Evaluation of Aligners and Root Resorption: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Background: To evaluate the current evidence on clear aligners and root resorption using 3D and/or combined 2D and 3D methods from available systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to determine the relationship between root resorption and clear aligners using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of systematic reviews investigating aligners and root resorption, published up until 31 December 2022, was conducted. The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, LIVIVO, and LILACS. There were no language restrictions. The inclusion criteria were restricted to studies focusing on root resorption utilizing either 3D methods exclusively or a combination of 2D and 3D techniques. Data were screened and analyzed for quality using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2)" tool. Data extraction was conducted independently by two authors. The gathered information was categorized and synthesized narratively based on the primary findings elucidated within the reviews. Results: Out of a total of 1221 potentially eligible studies initially identified, 4 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria following the exclusion of irrelevant studies. Among these, two systematic reviews (50%) were classified as low-quality, while the remaining two (50%) were deemed to be of critically low quality. Conclusions: Based on the findings of four systematic reviews, the root resorption rate was lower with the use of clear aligners than with fixed aligners. It is advisable to approach the interpretation of this conclusion with caution, as the quality of the available evidence is assessed to be very low. Higher quality systematic reviews are needed to substantiate this conclusion.

Efficacy and safety of ozone therapy for knee osteoarthritis: an umbrella review of systematic reviews.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ozone therapy (OT) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA), which is the most common form of the disease. We analysed systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using the "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR2) instrument to evaluate their quality. We developed a narrative synthesis report with eight SRs (15 RCTs/3,685 patients) to summarise the findings. The AMSTAR2 analysis indicated that all reviews had critically low confidence ratings. Statistically significant effects in pain reduction using OT compared to placebo groups were reported in three SRs. OT was shown to be comparable to other therapies in one SR and not superior in the other five. Six SRs highlighted the need for additional RCTs with improved methodological quality to confirm the efficacy of OT for KOA. SRs found fewer consistent effects for improving joint function. Regarding safety, seven SRs reported a low prevalence of minor adverse events linked with OT. Finally, this umbrella review highlights the beneficial effects and safety of OT in the treatment of KOA, particularly in pain control. The low methodological quality of RCTs and SRs limits the possibility of drawing conclusions on the effectiveness of the procedure in comparison to other therapies. Ensure adequate compliance with guidelines such as Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and AMSTAR2 has the ability to improve the quality of SRs in this area.

amstar2Vis: An R package for presenting the critical appraisal of systematic reviews based on the items of AMSTAR 2.

Systematic reviews (SRs) have an important role in the healthcare decision-making practice. Assessing the overall confidence in the results of SRs using quality assessment tools, such as "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2" (AMSTAR 2), is crucial since not all SRs are conducted using the most rigorous methods. In this article, we introduce a free, open-source R package called "amstar2Vis" (https://github.com/bougioukas/amstar2Vis) that provides easy-to-use functions for presenting the critical appraisal of SRs, based on the items of AMSTAR 2 checklist. An illustrative example is outlined, describing the steps involved in creating a detailed table with the item ratings and the overall confidence ratings, generating a stacked bar plot that shows the distribution of ratings as percentages of SRs for each AMSTAR 2 item, and creating a "ggplot2" graph that shows the distribution of overall confidence ratings ("Critically Low," "Low," "Moderate," or "High"). We expect "amstar2Vis" to be useful for overview authors and methodologists who assess the quality of SRs with AMSTAR 2 checklist and facilitate the production of pertinent publication-ready tables and figures. Future research and applications could further investigate the functionality or potential improvements of our package.

