of the assessed domains, and in the case of non-randomized trials there were no attempts to alleviate the potential biases inherent in the non-randomized designs.We identified a range of interventions aimed at reducing research misconduct. Most interventions involved some kind of training, but methods and content varied greatly and included face-to-face and online lectures, interactive online modules, discussion groups, homework and practical exercises. Most studies did not use standardized or validated outcome measures and it was impossible to synthesize findings from studies with such diverse interventions, outcomes and participants. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that various methods of training in research integrity had some effects on participants' attitudes to ethical issues but minimal (or short-lived) effects on their knowledge. Training about plagiarism and paraphrasing had varying effects on participants' attitudes towards plagiarism and their confidence in avoiding it, but training that included practical exercises appeared to be more effective. Training on plagiarism had inconsistent effects on participants' knowledge about and ability to recognize plagiarism. Active training, particularly if it involved practical exercises or use of text-matching software, generally decreased the occurrence of plagiarism although results were not consistent. The design of a journal's author contribution form affected the truthfulness of information supplied about individuals' contributions and the proportion of listed contributors who met authorship criteria. We identified no studies testing interventions for outcomes at the organizational level. The numbers of events and the magnitude of intervention effects were generally small, so the evidence is likely to be imprecise. No adverse effects were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence base relating to interventions to improve research integrity is incomplete and the studies that have been done are heterogeneous, inappropriate for meta-analyses and their applicability to other settings and population is uncertain. Many studies had a high risk of bias because of the choice of study design and interventions were often inadequately reported. Even when randomized designs were used, findings were difficult to generalize. Due to the very low quality of evidence, the effects of training in responsible conduct of research on reducing research misconduct are uncertain. Low quality evidence indicates that training about plagiarism, especially if it involves practical exercises and use of text-matching software, may reduce the occurrence of plagiarism.
Topics: Attitude; Biomedical Research; Controlled Before-After Studies; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Plagiarism; Publishing; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Personnel; Scientific Misconduct
PubMed: 27040721
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000038.pub2 -
The British Journal of Radiology Jun 2016Systematic reviews require comprehensive literature search strategies to avoid publication bias. This study aimed to assess and evaluate the reporting quality of search... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Systematic reviews require comprehensive literature search strategies to avoid publication bias. This study aimed to assess and evaluate the reporting quality of search strategies within systematic reviews published in the field of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS).
METHODS
Three electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE(®), Ovid EMBASE(®) and the Cochrane Library) were searched to identify systematic reviews addressing SRS interventions, with the last search performed in October 2014. Manual searches of the reference lists of included systematic reviews were conducted. The search strategies of the included systematic reviews were assessed using a standardized nine-question form based on the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklist. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to identify the important predictors of search quality.
RESULTS
A total of 85 systematic reviews were included. The median quality score of search strategies was 2 (interquartile range = 2). Whilst 89% of systematic reviews reported the use of search terms, only 14% of systematic reviews reported searching the grey literature. Multiple linear regression analyses identified publication year (continuous variable), meta-analysis performance and journal impact factor (continuous variable) as predictors of higher mean quality scores.
CONCLUSION
This study identified the urgent need to improve the quality of search strategies within systematic reviews published in the field of SRS.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE
This study is the first to address how authors performed searches to select clinical studies for inclusion in their systematic reviews. Comprehensive and well-implemented search strategies are pivotal to reduce the chance of publication bias and consequently generate more reliable systematic review findings.
Topics: Guideline Adherence; Guidelines as Topic; Peer Review, Research; Publication Bias; Radiosurgery; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 26986458
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20150878