Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review

Mary Okesola; Julius Okesola; Olubanke Ogunlana; Israel Afolabi

doi:10.12688/f1000research.124879.2

Home Browse Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Systematic Review

Revised

Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]

Mary Okesola¹, Julius Okesola^2,3, Olubanke Ogunlana^1,4, Israel Afolabi¹

PUBLISHED 08 Mar 2024

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Biochemistry, Covenant University, Ota, Ogun, 039, Nigeria
² Department of Computer Sciences, First Technical university, Ibadan, Oyo, 022, Nigeria
³ Africa Centre of Excellence on Technology Enhanced Learning (ACETEL), National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, Abuja, 09, Nigeria
⁴ Covenant Applied Informatics and Communication Africa Centre of Excellence (CApIC-ACE), Covenant University, Ota, Ogun, 039, Nigeria

Mary Okesola
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Julius Okesola
Roles: Methodology, Software, Writing – Review & Editing

Olubanke Ogunlana
Roles: Project Administration, Supervision

Israel Afolabi
Roles: Supervision, Validation

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background

A systematic literature review (SLR) is a research methodology that examines data and findings of other authors relative to specified research questions (RQ), collects multiple research studies, and summarises them to answer a research question using rigorous methods. Many SLRs have been published on uterine fibroids (UFs) in the last two decades but there is a dearth of knowledge on assessment of the quality to determine the reliability of results.

Methods

This study employed the SLR method to identify available SLRs published on UFs. Dybå and Dingsøyr quality standards and dichotomous grading scales were employed to determine the quality of primary studies. On February 3rd, 2022, an auto search was conducted twice over Citeseer, EBSCO, ACM, Springer Link, IEE Computer society digital library, and Scopus using 17 search strings. Two teams independently screened papers and compared notes with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. 11 criterial were adapted to evaluate the quality of the SLR’s.

Results

33 SLRs were subjected to data extraction after inclusion/exclusion criteria. Answers to our primary research question was positive as the aims and contexts of the SLRs are generally clear and the methodologies employed are all inclusive. The research outputs of the primary studies are valid and justifiable as their research statements were clear and findings unambiguous. Although some studies failed some quality criteria, answers to all RQs were affirmative as the percentage scores of the studies on each of the quality conditions is favourably high.

Conclusions

The auto search may be incomplete because some qualified SLRs may have been missed as the choice of search strings was limited and may have omitted terminologies. Notwithstanding, with average quality scores of 83% in reporting, 81.2% in rigour, and 79% in credibility, this study concludes that majority of the meta-analysis published so far on UF are valid and reliable.

Keywords

Medicine, meta-analysis, Past Studies, Quality Condition, Quality Assessment, Structured Review, Systematic Literature Review; Uterine Fibroids.

Corresponding author: Mary Okesola

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2024 Okesola M et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Okesola M, Okesola J, Ogunlana O and Afolabi I. Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review [version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 11:1050 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124879.2) First published: 14 Sep 2022, 11:1050 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124879.1) Latest published: 08 Mar 2024, 11:1050 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124879.2)

Revised Amendments from Version 1

The article has now been reviewed by an English Language Editor.

The incorrect reference no 16 is now corrected to be 26.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Mary Ann Lumsden
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Andrea Etrusco

Introduction

Evidenced-based studies started in medicine and became generally accepted as expert opinions based on results obtained from scientific experiments appears more reliable than those obtained from medical advice.¹ Evidence here refers to a combination of best quality scientific works on a topic or research question. A systematic literature review (SLR) is a main method of this synthesis. It is a methodologically rigorous review of research results aimed not just at aggregating all existing evidence on a research question but also targeted at supporting the development of evidence-based guidelines for practitioners.¹ Its use in software engineering and computer sciences subject areas, and its application has been increasing since 2004¹ as it considers findings from varying sources to form a position. Notwithstanding this popularity, the quality of the SLRs’ results should be assessed to determine both the level of confidence to be placed on them as well as the required recommendations to offer.²

As an instance, we have two schools of thought regarding gynaecological conditions in pregnancy. Myomectomy during ceserean section (CS) was condemned for severe bleeding and potential hysterectomy. Whereas, there are advocates for myomectomy at sittings of surgery three to six months after delivery to promote uterus involution, myomas shrinkage, and reduce operative time and blood loss.³^,⁴ Nowadays, gynaecologists are advocating for the removal of myoma due to its minimal operative time, mild (or no) complications to call for a second surgery, and gross reduction in the total cost of myomas surgery. Systematic literatures have reviewed the perioperative complications of caesarean myomectomy (CM) and found increased operative time and drop in haemoglobin in cases of caesarean myomectomy.³ in their Evidenced-based reviews, Arowolo et al.,⁵ also argued that Uterine artery embolization advantages over surgery is short-term and that the benefits were similar on the mid- and long-term. However, the qualities of these studies have not been evaluated to raise the confidence in their findings and reduce bias in their review process for better interpretation of results.

Primary studies assessment can actually be complicated since there is no specific definition for “quality”.²^,⁶ However, some notable researchers such as Jadadet et al.,⁷ Dybå and Dingsøyr,⁸ Kitchenham et al.,,⁹ and Sjoberg et al.,¹⁰ have successfully developed guidelines and tools specifically meant for the purpose, but much more concerned about what the results are, their validity, and whether or not they will be locally useful.⁶^,¹¹ Since the “quality of a study is closely linked to the research methods used and the validity of the findings generated by the study”,¹⁰ this study comprehensively reviewed the quality of the past available related studies published by evaluating various methods used by primary studies of each of the selected SLRs to clearly established the validity of their results. Hence, the authors did not place a date or year bound/limit on the search engine in other to have a sizeable number of primary studies to work with having realized that not much SLRs has been done on leiomyomas or myomas to date – February 3^rd, 2022.

Past related works

Quality is regarded as “an extent to which systematic errors or bias may be prevented through the review and analysis of primary studies”.¹² Yet, researchers are less interested in quality assurance and assessment as only very small numbers of SLRs aimed at the quality assessment of their primary studies.

Orlando et al.,¹³ employed the National Institutes of Health Study Quality Assessment tools to perform quality assessment of SLR towards identifying the identifying best practices for non-hysteroscopic myomectomy for women with myomas but still desire future fertility. Their initial searches on selected databases returned 2,163 studies out of which only 51 met their inclusion criteria. The authors noted that the route of non-hysteroscopy myomectomy and intraoperative uterine artery occlusion did not significantly affect pregnancy rates or outcomes. Giving a clear insight into patient selection and intraoperative techniques for non-hysteroscopy myomectomy, the study recommended further research with well-designed clinical trials to highlight the relationships between myoma characteristics and reproductive outcomes.

