Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the highest level of evidence and inform evidence-based decision making in health care. Earlier studies found association with industry to be negatively associated with methodological quality of SRs. However, this has not been investigated in SRs on vaccines. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE and EMBASE in March 2020. The results were restricted to those published between 2016 and 2019 with no language restrictions. Study characteristics were extracted by one person and checked by an experienced reviewer. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool by multiple reviewers after a calibration exercise was performed. A summary score for each SR was calculated. The Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher's exact test were performed to compare both groups. RESULTS: Out of 185 SRs that met all inclusion criteria, 27 SRs were industry funded. Those were matched with 30 non-industry funded SRs resulting in a total sample size of 57. The mean AMSTAR 2 summary score across all SRs was 0.49. Overall, the median AMSTAR 2 summary score was higher for the non-industry funded SRs than for the industry-funded SRs (0.62 vs. 0.36; p < .00001). Lower ratings for industry funded SRs were consistent across all but one AMSTAR 2 item, though significantly lower only for three specific items. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of SRs in vaccination is comparable to SRs in other fields, while it is still suboptimal. We are not able to provide a satisfactory explanation why industry funded SRs had a lower methodological quality than non-industry funded SRs over recent years. Industry funding is an important indicator of methodological quality for vaccine SRs and should be carefully considered when appraising SR quality.

Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. DESIGN: Development of the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement. PARTICIPANTS: Core team (seven individuals) led day-to-day operations, and an expert advisory group (three individuals) provided methodological advice. A panel of 100 experts (authors, editors, readers including members of the public or patients) was invited to participate in a modified Delphi exercise. 11 expert panellists (chosen on the basis of expertise, and representing relevant stakeholder groups) were invited to take part in a virtual face-to-face meeting to reach agreement (≥70%) on final checklist items. 21 authors of recently published overviews were invited to pilot test the checklist. SETTING: International consensus. INTERVENTION: Four stage process established by the EQUATOR Network for developing reporting guidelines in health research: project launch (establish a core team and expert advisory group, register intent), evidence reviews (systematic review of published overviews to describe reporting quality, scoping review of methodological guidance and author reported challenges related to undertaking overviews of reviews), modified Delphi exercise (two online Delphi surveys to reach agreement (≥70%) on relevant reporting items followed by a virtual face-to-face meeting), and development of the reporting guideline. RESULTS: From the evidence reviews, we drafted an initial list of 47 potentially relevant reporting items. An international group of 52 experts participated in the first Delphi survey (52% participation rate); agreement was reached for inclusion of 43 (91%) items. 44 experts (85% retention rate) completed the second Delphi survey, which included the four items lacking agreement from the first survey and five new items based on respondent comments. During the second round, agreement was not reached for the inclusion or exclusion of the nine remaining items. 19 individuals (6 core team and 3 expert advisory group members, and 10 expert panellists) attended the virtual face-to-face meeting. Among the nine items discussed, high agreement was reached for the inclusion of three and exclusion of six. Six authors participated in pilot testing, resulting in minor wording changes. The final checklist includes 27 main items (with 19 sub-items) across all stages of an overview of reviews. CONCLUSIONS: PRIOR fills an important gap in reporting guidance for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. The checklist, along with rationale and example for each item, provides guidance for authors that will facilitate complete and transparent reporting. This will allow readers to assess the methods used in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions and understand the trustworthiness and applicability of their findings.

Reporting of methods to prepare, pilot and perform data extraction in systematic reviews: analysis of a sample of 152 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.

BACKGROUND: Previous research on data extraction methods in systematic reviews has focused on single aspects of the process. We aimed to provide a deeper insight into these methods by analysing a current sample of reviews. METHODS: We included systematic reviews of health interventions in humans published in English. We analysed 75 Cochrane reviews from May and June 2020 and a random sample of non-Cochrane reviews published in the same period and retrieved from Medline. We linked reviews with protocols and study registrations. We collected information on preparing, piloting, and performing data extraction and on use of software to assist review conduct (automation tools). Data were extracted by one author, with 20% extracted in duplicate. Data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Of the 152 included reviews, 77 reported use of a standardized extraction form (51%); 42 provided information on the type of form used (28%); 24 on piloting (16%); 58 on what data was collected (38%); 133 on the extraction method (88%); 107 on resolving disagreements (70%); 103 on methods to obtain additional data or information (68%); 52 on procedures to avoid data errors (34%); and 47 on methods to deal with multiple study reports (31%). Items were more frequently reported in Cochrane than non-Cochrane reviews. The data extraction form used was published in 10 reviews (7%). Use of software was rarely reported except for statistical analysis software and use of RevMan and GRADEpro GDT in Cochrane reviews. Covidence was the most frequent automation tool used: 18 reviews used it for study selection (12%) and 9 for data extraction (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of data extraction methods in systematic reviews is limited, especially in non-Cochrane reviews. This includes core items of data extraction such as methods used to manage disagreements. Few reviews currently use software to assist data extraction and review conduct. Our results can serve as a baseline to assess the uptake of such tools in future analyses.

The effect of preoperative stoma site marking on risk of stoma-related complications in patients with intestinal ostomy-protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: An intestinal ostomy is an artificial bowel opening created on the skin. Procedure-related mortality is extremely rare. However, the presence of an ostomy may be associated with significant morbidity. Complications negatively affect the quality of life of ostomates. Preoperative stoma site marking can reduce stoma-related complications and is recommended by several guidelines. However, there is no consensus on the procedure and recommendations are based on low-quality evidence. The objective of the systematic review will be to investigate if preoperative stoma site marking compared to no preoperative marking in patients undergoing intestinal stoma surgery reduces or prevents the rate of stoma-related complications. METHODS: We will include (cluster-) randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that involve patients with intestinal ostomies comparing preoperative stoma site marking to no preoperative marking and report at least one patient-relevant outcome. For study identification, we will systematically search MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINHAL as well as Google Scholar, trial registries, conference proceedings and reference lists. Additionally, we will contact experts in the field. Two reviewers will independently perform study selection and data extraction. Outcomes will be prioritised based on findings from telephone interviews with five ostomates and five ostomy and wound nurses prior to conducting the review. Outcomes may include but are not limited to stoma-related complications (infection, parastomal abscess, hernia, mucocutaneous separation, dermatological complications, stoma necrosis, stenosis, retraction and prolapse) or other patient-relevant postoperative endpoints (quality of life, revision rate, dependence on professional care, mortality, length of stay and readmission). We will use the ROBINS-I or the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. We will perform a meta-analysis and assess the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. DISCUSSION: With the results of the systematic review, we aim to provide information for future clinical guidelines and influence clinical routine with regard to preoperative stoma site marking in patients undergoing ostomy surgery. When the evidence of our systematic review is low, it would still be a useful basis for future clinical trials by identifying data gaps. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021226647.