• The Journal of Pediatrics of Korean Medicine
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.26-36
• /
• 2020

Objectives The purpose of this study is to assess the reporting quality and methodological quality of systematic reviews from the Journal of Pediatrics of Korean Medicine. Methods Systematic reviews were selected from the Journal of Pediatrics of Korean Medicine (JPKM) by utilizing Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System (OASIS) and JPKM homepage. Two independent researchers assessed the reporting quality through Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline checklist, and assessed the methodological quality of systematic review through Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool checklist. Results Four systematic reviews were finally selected for the assessment. When assessed by PRISMA, three literatures were little insufficient, and one literature was sufficient. When assessed by AMSTAR 2, three literatures were moderate quality, and one literature was critically low quality. Also, all of the reviews had no information about 'Protocol and registration', 'publication bias', and 'conflicts of interest'. Conclusions Systematic review is important for Journal of Pediatrics of Korean Medicine and Korean Medicine Society. Efforts are needed to improve the reporting and methodological quality of the systematic reviews through PRISMA and AMSTAR 2.

• The Journal of Korean Obstetrics and Gynecology
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.108-123
• /
• 2021

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the systematic reviews in the Journal of Korean obstetrics and gynecology. Methods: Systematic reviews in the Journal of Korean obstetrics and gynecology were selected from January 1987 to February 2021, by searching Koreanstudies Information Service System (KISS) and the search system of the Society of Korean medicine obstetrics and gynecology. The methodological and reporting quality was assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tool and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Results: Total of 19 systematic reviews were finally included for this study. The levels of methodological quality were low in 63.2% and very low in 36.8%. As a result of evaluating the reporting quality, 22 to 15 (average 18.6) items out of 27 items (81.5 to 55.6%) were reported. Conclusions: The results of a systematic review are helpful in giving a high level of evidence. In order to improve the quality of systematic reviews published in the Journal of Korean Obstetrics and Gynecology, it is necessary to perform and report according to the the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR 2.

• Safety and Health at Work
• /
• v.14 no.1
• /
• pp.135-140
• /
• 2023

Introduction: With recent higher awareness of the necessity of improving healthcare workers' wellbeing, we aimed to overview systematic reviews dealing with interventions on well-being, occupational health, and aging of healthcare workers. Methods: From three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science), a scoping review of systematic reviews was carried out to determine current knowledge on interventions focused on the well-being or aging of healthcare workers. Only systematic reviews were considered, with appropriate extraction and quality evaluation. Results: Of the total of 445 references identified, 10 systematic reviews were included, mostly published since 2019. Nurses were the most frequent targets of interventions, and mental health was the main outcome described. The overall level of quality was also heterogenous, with high to low-quality reviews. Conclusions: Workers' mental health well-being was the major outcome targeted by intervention, with varying level of evidence. Further studies are needed with integrative approaches on global health and life course perspectives, with a focus on the plurality of settings, worker types, and women.

• Nutrition Research and Practice
• /
• v.17 no.2
• /
• pp.175-191
• /
• 2023

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The scientific evidence of a sodium-obesity association is limited by sodium intake assessments. Our specific aim is to synthesize the association between dietary sodium intake and obesity across the sodium intake assessments as evidenced by systematic reviews in adults. SUBJECTS/METHODS: A systematic search identified systematic reviews comparing the association of dietary sodium intakes with obesity-related outcomes such as body mass index (BMI), body weight, waist circumference, and risk of (abdominal) obesity. We searched PubMed on October 24, 2022. To assess the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), we employed the ROBIS tool. RESULTS: This review included 3 systematic reviews, consisting of 39 unique observational studies (35 cross-sectional studies and 4 longitudinal studies) and 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We found consistently positive associations between dietary sodium intake and obesity-related outcomes in cross-sectional studies. Studies that used 24-h urine collection indicated a greater BMI for those with higher sodium intake (mean difference = 2.27 kg/m²; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.59-2.51; P < 0.001; I² = 77%) compared to studies that used spot urine (mean difference = 1.34 kg/m²; 95% CI, 1.13-1.55; P < 0.001; I² = 95%) and dietary methods (mean difference = 0.85 kg/m²; 95% CI, 0.1-1.51; P < 0.05; I² = 95%). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative synthesis of the systematic reviews has shown that cross-sectional associations between dietary sodium intake and obesity outcomes were substantially different across the sodium intake assessments. We need more high-quality prospective cohort studies and RCTs using 24-h urine collection to examine the causal effects of sodium intake on obesity.