Notwithstanding its high prevalence, the fibroids psychosocial impact was yet to be compared with other chronic conditions and evaluated across the quality-of-life indicators. Hence, Go, Virginia et al.,¹⁴ thoroughly appraised the available evidence against the UF psychosocial burden in premenopausal women and contrasted the quality of life validated and symptom scores before and after treatment. The authors engaged three independent reviewers to screen various abstracts and tiles of selected SLRs towards obtaining full text studies from notable databases for further assessment. They observed that quality-of-life scores in UF patients were usually low at baseline compared to after treatment and that, there are therapeutic success and improvement of both physical and emotional symptoms after treatment.

Tranoulis, Anastasios¹⁵ auto-searched some digital libraries and broad indexes to produce the first meta-analysis that could provide a convincing overview of efficacy and safety of laparoscopic uterine artery occlusion (LUAO). Comparing the long and short-terms morbidity of laparoscopic myomectomy (even without LUAO), the study modified the Jadad score to assess the quality of Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but employed methodologic index for nonrandomized studies to evaluate the quality of observational studies (OSs).

Symptomatic uterine myomas, two independent researchers in Jeng et al.,¹⁶ carried out data selection to perform a comparative study of the clinical outcomes of uterine artery embolization and those of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation in women with myomas. The study quality was assessed using the “Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews” while the pooled mean difference and relative risks were both calculated at 95% confidence interval for the respective continuous data and dichotomous data. Although, the authors could not ascertain that HIFU is far better for desired pregnancy considering the confounding factors, they postulated that uterine artery embolization (UAE) lowers both postoperative re-intervention rate and pregnancy rate for women with uterine myomas and provide more significant alleviation of symptoms and improvement in quality of life.

Methods

Researchers have built several guidelines and checklist good enough for quality assessment in SLR.¹⁷ While majority of these tools rally round the validity of the research outcomes, a few others look more at the methodological characteristics of the study. Jadad et al.,⁷ and CASP¹⁸ are popular tools and commonly adapted in Sociology and Software Engineering¹⁹ but their scales are not directly applicable to Medicine. Hence, following the raising of the study questions and review of past related studies, Dybå and Dingsøyr⁸ 11 criterial were adapted in this study to evaluate the quality of the SLR’s primary studies. In which case, each of these criteria, graded with a dichotomous scale (Yes=1; No=0), is categorized into the following four main issues for ease of quality assessments.

• Reporting: Criteria (1, 2, and 3) are about the quality of the report of research aims, rationale, and context.
• Rigor: Criteria (4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) have to do with the objectivity of the research methods used to establish the validity of data collection tools and the analysis methods, and hence the trustworthiness of the findings.
• Credibility: Criteria (9 and 10) are connected directly to assess the credibility of the research methods to ensure the validity of the findings.
• Relevance: Criterion 11 is concerned with the relevance of the study to the research community.at large.

The questions

The primary research question (RQ) is “How reliable are the meta-analysis in the Uterine Fibroids”?

This question is broken down into the following secondary questions to address the study objectives

• RQ1: Are the SLRs studies centred on clear aims and description of context?
• RQ2: How inclusive are the methodologies employed in the primary studies?
• RQ3: Are the study output valid?

The search process

We conducted three independent searches on February 3^rd and 4^th 2022, and all were without publication date restriction. Our initial auto searches of five notable digital libraries and broad indexes for relevant SLRs (Citeseer, EBSCO, ACM,Springer Link, IEE Computer society digital library) did not return much related studies. Our second Search was over Scopus and returned 153 studies fleshed SLRs but PowerPoint templates or lecture notes. This search was complicated as it was done 17 times using the underlisted set of search strings (SS) since Scopus does not allow very simple construction of complex searches:

1. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “review of studies”
2. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “structured review”
3. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “systematic review”
4. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “literature review”
5. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “literature analysis”
6. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “in-depth survey”
7. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “literature survey”
8. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “meta-analysis”
9. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “past studies”
10. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “subject matter expert”
11. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “Analysis of research”
12. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “empirical body of knowledge”
13. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “overview of existing knowledge”
14. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “body of published research ”
15. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “review”
16. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “literature analysis”
17. “Fibroid OR leiomyomas OR myomas” AND “literature listing”

However, our third search, which was limited to the source - “Science Direct” only, was simple and straightforward as the underlisted complex searches were applied only once using the independent search strings SS1 and SS2 in isolation:

SS1 Title, abstract or author-specified keywords

(leiomyomas OR myomas) AND (“literature review” OR “systematic review” OR “structured review” OR “review of study” OR “literature analysis” OR “in-depth survey” OR “literature survey”)

SS2 Title, abstract or author-specified keywords

(leiomyomas OR myomas) AND (“meta-analysis” OR “past studies” OR “subject matter expert” OR “Analysis of research” OR “empirical body of knowledge” OR “overview of existing knowledge” OR “body of published research”)

Having noted that not many SLRs are available on Fibroid studies, all searches were conducted without publication date restrictions. However, the searches were limited to document title and keywords, which usually carry the research subjects. To avoid human error, two researchers were engaged to independently conduct the literature search, and their results were compared for completeness. Searches over Scopus are mainly not fully fleshed out but they are still relevant to this study as their output helps to validate our search process when compared with papers found in our last search. Since 96 of 98 fully fleshed SLRs found therein were part of the total SLRs found in the third search, we adjudge our search process and procedure to be okay and accurate.

Study selection

The results of the three searches were integrated together to have 169 papers in total which we eventually subjected to initial screening over their title, abstract, and keywords. Sorting on the document title, the total papers was reduced to 65 having removed 104 articles including the 98 SLRs found in Scopus to avoid duplication since they are also found in Science Direct (our third search). We assume that the abstract or title of any quality papers should contain at least one of the search strings. Hence, searching over both the title and abstract columns to exclude papers that have no abstract²⁰ or those that exclude literature review or any of the search strings (SS), another 12 articles were removed and the total SLRs were further reduced to 53, all of which were subsequently subjected to a more detailed assessment:

These 53 SLRs were electronically downloaded and two teams of two members each were formed to screen the papers for possible exclusion or inclusion. Consequently, the teams compared their notes to prevent false acceptance or false rejection, and differences were addressed following the underlisted exclusion criteria:

• The SLR is not fully fleshed but a mere research or lesson note.
• The topic is medicine or surgery and not related to Fibroid nor discusses systematic/literature reviews.
• The SLR followed a vague search process.

Three papers⁶^,²¹^,²² were rejected in this process for not being full-fleshed research publications, but a mere research/lesson note or PowerPoint template. 15 SLRs were excluded based on unrelated topics or failure to discuss systematic literature but dissimilar domains like surgery or Microbiology. Similarly, two other papers²³^,²⁴ did not follow a defined search process and were dropped to have just 33 SLRs subjected to data extraction (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The study selection flow diagram.

