Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study

نویسندگان

  • Kusala Pussegoda
  • Lucy Turner
  • Chantelle Garritty
  • Alain Mayhew
  • Becky Skidmore
  • Adrienne Stevens
  • Isabelle Boutron
  • Rafael Sarkis-Onofre
  • Lise M Bjerre
  • Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
  • Douglas G Altman
  • David Moher
چکیده

BACKGROUND The methodological quality and completeness of reporting of the systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental to optimal implementation of evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. Methods exist to appraise SRs yet little is known about how they are used in SRs or where there are potential gaps in research best-practice guidance materials. The aims of this study are to identify reports assessing the methodological quality (MQ) and/or reporting quality (RQ) of a cohort of SRs and to assess their number, general characteristics, and approaches to 'quality' assessment over time. METHODS The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® were searched from January 1990 to October 16, 2014, for reports assessing MQ and/or RQ of SRs. Title, abstract, and full-text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the MQ and/or RQ of a cohort of ten or more SRs of interventions were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports. RESULTS Of 20,765 unique records retrieved, 1189 of them were reviewed for full-text review, of which 76 reports were included. Eight previously published approaches to assessing MQ or reporting guidelines used as proxy to assess RQ were used in 80% (61/76) of identified reports. These included two reporting guidelines (PRISMA and QUOROM) and five quality assessment tools (AMSTAR, R-AMSTAR, OQAQ, Mulrow, Sacks) and GRADE criteria. The remaining 24% (18/76) of reports developed their own criteria. PRISMA, OQAQ, and AMSTAR were the most commonly used published tools to assess MQ or RQ. In conjunction with other approaches, published tools were used in 29% (22/76) of reports, with 36% (8/22) assessing adherence to both PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria and 26% (6/22) using QUOROM and OQAQ. CONCLUSIONS The methods used to assess quality of SRs are diverse, and none has become universally accepted. The most commonly used quality assessment tools are AMSTAR, OQAQ, and PRISMA. As new tools and guidelines are developed to improve both the MQ and RQ of SRs, authors of methodological studies are encouraged to put thoughtful consideration into the use of appropriate tools to assess quality and reporting.

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

The Development of a Critical Appraisal Tool for Use in Systematic Reviews: Addressing Questions of Prevalence

Background Recently there has been a significant increase in the number of systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Key features of a systematic review include the creation of an a priori protocol, clear inclusion criteria, a structured and systematic search process, critical appraisal of studies, and a formal process of data extraction followed by methods to synthesize, or combin...

متن کامل

A PRISMA assessment of reporting the quality of published dental systematic reviews in Iran, up to 2017

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Proper scientific reporting is necessary to ensure correct interpretation of study results by readers. Systematic reviews (SRs) are of critical importance in evidence-based dentistry. This study assessed the reporting quality of published dental SRs in Iran.METHODS: The PubMed and ISI electronic databases were searched to collect published Iranian dental SRs up to the end of...

متن کامل

The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews from China and the USA are similar.

OBJECTIVES To compare the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews by authors from China and those from the United States (USA). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING From systematic reviews of randomized trials published in 2014 in English, we randomly selected 100 from China and 100 from the USA. The methodological quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of ...

متن کامل

Some Notes on Critical Appraisal of Prevalence Studies; Comment on: “The Development of a Critical Appraisal Tool for Use in Systematic Reviews Addressing Questions of Prevalence”

Decisions in healthcare should be based on information obtained according to the principles of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM). An increasing number of systematic reviews are published which summarize the results of prevalence studies. Interpretation of the results of these reviews should be accompanied by an appraisal of the methodological quality of the included data and studies. The critical a...

متن کامل

ارزیابی کیفیت گزارش مطالعات مرور نظام‌مند و فراتحلیل‌ در مجلات پرستاری و مامایی ایران

Background & Aim: In the view of the importance of evidence-based clinical practice in recent years, clinical disciplines such as nursing and midwifery have found a special need to systematic review and meta-analysis. However, systematic reviews and meta-analysises like any other studies may be poorly designed and implemented. Therefore, certain guidelines have been considered for reporting of ...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره 6  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2017