RESEARCH ARTICLE The currency, completeness and quality of ... currency...آ  Initial searches were...

download RESEARCH ARTICLE The currency, completeness and quality of ... currency...آ  Initial searches were conducted

of 25

  • date post

    25-Jun-2020
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    0
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of RESEARCH ARTICLE The currency, completeness and quality of ... currency...آ  Initial searches were...

  • RESEARCH ARTICLE

    The currency, completeness and quality of

    systematic reviews of acute management of

    moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: A

    comprehensive evidence map

    Anneliese Synnot1,2,3,4*, Peter Bragge5, Carole Lunny3, David Menon6, Ornella Clavisi2,7, Loyal Pattuwage2,8, Victor Volovici9,10, Stefania Mondello11, Maryse C. Cnossen12,

    Emma Donoghue1, Russell L. Gruen13,14, Andrew Maas15

    1 Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre (ANZIC-RC), School of Public Health and

    Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 2 National Trauma Research

    Institute, The Alfred, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3 Cochrane Australia, School of

    Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 4 Cochrane

    Consumers and Communication, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne,

    Victoria, Australia, 5 BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash

    University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 6 Division of Anaesthesia, University of Cambridge; Neurosciences

    Critical Care Unit, Addenbrooke’s Hospital; Queens’ College, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 7 MOVE:

    Muscle, Bone and Joint Health Ltd, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 8 Monash Centre for Occupational and

    Environmental Health (MonCOEH), Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 9 Department of

    Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 10 Department of

    Neurosurgery, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 11 Department of

    Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, University of Messina, Messina, Italy,

    12 Center for Medical Decision Making, Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam,

    The Netherlands, 13 Nanyang Technical University, Singapore, 14 Central Clinical School, Monash

    University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 15 Department of Neurosurgery, Antwerp University Hospital and

    University of Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium

    * anneliese.synnot@monash.edu

    Abstract

    Objective

    To appraise the currency, completeness and quality of evidence from systematic reviews

    (SRs) of acute management of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI).

    Methods

    We conducted comprehensive searches to March 2016 for published, English-language

    SRs and RCTs of acute management of moderate to severe TBI. Systematic reviews and

    RCTs were grouped under 12 broad intervention categories. For each review, we mapped

    the included and non-included RCTs, noting the reasons why RCTs were omitted. An SR

    was judged as ‘current’ when it included the most recently published RCT we found on their

    topic, and ‘complete’ when it included every RCT we found that met its inclusion criteria, tak-

    ing account of when the review was conducted. Quality was assessed using the AMSTAR

    checklist (trichotomised into low, moderate and high quality).

    PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198676 June 21, 2018 1 / 25

    a1111111111

    a1111111111

    a1111111111

    a1111111111

    a1111111111

    OPENACCESS

    Citation: Synnot A, Bragge P, Lunny C, Menon D,

    Clavisi O, Pattuwage L, et al. (2018) The currency,

    completeness and quality of systematic reviews of

    acute management of moderate to severe

    traumatic brain injury: A comprehensive evidence

    map. PLoS ONE 13(6): e0198676. https://doi.org/

    10.1371/journal.pone.0198676

    Editor: Robert K. Hills, Cardiff University, UNITED

    KINGDOM

    Received: April 18, 2017

    Accepted: May 23, 2018

    Published: June 21, 2018

    Copyright: © 2018 Synnot et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the

    Creative Commons Attribution License, which

    permits unrestricted use, distribution, and

    reproduction in any medium, provided the original

    author and source are credited.

    Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are

    within the paper and its Supporting Information

    files.