Data extraction process

A similar procedure to data selection was followed to extract data and identified the SRSs presented on Table 1. As a quality assurance measure, the following parameters were identified for each of the selected papers:

• The publication date/year (to show how current the SLRs)
• The type of the document (journal, workshop, book chapter, conference).
• The number of primary studies in the SLR (as stated by the author).
• The aspects of UF studied

Table 1. Quality scores for the 33 systematic literature reviews (SLRs).

Study No	Year	Document Type	No of 1^o studies	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Q11
¹⁶	2020	Journal article	408	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1
²⁷	2015	Journal article	15	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	1
²⁸	2019	Journal article	2351	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1
²⁹	2014	Journal article	645	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1
³⁰	2018	Journal article	2016	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
³¹	2015	Journal article	345	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
³²	2017	Journal article	986	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
³³	2016	Journal article	122	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	1
³⁴	2010	Journal article	17	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1
³⁵	2012	Journal article	85	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1
³⁶	2014	Journal article	99	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1
¹³	2020	Journal article	2163	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1
³⁷	2018	Journal article	18	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1
³⁸	2012	Journal article	5	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
³⁹	2014	Journal article	676	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
⁴⁰	2017	Journal article	5347	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	1	1
⁴¹	2016	Journal article	756	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
⁴²	2018	Journal article	907	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
⁴³	2015	Journal article	3	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
¹⁴	2020	Journal article	57	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
⁴⁴	2020	Journal article	249	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	1
⁴⁵	2019	Journal article	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	1
⁴⁶	2010	Journal article	25	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	1
⁴⁷	2015	Journal article	194	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
⁴⁸	2016	Journal article	934	1	1	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1
⁴⁹	2019	Journal article	26	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
⁵⁰	2019	Journal article	568	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
¹⁵	2018	Journal article	12	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
⁵¹	2017	Journal article	12	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	1
⁵²	2015	Journal article	3975	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
³⁵	2012	Journal article	85	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
⁵³	2018	Journal article	90	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
⁵⁴	2010	Journal article	196	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
TOTAL				27	28	27	22	23	23	23	26	26	26	33

Quality assessment

This study employed the Dybå and Dingsøyr⁷ criteria to evaluate the quality of the selected SLRs.²⁵^,²⁶ The choice of this set of criteria was because it contains 11 criteria checklists (as against others with fewer criteria) and covers all the main aspects of any research quality – reporting, credibility, relevance, and rigor. Adapted to this work, the selected SLRs are therefore independently assessed with the following criteria:

Q1 Does the study answer the research questions defined or presents the results in a clear way?

Q2: Is the research aim clearly stated?

Q3: Is the context where the study was conducted adequately described?

Q4: Was the study appropriately designed to address its aims and objectives?

Q5: Was the recruitment strategy to drive the research aim appropriate?

Q6: Were there control group(s) to compare with the treatments?

Q7: Was the data collection method good enough to address research issues?

Q8: Was the data analysis necessarily difficult?

Q9: Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered?

Q10: Is the statement of findings clearly stated?

Q11: Is the research valuable to practice or research interest?

A dichotomous scale was used to score and grade the questions. In which case:

TRUE (T) = 1; FALSE (F) = 0 .

Our quality assessment procedure is like the one used for data selection (Figure 1) where:

1. Two teams of two researchers each are formed and all the SLRs were individually assessed by each team.
2. Each team member independent treated each study by answering the quality questions, giving adequate justification.
3. The pair researchers compared their notes and agreed on terms to finalize their team results.
4. To avoid human error, two teams of researchers were engaged to independently conduct the literature search. They placed their findings side-by-side to compare their results, settle disputes (if any), and produce a quality output as presented on Table 1.

Results

Our research questions are addressed on this section to ensure that they have all been answered and the SLRs’ qualities have been established. The results of the SLRs’ quality assessment are summarised on Table 2. The pass mark is fixed at 50%.

Table 2. Qualitative assessment of 33 systematic literature reviews (SLRs) on Leiomyomas or Myomas.

SLRs	Quality scores (QS)	% Scores (QS/33)	Research question (RQ) addressed	Related Quality Conditions (QC)	QC Met?
Q1 Q2 Q3	27 28 27	82 85 82	RQ1	Reporting	Yes, by 83%
Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8	22 23 23 33 33	67 70 70 100 100	RQ2	Rigour	Yes, by 81.2%
Q9 Q10	26 26	79 79	RQ3	Credibility	Yes, by 79%
Q11	33	100	Nil	Relevance

RQ1: Are the SLRs studies centred on Clear Aims and Description of Context?

The answer to the RQ1 is positive as evidenced on Table 2 where the average score of Q1, Q2, and Q3 which particularly address RQ1 is 83% affirmative. Although five studies failed on Q2 and six failed on both Q1 and Q3 each, the percentage Scores of each on the quality condition (reporting) is favourably high. The failure on Q1 is traced to the five articles that properly addressed their research questions but failed to make their results/findings clear enough. Other failures were due to the articles that did not have clear research goals and those with obscure research contexts. Majority of the study representing 83% of the total samples, subjectively elucidated the (research) participants actions and made use of qualitative approaches, which is the most appropriate to address their study goals.

RQ2: How inclusive are the methodologies employed in the primary studies?

Yes, Most of the primary studies employed complete and all-encompassing research methodologies going by their QC score of 81% in “Rigour” on Table 2. This answer to RQ2 is determined by the status of “rigour”, which is an absolute function of the average scores of Q4, Q5, Q6, and Q8.

Although 10 of the 33 primary studies did not employ appropriate recruitment strategies for their studies, and the research objectives of 11 are inappropriately designed. Exactly 10 are also silent on the control group(s) required to compare their research methods. However, all of them gave extensive description of their analysis processes and present sufficient data to support their findings (Q7 and Q8); they were simple in data collection and detailed in sample analysis.

RQ3: Are the study output valid and justifiable?

Yes, the research outputs of the primary studies are valid and justifiable considering the 79% QC score on the research “credibility” even though, some of them truly failed on Q10 as their research statements were unclear and finding ambiguous. Some researchers did not actually consider their influence in their research questions formulation, sample collection and even their choice of location (Q9), but this is limited to only five primary studies where the researchers disclosed their possibilities of being biased. Hence, adequate recognition was given to the relationship between the researcher and the participants

Study limitations

We may have missed some qualified studies that used other terminologies to describe their literature review. Notwithstanding, this cannot be major as our search strings did not leave out any related terminologies found in every literature reviewed except “research aggregation” and “study/research synthesis” which we stumbled on at the tail end of this study Future researchers should take notes of these terminologies to avoid omission of qualified SLRs for review.

