Siedler, Madelin

Abstract Introduction While certainty of evidence assessment is key to a rigorous and transparent systematic review, it is unknown how – and how frequently – it is assessed in systematic reviews. The objective of this study was to examine the prevalence and approaches used for certainty of evidence assessment in systematic reviews published in high‐impact medicine journals over the past 11 years. Methods A PubMed search and hand‐searching of relevant journal websites identified systematic reviews published between 24 January 2013 and 23 January 2024 in any of the ten highest‐impact journals in the General and Internal Medicine category of the Journal Citation Report. Two reviewers independently selected any systematic review related to health outcomes assessing certainty of evidence using any method. We extracted data related to review characteristics, certainty of evidence and risk of bias/methodological quality assessment frameworks, and reported consideration of certainty of evidence domains. Logistic regression examined year of publication to determine whether the prevalence of certainty of evidence assessment changed over time. Results Of 1,023 included reviews, 346 (33.8%) assessed certainty of evidence. Prevalence of certainty of evidence assessment increased over time (0.16 ± 0.2; p < .001). Most (89.3%) of reviews used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess certainty of evidence. Conclusion Only one in three systematic reviews published in the highest‐impact medical journals over the past 11 years assessed certainty of evidence, though prevalence increased over time. The use of specific domains within each certainty of evidence framework was not clearly described in all reviews.

Abstract Objective . Bioimpedance devices are commonly used to assess health parameters and track changes in body composition. However, the cross-sectional agreement between different devices has not been conclusively established. Thus, the objective of this investigation was to examine the agreement between raw bioelectrical variables (resistance, reactance, and phase angle at the 50 kHz frequency) obtained from three bioimpedance analyzers. Approach . Healthy male ( n = 76, mean ± SD; 33.8 ± 14.5 years; 83.9 ± 15.1 kg; 179.4 ± 6.9 cm) and female ( n = 103, mean ± SD; 33.4 ± 15.9 years; 65.6 ± 12.1 kg; 164.9 ± 6.4 cm) participants completed assessments using three bioimpedance devices: supine bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS), supine single-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (SFBIA), and standing multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MFBIA). Differences in raw bioelectrical variables between the devices were quantified via one-way analysis of variance for the total sample and for each sex. Equivalence testing was used to determine equivalence between methods. Main results . Significant differences in all bioelectrical variables were observed between the three devices when examining the total sample and males only. The devices appeared to exhibit slightly better agreement when analyzing female participants only. Equivalence testing using the total sample as well as males and females separately revealed that resistance and phase angle were equivalent between the supine devices (BIS, SFBIA), but not with the standing analyzer (MFBIA). Significance . The present study demonstrated disagreement between different bioimpedance analyzers for quantifying raw bioelectrical variables, with the poorest agreement between devices that employed different body positions during testing. These results suggest that researchers and clinicians should employ device-specific reference values to classify participants based on raw bioelectrical variables, such as phase angle. If reference values are needed but are unavailable for a particular bioimpedance analyzer, the set of reference values produced using the most similar analyzer and reference population should be selected.

Introduction Physical activity can prevent a wide range of diseases, including highly prevalent conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and associated cardiometabolic disorders. Numerous guidelines for the prescription of physical activity and exercise to promote general health and prevent disease are released each year, but the quality of these guidelines is currently unknown. This systematic review and critical appraisal of physical activity and exercise guidelines aims to summarise the current status and quality of these guidelines to provide suggestions to improve the development of future guidelines in this area. Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review of guidelines in Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, and Daily, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus databases published from database 2000 through 23 October 2019, written in English for the use of physical activity and exercise for the prevention of cardiometabolic disease and related risk factors in otherwise healthy individuals. We will also search the grey literature for additional eligible documents. We will use the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool to assess the quality of eligible recommendations from all included guidelines, as well as perform exploratory analyses on guideline development variables. Ethics and dissemination As a protocol for the review and critical appraisal of published documents, no potential ethical considerations are discussed. The protocol will guide the development of the review, which will be disseminated to relevant journals for publication. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019126364