ObjectivesTo provide an overview of whether the clinical decision support system (CDSS) was effective in reducing medication error and improving medication safety and to assess the quality of available scientific evidence.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, WanFang Data, VIP and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect systematic reviews (SRs) on application of clinical decision support system in the medication error and safety from January, 1996 to November, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and then evaluated methodological quality of included SRs by using AMSTAR tool.g AMSTAR tool.ResultsA total of 20 SRs including 256 980 healthcare practitioners and 1 683 675 patients were included. Specifically, 16 studies demonstrated moderate quality and 4 demonstrated high quality. 19 SRs evaluated multiple process of care outcome: 9 were sufficient evidence, 6 were limited evidence, and 7 were insufficient evidence which proved that CDSS had a positive effect on process outcome. 13 SRs evaluated reported patient outcomes: 1 with sufficient evidence, 3 with limited evidence, and 9 without sufficient evidence.ConclusionsCDSS reduces medication error by inconsistently improving process of care measures and seldom improving patient outcomes. Larger samples and longer-term studies are required to ensure a larger and more reliable evidence base on the effects of CDSS intervention on patient outcomes.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the methodological bias and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) about traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension.
MethodsWe comprehensively searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane library (Issue 4, 2014), CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data to collect SRs of traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension from the establishment time of databases to April 30th, 2014. The AMSTAR tool was applied for methodological quality assessment of included studies, and the GRADE system was applied for evidence quality assessment of included outcomes of SRs.
ResultsA total of 12 SRs involving 31 outcomes were included, of which 11 SRs focused on the comparison of therapeutic effects between traditional Chinese medicine combined with western medicine and western medicine alone. Nine SRs adopted Jadad tool to assess methodological quality of included original studies. The results of assessment using AMSTAR showed that, among 11 items, there were the most problems concerning Item 1 "Was an 'a prior' design provided?" (none of the 12 SRs provided it); followed by Item 11 "Were potential conflict of interest included?" (nine SRs didn't described it), and Item 6 "Were the characteristics of included studies provided" (six SRs didn't provided it). The results of grading showed that, 29 outcomes were graded as "low" or "very low" quality. The main factors contributed to downgrading evidence quality were limitations (31 outcomes), followed by imprecision (12 outcomes), and inconsistency (13 outcomes).
ConclusionCurrently, the methodological quality of SRs about traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension was poor on the whole, with low quality of evidence as well as lack of enough attention to the end outcomes of patients with essential hypertension. Thus, physicians should apply the evidence to make decision about traditional Chinese medicine for essential hypertension with caution in clinical practice.
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.
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.
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.
ObjectiveTo overview of systematic reviews (SRs) of Yiqi Fumai (YQFM) injection in the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF). MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect SRs of YQFM injection in the treatment of CHF from January 1, 2007 to October 31, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed methodological quality, risk of bias, report quality and evidence quality by using AMSTAR-2, ROBIS scale, PRISMA, and GRADE system. ResultsA total of 7 SRs were included. The evaluation results showed that the quality of all SRs was low, a few SRs were assessed as having a low risk of bias, and all SRs were relatively completely reported. A total of 46 results were extracted from the included SRs, including 3 with moderate quality evidence, 12 with low quality evidence and 31 with very low quality evidence. ConclusionYQFM may be an effective and safe treatment, but current evidence quality is low.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the risk of bias and reliability of conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) of lung cancer screening.
MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2016), Web of Knowledge, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI to collect SRs of lung cancer screening from inception to February 29th, 2016. The ROBIS tool was applied to assess the risk of bias of included SRs, and then GRADE system was used for evidence quality assessment of outcomes of SRs.
ResultsA total of 11 SRs involving 5 outcomes (mortality, detection rate, survival rate, over-diagnosis and potential benefits and harms) were included. The results of risk of bias assessment by ROBIS tool showed:Two studies completely matched the 4 questions of phase 1. In the phase 2, 6 studies were low risk of bias in the including criteria field; 8 studies were low risk of bias in the literature search and screening field; 3 studies were low risk of bias in the data abstraction and quality assessment field; and 5 studies were low risk of bias in the data synthesis field. In the phase 3 of comprehensive risk of bias results, 5 studies were low risk. The results of evidence quality assessment by GRADE system showed:three studies had A level evidence on the outcome of mortality; 1 study had A level evidence on detection; 1 study had A level evidence on survival rate; 3 studies on over-diagnosis had C level evidence; and 2 studies on potential benefits and harms had B level evidence.
ConclusionThe risk of bias of SRs of lung cancer screening is totally modest; however, the evidence quality of outcomes of these SRs is totally low. Clinicians should cautiously use these evidence to make decision based on local situation.
ObjectiveTo conduct an overview of systematic reviews on the impact of evidence-based learning (EBL) method on medical education. MethodsThe CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, CBM, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were electronically searched to collect the relevant systematic reviews or meta-analyses of the application of EBL method in medical education from inception to May, 2024. Two researchers conducted the literature screening and data extraction independently. The AMSTAR 2, ROBIS tool, PRISMA 2020, and GRADE system were separately used to evaluate the methodological quality, the risk of bias, the quality of reporting, and the quality of evidence of included studies. ResultsA total of 16 systematic reviews/meta-analyses were included. The methodological quality evaluation by AMSTAR 2 showed that the quality level of 16 studies was very low. The results of ROBIS tool showed that 1 study was low risk of bias and 15 studies were high risk of bias. The GRADE evaluation of the evidence quality for 36 outcome indicators in the included studies revealed that 6 were of moderate quality, 12 were of low quality, and the rest were of very low quality. ConclusionEBL method has demonstrated significant effects in improving theoretical performance, practical skills, and critical thinking abilities among medical students. However, the methodological and evidence quality of the current systematic reviews/meta-analyses are low.
ObjectiveTo retrieve and summarize the clinical studies on traditional Chinese medicine for heart failure prevention and treatment and to observe the distribution of evidence in the field of heart failure by using the method of evidence map.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were searched from January 2000 to January 2020. Clinical studies, systematic reviews, guidelines, and clinical pathways related to traditional Chinese medicine for heart failure prevention and treatment were included, and the distribution characteristics of evidence were analyzed by using charts and text descriptions.ResultsA total of 8 580 papers were included, including 8 398 clinical studies (6 821 randomized controlled trials, 1 109 non-randomized controlled trials and 468 observational studies), 160 systematic reviews, and 22 guidelines, expert consensus and pathway studies. The number of clinical studies domestically and abroad showed an overall growth trend. The sample size was concentrated in 60- 100 cases. Coronary atherosclerotic heart disease was the most common comorbidity of heart failure. AMSTAR scores of systematic reviews were primarily 4 to 8. The results of high-quality randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews showed that traditional Chinese medicine combined with conventional Western medicine in the treatment of heart failure had certain advantages in improving heart function, quality of life and prognosis.ConclusionsHigh-quality clinical studies show that traditional Chinese medicine has certain advantages in the efficacy and safety of heart failure prevention and treatment; however, few studies have high methodological quality. In the future, multi-center, large sample size, and high methodological quality clinical studies are needed to further explore the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine therapy in the field of heart failure.
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.