Conclusion

All the SLRs passed all the quality questions (Table 2) with the lowest in Q4. They also met and greatly surpassed all the quality conditions (QC) to clearly confirm that the primary studies are valid and of good quality. Therefore, answer to our primary (RQ) raised is affirmative; the meta-analysis in the Uterine Fibroids are very reliable. However, the SLRs needed to appropriately design their studies to be specific on their goals and objectives. They should also be explicit on the control groups with which their treatments and research methods are compared.

It is important for auto search to be complete and error free for reliable outputs and valid findings. When planning future studies therefore, the researchers should extend their search strings to include other terminologies that may have been missed in this study.

Data availability

All data underlying the results are available as part of the article and no additional source data are required.

Reporting guidelines

Figshare: PRISMA checklist for ‘Quality assessment of systematic literatures on uterine fibroids: a systematic review’, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.20654010.v1.⁵⁵

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero “No rights reserved” data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by Covenant University, Ota, Nigeria in paying the APC for this study.

References

1. Kitchenham B, Pearl Brereton O, Budgen D, et al.: Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2009; 51(1): 7–15. Publisher Full Text
2. Okesola JO, Okokpujie KO, Adebiyi AA, et al.: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF SYSTEMATIC LITERATURES IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 2018; 96(18): 6018–6027.
3. Baby HA, et al.: Myomectomy during caesarean section: Safety and feasibility of the procedure. Bangladesh J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2015; 30(1): 10–14. Publisher Full Text
4. Sparić R, Guido M, Tinelli A: Miomektomia podczas cieogonekcia cesarskiego i mozliwe czynniki ryzyka przyjeeogonekcia do oddziału intensywnej terapii-badanie retrospektywne. Ginekol. Pol. 2015; 86(10): 731–736. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Arowolo MO, Adebiyi MO, Ariyo AA, et al.: A genetic algorithm approach for predicting ribonucleic acid sequencing data classification using KNN and decision tree. Telkomnika (Telecommunication Comput. Electron. Control). 2021; 19(1): 310–316. Publisher Full Text
6. Okesola MA, Ogunlana O, Afolabi I, et al.: Ameliorative effect of Zingiber officinale on chemical induced dna damage in rats using PCR analysis. Biointerface Res. Appl. Chem. 2021; 11(4): 11135–11144. Publisher Full Text
7. Jadad AR, et al.: Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control. Clin. Trials. 1996; 17(1): 1–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
8. Dybå T, Dingsøyr T: Strength of Evidence in Systematic Reviews in Software Engineering. Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement. 2008; (no. 7465): pp. 178–187.
9. Kitchenham BA, et al.: Preliminary Guidelines for Empirical Research in Software Engineering. Main. 2002; 28(8): 721–734. Publisher Full Text
10. Sjoberg DIK, Dyba T, Jorgensen M: The Future of Empirical Methods in Software Engineering Research. Futur. Softw. Eng. (FOSE’07). 2007; (JUNE): 358–378. Publisher Full Text
11. Adamek A, Kasprzak A: Insulin-Like Growth Factor (IGF) System in Liver Diseases. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018; 19(5): 1–24. Publisher Full Text
12. Chiroma H, et al.: Deep Learning Solutions for Protein: Recent Development and Future Directions. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems 254 International Conference on Emerging Applications and Technologies for Industry 4.0 (EATI’2020) Emerging Applications and Technologies for Industry 4.0. 2020; vol. 254: pp. 254–271. Reference Source
13. Orlando M, Kollikonda S, Hackett L, et al.: Non-hysteroscopic Myomectomy and Fertility Outcomes: A Systematic Review. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2021; 28(3): 598–618.e1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Arlene VG, et al.: A systematic review of the psychosocial impact of fibroids before and after treatment. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020; 223(5): 674–708.e8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Tranoulis A, Georgiou D, Alazzam M, et al.: Combined Laparoscopic Uterine Artery Occlusion and Myomectomy versus Laparoscopic Myomectomy: A Direct-Comparison Meta-Analysis of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in Women with Symptomatic Leiomyomas. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2019; 26(5): 826–837. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. Jeng CJ, Long CY, Chuang LT: Comparison of magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound with uterine artery embolization for the treatment of uterine myoma: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Taiwan. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020; 59(5): 691–697. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
17. Lu X, et al.: Zinc is essential for the transcription function of the PGC-1α/Nrf2 signaling pathway in human primary endometrial stromal cells. Am. J. Physiol. - Cell Physiol. 2020; 318(3): C640–C648. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. P.H.R.U: Critical Appraisal skills programme (CASP).1994; (no. 2017): pp. 1–5. Reference Source
19. Zhou Y, Zhang H, Huang X, et al.: Quality assessment of systematic reviews in software engineering: A tertiary study. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. 2015; vol. 27-29-April. Publisher Full Text
20. Anderson S, Sagar P, Smith B, et al.: What we have learnt adopting evidence-based software engineering for industrial practice. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. 2016; vol. 01-03-June. Publisher Full Text
21. Rousseau M, et al.: Can the risks associated with uterine sarcoma morcellation really be prevented? Overview of the role of uterine morcellation in 2018. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2018; 47(8): 341–349. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Badr DA, Al Hassan J, Salem Wehbe G, et al.: Uterine body placenta accreta spectrum: A detailed literature review. Placenta. 2020; 95: 44–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Thubert T, et al.: Surgical treatment: Myomectomy and hysterectomy; Endoscopy: A major advancement. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2016; 34: 104–121. Publisher Full Text
24. Shen Q, et al.: Effects of Laparoscopic Versus Minilaparotomic Myomectomy on Uterine Leiomyoma: A Meta-analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22(2): 177–184. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Afolabi IS, et al.: Production of a new Plant-Based Milk from Adenanthera pavonina seed and evaluation of its nutritional and health Benefits. Front. Nutr. 2018; 5(9): 1–13. Publisher Full Text
26. Iheagwam FN, Ogunlana OO, Ogunlana OE, et al.: Potential anti-cancer flavonoids isolated from caesalpinia bonduc young twigs and leaves: Molecular docking and in silico studies. Bioinform. Biol. Insights. 2019; 13: 117793221882137. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
