ABSTRACT
Systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses generally provide the best evidence for medical research. Authors are recommended to use flow diagrams to present the review process, allowing for better understanding among readers. However, no studies as of yet have assessed the quality of flow diagrams in systematic review/meta-analyses. Our study aims to evaluate the quality of systematic review/meta-analyses over a period of ten years, by assessing the quality of the flow diagrams, and the correlation to the methodological quality. Two hundred articles of "systematic review" and/or "meta-analysis" from January 2004 to August 2015 were randomly retrieved in Pubmed to be assessed for the flow diagram and methodological qualities. The flow diagrams were evaluated using a 16-grade scale corresponding to the four stages of PRISMA flow diagram. It composes four parts: Identification, Screening, Eligibility and Inclusion. Of the 200 articles screened, 154 articles were included and were assessed with AMSTAR checklist. Among them, 78 articles (50.6%) had the flow diagram. Over ten years, the proportion of papers with flow diagram available had been increasing significantly with regression coefficient beta = 5.649 (p = 0.002). However, the improvement in quality of the flow diagram increased slightly but not significantly (regression coefficient beta = 0.177, p = 0.133). Our analysis showed high variation in the proportion of articles that reported flow diagram components. The lowest proportions were 1% for reporting methods of duplicates removal in screening phase, followed by 6% for manual search in identification phase, 22% for number of studies for each specific/subgroup analysis, 27% for number of articles retrieved from each database, and 31% for number of studies included in qualitative analysis. The flow diagram quality was correlated with the methodological quality with the Pearson's coefficient r = 0.32 (p = 0.0039). Therefore, this review suggests that the reporting quality of flow diagram is less satisfactory, hence not maximizing the potential benefit of the flow diagrams. A guideline with standardized flow diagram is recommended to improve the quality of systematic reviews, and to enable better reader comprehension of the review process.
Subject(s)
Data Accuracy , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Systematic Reviews as Topic , PubMedABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. There is as yet no standard therapy for inoperable HCC. We aimed to systematically review all health-related evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of megestrol in HCC patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic computerised search in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. All original human studies reporting the efficacy of megestrol in HCC patients were included in our review. RESULTS: Six studies including 357 patients were finally eligible. The overall mean survival time of 87 megestrol-treated patients, was 9.187 (95% CI 1.134-17.239) months. Eight patients had tumour size enlargement, and eight patients had tumour size reduction. From three studies including 76 patients, 42 patients reported having improvement of appetite and food intake after receiving megestrol. Diverse adverse events were noticed between studies; however, they were tolerable in most of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: To summarise, no conclusive evidence should be declared regarding the effectiveness of megestrol in patients with inoperable HCC. However, previous studies have shown promising results at the level of prolonging the survival rate, tumour size reduction, and improving the quality of life. Therefore, we recommend that future research studies must examine the role of megestrol in large-population, randomised studies.