Investigate the relationship between the retraction reasons and the quality of methodology in non-Cochrane retracted systematic reviews: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review aimed to investigate the relationship between retraction status and the methodology quality in the retracted non-Cochrane systematic review. METHOD: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched with keywords including systematic review, meta-analysis, and retraction or retracted as a type of publication until September 2023. There were no time or language restrictions. Non-Cochrane medical systematic review studies that were retracted were included in the present study. The data related to the retraction status of the articles were extracted from the retraction notice and Retraction Watch, and the quality of the methodology was evaluated with the AMSTAR-2 checklist by two independent researchers. Data were analyzed in the Excel 2019 and SPSS 21 software. RESULT: Of the 282 systematic reviews, the corresponding authors of 208 (73.75%) articles were from China. The average interval between publish and retraction of the article was about 23 months and about half of the non-Cochrane systematic reviews were retracted in the last 4 years. The most common reasons for retractions were fake peer reviews and unreliable data, respectively. Editors and publishers were the most retractors or requestors for retractions. More than 86% of the retracted non-Cochrane SRs were published in journals with an impact factor above two and had a critically low quality. Items 7, 9, and 13 among the critical items of the AMSTAR-2 checklist received the lowest scores. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: There was a significant relationship between the reasons of retraction and the quality of the methodology (P-value < 0.05). Plagiarism software and using the Cope guidelines may decrease the time of retraction. In some countries, strict rules for promoting researchers increase the risk of misconduct. To avoid scientific errors and improve the quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), it is better to create protocol registration and retraction guidelines in each journal for SRs/MAs.

An umbrella review of the literature on the effectiveness of goal setting interventions in improving health outcomes in chronic conditions.

PURPOSE: To identify the contexts in which goal setting has been used in chronic disease management interventions and to estimate the magnitude of its effect on improvement of health outcomes. METHODS: The strength of evidence and extent of potential bias in the published systematic reviews of goal setting interventions in chronic conditions were summarized using AMSTAR2 quality appraisal tool, number of participants, 95% prediction intervals, and between-study heterogeneity. Components of goal setting interventions were also extracted. RESULTS: Nine publications and 35 meta-analysis models were identified, investigating 25 health outcomes. Of the 35 meta-analyses, none found strong evidence and three provided some suggestive evidence on symptom reduction and perceived well-being. There was weak evidence for effects on eight health outcomes (HbA1c, self-efficacy, depression, anxiety, distress, medication adherence, health-related quality of life and physical activity), with the rest classified as non-significant. Half of the meta-analyses had high level of heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Goal setting by itself affects outcomes of chronic diseases only to a small degree. This is not unexpected finding as changing outcomes in chronic diseases requires a complex and individualized approach. Implementing goal setting in a standardized way in the management of chronic conditions would seem to be a way forward.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe link between goal setting and health outcomes seems to be weak.Some levels of positive behavioural change could be of benefits to patients as seen by improved self-efficacy, patients' satisfaction and overall quality of life.Systematic and consistent application of personalized goal-oriented interventions considering patient's readiness to change could better predict improved outcomes.Incorporation of various goal setting components while actively engaging patient and/or their care givers in the process could appraise how goal setting could help with challenges in faced by people living with chronic conditions in different areas.

Association between ultra-processed foods consumption and the risk of hypertension: An umbrella review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Several systematic reviews (SRs) have investigated the association between ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and the risk of hypertension in various populations. However, the quality of the evidence remains unclear. This umbrella review was thus conducted to fill this gap. METHODS: We searched for SRs with and without meta-analyses comparing high UPF versus low UPF consumption on the risk of hypertension in the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science from inception to August 2022. This study was registered in PROSPERO (No. CRD42022352934). The A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool and the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 2009 (PRISMA 2009) statement were used to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of the included SRs. Stata 15/SE was used to reanalyse the data using the random-effects model, and the risk of bias of observational studies from included SRs was reassessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) tool. The certainty of the evidence body was assessed using the GRADE recommendation. RESULTS: Seven SRs were included in the umbrella review. Among them, nine observational studies (5 cross-sectional and 4 cohort studies), whose available data were resynthesised using meta-analysis. The methodological and reporting quality of the included SRs were relatively poor. The meta-analysis results revealed suggestive evidence of an association between high UPF consumption and the incidence of hypertension (odds ratio: 1.23, 95% confidence interval: 1.11 to 1.37, p < 0.001, 95% prediction interval: 0.92 to 1.64, critically low certainty) compared to low UPF consumption. CONCLUSION: High UPF consumption is associated with an increased risk of hypertension. However, well-conducted SRs, including high-quality prospective cohort studies, are needed to further verify these findings.

Measures of cognitive reserve: An umbrella review.