27. Kainsbak J, Hansen ES, Dueholm M: Literature review of outcomes and prevalence and case report of leiomyosarcomas and non-typical uterine smooth muscle leiomyoma tumors treated with uterine artery embolization. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2015; 191: 130–137. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
28. Braga A, et al.: What is this vaginal bulge? An atypical case of vaginal paraurethral leiomyoma. A case report and literature systematic review. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2021; 50(6): 101822. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Jiang W, Shen Q, Chen M, et al.: Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system use in premenopausal women with symptomatic uterine leiomyoma: A systematic review. Steroids. 2014; 86(May): 69–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
30. Gingold JA, Chichura A, Harnegie MP, et al.: Perioperative Interventions to Minimize Blood Loss at the Time of Hysterectomy for Uterine Leiomyomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2019; 26(7): 1234–1252.e1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
31. Chiaffarino F, Ricci E, Cipriani S, et al.: Cigarette smoking and risk of uterine myoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2016; 197: 63–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
32. Fonseca MCM, Castro R, Machado M, et al.: Uterine Artery Embolization and Surgical Methods for the Treatment of Symptomatic Uterine Leiomyomas: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis Followed by Indirect Treatment Comparison. Clin. Ther. 2017; 39(7): 1438–1455.e2. Publisher Full Text
33. Keltz J, Levie M, Chudnoff S: Pregnancy Outcomes After Direct Uterine Myoma Thermal Ablation: Review of the Literature. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2017; 24(4): 538–545. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
34. Chang CC, Hsieh YY, Lin WH, et al.: Leiomyoma and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Gene Polymorphisms: A Systematic Review. Taiwan. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2010; 49(3): 247–253. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
35. Pundir J, Pundir V, Walavalkar R, et al.: Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic vs Abdominal and Laparoscopic Myomectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2013; 20(3): 335–345. Publisher Full Text
36. Pritts EA, Parker WH, Brown J, et al.: Outcome of occult uterine leiomyosarcoma after surgery for presumed uterine fibroids: A systematic review. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22(1): 26–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
37. Mourgues J, Villot A, Thubert T, et al.: Uterine myomas and lower urinary tract dysfunctions: A literature review. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2019; 48(9): 771–774. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
38. Lewis EI, Chason RJ, Decherney AH, et al.: Novel hormone treatment of benign metastasizing leiomyoma: An analysis of five cases and literature review. Fertil. Steril. 2013; 99(7): 2017–2024. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
39. Koo YJ, et al.: Pregnancy Outcomes and Risk Factors for Uterine Rupture After Laparoscopic Myomectomy: A Single-Center Experience and Literature Review. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22(6): 1022–1028. Publisher Full Text
40. Maheux-Lacroix S, Li F, Laberge PY, et al.: A Systematic Review of Imaging for Polyps and Leiomyomas in Women with Abnormal Uterine Bleeding. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2017; 24(7): S60–S61. Publisher Full Text
41. Lete I, González J, Ugarte L, et al.: Parasitic leiomyomas: A systematic review. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2016; 203: 250–259. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
42. Lee D, Lee JR, Suh CS, et al.: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing single port laparoscopic myomectomy with conventional laparoscopic myomectomy. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2019; 239: 52–59. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
43. Krungkraipetch K: Laparoscopic myomectomy with simultaneous uterine artery ligation: A literature review of prospective studies. J. Reprod. Heal. Med. 2016; 2(2): 67–73. Publisher Full Text
44. Goyal M, et al.: Cesarean myomectomy in the last ten years; A true shift from contraindication to indication: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2021; 256: 145–157. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
45. Nair S, Gill AJ, Dhupar N, et al.: 38. Fumarate hydratase-deficient uterine leiomyoma – Case report and literature review. Pathology. 2019; 51: S159–S160. Publisher Full Text
46. A. AdvancingM. InvasiveG. Worldwide: AAGL Practice Report: Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Submucous Leiomyomas. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2012; 19(2): 152–171. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
47. Zhang Y, Ma D, Li X, et al.: Role of Barbed Sutures in Repairing Uterine Wall Defects in Laparoscopic Myomectomy: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23(5): 684–691. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
48. Russo M, Suen M, Bedaiwy M, et al.: Prevalence of Uterine Myomas Among Women with 2 or More Recurrent Pregnancy Losses: A Systematic Review. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23(5): 702–706. Publisher Full Text
49. Sanders AP, Chan WV, Tang J, et al.: Surgical outcomes after uterine artery occlusion at the time of myomectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil. Steril. 2019; 111(4): 816–827.e4. Publisher Full Text
50. Verpalen IM, et al.: Magnetic resonance-high intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) therapy of symptomatic uterine fibroids with unrestrictive treatment protocols: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Radiol. 2019; 120: 108700. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
51. Sizzi O, et al.: Assessing the risk of laparoscopic morcellation of occult uterine sarcomas during hysterectomy and myomectomy: Literature review and the ISGE recommendations. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2018; 220: 30–38. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
52. Shazly SAM, et al.: Hysteroscopic Morcellation Versus Resection for the Treatment of Uterine Cavitary Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23(6): 867–877. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
53. Qin H, Lin Z, Vásquez E, et al.: High soy isoflavone or soy-based food intake during infancy and in adulthood is associated with an increased risk of uterine fibroids in premenopausal women: a meta-analysis. Nutr. Res. 2019; 71: 30–42. Publisher Full Text
54. Van Der Kooij SM, Bipat S, Hehenkamp WJK, et al.: Uterine artery embolization versus surgery in the treatment of symptomatic fibroids: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2011; 205(4): 317.e1–317.e18. Publisher Full Text
55. Okesola J, Okesola M, Ogunlana O, et al.: PRISMA_2020_checklist.docx. figshare. Journal Contribution. 2022. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 14 Sep 2022

