Cargando…
Risk of Bias Assessment in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions for Premenstrual Syndrome: A Systematic Review
Objective: Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a very prevalent condition that affects premenopausal women and can result in monthly debilitating emotional and physical symptoms. The objective of this systematic review was to determine which predictive factors were associated with an increased amount of...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Tehran University of Medical Sciences
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9678845/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36457654 http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/jfrh.v16i2.9476 |
_version_ | 1784834078017585152 |
---|---|
author | Tehfe, Hadi Chow, Ryan Li, Sophie Kim, Patrick Samari, Saif Hayawi, Lamia Webster, Richard Ben Fadel, Nadya |
author_facet | Tehfe, Hadi Chow, Ryan Li, Sophie Kim, Patrick Samari, Saif Hayawi, Lamia Webster, Richard Ben Fadel, Nadya |
author_sort | Tehfe, Hadi |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objective: Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a very prevalent condition that affects premenopausal women and can result in monthly debilitating emotional and physical symptoms. The objective of this systematic review was to determine which predictive factors were associated with an increased amount of bias in non-randomized studies (NRSs) of PMS. Materials and methods: A search of the EMBASE and Medline electronic databases was completed from January 1, 2010 to December 2021. The methodological quality of the included studies was independently evaluated and critically appraised using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-1) tool. Associations of different factors with the risk of bias levels were assessed using a univariate logistic regression. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported. Results: Of the 1668 studies, 38 were determined to be eligible for inclusion. The ROBINS-1 tool identified that 12 studies were of low/moderate risk of bias (31.6%) and 26 were of serious/critical risk (68.4%). Evidence of relationships between the ROBINS-1 score and impact factor (OR=0.20; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.57; p= 0.003) and number of authors (OR=0.65; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.99; p= 0.046) were identified, whereas no relationships were found with the number of citations, the sample size, the funding type, or the conflict-of-interest statement. Conclusion: The systematic review concludes that the methodological rigor of non-randomized studies of PMS can vary, with fewer authors and a lower impact factor showing evidence of association with a decreased quality of evidence. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9678845 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Tehran University of Medical Sciences |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96788452022-11-30 Risk of Bias Assessment in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions for Premenstrual Syndrome: A Systematic Review Tehfe, Hadi Chow, Ryan Li, Sophie Kim, Patrick Samari, Saif Hayawi, Lamia Webster, Richard Ben Fadel, Nadya J Family Reprod Health Review Article Objective: Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a very prevalent condition that affects premenopausal women and can result in monthly debilitating emotional and physical symptoms. The objective of this systematic review was to determine which predictive factors were associated with an increased amount of bias in non-randomized studies (NRSs) of PMS. Materials and methods: A search of the EMBASE and Medline electronic databases was completed from January 1, 2010 to December 2021. The methodological quality of the included studies was independently evaluated and critically appraised using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-1) tool. Associations of different factors with the risk of bias levels were assessed using a univariate logistic regression. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported. Results: Of the 1668 studies, 38 were determined to be eligible for inclusion. The ROBINS-1 tool identified that 12 studies were of low/moderate risk of bias (31.6%) and 26 were of serious/critical risk (68.4%). Evidence of relationships between the ROBINS-1 score and impact factor (OR=0.20; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.57; p= 0.003) and number of authors (OR=0.65; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.99; p= 0.046) were identified, whereas no relationships were found with the number of citations, the sample size, the funding type, or the conflict-of-interest statement. Conclusion: The systematic review concludes that the methodological rigor of non-randomized studies of PMS can vary, with fewer authors and a lower impact factor showing evidence of association with a decreased quality of evidence. Tehran University of Medical Sciences 2022-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9678845/ /pubmed/36457654 http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/jfrh.v16i2.9476 Text en Copyright © 2022 Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Published by Tehran University of Medical Sciences. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Article Tehfe, Hadi Chow, Ryan Li, Sophie Kim, Patrick Samari, Saif Hayawi, Lamia Webster, Richard Ben Fadel, Nadya Risk of Bias Assessment in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions for Premenstrual Syndrome: A Systematic Review |
title | Risk of Bias Assessment in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions for Premenstrual Syndrome: A Systematic Review |
title_full | Risk of Bias Assessment in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions for Premenstrual Syndrome: A Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | Risk of Bias Assessment in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions for Premenstrual Syndrome: A Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Risk of Bias Assessment in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions for Premenstrual Syndrome: A Systematic Review |
title_short | Risk of Bias Assessment in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions for Premenstrual Syndrome: A Systematic Review |
title_sort | risk of bias assessment in non-randomized studies of interventions for premenstrual syndrome: a systematic review |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9678845/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36457654 http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/jfrh.v16i2.9476 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tehfehadi riskofbiasassessmentinnonrandomizedstudiesofinterventionsforpremenstrualsyndromeasystematicreview AT chowryan riskofbiasassessmentinnonrandomizedstudiesofinterventionsforpremenstrualsyndromeasystematicreview AT lisophie riskofbiasassessmentinnonrandomizedstudiesofinterventionsforpremenstrualsyndromeasystematicreview AT kimpatrick riskofbiasassessmentinnonrandomizedstudiesofinterventionsforpremenstrualsyndromeasystematicreview AT samarisaif riskofbiasassessmentinnonrandomizedstudiesofinterventionsforpremenstrualsyndromeasystematicreview AT hayawilamia riskofbiasassessmentinnonrandomizedstudiesofinterventionsforpremenstrualsyndromeasystematicreview AT websterrichard riskofbiasassessmentinnonrandomizedstudiesofinterventionsforpremenstrualsyndromeasystematicreview AT benfadelnadya riskofbiasassessmentinnonrandomizedstudiesofinterventionsforpremenstrualsyndromeasystematicreview |