Objective: Recently, there has been a growing interest in operationalizing and measuring cognitive reserve (CR) for clinical and research purposes. This umbrella review aims to summarize the existing systematic and meta-analytic reviews about measures of CR. Method: A literature search was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the guidelines of Aromataris et al. (2015) to identify the systematic reviews and meta-analysis involving the assessment of CR. The methodological quality of the papers included in this umbrella review was assessed with A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) and Specialist Unit for Review Evidence (SURE). Results: Thirty-one reviews were identified, sixteen of which were systematic reviews, and fifteen were meta-analyses. Most of the reviews had a critically low quality, according to AMSTAR-2. The reviews included between two and 135 studies. Most of the papers focused on older adults, mainly those with dementia. CR was measured using one to six proxies, but most considered each proxy separately. The most assessed proxies of CR were education on its own, combined with occupation and/or engagement in activities or combined with parental education, bilingualism, and engagement in activities when four CR proxies were studied. Most of the studies included in higher quality reviews focused on three proxies, with education and engagement in activities being the most evaluated using CR questionnaires. Conclusion: Despite the growing interest in measuring CR, its operationalization did not improve since the last umbrella review in this field.

Appraisal methods and outcomes of AMSTAR 2 assessments in overviews of systematic reviews of interventions in the cardiovascular field: A methodological study.

This study aimed to assess the methods and outcomes of The Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 appraisals in overviews of reviews (overviews) of interventions in the cardiovascular field and identify factors that are associated with these outcomes. MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched until November 2022. Eligible were overviews of cardiovascular interventions, analyzing systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Extracted data included characteristics of overviews and SRs and AMSTAR 2 appraisal methods and outcomes. Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics and logistic regression to explore potential associations between the characteristics of SRs and extracted AMSTAR 2 overall ratings ("High-Moderate" vs. "Low-Critically low"). The original results on individual AMSTAR 2 items were entered into the official AMSTAR 2 online tool and the recalculated overall confidence ratings were compared to those provided in overviews. All 34 overviews identified were published between 2019 and 2022. Rating of overall confidence following the algorithm suggested by AMSTAR 2 developers was noted in 74% of overviews. The 679 unique included SRs were mainly of "Critically low" (53%) or "Low" (18.7%) confidence and underperformed in items 2 (Protocol, no = 65.2%) and 7 (List of excluded studies, no = 84%). The following characteristics of SRs were significantly associated with higher overall ratings: Cochrane origin, pharmacological interventions, including exclusively RCTs, citation of methodological and reporting guidelines, protocol, absence of funding and publication after AMSTAR 2 release. Generally, overviews' authors tended to deviate from the original rating scheme and ascribe higher ratings to SRs compared to the official AMSTAR 2 online tool. Most SRs included in overviews of cardiovascular interventions have critically low or low confidence in their results. Overviews' authors should be more transparent about the methods used to derive the overall confidence in SRs.

Most systematic reviews reporting adherence to AMSTAR 2 had critically low methodological quality: a cross-sectional meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the methodological quality and characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) that reported they were conducted in line with the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a cross-sectional meta-research study. We searched MEDLINE and Embase. We included full reports of SRs reporting the study was conducted, prepared, or designed in line with the AMSTAR 2. Eligible SRs were those published from January 1, 2018, until May 3, 2022. We assessed the methodological quality of the included SRs using AMSTAR 2. RESULTS: We included a total of 45 records. There were 43 SRs and 2 SR protocols. Among them, most were SRs of interventions that included primary studies on humans. More than half had a meta-analysis. According to our overall AMSTAR 2 assessments of included SRs, 35 SRs were of critically low confidence, 7 SRs were of low confidence, and one SR was of high confidence. There were no SRs of moderate confidence. CONCLUSION: Even when authors indicate in their manuscripts that the SR was conducted/prepared/designed in line with the AMSTAR 2, it does not necessarily imply it is of high or even moderate confidence according to AMSTAR 2. A self-assessment with AMSTAR 2 could be required for submission and carefully checked by the editors/peer reviewers.

Current applications of indocyanine green (ICG) in abdominal, gynecologic and urologic surgery: a meta-review and quality analysis with use of the AMSTAR 2 instrument.