Author details Author details

Mary Okesola
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Julius Okesola
Roles: Methodology, Software, Writing – Review & Editing

Olubanke Ogunlana
Roles: Project Administration, Supervision

Israel Afolabi
Roles: Supervision, Validation

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 08 Mar 2024, 11:1050

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124879.2

version 1

Published: 14 Sep 2022, 11:1050

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124879.1

© 2024 Okesola M et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Okesola M, Okesola J, Ogunlana O and Afolabi I. Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review [version 2; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2024, 11:1050 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.124879.2)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 14 Sep 2022

Views

Reviewer Report 18 Oct 2023

Andrea Etrusco, Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties (PROMISE), Unit of Gynecologic Oncology, ARNAS "Civico - Di Cristina - Benfratelli",University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.137116.r215409

I read with great interest the Manuscript titled “Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review”, which falls within the aim of this Journal.

In my honest opinion, the topic is interesting enough to attract the readers’ attention. Nevertheless, authors should clarify some point and improve the discussion citing relevant and novel key articles about the topic.

Authors should consider the following recommendations:

Manuscript should be further revised by an English language editor;
FIGO has recently updated the classification of uterine leiomyomas, giving to FIGO type 3 myoma a different importance which can open up new therapeutic scenarios. The study does not cite the only meta-analysis present in the literature (PMID: 37183601), and the only systematic review present in the literature (PMID: 37568356) in this regard. Your article should be expanded with these two revisions.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Yes

References

1. Favilli A, Etrusco A, Chiantera V, Laganà AS, et al.: Impact of FIGO type 3 uterine fibroids on in vitro fertilization outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2023. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Etrusco A, Laganà AS, Chiantera V, Vitagliano A, et al.: Feasibility and Surgical Outcomes of Hysteroscopic Myomectomy of FIGO Type 3 Myoma: A Systematic Review.J Clin Med. 2023; 12 (15). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Obstetrics and Gynecology

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 13 Apr 2024

Julius Okesola, Africa Centre of Excellence on Technology Enhanced Learning (ACETEL), National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, 09, Nigeria

13 Apr 2024

Author Response
1. Manuscript should be further revised by an English language editor:
The article is now being reviewed by an English Language Editor.
1. Your article should
... Continue reading
Manuscript should be further revised by an English language editor:

The article is now being reviewed by an English Language Editor.

Your article should be expanded with these two revisions of FIGO publications - PMID: 37183601 and PMID: 37568356.

It is practically impossible for our study to be expanded with these two studies as both were published years after our auto search was conducted. The first was published on May 15 2023 while the other was published on July 27, 2023. Whereas, our auto search was conducted on February 3rd and 4^th, 2022 – almost one and half years earlier.
Manuscript should be further revised by an English language editor:

The article is now being reviewed by an English Language Editor.

Your article should be expanded with these two revisions of FIGO publications - PMID: 37183601 and PMID: 37568356.

It is practically impossible for our study to be expanded with these two studies as both were published years after our auto search was conducted. The first was published on May 15 2023 while the other was published on July 27, 2023. Whereas, our auto search was conducted on February 3rd and 4^th, 2022 – almost one and half years earlier.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 13 Apr 2024

Julius Okesola, Africa Centre of Excellence on Technology Enhanced Learning (ACETEL), National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, 09, Nigeria

13 Apr 2024

Author Response
1. Manuscript should be further revised by an English language editor:
The article is now being reviewed by an English Language Editor.
1. Your article should
... Continue reading
Manuscript should be further revised by an English language editor:

The article is now being reviewed by an English Language Editor.

Your article should be expanded with these two revisions of FIGO publications - PMID: 37183601 and PMID: 37568356.

It is practically impossible for our study to be expanded with these two studies as both were published years after our auto search was conducted. The first was published on May 15 2023 while the other was published on July 27, 2023. Whereas, our auto search was conducted on February 3rd and 4^th, 2022 – almost one and half years earlier.
Manuscript should be further revised by an English language editor:

The article is now being reviewed by an English Language Editor.

Your article should be expanded with these two revisions of FIGO publications - PMID: 37183601 and PMID: 37568356.

It is practically impossible for our study to be expanded with these two studies as both were published years after our auto search was conducted. The first was published on May 15 2023 while the other was published on July 27, 2023. Whereas, our auto search was conducted on February 3rd and 4^th, 2022 – almost one and half years earlier.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 31 Mar 2023

Mary Ann Lumsden, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.137116.r165452

A systematic review of systematic reviews is an interesting concept and should be helpful.

However, it is always important to remember that all systematic reviews are only as good as the studies included in them and the methodologies used.

The authors state that they give more account to the results and their plausibility than the methodology and I feel this is rather a pity as it misses an opportunity to do something really meaningful.

It was done very quickly which surprised me and I do not generally use these databases for a search such as this. However, the use of the 11 criteria is certainly valid but I would like to have had more detail on this and how it was assessed.

I do not think it true that all SLRs do not assess quality, particularly those in the better journals. I also wondered about the use of the examples of choosing non-hysteroscopic myomectomy which I would rate well and the 2nd on pychosocial burden.

Assessment of non-randomised studies is fraught with problems and are unlikely to be high quality studies by definition. Thus drawing conclusions from an SLR is unlikely to be useful. In addition there is an incorrect reference (No 16 which I think should perhaps be 26.

RQ2 worried me considerably:
'Although 10 of the 33 primary studies did not employ appropriate recruitment strategies for their studies, and the research objectives of 11 are inappropriately designed. Exactly 10 are also silent on the control group(s) required to compare their research methods. However, all of them gave extensive description of their analysis processes and present sufficient data to support their findings (Q7 and Q8); they were simple in data collection and detailed in sample analysis.'
I can't help feeling that any conclusions drawn here would be meaningless.

Overall this is a methodology worth developing further but I think I think must include consideration of methods use and not just results to be meaningful.

I look forward to hearing more about the ideas in this article.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Partly

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: I am retired from active research but undertook several RCTs involving treatment of uterine fibroids.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 13 Apr 2024

Julius Okesola, Africa Centre of Excellence on Technology Enhanced Learning (ACETEL), National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, 09, Nigeria

13 Apr 2024

Author Response
1. … In addition, there is an incorrect reference (No 16 which I think should perhaps be 26.
Now corrected
1. Overall this is a methodology
... Continue reading
… In addition, there is an incorrect reference (No 16 which I think should perhaps be 26.

Now corrected

Overall this is a methodology worth developing further but I think it must include consideration of methods use and not just results...

Consideration of Methods have been addressed in the first paragraph of the ‘Method’ section where Dybå and Dingsøyr ⁸ criterial which are popularly considered suitable in Medicine were adapted in this study.
… In addition, there is an incorrect reference (No 16 which I think should perhaps be 26.

Now corrected

Overall this is a methodology worth developing further but I think it must include consideration of methods use and not just results...

Consideration of Methods have been addressed in the first paragraph of the ‘Method’ section where Dybå and Dingsøyr ⁸ criterial which are popularly considered suitable in Medicine were adapted in this study.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 13 Apr 2024

Julius Okesola, Africa Centre of Excellence on Technology Enhanced Learning (ACETEL), National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, 09, Nigeria

13 Apr 2024

Author Response
1. … In addition, there is an incorrect reference (No 16 which I think should perhaps be 26.
Now corrected
1. Overall this is a methodology
... Continue reading
… In addition, there is an incorrect reference (No 16 which I think should perhaps be 26.

Now corrected

Overall this is a methodology worth developing further but I think it must include consideration of methods use and not just results...

Consideration of Methods have been addressed in the first paragraph of the ‘Method’ section where Dybå and Dingsøyr ⁸ criterial which are popularly considered suitable in Medicine were adapted in this study.
… In addition, there is an incorrect reference (No 16 which I think should perhaps be 26.

Now corrected

Overall this is a methodology worth developing further but I think it must include consideration of methods use and not just results...