    Funding: This work was supported by the

    European Union FP 7th Framework program (Grant

    602150). The funder provided support in the form

    of salary for AS, but did not have any additional

    role in the study design, data collection and

    analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the

    manuscript. DKM is supported by the National

  • Findings

    We included 85 SRs and 213 RCTs examining the effectiveness of treatments for acute

    management of moderate to severe TBI. The most frequently reviewed interventions were

    hypothermia (n = 17, 14.2%), hypertonic saline and/or mannitol (n = 9, 7.5%) and surgery (n

    = 8, 6.7%). Of the 80 single-intervention SRs, approximately half (n = 44, 55%) were judged

    as current and two-thirds (n = 52, 65.0%) as complete. When considering only the most

    recently published review on each intervention (n = 25), currency increased to 72.0% (n =

    18). Less than half of the 85 SRs were judged as high quality (n = 38, 44.7%), and nearly

    20% were low quality (n = 16, 18.8%). Only 16 (20.0%) of the single-intervention reviews

    (and none of the five multi-intervention reviews) were judged as current, complete and high-

    quality. These included reviews of red blood cell transfusion, hypothermia, management

    guided by intracranial pressure, pharmacological agents (various) and prehospital intuba-

    tion. Over three-quarters (n = 167, 78.4%) of the 213 RCTs were included in one or more

    SR. Of the remainder, 17 (8.0%) RCTs post-dated or were out of scope of existing SRs, and

    29 (13.6%) were on interventions that have not been assessed in SRs.

    Conclusion

    A substantial number of SRs in acute management of moderate to severe TBI lack currency,

    completeness and quality. We have identified both potential evidence gaps and also sub-

    stantial research waste. Novel review methods, such as Living Systematic Reviews, may

    ameliorate these shortcomings and enhance utility and reliability of the evidence underpin-

    ning clinical care.

    Introduction

    Systematic reviews, as rigorous and replicable summaries of the existing research, have long

    been considered a cornerstone of evidence based medicine [1, 2]. Systematic reviews inform

    clinical care by underpinning clinical practice guidelines [3, 4] and guide future research by

    summarising what is known and highlighting what is unknown on a topic [5].

    As part of growing interest in increasing value and reducing waste in research [6, 7], there

    have been renewed calls for well-conducted systematic reviews to underpin all proposals for

    new primary research [8]. Yet, making sense of what is likely to be numerous evidence syntheses

    on a specific topic is increasingly challenging [9]. Systematic reviews are growing exponentially:

    current estimates suggest that over 8,000 systematic reviews are published annually [10]. A fur-

    ther complication is that many systematic reviews are poorly conducted and reported [10], with

    unnecessary duplication of topics, and conflicting or misleading results common [9, 11].

    The need for well-conducted and up-to-date evidence syntheses to inform clinical care and

    future research is particularly pertinent within the context of traumatic brain injury (TBI). TBI

    is a global health concern [12], with often devastating and ongoing physical and cognitive

    impairments, and substantial financial and social costs to individuals, families and communi-

    ties [13]. In the area of acute management of moderate to severe TBI, approximately 200

    randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted, exploring a myriad of pharmaco-

    logical, surgical and other treatments [14]. To date, however, TBI trials have largely shown dis-

    appointing results, with relatively few interventions underpinned by convincing evidence to

    support their use [14–16]. Strategic TBI research planning is therefore critical, such that

    research resources can be directed to areas of need and duplication of effort is avoided.

    Acute management of TBI: A comprehensive evidence map

    PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198676 June 21, 2018 2 / 25

    Institute for Health Research (UK). The specific

    roles of AS and DKM are articulated in the ‘author

    contributions’ section.

    Competing interests: We have read the journal’s

    policy and the authors of this manuscript have the

    following competing interests: AS, CL and ED are

    employed by or affiliated with Cochrane Australia,

    Monash University. Cochrane Australia is part of

    Cochrane, a not-for-profit organisation and global

    independent network of researchers, professionals,

    patients, carers and people interested in health,

    who publish and promote systematic reviews. The

    authors of this evidence map did not author any of

    the included systematic reviews. Neither Cochrane

    Australia, Cochrane nor the authors stand to gain

    any financial benefit from the results of this study.

    This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE

    policies on sharing data and material.

  • Broad overviews of the existing and emerging