Sarcopenic obesity and therapeutic outcomes in gastrointestinal surgical oncology: A meta-analysis

The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.

Background In systematic reviews and meta-analysis, researchers often pool the results of the sample mean and standard deviation from a set of similar clinical trials. A number of the trials, however, reported the study using the median, the minimum and maximum values, and/or the first and third quartiles. Hence, in order to combine results, one may have to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation for such trials. Methods In this paper, we propose to improve the existing literature in several directions. First, we show that the sample standard deviation estimation in Hozo et al.’s method (BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13, 2005) has some serious limitations and is always less satisfactory in practice. Inspired by this, we propose a new estimation method by incorporating the sample size. Second, we systematically study the sample mean and standard deviation estimation problem under several other interesting settings where the interquartile range is also available for the trials. Results We demonstrate the performance of the proposed methods through simulation studies for the three frequently encountered scenarios, respectively. For the first two scenarios, our method greatly improves existing methods and provides a nearly unbiased estimate of the true sample standard deviation for normal data and a slightly biased estimate for skewed data. For the third scenario, our method still performs very well for both normal data and skewed data. Furthermore, we compare the estimators of the sample mean and standard deviation under all three scenarios and present some suggestions on which scenario is preferred in real-world applications. Conclusions In this paper, we discuss different approximation methods in the estimation of the sample mean and standard deviation and propose some new estimation methods to improve the existing literature. We conclude our work with a summary table (an Excel spread sheet including all formulas) that serves as a comprehensive guidance for performing meta-analysis in different situations. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-135) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

This article is the first of a series providing guidance for use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations in systematic reviews, health technology assessments (HTAs), and clinical practice guidelines addressing alternative management options. The GRADE process begins with asking an explicit question, including specification of all important outcomes. After the evidence is collected and summarized, GRADE provides explicit criteria for rating the quality of evidence that include study design, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and magnitude of effect. Recommendations are characterized as strong or weak (alternative terms conditional or discretionary) according to the quality of the supporting evidence and the balance between desirable and undesirable consequences of the alternative management options. GRADE suggests summarizing evidence in succinct, transparent, and informative summary of findings tables that show the quality of evidence and the magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each important outcome and/or as evidence profiles that provide, in addition, detailed information about the reason for the quality of evidence rating. Subsequent articles in this series will address GRADE's approach to formulating questions, assessing quality of evidence, and developing recommendations. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.