ObjectiveTo re-evaluate the systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MAs) of the efficacy of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement. MethodsThe CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were electronically searched to collect SR/MAs of robot-assisted pedicle screw placement from inception to April 28, 2023. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and then assessed the quality of reports, methodological quality, risk of bias, and the strength of evidence quality by using PRISMA, AMSTAR-Ⅱ, ROBIS, and GRADE tool. ResultsA total of 20 SR/MAs were included. The results of the included studies showed that robot-assisted pedicle screw placement was more accurate and had a lower number of complications compared with freehand pedicle screw placement. The quality of reports, methodology, and evidence for pedicle screw placement efficiency in all SR/MAs were low or extremely low, with a high risk of bias. The main reasons included high heterogeneity of included studies, unclear research methods and selection criteria, and missing key reporting processes. ConclusionRobot-assisted pedicle screw placement may have better clinical efficiency than traditional freehand pedicle screw placement. But the quality of relational SR/MAs is low.
ObjectivesTo overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of effectiveness and safety of spinal manipulation for low back pain or neck pain. MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2015), CBM, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP to collect SRs/MAs of spinal manipulation for low back pain or neck pain from inception to January 30th, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and then AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included SRs/MAs. ResultsA total of 21 SRs/MAs were included. Twenty of them assessed the methodological quality of included original randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with different tools:2 used Jadad scale, 5 used PEDro scale, 6 used Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and 7 used other tools. The assessment results of AMSTAR tool suggested that:among 11 items, the item 1 of "Was an ‘a priori’ design provided" (18 SRs/MAs did not provide) and item 4 of "Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided" (18 SRs/MAs did not provide) appeared to be the most problematic, followed by item 10 of "Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed" (14 SRs/MAs did not assess the publication bias) and item 11 of "Was the conflict of interest stated" (14 SRs/MAs did not provide the conflict of interest and 4 were incomplete). ConclusionThe methodological quality of included SRs/MAs is poor. The limited evidence showed that spinal manipulation is more effective for acute low back pain than chronic low back pain, and the short term effect is better than the long term one. Different spinal manipulation techniques have various effects but are all safe. Chiropractic manipulation may have the best effect. Due to the limitation of quality and quantity of included SRs/MAs, there may be potential bias in the above conclusion that needs more high quality studies to verify.
ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4) in treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsDatabase including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were searched from inception to December 2016 to collect SRs/MAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DPP-4 for the treatment of T2DM. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the reporting and methodological qualities using the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR tool.ResultsTwenty-seven SRs/MAs of DPP-4 for the treatment of T2DM were included in this overview. The average score of AMSTAR was 7.04. The worst score were the item 1 (26 studies didn't provide an ‘a priori’ design), item 4 (10 studies didn't provide whether the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?), item 10 and item 11 (15 studies didn't assess the likelihood of publication bias and the potential conflicts of interest). The PRISMA score ranged from 17.0 to 24.5. The main problems of reporting were protocol and registration, search, additional analyses and funding.ConclusionThe evidence shows that the reporting and methodological quality of the SRs/MAs of DPP-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes are not high.
ObjectivesTo overview the systematic reviews of traditional Chinese herb injections for viral pneumonia.MethodsCNKI, CBM, WanFang Data, VIP, PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and EMbase databases were electronically searched to collect systematic reviews (SRs) of traditional Chinese herb injections for viral pneumonia from inception to March 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. Then, AMSTAR 2 was used to assess the methodological quality and GRADE was used to grade the outcome indicators of included SRs.ResultsA total of 10 SRs were included, containing six Chinese herb injections (Xiyanping injection, Yanhuning injection, Tanreqing injection, Reduning injection, Shuanghuanglian injection, and Chuanhuning injection). Five items of AMSTAR 2 were reported well, and two items were not reported in any of the included SRs, and the quality was unsatisfactory. The efficacy of Chinese herb injection was superior than that of western medicine in many outcome indicators, such as antipyretic time, the pulmonary rales disappearing time, and the total clinical efficiency. The quality of evidence ranged from medium to very low.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that the quality of SRs of Chinese herb injections for viral pneumonia requires improvement, and most of the results show that Chinese herb injections are more effective than western medicines.
ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews on efficacy and safety of hyperbaric oxygen in treatment of diabetic foot.MethodsCNKI, CBM, VIP, WanFang Data, The Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMbase databases were searched to collect systematic reviews or meta-analyses on the efficacy and safety of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for diabetic foot from inception to November 17th, 2019. Two researchers independently screened literature and extracted data. Then, AMSTAR 2 tool and PRISMA statement were used to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of included systematic reviews, and the outcome indicators were comprehensively analyzed.ResultsA total of 10 systematic reviews were included. The results of AMSTAR 2 suggested that 6 systematic reviews were of extremely low quality, 3 of low quality, and 1 of high quality. The PRISMA score ranged from 16.5 to 27. The results of the included systematic reviews showed that hyperbaric oxygen therapy might be superior to other interventions in ulcer healing rate and large amputation rate without increasing the risk of adverse events. ConclusionsThe existing systematic reviews/meta-analysis evidence shows that hyperbaric oxygen therapy may have certain curative effect on diabetic foot, however, its methodology and report quality evaluation are insufficient.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) treatment for essential hypertension. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were searched to collect the SRs which focused on the TCM for essential hypertension from January 2015 to June 2019. PRISMA statement, AMSTAR 2 tool and GRADE system were respectively applied to evaluate report quality, methodological quality and evidence quality assessment of included outcomes of SRs.ResultsA total of 25 SRs involving 65 outcomes were included. PRISMA evaluation results showed that the quality of 25 SRs reports was good. However, all studies did not report item 5 " Was an ‘a prior’ design provided?”. AMSTAR 2 tool evaluation results showed that the 25 SRs of quality levels were markedly low, where most problems concerned item 2 " If there is ‘a prior’ published in advance”, item 3 " Were reasons about selection of the study designs explained”, item 7 " Were the list of exclude of studies and justify the exclusions provided”, item 10 " Were the sources of funding for the studies reported”, and item 12 " If meta-analysis was performed, whether the author assesses the potential impact of risk of bias”. The results of grading showed that most outcomes were graded as " low” or " very low” quality. The main factors contributing to downgrading evidence quality were limitations, followed by inconsistencies, inaccuracies and publication bias.ConclusionsCurrent evidences shows that the treatment of essential hypertension by TCM has been supported by low quality evidence-based medical evidence. However, the SRs methodology for the treatment of essential hypertension by TCM is generally poor in quality and the standardization still require improvement.
