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.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND: Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), commonly called e-cigarettes, have been examined in clinical studies for their effects on tobacco smoking cessation. In the past 2 years, a dozen or more systematic reviews on ENDS and cigarette smoking cessation have been published that present differing conclusions and recommendations on the use of ENDS.
OBJECTIVE: Our umbrella review aims to synthesize the findings from current systematic reviews to investigate the quit rates and the percentage of participants abstinent from cigarette smoking using ENDS. Additionally, we will examine the quit rates with ENDS in comparison to other established cessation treatments.
METHODS: The search will retrieve systematic reviews that include both clinical trials and experimental studies on the use of ENDS for smoking cessation. We will also include nonrandomized cohort studies that track ENDS use and the subsequent abstinence from smoking. Databases searches will be conducted in Embase, Scopus, PubMed, and 7 additional registries. Secondary searches will include reference checking, citation chasing, and consultations with topic experts. Two reviewers will perform a title and abstract exclusion followed by a full-paper inclusion process. Data extraction will be conducted by 1 reviewer and completely checked by a second reviewer. Each systematic review will be assessed by 2 reviewers for methodological quality using AMSTAR2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2) and for reporting bias using categories from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine\'s Catalogue of Bias. Unreported discrepancies between the protocol and the published review will be identified.
RESULTS: The umbrella review started on March 1, 2023. At the time of publication, the study selection was being conducted and the pilot testing of the data extraction and bias assessment forms were in progress. The review is expected to be completed by December 31, 2023, followed by the submission of the review for journal publication. A second-order meta-analysis will calculate the range and average of quit rates for ENDS. A vote counting of the direction of effect, based on quit rates, will be used to present the relative effectiveness of ENDS for smoking cessation compared to other cessation treatments (including no treatment). A citation matrix will list primary studies with their bias ratings from all the systematic reviews. The effect of overlapping studies between the systematic reviews will be calculated using the corrected coverage area analysis. A sensitivity analysis will examine the impact of the intensity of cessation treatment on quit rates. Depending on the availability of data, subgroup analyses will be conducted based on participants\' gender, age, prior quit attempts, and nicotine dependence. The strength or weakness of the evidence synthesis will be assessed using a stratification of evidence technique. Reporting bias will be presented with a tabulation of bias indicators. Publication bias will be assessed.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of ENDS for smoking cessation is a highly controversial subject. Through an exhaustive synthesis of the available data, we will present the quit rates of cigarette smoking cessation obtained with ENDS and how they compare to quit rates obtained from other established cessation treatments. The critical quality and bias assessment of the systematic reviews will indicate the most reliable sources to inform treatment considerations and policy development.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO CRD42023406165; https://tinyurl.com/4ekzpbrj.
UNASSIGNED: PRR1-10.2196/47711.

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.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses pool data from individual studies to generate a higher level of evidence to be evaluated by guidelines. These reviews ultimately guide clinicians and stakeholders in health-related decisions. However, the informativeness and quality of evidence synthesis inherently depend on the quality of what has been pooled into meta-research projects. Moreover, beyond the quality of included individual studies, only a methodologically correct process, in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analyses themselves, can produce a reliable and valid evidence synthesis. Hence, quality of meta-research projects also affects evidence synthesis reliability. In this overview, the authors provide a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages and main characteristics of some of the most frequently used tools to assess quality of individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Specifically, the tools considered in this work are the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), the Jadad scale, the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 (RoB2) for randomized controlled trials, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2), and AMSTAR-PLUS for meta-analyses. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN?: The informativeness and quality of evidence synthesis inherently depend on the quality of what has been pooled into meta-research projects. Beyond the quality of included individual studies, only a methodologically correct process, in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analyses themselves, can produce a reliable and valid evidence synthesis. WHAT IS NEW?: In this overview, the authors provide a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages and main characteristics of some of the most frequently used tools to assess quality of individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. POTENTIAL IMPACT: This overview serves as a starting point and a brief guide to identify and understand the main and most frequently used tools for assessing the quality of studies included in meta-research. The authors here share their experience in publishing several meta-research-related articles covering different areas of medical sciences.

To assess the relative importance of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) items.
A best-worst scaling object case was conducted among a sample of experts in the field of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). Respondents were asked in a series of 15 choice tasks to choose the most and the least important item from a set of four items from the master list, which included the 16 AMSTAR2 items. Hierarchical Bayes analysis was used to generate the relative importance score for each item.
The most important items highlighted by our 242 experts to conduct overview of reviews and critically assess SRs/MAs were the appropriateness of statistical analyses and adequacy of the literature search, followed by items regarding the assessment of risk of bias, the research protocol, and the assessment of heterogeneity (relative importance score >6.5). Items related to funding sources and the assessment of study selection and data extraction in duplicate were rated as least important.
Although all AMSTAR2 items can be considered as important, our results highlighted the importance of keeping the two items (the appropriateness of statistical analyses and the adequacy of the literature search) among the critical items proposed by AMSTAR2 to critically appraise SRs/MAs.

Introduction: This article critically examines the systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) of complementary therapies for cancer patients to appraise the evidence level, and offers suggestions for future research and practice. Methods: The Cochrane Library and MEDLINE were searched from their inception to January 2018, to identify SR and MA of complementary therapies available for cancer patients. Final selected SR and MA were methodologically evaluated for their quality by applying the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) instrument. Data extraction and risk of quality assessments were performed by 2 independent reviewers. Results: A total of 104 studies were included in the analysis. The majority of the individual clinical trials included in the SR and MA were performed in China (48%) and the United States (26.9%). Breast cancer was the most studied cancer type (25%), and acupuncture was the most studied intervention (21%). Side effects of cancer such as pain, depression, and fatigue were effectively managed with complementary therapies. The methodologically problematic items included not listing the excluded studies and lack of protocol or protocol registration. Conclusions: With increasing interest in research, complementary therapies appear to be beneficial in reducing side effects and raising the quality of life of cancer patients. Complementary therapies have generally been studied for all cancers, with acupuncture being the most researched, regardless of the cancer type. Since AMSTAR2 is a stricter assessment tool than before, future studies need to consider the risk of methodological bias with caution and discuss appropriate overall quality assessment tools.