BACKGROUND: Indocyanine green (ICG) is an injectable fluorochrome that has recently gained popularity as a means of assisting intraoperative visualization during laparoscopic and robotic surgery. Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been published. We conducted a meta-review to synthesize the findings of these studies. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses coping with the uses of ICG in abdominal operations, including Metabolic Bariatric Surgery, Cholecystectomy, Colorectal, Esophageal, Gastric, Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary, Obstetrics and Gynecology (OG), Pediatric Surgery, Surgical Oncology, Urology, (abdominal) Vascular Surgery, Adrenal and Splenic Surgery, and Interdisciplinary tasks, until September 2023. We submitted the retrieved meta-analyses to qualitative analysis based on the AMSTAR 2 instrument. RESULTS: We identified 116 studies, 41 systematic reviews (SRs) and 75 meta-analyses (MAs), spanning 2013-2023. The most thoroughly investigated (sub)specialties were Colorectal (6 SRs, 25 MAs), OG (9 SRs, 15 MAs), and HPB (4 SRs, 12 MAs). Interestingly, there was high heterogeneity regarding the administered ICG doses, routes, and timing. The use of ICG offered a clear benefit regarding anastomotic leak prevention, particularly after colorectal and esophageal surgery. There was no clear benefit regarding sentinel node detection after OG. According to the AMSTAR 2 tool, most meta-analyses ranked as "critically low" (34.7%) or "low" (58.7%) quality. There were only five meta-analyses (6.7%) that qualified as "moderate" quality, whereas there were no "high" quality reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the abundance of pertinent literature and reviews, surgeons should be cautious when interpreting their results on ICG use in abdominal surgery. Future reviews should focus on ensuring methodological vigor; establishing clear protocols of ICG dose, route of administration, and timing; and improving reporting quality. Other sources of data (e.g., registries) and novel methods of data analysis (e.g., machine learning) might also contribute to an enhanced role of ICG as a decision-making tool in surgery.

Quality of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of resveratrol: A methodological systematic review.

Recently, several meta-analyses (MAs) have focused on the health effects of resveratrol. However, the methodological and reporting quality of these MAs has not yet been fully evaluated so far. Therefore, the present study evaluated the quality of these MAs through a methodological systematic review. Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception until May 20, 2022, and PubMed was used to update the search until September 6, 2023. The methodological and reporting quality of the selected MAs was evaluated using AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA 2009. Fifty-one MAs published during 2013-2023 were included. In each review, the number of primary studies ranged from 3 to 37, and the number of participants ranged from 50 to 2114. Among the first-listed primary outcomes, only 23 (45.10%) were "positive." As for the methodological quality, most MAs (44, 86.27%) on resveratrol were rated critically low. Inadequate reporting of the included MAs mainly involved items 2 ("Structured summary"), 5 ("Protocol and registration"), 8 ("Search"), 9 ("Study selection"), 10 ("Data collection process"), 12 ("Risk of bias in individual studies"), and 24 ("Summary of evidence") based on the PRISMA 2009. Additionally, journal's impact factor, number of authors, and funding support were positively associated with the overall methodological quality but were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Future MAs on resveratrol require better design, implementation, and reporting by following the Cochrane Handbook, AMSTAR-2, and PRISMA.

[Evidence mapping analysis of traditional Chinese medicine intervention in pulmonary fibrosis].

This study utilized evidence mapping methodology to systematically identify, describe, and evaluate the evidence from relevant research on traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) interventions in patients with pulmonary fibrosis. CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science, EMbase, and Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to March 2023 for systematic reviews/Meta-analysis/network Meta-analysis on TCM interventions in pulmonary fibrosis. The quality of included studies was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 scale, and the evidence mapping approach was employed to present comprehensive information on populations, intervention methods, the sample size in systematic reviews/Meta-analysis, and conclusion classifications. Ultimately, 44 systematic reviews/Meta-analysis/network Meta-analysis were included. Apart from syndrome differentiation and treatment, TCM injections accounted for a significant proportion of the observed interventions. The treatment methods were mainly focused on nourishing Qi and Yin, promoting blood circulation, resolving stasis, and dredging collaterals. The results from the included studies demonstrated that TCM treatment for pulmonary fibrosis could improve efficacy, increase lung function, improve PaO_(2 )levels, increase the 6-minute walk distance(6MWD), alleviate clinical symptoms, and enhance patients' quality of life. Based on the assessment using the AMSTAR 2 scale, methodological issues were identified, including the lack of protocol registration, failure to provide a list of excluded literature, and incomplete explanations regarding the impact of heterogeneity and bias on the results. The evidence mapping revealed that 42 conclusions were beneficial, while two conclusions were potentially beneficial. Overall, the quality of evidence was relatively low, primarily due to methodological imprecision and publication bias. Although TCM showed certain efficacy in the treatment of pulmonary fibrosis, the quality of reported literature, methodological quality, and overall evidence quality need improvement. It is recommended to conduct high-quality and standardized studies in the future to provide better evidence-based guidance.