• Journal of Acupuncture Research
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.57-64
• /
• 2011

Objectives : The aim of this study is to overview the current status of Cochrane systematic review of acupuncture. Methods : Published Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols for evaluating acupuncture and/or moxibustion were searched by the terms 'acupuncture' and 'moxibustion' in Issue 1, Cochrane Library, 2011. Only reviews or protocols that regarded acupuncture or moxibustion as primary methods of intervention in their reviews were included. Data regarding first author national affiliation, intervention and disease, as well as the number of reviews or protocols that included Korean, Chinese, or Japanese databases in search strategies were obtained. Results : We found 92 hits at screening, and 59 studies were eligible for this review. Included interventions were acupuncture (n=56), auricular acupuncture (n=2), and moxibustion (n=1) for various diseases and conditions. The number of publications of Cochrane systematic reviews or protocols increased gradually from 2002 to 2011. First authors' affiliations were located in China (n=32), Australia (n=8), UK (n=7), Canada (n=4), U.S. (n=4), Germany (n=2), Norway, (n=1) and Korea (n=1). 44, four and four Cochrane reviews adopted Chinese, Korean and Japanese databases, respectively. Conclusions : Search strategies in a substantial number of Cochrane reviews or protocols for acupuncture and moxibustion heavily relied on Chinese databases. Korean databases were underused in existing Cochrane reviews and protocols, and Korean authors were much less involved in the Cochrane systematic reviews or protocols than Chinese authors. Further studies need to be conducted in order to incorporate evidence of acupuncture reported in Korean databases into the Cochrane systematic reviews.

• Journal of Korean Medicine Rehabilitation
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.85-107
• /
• 2022

Objectives The purpose of this study was to assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the Journal of Korean Medicine Rehabilitation (JKMR) using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Methods Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in JKMR, published from January 1991 to January 2022, were selected by searching the Korean studies Information Service System and JKMR homepage. Two independent researchers searched and selected systematic reviews and meta-analyses and evaluated the reporting quality of abstracts and main texts using the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Results Of 1,515 articles, 39 systematic reviews were finally included for assessment. Evaluation of abstracts resulted in 2 studies rated as high, 11 studies rated as moderate, and 26 studies rated as low. A maximum of 83.3% and a minimum of 25.0% of the items were reported in the abstracts. Evaluation of the manuscripts resulted in no studies rated as high, 14 studies rated as moderate, and 25 studies rated as low. A maximum of 67.9% and a minimum of 34.1% of the items were reported in the manuscripts. Conclusions To improve the quality of systematic reviews published in JKMR, it is necessary to conduct systematic reviews based on the PRISMA 2020 guidelines.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles
• /
• v.44 no.2
• /
• pp.273-294
• /
• 2020

Considering the complex relationship between fashion curating and the critical approach of fashion exhibition reviews, this study explores the current state of fashion criticism in museology, focusing on fashion designer exhibition reviews of Fashion Theory. The author selected eighteen exhibition reviews of individual fashion designers' works from 1997 on to the current 2020 issues of Fashion Theory, which provides an interdisciplinary forum to analyze fashion as a cultural construction. The author performed a systematic review that qualitatively summarizes and/or synthesizes the findings of the studies on the topic with the process of a systematic review, such as key question formulation, analytic framework building, evidence mapping, critical appraisal, and evidence synthesis. The results of this study are as follows. First, the exhibition reviews included almost all stages of the inclusive fashion criticism model, based on an artifact study. Second, they reflected various critical discourses that offered current interpretations of historical and contemporary fashion. Third, they showed that fashion criticism in the museum context is the result of an interdisciplinary collaboration of various fashion agents. Finally, they offered a bridge for crossing the boundaries of various scholarly fields, as they combine multidisciplinary scholarship with object-based methods.

