Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25116765›Full record

SynthesisIndian journal of ophthalmology2014

The methodological quality of systematic reviews comparing intravitreal bevacizumab and alternates for neovascular age related macular degeneration: A systematic review of reviews.

Pradeep Paul George, Joseph Antonio DeCastro Molina, Bee Hoon Heng

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Pradeep Paul GeorgeHealth Services and Outcomes Research, National Healthcare Group HQ, Singapore.
Joseph Antonio DeCastro Molina
Bee Hoon Heng

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically collate and evaluate the evidence from recent SRs of bevacizumab for neo-vascular age related macular degeneration. MATERIALS AND

methodsLiterature searches were carried out in Medline, Embase, Cochrane databases for all systematic reviews (SRs) on the effectiveness of bevacizumab for neo-vascular age related macular degeneration, published between 2000 and 2013. Titles and abstracts were assessed against the inclusion/exclusion criteria using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) study eligibility form. Data was extracted using the JBI data extraction form. The quality of the SRs was assessed using JBI critical appraisal checklist for SRs. Decisions on study eligibility and quality were made by two reviewers; any disagreements were resolved by discussion.

resultsNine relevant reviews were identified from 30 citations, of which 5 reviews fulfilled the review's inclusion criteria. All 5 reviews showed bevacizumab to be effective for neovascular AMD in the short-term when used alone or in combination with PDT or Pegaptanib. The average quality score of the reviews was 7; 95% confidence interval 6.2 to 7.8 (maximum possible quality score is 10). The selection and publication bias were not addressed in all included reviews. Three-fifth of the reviews had a quality score of 7 or lower, these reviews had some methodological limitations, search strategies were only identified in 2 (40%) reviews, independent study selection and quality assessment of included studies (4 (80%)) were infrequently performed.

conclusionOverall, the reviews on the effectiveness of intravitreal/systemic bevacizumab for neovascular  age-related macular generation (AMD) received good JBI quality scores (mean score = 7.0 points), with a few exceptions. The study also highlights the suboptimal reporting of SRs on this topic. Reviews with poor methodology may limit the validity of the reported results; hence efforts should be made to improve the design, reporting and publication of SRs across all journals.

Indexed as

Angiogenesis InhibitorsAptamers, NucleotideBevacizumabHumansIntravitreal InjectionsMacular DegenerationRetinal NeovascularizationVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AAngiogenesis InhibitorsAptamers, NucleotideBevacizumabpegaptanibVascular Endothelial Growth Factor A

Identifiers

PMID25116765
PMCPMC4152642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.