Consideration of Methods have been addressed in the first paragraph of the ‘Method’ section where Dybå and Dingsøyr ⁸ criterial which are popularly considered suitable in Medicine were adapted in this study.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 14 Sep 2022

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 08 Mar 24
Version 1 14 Sep 22	read	read

Mary Ann Lumsden, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
Andrea Etrusco, Unit of Gynecologic Oncology, ARNAS "Civico - Di Cristina - Benfratelli",University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

15 Views

18 Oct 2023 | for Version 1

15 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Manuscript should be further revised by an English language editor;
FIGO has recently updated the classification of uterine leiomyomas, giving to FIGO type 3 myoma a different importance which can open up new therapeutic scenarios. The study does not cite the only meta-analysis present in the literature (PMID: 37183601), and the only systematic review present in the literature (PMID: 37568356) in this regard. Your article should be expanded with these two revisions.

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Yes

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

13 Apr 2024

Julius Okesola, Africa Centre of Excellence on Technology Enhanced Learning (ACETEL), National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, 09, Nigeria

Manuscript should be further revised by an English language editor:

The article is now being reviewed by an English Language Editor.

Your article should be expanded with these two revisions of FIGO publications - PMID: 37183601 and PMID: 37568356.

It is practically impossible for our study to be expanded with these two studies as both were published years after our auto search was conducted. The first was published on May 15 2023 while the other was published on July 27, 2023. Whereas, our auto search was conducted on February 3rd and 4^th, 2022 – almost one and half years earlier.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

17 Views

31 Mar 2023 | for Version 1

Mary Ann Lumsden, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

17 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Partly

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

I am retired from active research but undertook several RCTs involving treatment of uterine fibroids.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

13 Apr 2024

Julius Okesola, Africa Centre of Excellence on Technology Enhanced Learning (ACETEL), National Open University of Nigeria, Abuja, 09, Nigeria

… In addition, there is an incorrect reference (No 16 which I think should perhaps be 26.

Now corrected

Overall this is a methodology worth developing further but I think it must include consideration of methods use and not just results...

Consideration of Methods have been addressed in the first paragraph of the ‘Method’ section where Dybå and Dingsøyr ⁸ criterial which are popularly considered suitable in Medicine were adapted in this study.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Kitchenham B, Pearl Brereton O, Budgen D, et al.: Systematic literature reviews in software engineering - A systematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2009; 51(1): 7–15. Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Okesola JO, Okokpujie KO, Adebiyi AA, et al.: QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF SYSTEMATIC LITERATURES IN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 2018; 96(18): 6018–6027.

[3] 3. Baby HA, et al.: Myomectomy during caesarean section: Safety and feasibility of the procedure. Bangladesh J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2015; 30(1): 10–14. Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Sparić R, Guido M, Tinelli A: Miomektomia podczas cieogonekcia cesarskiego i mozliwe czynniki ryzyka przyjeeogonekcia do oddziału intensywnej terapii-badanie retrospektywne. Ginekol. Pol. 2015; 86(10): 731–736. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Arowolo MO, Adebiyi MO, Ariyo AA, et al.: A genetic algorithm approach for predicting ribonucleic acid sequencing data classification using KNN and decision tree. Telkomnika (Telecommunication Comput. Electron. Control). 2021; 19(1): 310–316. Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Okesola MA, Ogunlana O, Afolabi I, et al.: Ameliorative effect of Zingiber officinale on chemical induced dna damage in rats using PCR analysis. Biointerface Res. Appl. Chem. 2021; 11(4): 11135–11144. Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Jadad AR, et al.: Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control. Clin. Trials. 1996; 17(1): 1–12. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[8] 8. Dybå T, Dingsøyr T: Strength of Evidence in Systematic Reviews in Software Engineering. Proceedings of the Second ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering and measurement. 2008; (no. 7465): pp. 178–187.

[9] 9. Kitchenham BA, et al.: Preliminary Guidelines for Empirical Research in Software Engineering. Main. 2002; 28(8): 721–734. Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Sjoberg DIK, Dyba T, Jorgensen M: The Future of Empirical Methods in Software Engineering Research. Futur. Softw. Eng. (FOSE’07). 2007; (JUNE): 358–378. Publisher Full Text

[11] 11. Adamek A, Kasprzak A: Insulin-Like Growth Factor (IGF) System in Liver Diseases. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018; 19(5): 1–24. Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Chiroma H, et al.: Deep Learning Solutions for Protein: Recent Development and Future Directions. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems 254 International Conference on Emerging Applications and Technologies for Industry 4.0 (EATI’2020) Emerging Applications and Technologies for Industry 4.0. 2020; vol. 254: pp. 254–271. Reference Source

[13] 13. Orlando M, Kollikonda S, Hackett L, et al.: Non-hysteroscopic Myomectomy and Fertility Outcomes: A Systematic Review. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2021; 28(3): 598–618.e1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Arlene VG, et al.: A systematic review of the psychosocial impact of fibroids before and after treatment. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020; 223(5): 674–708.e8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Tranoulis A, Georgiou D, Alazzam M, et al.: Combined Laparoscopic Uterine Artery Occlusion and Myomectomy versus Laparoscopic Myomectomy: A Direct-Comparison Meta-Analysis of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in Women with Symptomatic Leiomyomas. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2019; 26(5): 826–837. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Jeng CJ, Long CY, Chuang LT: Comparison of magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound with uterine artery embolization for the treatment of uterine myoma: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Taiwan. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020; 59(5): 691–697. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Lu X, et al.: Zinc is essential for the transcription function of the PGC-1α/Nrf2 signaling pathway in human primary endometrial stromal cells. Am. J. Physiol. - Cell Physiol. 2020; 318(3): C640–C648. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. P.H.R.U: Critical Appraisal skills programme (CASP).1994; (no. 2017): pp. 1–5. Reference Source