• Journal of Acupuncture Research
• /
• v.24 no.5
• /
• pp.151-170
• /
• 2007

Backgraounds : Recent studies provide the evidences that the efficacy of acupuncture may be no better than placebo or inconclusive. These results are very different from those of the actual clinical situations in many acupuncture medical institutions. Objectives : The present study was designed to evaluate the influencing factors which affect the efficacy of acupuncture scale(FEAS) as the methodological assessment tool of acupuncture for examining acupuncture interventions and to demonstrate the importance of it in randomized controlled trials of acupuncture. Data sources : Electronic data were retrieved from NDSL, Pubmed, sciencedirect, LWW, OVID, Black-Well Synergy, Wiley Interscience, EBSCO HOST, springer, PML, and Kluwer. No electronic data were collected from MEDLIS and MEDLAS. Study selection : The inclusion criteria were five systematic reviews included in Alberta study and all randomized controlled trials obtained from their references. Study analysis : The acupuncture rationale, methods of stimulation, treatment regimen, and the practitioner's background were rated by FEAS, and the scores were compared with those by other methodological assessment tools. Results : The number of positive conclusions of high-rank RCTs by FEAS was the same as or higher than that of high-rank RCTs by other methodological assessment tools. Conclusions : We have analysed 5 systematic reviews and their objectives 58 RCTs using FEAS. Practitioner's background has been described slightly in some reviews and studies. It may directly influence the effectiveness of acupuncture negatively in the systematic reviews.

• Journal of Society of Preventive Korean Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.67-76
• /
• 2019

Objectives : The publication of systematic reviews (SRs) has increased significantly over the years, and systematic reviews are considered to have the strongest evidence as they are at the top of the hierarchy of evidence pyramid. In this study, a thorough assessment of all SRs published in Journal of Society of Preventive Korean Medicine (JSPKM) was performed to evaluate their reporting quality and methodological quality to better improve the quality of SRs in JSPKM. Methods : JSPKM website was searched to include all SRs published in JSPKM from 1997 to 2018. Two independent researchers assessed the SRs using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR, formerly known as Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) tool checklist for methodological quality assessment, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline checklist for reporting quality assessment. Results : Out of 618 published articles published in JSPKM from 1997 to 2018, only 3 SRs were identified as SRs. For AMSTAR methodological quality scoring, the average score of 3 SRs was 3.0 out of 11 which is low quality level. For PRISMA reporting quality items, the 3 SRs reported 17.3 items on average out of 27 items. The 3 identified SRs did not provide information on protocol or registration which is included in both AMSTAR assessment tool and PRISMA guideline. Conclusions : Improvements on reporting quality and methodological quality of SRs using relevant tools or guidelines are needed to assure the quality of SRs published in JSPKM so that their conclusions will be more transparent and reliable for decision-making in healthcare and the best clinical practice.

• Journal of Korean Dental Science
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.115-127
• /
• 2023

The demand for orthodontic clear aligner therapy (CAT) has increased significantly over the last decade, offering advantages over the fixed appliances (FA) including enhanced aesthetics, better hygiene and comfort, along with minimal restrictions on the patient's diet. Moreover, a marked improvement in the efficacy of tooth movement using aligners has been documented. On the contrary, there have been known limitations of CAT including the compliances issues and the apparent lack of efficacy for certain types of tooth movement such as closure of extraction space compared to FA. Thus, evidence-based evaluation of the accuracy of prediction of tooth movement with clear aligners and their ability to effectively perform major tooth and root movements compared to FA are crucial. Although several systematic reviews have investigated various aspects of the effectiveness of CAT, we are yet to obtain a rather conclusive answer to this question. The current review attempted to summarize the evidence-based findings of most systematic reviews about CAT available to date. Major issues regarding the predictability of tooth movement, the role of attachments and auxiliaries in improving the effectiveness of CAT, and the treatment outcomes in comparison to FA were investigated. Clinical recommendation have been also elaborated based on the interpretation of the findings of all systematic reviews included in this study.