David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

/pdf/preferred-reporting-items-for-systematic-reviews-and-meta-3k0wa2mp7o.pdf

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.

Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7

In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1).



Box 1

Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.

Objective: Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Design: Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . Main outcome measure: Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. Results: In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. Conclusions: A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution. Key messages Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the best strategy for appraising evidence; however, the findings of some meta-analyses were later contradicted by large trials Funnel plots, plots of the trials9 effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials Funnel plot asymmetry was found in 38% of meta-analyses published in leading general medicine journals and in 13% of reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Critical examination of systematic reviews for publication and related biases should be considered a routine procedure

/pdf/bias-in-meta-analysis-detected-by-a-simple-graphical-test-5erh428s5c.pdf

Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement

The most obvious and laudable reason for doing clinical research is, of course, to benefit the patients. Other motives that are sometimes important are to earn money, to increase chances of getting the next post, to become famous, or to satisfy curiosity. Such incentives are not necessarily bad. Indeed, the high level of competition in healthcare research may very well be more innovative and productive—and therefore more beneficial to the patients—than more centralised research approaches.

A particular piece of research may occasionally fulfil all five motives, but it would be the exception rather than the rule if research agendas overall matched even remotely what the patients need most. For example, according to the WHO, the combined investment in research and development into acute respiratory infections, diarrhoeal diseases, and tuberculosis—which kill over seven million people a year—amounts to 0.2% of global spending on health research and development, though these three diseases account for almost one fifth of the global disease burden.1 

Most new interventions, by far, are developed by industry and it is no wonder that industry chooses to go where the market is. For common diseases in the developed world this leads to the development of an array of drugs belonging to the same therapeutic class. Clinical testing of all those drugs consumes a considerable amount of financial and human resources, and clinicians sometimes complain that their colleagues have “occupied” the patients by trivial trials of “me too drugs” for years to come, making it impossible to start trials of greater relevance to the patients.

Is osteoarthritis an exception to this general state of affairs? In this issue of the Annals , Chard and colleagues review 50 years of research on interventions for osteoarthritis of the knee.2 They report that most of the research was on drugs (59%) …

https://ard.bmj.com/content/annrheumdis/59/6/407.full.pdf

Do patients with osteoarthritis get the clinical research they need

Background Millions of people are treated with antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). This clinical practice is based on short-term trials that have exaggerated the benefits and underestimated the harms. We also know too little about long-term harms. Aim To assess harms of SSRIs and SNRIs that persist after end of drug intake. Methods Systematic review of placebo-controlled randomised trials of any length in patients with a psychiatric diagnosis and a follow-up of at least six months. Our primary outcomes were mortality, functional outcomes, quality of life and core psychiatric events. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and checked the references for eligible articles. One researcher extracted data and another checked the data extraction. Results Our searches returned 9,153 unique records. We included 22 papers for 12 trials on SSRIs. Median intervention and follow-up periods were 15 and 52 weeks, respectively. Median number of randomised participants was 51; only two trials had a drop-out rate below 20%.Outcome reporting was less thorough during follow-up than for the intervention period and only two trials maintained the blind during follow-up. All authors concluded that the drugs were not beneficial in the long term.All trials reported harms outcomes selectively or did not report any. Only two trials reported on any of our primary outcomes (school attendance and number of heavy drinking days). Conclusion The randomised trials currently available cannot be used to investigate persistent harms of antidepressants.

/pdf/long-term-harms-from-previous-use-of-selective-serotonin-1kiysn70qa.pdf

Long-term harms from previous use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: A systematic review.

Asthma guidelines on house dust mites are not evidence-based.

Objective To describe the redactions in contemporary protocols for industry-sponsored randomised drug trials with patient relevant outcomes and to evaluate whether there was a legitimate rationale for the redactions. Design Cohort study. Under the Freedom of Information Act, we requested access to trial protocols approved by a research ethics committee in Denmark from October 2012 to March 2013. We received 17 consecutive protocols, which had been redacted before we got them, and nine protocols without redactions. In five additional cases, the companies refused to let the committees give us access, and in three other cases, documents were missing. Participants Not applicable. Setting Not applicable. Main outcome measure Amount and nature of redactions in 22 predefined key protocol variables. Results The redactions were most widespread in those sections of the protocol where there is empirical evidence of substantial problems with the trustworthiness of published drug trials: data analysis, handling of missing data, detection and analysis of adverse events, definition of the outcomes, interim analyses and premature termination of the study, sponsor's access to incoming data while the study is running, ownership to the data and investigators' publication rights. The parts of the text that were redacted differed widely, both between companies and within the same company. Conclusions We could not identify any legitimate rationale for the redactions. The current mistrust in industry-sponsored drug trials can only change if the industry offers unconditional access to its trial protocols and other relevant documents and data.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0141076817750554

Peter C Gøtzsche

Papers

Do patients with osteoarthritis get the clinical research they need

Long-term harms from previous use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: A systematic review.

Asthma guidelines on house dust mites are not evidence-based.

Redactions in protocols for drug trials: what industry sponsors concealed.

Social ulighed i sundhed