Methodological quality of systematic reviews in dentistry including animal studies: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews including animal models can be heterogeneous. We assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews including animal models in dentistry as well as the overall confidence in the results of those systematic reviews. MATERIAL & METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for systematic reviews including animal studies in dentistry published later than January 2010 until 18th of July 2022. Overall confidence in the results was assessed using a modified version of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) checklist. Checklist items were rated as yes, partial yes, no and not applicable. Linear regression analysis was used to investigate associations between systematic review characteristics and the overall adherence to the AMSTAR-2 checklist. The overall confidence in the results was calculated based on the number of critical and non-critical weaknesses presented in the AMSTAR-2 items and rated as high, moderate, low and critical low. RESULTS: Of initially 951 retrieved systematic reviews, 190 were included in the study. The overall confidence in the results was low in 43 (22.6%) and critically low in 133 (70.0%) systematic reviews. While some AMSTAR-2 items were regularly reported (e.g. conflict of interest, selection in duplicate), others were not (e.g. FUNDING: n = 1; 0.5%). Multivariable linear regression analysis showed that the adherence scores of AMSTAR-2 was significantly associated with publication year, journal impact factor (IF), topic, and the use of tools to assess risk of bias (RoB) of the systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: Although the methodological quality of dental systematic reviews of animal models improved over the years, it is still suboptimal. The overall confidence in the results was mostly low or critically low. Systematic reviews, which were published later, published in a journal with a higher IF, focused on non-surgery topics, and used at least one tool to assess RoB correlated with greater adherence to the AMSTAR-2 guidelines.

The methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome using AMSTAR2.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the methodological quality of the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) using A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) and to explore the potential influencing factors. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies. AMSTAR2 was used for evaluating the methodological quality of eligible SRs/MAs. Differences between methodological characteristics of SRs/MAs were compared using chi-square tests. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess reviewer agreement in the pre-experiment. Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify potential factors affecting methodological quality. RESULTS: A total of 45 SRs/MAs were included. After AMSTAR2 evaluation, only two (4.4%) of 45 SRs/MAs were moderate, three (6.7%) were rated as low quality, and the remainder 40 (88.9%) were rated as critically low quality. Among the 16 items of AMSTAR2, item 3 and item 10 had the poorest adherence. Item 4 received the most significant number of "Partial Yes" responses. Univariable analysis indicated that there were significant differences in methodological quality in SRs between different continents (P = 0.027) as well as between preregistered SRs and those that were not (P = 0.004). However, in multivariate analysis, there was no significant association between methodological quality and the following research characteristics: publication year, continent, whether reporting followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), preregistration, funding support, randomized controlled trials (RCT) enrollment, whether SR was published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and whether with meta-analysis. Additionally, subgroup analysis based on interventional SRs/MAs showed that continent was independently associated with the methodological quality of SRs/MAs of CP/CPPS via univariable and multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that the methodological quality of SRs/MAs of CP/CPPS was generally poor. SRs/MAs of CP/CPPS should adopt the AMSTAR2 to enhance their methodological quality.

Efficacy and safety of yoga for the management of chronic low back pain: an overview of systematic reviews.

