Article type
Abstract
Background: Evaluating the quality of evidence in systematic reviews is crucial to ensure the reliability and utility of the information generated, benefiting health professionals, policymakers, and researchers alike. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system serves as a standard for assessing evidence quality and health recommendation strength and offers a systematic and transparent framework for appraising confidence in evidence and crafting clinical recommendations.
Objectives: To assess the Quality of Evidence in Non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews.
Methods: We conducted searches on PubMed/MedLine and Embase from inception to January 2024. No language or data restrictions were applied. The retrieved articles were imported into Rayyan, where two authors independently assessed and extracted data. We included non-Cochrane systematic reviews with meta-analyses that addressed postmenopausal women treated with physical energy for urogenital atrophy. The authors declare no conflicts of interest, and there was no public involvement in this work.
Results: A total of 68 studies were retrieved (19 from Embase and 49 from PubMed). Forty-six were excluded due to duplication. After reviewing titles and full texts, 135 articles were excluded. Eight studies met the eligibility criteria. Among these, four did not evaluate evidence quality. The remaining four studies utilized the GRADE tool, recommended by the Cochrane Institution. Two studies discussed quality assessment and provided data on risk of bias, with one presenting both risk of bias and GRADE assessment within the same topic. One study lacked a detailed GRADE table, describing results solely in the text (Figure 1). The majority of GRADE-utilizing studies were conducted in 2022 (n= 2), in Italy (n= 2), encompassing a total of 58 studies and 2.560 patients (Table 1).
Conclusions: These findings underscore the necessity of rigorously evaluating evidence quality in scientific studies and advocate for a consistent and transparent approach to doing so. Utilizing recognized tools like GRADE can bolster the credibility and applicability of studies in clinical and policy decision-making.
Objectives: To assess the Quality of Evidence in Non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews.
Methods: We conducted searches on PubMed/MedLine and Embase from inception to January 2024. No language or data restrictions were applied. The retrieved articles were imported into Rayyan, where two authors independently assessed and extracted data. We included non-Cochrane systematic reviews with meta-analyses that addressed postmenopausal women treated with physical energy for urogenital atrophy. The authors declare no conflicts of interest, and there was no public involvement in this work.
Results: A total of 68 studies were retrieved (19 from Embase and 49 from PubMed). Forty-six were excluded due to duplication. After reviewing titles and full texts, 135 articles were excluded. Eight studies met the eligibility criteria. Among these, four did not evaluate evidence quality. The remaining four studies utilized the GRADE tool, recommended by the Cochrane Institution. Two studies discussed quality assessment and provided data on risk of bias, with one presenting both risk of bias and GRADE assessment within the same topic. One study lacked a detailed GRADE table, describing results solely in the text (Figure 1). The majority of GRADE-utilizing studies were conducted in 2022 (n= 2), in Italy (n= 2), encompassing a total of 58 studies and 2.560 patients (Table 1).
Conclusions: These findings underscore the necessity of rigorously evaluating evidence quality in scientific studies and advocate for a consistent and transparent approach to doing so. Utilizing recognized tools like GRADE can bolster the credibility and applicability of studies in clinical and policy decision-making.