Shayden Bryce1, Elise Sloan2, Stuart Lee3, Jennie Ponsford4, Susan Rossell5. 1. School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia; Monash Alfred Psychiatry Research Centre, The Alfred and Monash University Central Clinical School, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Electronic address: Shayden.Bryce@monash.edu. 2. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, Australia. 3. School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia; Monash Alfred Psychiatry Research Centre, The Alfred and Monash University Central Clinical School, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 4. Monash-Epworth Rehabilitation Research Centre, Richmond, VIC, Australia. 5. School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia; Monash Alfred Psychiatry Research Centre, The Alfred and Monash University Central Clinical School, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Brain and Psychological Sciences Research Centre, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are a primary source of evidence when evaluating the benefit(s) of cognitive remediation (CR) in schizophrenia. These studies are designed to rigorously synthesize scientific literature; however, cannot be assumed to be of high methodological quality. The aims of this report were to: 1) review the use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding CR in schizophrenia; 2) conduct a systematic methodological appraisal of published reports examining the benefits of this intervention on core outcome domains; and 3) compare the correspondence between methodological and reporting quality. METHOD: Electronic databases were searched for relevant articles. Twenty-one reviews met inclusion criteria and were scored according to the AMSTAR checklist-a validated scale of methodological quality. Five meta-analyses were also scored according to PRISMA statement to compare 'quality of conduct' with 'quality of reporting'. RESULTS: Most systematic reviews and meta-analyses shared strengths and fell within a 'medium' level of methodological quality. Nevertheless, there were consistent areas of potential weakness that were not addressed by most reviews. These included the lack of protocol registration, uncertainty regarding independent data extraction and consensus procedures, and the minimal assessment of publication bias. Moreover, quality of conduct may not necessarily parallel quality of reporting, suggesting that consideration of these methods independently may be important. CONCLUSIONS: Reviews concerning CR for schizophrenia are a valuable source of evidence. However, the methodological quality of these reports may require additional consideration. Enhancing quality of conduct is essential for enabling research literature to be interpreted with confidence.
OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are a primary source of evidence when evaluating the benefit(s) of cognitive remediation (CR) in schizophrenia. These studies are designed to rigorously synthesize scientific literature; however, cannot be assumed to be of high methodological quality. The aims of this report were to: 1) review the use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding CR in schizophrenia; 2) conduct a systematic methodological appraisal of published reports examining the benefits of this intervention on core outcome domains; and 3) compare the correspondence between methodological and reporting quality. METHOD: Electronic databases were searched for relevant articles. Twenty-one reviews met inclusion criteria and were scored according to the AMSTAR checklist-a validated scale of methodological quality. Five meta-analyses were also scored according to PRISMA statement to compare 'quality of conduct' with 'quality of reporting'. RESULTS: Most systematic reviews and meta-analyses shared strengths and fell within a 'medium' level of methodological quality. Nevertheless, there were consistent areas of potential weakness that were not addressed by most reviews. These included the lack of protocol registration, uncertainty regarding independent data extraction and consensus procedures, and the minimal assessment of publication bias. Moreover, quality of conduct may not necessarily parallel quality of reporting, suggesting that consideration of these methods independently may be important. CONCLUSIONS: Reviews concerning CR for schizophrenia are a valuable source of evidence. However, the methodological quality of these reports may require additional consideration. Enhancing quality of conduct is essential for enabling research literature to be interpreted with confidence.
Authors: Andrew Ross; Justin Rankin; Jason Beaman; Kelly Murray; Philip Sinnett; Ross Riddle; Jordan Haskins; Matt Vassar Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Catherine Morey-Nase; Lisa J Phillips; Shayden Bryce; Sarah Hetrick; Andrea L Wright; Emma Caruana; Kelly Allott Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Alexandre A Guerin; Yvonne Bonomo; Andrew John Lawrence; Bernhard Theodor Baune; Eric J Nestler; Susan L Rossell; Jee Hyun Kim Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Alexander L Richards; Antonio F Pardiñas; Aura Frizzati; Katherine E Tansey; Amy J Lynham; Peter Holmans; Sophie E Legge; Jeanne E Savage; Ingrid Agartz; Ole A Andreassen; Gabriella A M Blokland; Aiden Corvin; Donna Cosgrove; Franziska Degenhardt; Srdjan Djurovic; Thomas Espeseth; Laura Ferraro; Charlotte Gayer-Anderson; Ina Giegling; Neeltje E van Haren; Annette M Hartmann; John J Hubert; Erik G Jönsson; Bettina Konte; Leonhard Lennertz; Loes M Olde Loohuis; Ingrid Melle; Craig Morgan; Derek W Morris; Robin M Murray; Håkan Nyman; Roel A Ophoff; Jim van Os; Tracey L Petryshen; Diego Quattrone; Marcella Rietschel; Dan Rujescu; Bart P F Rutten; Fabian Streit; Jana Strohmaier; Patrick F Sullivan; Kjetil Sundet; Michael Wagner; Valentina Escott-Price; Michael J Owen; Gary Donohoe; Michael C O'Donovan; James T R Walters Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 9.306