Background: Yoga is a non-pharmacological conservative therapeutic modality that can be employed for the management of chronic low back pain (CLBP). In this overview, we have summarized and evaluated data from current systematic reviews (SRs) on the use of yoga for CLBP. Methods: We comprehensively searched SRs on the use of yoga for CLBP in nine electronic databases from inception to September 2023. The methodological quality was evaluated using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review Scale-2 (AMSTAR-2). The reporting quality of the included SRs was evaluated using the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis-2020 (PRISMA-2020), and the quality of data was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Two independent researchers performed the screening, data extraction, and quality assessment process of SRs. Results: A total of 13 SRs were included. The results of the AMSTAR-2 indicated that the methodological quality of the included studies was relatively low. The PRISMA-2020 checklist evaluation results indicated that methodological limitations in reporting, especially regarding data processing and presentation, were the main weaknesses. The GRADE assessment indicated that 30 outcomes were rated moderate, 42 were rated low level, and 20 were rated very low level. Downgrading factors were mainly due to the limitations of the included studies. Conclusion: Yoga appears to be an effective and safe non-pharmacological therapeutic modality for the Management of CLBP. Currently, it may exhibit better efficacy in improving pain and functional disability associated with CLBP. However, the methodological quality and quality of evidence for SRs/MAs in the included studies were generally low, and these results should be interpreted cautiously.

Acellular Dermal Matrix for Treatment of Diabetic Foot Ulcer: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Aims: To evaluate the reliability of the methodological quality and outcome measures of systematic reviews (SRs)/metaanalyses (MAs) of the acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for diabetic foot ulcer (DFU). Methods: We searched and retrieved SRs and MAs on the application of ADM for DFU from PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CNKI, CBM, WanFang, and VIP databases. We employed AMSTAR 2 to assess methodological quality, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to grade, and the strength of evidence of included SRs/MAs. We excluded the overlapping randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and conducted a re-MA of the primary RCTs. Results: A total of 7 SRs/MAs were included. Results from the AMSTAR 2 evaluation revealed a low overall quality; the GRADE system showed that the evidence was of moderate to very low quality. Our re-MA showed that ADM was superior to standard of care (SOC), with regards to complete wound healing rate at 12 weeks (RR = 1.74, 95% CI:1.34-2.25, P < .0001), complete wound healing rate at 16 weeks (RR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.26-1.77, P ＜ .00001); healing time (MD = -2.06, 95% CI: -2.57 to -1.54, P < .00001) and adverse events (RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.49-0.80, P = .0002). However, a consensus has not yet been reached between ADM and SOC groups with regard to outcome indicators of the reduction of ulcer area and quality of life; and subgroup analyses showed no statistically significant differences between the xenograft ADM and SOC groups (RR = 1.36, 95% CI: 0.95-1.93, P = .09) at 12 weeks. Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that ADM is more effective than the standard of care in the treatment of DFU, particularly for full-thickness, noninfected, and nonischemic foot ulcers, but with low evidence quality. Therefore, the results of this overview should be interpreted dialectically and prudently, and the role of ADM in DFU needs further exploration.

Consideration of Sex, Gender, or Age on Outcomes of Digital Technologies for Treatment and Monitoring of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Overview of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Several systematic reviews have addressed digital technology use for treatment and monitoring of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess if systematic reviews considered the effects of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD through an overview of such systematic reviews. The objectives of this overview were to (1) describe the definitions of sex or gender used in reviews; (2) determine whether the consideration of sex, gender, or age was planned in reviews; (3) determine whether sex, gender, or age was reported in review results; (4) determine whether sex, gender, or age was incorporated in implications for clinical practice in reviews; and (5) create an evidence map for development of individualized clinical recommendations for COPD based on sex, gender, or age diversity. METHODS: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Web of Science, and the bibliographies of the included systematic reviews were searched to June 2022. Inclusion was based on the PICOS framework: (1) population (COPD), (2) intervention (any digital technology), (3) comparison (any), (4) outcome (any), and (5) study type (systematic review). Studies were independently selected by 2 authors based on title and abstract and full-text screening. Data were extracted by 1 author and checked by another author. Data items included systematic review characteristics; PICOS criteria; and variables related to sex, gender, or age. Systematic reviews were appraised using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2). Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 1439 records, 30 systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2022 were included in this overview. The confidence in the results of 25 of the 30 (83%) reviews was critically low according to AMSTAR 2. The reviews focused on user outcomes that potentially depend on sex, gender, or age, such as efficacy or effectiveness (25/30, 83%) and acceptance, satisfaction, or adherence (3/30, 10%) to digital technologies for COPD. Reviews reported sex or gender (19/30 systematic reviews) or age (25/30 systematic reviews) among primary study characteristics. However, only 1 of 30 reviews included age in a subgroup analysis, and 3 of 30 reviews identified the effects of sex, gender, or age as evidence gaps. CONCLUSIONS: This overview shows that the effects of sex, gender, or age were rarely considered in 30 systematic reviews of digital technologies for COPD treatment and monitoring. Furthermore, systematic reviews did not incorporate sex, gender, nor age in their implications for clinical practice. We recommend that future systematic reviews should (1) evaluate the effects of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD and (2) better adhere to reporting guidelines to improve the confidence in review results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022322924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=322924. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/40538.