Objective To overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses of efficacy of FNB used as a postoperative analgesic technique among patients undergoing TKR. Methods We electronically searched databases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP from inception to July, 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. AMSTAR tool was used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. The primary outcome was pain scores and the consumption of opoid medicine to evaluate the effectiveness of FNB. Results A total of 16 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included, involving the FNBvs. LIA, PMDI, EA, PCA and ACB, respectively. The results of quality assessment indicated medium scores with 3 to 9 scores. The overviews’ results showed that: at rest, FNB was not superior to LIA at 6h after TKR; it was superior to PMDI at 12h after TKR; it was also superior to PCA and LIA, but not superior to ACB at 24h after TKR. On movement, FNB was superior to PCA and LIA at 24h after TKR; it was also superior to PCA at 48h after TKR. As to the consumption of opoid medicine, the consumption in FNB group was more than LIA group at 12h after TKR. In addition, the consumption in FNB group was less than PCA and LIA at 24h after TKR, and it was also less than PCA and ACB at 48h. The satisfaction of patients who received FNB was better than ACB, EA and PCA. Conclusion The current overview shows that FNB is more effective than PCA and LIA, the patients’ satisfaction is better. Due to the limitations of the quantity and quality of included studies, the above conclusions are needed to be verified by more studies.
Objectives To overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses of safety of femoral nerve block (FNB) used as a postoperative analgesic technique in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods We searched databases including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP from inception to July, 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and used AMSTAR to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. The major indexes used to evaluate the safety of FNB were the incidence rates of symptoms including nausea, vomiting, sedation, retention of urine, dizziness, pruritus, hypotension, falls, nenous thromboembolism and deep infection. Results A total of 12 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included.They assessed the safety of FNB compared with local infiltration analgesia (LIA), periarticular multimodal drug injection (PMDI), epidural analgesia (EA), patient-controlled intravenous analgesia of opioids (PCA) and adductor canal block (ACB), respectively. The methodological quality of included studies were medium, with the scores between 3 to 10. The results of overview indicated that: FNB had lower incidence rates of nausea and vomiting compared with EA and PCA, but had higher than ACB. FNB had lower incidence rates of sedation and retention of urine compared with EA and PCA. FNB had lower incidence rates of dizziness compared with EA and PCA, and lower incidence rate of hypotension compared with EA. Conclusion Current evidence suggests that FNB is safer than EA and PCA. Due to the limited quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusions are needed to be verified by more high-quality studies.
To improve the comprehensive and accurate of overviews of reviews, BMJ published the guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: the PRIOR statement. This paper explained the background and core contents of PRIOR statement and interpreted each item with examples to provide references for domestic scholars to write overviews of reviews.
ObjectiveTo overview of systematic reviews of the efficacy and safety of antimicrobials in the prevention of postpartum infection after vaginal delivery, and to provide evidence for the rational use of antimicrobials. MethodsThe CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect systematic reviews/meta-analyses on antibiotic prophylaxis for transvaginal delivery from inception to June 25, 2023. The data of the included systematic reviews were extracted by 2 investigators independently, and the methodological quality, risk of bias, and report quality were evaluated by AMSTAR 2.0 scale, ROBIS tool, and PRISMA, respectively. And a pool of outcomes for assessing the effectiveness of antimicrobials in prevention of postpartum infection after transvaginal delivery was developed. ResultsA total of 7 systematic reviews were included. And the AMSTAR 2.0 indicated that most studies (5/7) were from very low quality to low quality. The ROBIS tool showed 3 studies with low risk of bias, 3 with high risk of bias, and 1 with unclear risk of bias. The results of the PRISMA statement showed that the included system evaluation reports were relatively complete. The present evidence showed that prophylactic use of antimicrobials may be beneficial and recommended in women with Ⅲ-Ⅳ perineal fissures, with no significant benefit in women with manual placenta removal, but prophylactic use of antimicrobials was recommended considering their invasive nature, but it was controversial whether antimicrobials should be used in the categories of vaginal assisted delivery, perineal lateralization, and spontaneous delivery (without complications). ConclusionAntimicrobial prophylaxis may not be recommended for all the pregnant women undergoing vaginal delivery to prevent the postpartum infection, but considering the low methodological quality of the included systematic review and the inconsistent outcomes in this field, the conclusion should be further verified by future research with high-quality.