Cargando…

Evidence Mapping and Quality Analysis of Systematic Reviews on Various Aspects Related to Cleft Lip and Palate

Background: Management of cleft lip and palate is interdisciplinary. An evidence-mapping approach was envisaged to highlight the existing gaps in this field, using only the highest level of evidence. Objectives: To conduct evidence mapping and quality analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Srivastav, Sukeshana, Tewari, Nitesh, Antonarakis, Gregory S., Duggal, Ritu, Saji, Seba, Lokade, Amol Kumar, Yadav, Rahul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10532364/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37762942
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12186002
_version_ 1785111942965231616
author Srivastav, Sukeshana
Tewari, Nitesh
Antonarakis, Gregory S.
Duggal, Ritu
Saji, Seba
Lokade, Amol Kumar
Yadav, Rahul
author_facet Srivastav, Sukeshana
Tewari, Nitesh
Antonarakis, Gregory S.
Duggal, Ritu
Saji, Seba
Lokade, Amol Kumar
Yadav, Rahul
author_sort Srivastav, Sukeshana
collection PubMed
description Background: Management of cleft lip and palate is interdisciplinary. An evidence-mapping approach was envisaged to highlight the existing gaps in this field, using only the highest level of evidence. Objectives: To conduct evidence mapping and quality analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to any aspect of cleft lip and palate. Search Methods: The cleft lip and palate field was divided into 9 domains and 50 subdomains and a method of categorization of systematic reviews was established. A comprehensive search strategy was carried out in seven databases along with the search of gray literature and references of included articles. Selection criteria: Systematic reviews related to any aspect of cleft lip and palate, conducted by a minimum of two reviewers, with a comprehensive search strategy and adequate quality analysis were included. Data collection and analysis: A self-designed, pre-piloted data-extraction sheet was used to collect information that was analyzed through an expert group discussion. Quality analysis was performed using ROBIS-I, AMSTAR 2, and the PRISMA checklist. Results: A total of 144 systematic reviews published between 2008 and 2022 were included. The largest number of these could be categorized in the therapeutic domain (n = 58). A total of 27% of the studies were categorized as inconclusive, 40% as partially conclusive, and 33% as conclusive. As per ROBIS-I, 77% of reviews had high risk of bias while 58% were graded as critically low in quality as per AMSTAR 2. The majority of systematic reviews showed low reporting errors. Conclusions: The majority of systematic reviews related to cleft lip and palate relate to therapeutic and prognostic domains and show high risk of bias and critically low quality regardless of the source journal. The results of this paper might serve as a starting point encouraging authors to carry out high-quality research where evidence is lacking. Registration: A multidisciplinary expert-group formulated an a priori protocol, registered in Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/NQDV2).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10532364
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105323642023-09-28 Evidence Mapping and Quality Analysis of Systematic Reviews on Various Aspects Related to Cleft Lip and Palate Srivastav, Sukeshana Tewari, Nitesh Antonarakis, Gregory S. Duggal, Ritu Saji, Seba Lokade, Amol Kumar Yadav, Rahul J Clin Med Review Background: Management of cleft lip and palate is interdisciplinary. An evidence-mapping approach was envisaged to highlight the existing gaps in this field, using only the highest level of evidence. Objectives: To conduct evidence mapping and quality analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to any aspect of cleft lip and palate. Search Methods: The cleft lip and palate field was divided into 9 domains and 50 subdomains and a method of categorization of systematic reviews was established. A comprehensive search strategy was carried out in seven databases along with the search of gray literature and references of included articles. Selection criteria: Systematic reviews related to any aspect of cleft lip and palate, conducted by a minimum of two reviewers, with a comprehensive search strategy and adequate quality analysis were included. Data collection and analysis: A self-designed, pre-piloted data-extraction sheet was used to collect information that was analyzed through an expert group discussion. Quality analysis was performed using ROBIS-I, AMSTAR 2, and the PRISMA checklist. Results: A total of 144 systematic reviews published between 2008 and 2022 were included. The largest number of these could be categorized in the therapeutic domain (n = 58). A total of 27% of the studies were categorized as inconclusive, 40% as partially conclusive, and 33% as conclusive. As per ROBIS-I, 77% of reviews had high risk of bias while 58% were graded as critically low in quality as per AMSTAR 2. The majority of systematic reviews showed low reporting errors. Conclusions: The majority of systematic reviews related to cleft lip and palate relate to therapeutic and prognostic domains and show high risk of bias and critically low quality regardless of the source journal. The results of this paper might serve as a starting point encouraging authors to carry out high-quality research where evidence is lacking. Registration: A multidisciplinary expert-group formulated an a priori protocol, registered in Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/NQDV2). MDPI 2023-09-16 /pmc/articles/PMC10532364/ /pubmed/37762942 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12186002 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Srivastav, Sukeshana
Tewari, Nitesh
Antonarakis, Gregory S.
Duggal, Ritu
Saji, Seba
Lokade, Amol Kumar
Yadav, Rahul
Evidence Mapping and Quality Analysis of Systematic Reviews on Various Aspects Related to Cleft Lip and Palate
title Evidence Mapping and Quality Analysis of Systematic Reviews on Various Aspects Related to Cleft Lip and Palate
title_full Evidence Mapping and Quality Analysis of Systematic Reviews on Various Aspects Related to Cleft Lip and Palate
title_fullStr Evidence Mapping and Quality Analysis of Systematic Reviews on Various Aspects Related to Cleft Lip and Palate
title_full_unstemmed Evidence Mapping and Quality Analysis of Systematic Reviews on Various Aspects Related to Cleft Lip and Palate
title_short Evidence Mapping and Quality Analysis of Systematic Reviews on Various Aspects Related to Cleft Lip and Palate
title_sort evidence mapping and quality analysis of systematic reviews on various aspects related to cleft lip and palate
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10532364/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37762942
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12186002
work_keys_str_mv AT srivastavsukeshana evidencemappingandqualityanalysisofsystematicreviewsonvariousaspectsrelatedtocleftlipandpalate
AT tewarinitesh evidencemappingandqualityanalysisofsystematicreviewsonvariousaspectsrelatedtocleftlipandpalate
AT antonarakisgregorys evidencemappingandqualityanalysisofsystematicreviewsonvariousaspectsrelatedtocleftlipandpalate
AT duggalritu evidencemappingandqualityanalysisofsystematicreviewsonvariousaspectsrelatedtocleftlipandpalate
AT sajiseba evidencemappingandqualityanalysisofsystematicreviewsonvariousaspectsrelatedtocleftlipandpalate
AT lokadeamolkumar evidencemappingandqualityanalysisofsystematicreviewsonvariousaspectsrelatedtocleftlipandpalate
AT yadavrahul evidencemappingandqualityanalysisofsystematicreviewsonvariousaspectsrelatedtocleftlipandpalate