UNASSIGNED: To assess the methodological quality of meta-analytic literature on exercise interventions for cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and the certainty of evidence for its outcome indicators, and to provide clinicians and researchers with more reliable data for making decisions.
UNASSIGNED: Meta-analytic literature related to the effect of exercise intervention on cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment was searched through PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Web of Science, all with a search period frame of each database until June 1, 2024. The AMSTAR2 scale was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies.
UNASSIGNED: Seventeen meta-analyses were included. The AMSTAR2 scale evaluation results showed that there was one medium-quality studies (5.55%), seven low-quality studies (38.88%), and 10 very low-quality studies (55.55%). Methodological deficiencies included failure to prepare a plan and provide a registration number, literature screening, data extraction, reasons for exclusion not described in detail, poor implementation process for systematic evaluation, and failure to describe the source of funding for the included studies or relevant conflicts of interest.
UNASSIGNED: The overall methodological quality of the meta-analytic literature is low, and the certainty of evidence is low. We encourage the conduction of high-quality randomized trials to generate stronger evidence. Subsequent systematic reviews can then synthesize this evidence to inform future research and clinical guidelines.

UNASSIGNED: To systematically summarize current evidence and determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of Tai Chi for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in adults by conducting an overview of systematic reviews (SRs).
UNASSIGNED: A systematic search encompassing five electronic databases was conducted until July 30, 2023, to identify relevant systematic reviews (SRs) based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning Tai Chi for T2DM. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool. The Preferred Reporting Items for Overview of Systematic Review (PRIO-harms) checklist was used to promote a more balanced reporting of benefits and harms in this overview. Corrected covered area (CCA) was used to calculate the degree of overlapping primary studies. Primary outcome measures were glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and fasting blood glucose (FBG), while secondary outcomes encompassed health-related quality measures. The GRADE (Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) framework was utilized to assess the quality of evidence for the outcome measures.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 17 eligible SRs were included in this overview. One SR reported negative conclusions, while the remaining 16 reported positive ones on different outcomes. A total of 4 SRs reported adverse events, either absent or minor. Most of the SRs exhibited critically low quality (15/17) and a high risk of bias (14/17), as indicated by AMSTAR2 and ROBIS, respectively. The CCA was 12.14%, indicating a high degree of primary study overlapping. Evidence from 135 results for 24 outcomes concerning Tai Chi for T2DM was evaluated using the GRADE approach, most of which were rated very low.
UNASSIGNED: Tai Chi shows promise as a potentially effective and safe lifestyle intervention for adults with T2DM, particularly in improving HbA1c, FBG, BMI, and overall quality of life (QoL). However, these results should be cautiously interpreted due to methodological flaws observed in the current SRs and the low quality of the SRs based on GRADE. Furthermore, there is a compelling need for additional well-designed, high-quality RCTs and SRs to establish robust and conclusive evidence regarding the efficacy of Tai Chi for managing T2DM in the future.
UNASSIGNED: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD 42019140988.

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.
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.
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.
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.

UNASSIGNED: Numerous systematic reviews have been published comparing the outcomes of patients undergoing posterior stabilized (PS) versus cruciate-retaining (CR) procedures in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but with some overlaps and contradictions. The objectives of this study were (1) to perform an overview of current systematic reviews comparing PS versus CR in TKA, by evaluating their methodological quality and risk of bias, and (2) to provide recommendations through the best evidence.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic search of systematic reviews comparing PS and CR in TKA, published until June 2021 was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Included systematic reviews were assessed for methodological quality and risk of bias by the AMSTAR2 instrument and ROBIS tool, respectively. The choice of best evidence was conducted according to the Jadad decision algorithm.
UNASSIGNED: A total of eight systematic reviews were eligible for inclusion in this study. The Jadad decision algorithm suggested that reviews with the highest AMSTAR2 scores should be selected. According to the ROBIS tool, there were three reviews with a low risk of bias and five with a high risk of bias. Consequently, one systematic review conducted by Verra et al. with the highest AMSTAR2 score and low risk of bias was selected as the best evidence.
UNASSIGNED: Although current systematic reviews demonstrated some statistical differences in clinical presentation and functional outcomes between PS and CR, the current outcome indicators cannot be taken to provide recommendations for undergoing PS or CR. The decision for prosthesis selection could be made mostly based on the surgeon\'s preference, indications and other indicators.

BACKGROUND: Aidi injection is one of the China Food and Drug Administration approved Chinese herbal injections and the most competitive product in cancer care in China. It is composed of the extracts from Mylabris Phalerata, Astragalus Membranaceus, Panax Ginseng, and Acanthopanax Senticosus.
OBJECTIVE: This overview aims to map systematic reviews (SRs) of Aidi injection for cancer and provide a summarized evidence for clinical practice and decision making.
METHODS: Seven databases were searched for SRs and/or meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials on Aidi injection for cancer care until December 2020. Six authors worked in pairs independently identified studies, collected data, and assessed the quality of included studies according to the revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A narrative synthesis was used for the evidence mapping.
RESULTS: Fifty-two SRs on Aidi injection as adjuvant therapy were included, involving lung cancer (20 SRs), liver cancer (10), colorectal cancer (7), gastric cancer (6), lymphoma (2), breast cancer (2), esophageal cancer (1), ovary cancer (1), and a mix of different cancers (4). Except for one SR focusing on Aidi injection used alone, other SRs evaluated Aidi injection in combination with chemotherapy (43), radiotherapy (4), or chemo/radiology/targeting therapy (4). Aidi injection showed additional beneficial effects on survival (9), objective response rate (44), quality of life (42), and the reduction of side-effects from chemo/radiotherapy (48). Using AMSTAR 2 tool, two reviews were assessed as low and the rest as critically low methodological quality mainly due to the lack of prospective registration. The reporting quality was insufficient assessed with PRISMA in the reporting of search strategy (26, 50.0%), additional analysis (19, 36.5%), and the summary of evidence (2, 3.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: Aidi injection has been evaluated for its adjuvant beneficial effects on cancer survival, tumor responses, quality of life, and reducing the side effects of chemo/radiotherapy, mainly focusing on lung, liver and colorectal cancer. The methodological and reporting quality are weak and need to be improved in the future.