Acupuncture for in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer: an overview of systematic reviews. / é’ˆç¸è¾ åŠ©ä½“å¤–å—ç²¾èƒšèƒŽç§»æ¤çš„ç³»ç»Ÿè¯„ä»·å†è¯„ä»·.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the report quality, methodological quality and evidence quality of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of acupuncture for in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET). METHODS: The SRs/MAs of acupuncture for IVF-ET were searched electronically from databases of CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, from inception of each database to September 27th, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened the literature and extracted the data. Using PRISMA statement, the AMSTAR 2 scale and the GRADE system, the report quality, methodological quality and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 28 SRs/MAs were included, with PRISMA scores ranging from 8.5 points to 27 points. The problems of report quality focused on protocol and registration, retrieval, risk of bias in studies, additional analysis, limitations and funding. The methodological quality of included studies was generally low, reflecting on items 2, 3, 7, 10, 12 and 16. A total of 85 outcome indexes were included in the GRADE system for evidence grade evaluation. Most of the evidences were low or very low in quality. The reasons for the downgrade were related to study limitations, inconsistency, imprecision and publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture therapy improves the outcomes of IVF-ET, but the methodological quality and evidence quality of related SRs/MAs are low. It is recommended to conduct more high-quality studies in the future to provide more reliable evidences.

[Re-evaluation of systematic reviews of acupuncture and moxibustion for children with cerebral palsy].

OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodological quality, report quality and evidence quality of the Meta-analysis and systematic reviews of acupuncture and moxibustion for children with cerebral palsy, aiming to provide decision-making basis for clinical treatment. METHODS: The systematic reviews and Meta-analysis of acupuncture and moxibustion for children with cerebral palsy were searched in CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, SinoMed, Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMbase. The retrieval time was from the database establishment to June 30th, 2022. AMSTAR 2 (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews) was used to evaluate the methodological quality， and PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and Meta-analyses) was used to evaluate the report quality, and GRADE was used to evaluate the quality of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 14 systematic reviews were included, including 37 primary outcome indexes. According to AMSTAR 2 evaluation results, there were 4 low quality studies, 10 very low quality studies, and low scores on items 2, 4, 7, 10 and 16. PRISMA scores ranged from 15 to 25, and the main reporting problems reflected in structured abstracts, program and registration, retrieval, and funding sources, etc. According to the GRADE classification results, there were 3 high quality evidences, 7 medium quality evidences, 10 low quality evidences and 17 very low quality evidences. The main downgrading factors were limitations, imprecision and publication bias. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture and moxibustion has a certain effect for cerebral palsy in children, but the quality of methodology, reporting and evidence in the included literature is poor, and the comparison of curative effect between different acupuncture and moxibustion methods is unclear.

AMSTAR 2 is only partially applicable to systematic reviews of non-intervention studies: a meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) was originally developed for systematic reviews (SRs) of health-care interventions. The aim of this study was to assess the applicability of AMSTAR 2 to SRs of non-intervention studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a meta-research study. We used 20 SRs for each of the following four types of SRs: Diagnostic Test Accuracy reviews, Etiology and/or Risk reviews, Prevalence and/or Incidence reviews, and Prognostic reviews (80 in total). Three authors applied AMSTAR 2 independently to each included SRs. Then, the authors assessed the applicability of each item to that SR type and any SR type. RESULTS: Researchers unanimously indicated that 7 of 16 AMSTAR 2 items were applicable for all four specific SR types and any SR type (items 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14 and 16), but 8 of 16 items for any SR type. These items could cover generic SR methods that do not depend on a specific SR type. CONCLUSION: AMSTAR 2 is only partially applicable for non-intervention SRs. There is a need to adapt/extend AMSTAR 2 for SRs of non-intervention studies. Our study can help to further define generic methodological aspects shared across SR types and methodological expectations for non-intervention SRs.