[19] 19. Zhou Y, Zhang H, Huang X, et al.: Quality assessment of systematic reviews in software engineering: A tertiary study. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. 2015; vol. 27-29-April. Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Anderson S, Sagar P, Smith B, et al.: What we have learnt adopting evidence-based software engineering for industrial practice. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. 2016; vol. 01-03-June. Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Rousseau M, et al.: Can the risks associated with uterine sarcoma morcellation really be prevented? Overview of the role of uterine morcellation in 2018. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2018; 47(8): 341–349. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Badr DA, Al Hassan J, Salem Wehbe G, et al.: Uterine body placenta accreta spectrum: A detailed literature review. Placenta. 2020; 95: 44–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Thubert T, et al.: Surgical treatment: Myomectomy and hysterectomy; Endoscopy: A major advancement. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2016; 34: 104–121. Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Shen Q, et al.: Effects of Laparoscopic Versus Minilaparotomic Myomectomy on Uterine Leiomyoma: A Meta-analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22(2): 177–184. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Afolabi IS, et al.: Production of a new Plant-Based Milk from Adenanthera pavonina seed and evaluation of its nutritional and health Benefits. Front. Nutr. 2018; 5(9): 1–13. Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Iheagwam FN, Ogunlana OO, Ogunlana OE, et al.: Potential anti-cancer flavonoids isolated from caesalpinia bonduc young twigs and leaves: Molecular docking and in silico studies. Bioinform. Biol. Insights. 2019; 13: 117793221882137. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[27] 27. Kainsbak J, Hansen ES, Dueholm M: Literature review of outcomes and prevalence and case report of leiomyosarcomas and non-typical uterine smooth muscle leiomyoma tumors treated with uterine artery embolization. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2015; 191: 130–137. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Braga A, et al.: What is this vaginal bulge? An atypical case of vaginal paraurethral leiomyoma. A case report and literature systematic review. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2021; 50(6): 101822. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Jiang W, Shen Q, Chen M, et al.: Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system use in premenopausal women with symptomatic uterine leiomyoma: A systematic review. Steroids. 2014; 86(May): 69–78. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Gingold JA, Chichura A, Harnegie MP, et al.: Perioperative Interventions to Minimize Blood Loss at the Time of Hysterectomy for Uterine Leiomyomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2019; 26(7): 1234–1252.e1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Chiaffarino F, Ricci E, Cipriani S, et al.: Cigarette smoking and risk of uterine myoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2016; 197: 63–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Fonseca MCM, Castro R, Machado M, et al.: Uterine Artery Embolization and Surgical Methods for the Treatment of Symptomatic Uterine Leiomyomas: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis Followed by Indirect Treatment Comparison. Clin. Ther. 2017; 39(7): 1438–1455.e2. Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Keltz J, Levie M, Chudnoff S: Pregnancy Outcomes After Direct Uterine Myoma Thermal Ablation: Review of the Literature. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2017; 24(4): 538–545. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Chang CC, Hsieh YY, Lin WH, et al.: Leiomyoma and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Gene Polymorphisms: A Systematic Review. Taiwan. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2010; 49(3): 247–253. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Pundir J, Pundir V, Walavalkar R, et al.: Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic vs Abdominal and Laparoscopic Myomectomy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2013; 20(3): 335–345. Publisher Full Text

[36] 36. Pritts EA, Parker WH, Brown J, et al.: Outcome of occult uterine leiomyosarcoma after surgery for presumed uterine fibroids: A systematic review. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22(1): 26–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. Mourgues J, Villot A, Thubert T, et al.: Uterine myomas and lower urinary tract dysfunctions: A literature review. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2019; 48(9): 771–774. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[38] 38. Lewis EI, Chason RJ, Decherney AH, et al.: Novel hormone treatment of benign metastasizing leiomyoma: An analysis of five cases and literature review. Fertil. Steril. 2013; 99(7): 2017–2024. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[39] 39. Koo YJ, et al.: Pregnancy Outcomes and Risk Factors for Uterine Rupture After Laparoscopic Myomectomy: A Single-Center Experience and Literature Review. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22(6): 1022–1028. Publisher Full Text

[40] 40. Maheux-Lacroix S, Li F, Laberge PY, et al.: A Systematic Review of Imaging for Polyps and Leiomyomas in Women with Abnormal Uterine Bleeding. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2017; 24(7): S60–S61. Publisher Full Text

[41] 41. Lete I, González J, Ugarte L, et al.: Parasitic leiomyomas: A systematic review. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2016; 203: 250–259. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[42] 42. Lee D, Lee JR, Suh CS, et al.: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing single port laparoscopic myomectomy with conventional laparoscopic myomectomy. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2019; 239: 52–59. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[43] 43. Krungkraipetch K: Laparoscopic myomectomy with simultaneous uterine artery ligation: A literature review of prospective studies. J. Reprod. Heal. Med. 2016; 2(2): 67–73. Publisher Full Text

[44] 44. Goyal M, et al.: Cesarean myomectomy in the last ten years; A true shift from contraindication to indication: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2021; 256: 145–157. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[45] 45. Nair S, Gill AJ, Dhupar N, et al.: 38. Fumarate hydratase-deficient uterine leiomyoma – Case report and literature review. Pathology. 2019; 51: S159–S160. Publisher Full Text

[46] 46. A. AdvancingM. InvasiveG. Worldwide: AAGL Practice Report: Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Submucous Leiomyomas. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2012; 19(2): 152–171. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[47] 47. Zhang Y, Ma D, Li X, et al.: Role of Barbed Sutures in Repairing Uterine Wall Defects in Laparoscopic Myomectomy: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23(5): 684–691. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[48] 48. Russo M, Suen M, Bedaiwy M, et al.: Prevalence of Uterine Myomas Among Women with 2 or More Recurrent Pregnancy Losses: A Systematic Review. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23(5): 702–706. Publisher Full Text

[49] 49. Sanders AP, Chan WV, Tang J, et al.: Surgical outcomes after uterine artery occlusion at the time of myomectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil. Steril. 2019; 111(4): 816–827.e4. Publisher Full Text

[50] 50. Verpalen IM, et al.: Magnetic resonance-high intensity focused ultrasound (MR-HIFU) therapy of symptomatic uterine fibroids with unrestrictive treatment protocols: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Radiol. 2019; 120: 108700. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[51] 51. Sizzi O, et al.: Assessing the risk of laparoscopic morcellation of occult uterine sarcomas during hysterectomy and myomectomy: Literature review and the ISGE recommendations. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2018; 220: 30–38. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[52] 52. Shazly SAM, et al.: Hysteroscopic Morcellation Versus Resection for the Treatment of Uterine Cavitary Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2016; 23(6): 867–877. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[53] 53. Qin H, Lin Z, Vásquez E, et al.: High soy isoflavone or soy-based food intake during infancy and in adulthood is associated with an increased risk of uterine fibroids in premenopausal women: a meta-analysis. Nutr. Res. 2019; 71: 30–42. Publisher Full Text

[54] 54. Van Der Kooij SM, Bipat S, Hehenkamp WJK, et al.: Uterine artery embolization versus surgery in the treatment of symptomatic fibroids: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2011; 205(4): 317.e1–317.e18. Publisher Full Text

[55] 55. Okesola J, Okesola M, Ogunlana O, et al.: PRISMA_2020_checklist.docx. figshare. Journal Contribution. 2022. Publisher Full Text

Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Revised Amendments from Version 1

Introduction

Past related works

Methods

The questions

The search process

Study selection

Figure 1. The study selection flow diagram.

Data extraction process

Table 1. Quality scores for the 33 systematic literature reviews (SLRs).

Quality assessment

Results

Table 2. Qualitative assessment of 33 systematic literature reviews (SLRs) on Leiomyomas or Myomas.

RQ1: Are the SLRs studies centred on Clear Aims and Description of Context?

RQ2: How inclusive are the methodologies employed in the primary studies?

RQ3: Are the study output valid and justifiable?

Study limitations

Conclusion

Data availability

Reporting guidelines

Acknowledgment

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated