Assessment of the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature From 1998 to 2008

MacDonald, Susan; Canfield, Steven E.; Fesperman, Susan F.; Dahm, Philipp

doi:10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.127

Cited by 48 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the more rigorous the review methods used and the higher the quality of the primary research that is synthesized in SRs, which involve searching for, selecting, critically appraising, and summarizing the results of primary research (Cook et al, 1997), not all SRs were of high quality and the evidence that it produced were not at high level. This is consentient with the results of other studies, which showed that many SRs fail to meet established methodological standards, raising concerns about validity (MacDonald et al, 2010), or seem to have serious methodological flaws leading to a high risk of bias (Lundh et al, 2009). Not only methodological quality problems, but also reporting quality problems existed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Garlic in Clinical Practice: An Evidence-Based Overview

Sun

Tian

et al. 2013

Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Garlic in Clinical Practice: An Evidence-Based Overview

Sun

Tian

et al. 2013

Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Resultados parecidos com este foram encontrados em uma avaliação das RS na área da Medicina Veterinária, indicando poucos estudos com alta qualidade metodológica (Faggion Jr., Listl, & Giannakopoulos, 2012). Soma-se a isso a constatação de que, com o passar dos anos, as RS não têm apresentado um aprimoramento significativo de qualidade que acompanhe a crescente quantidade de publicações (MacDonald, Canfield, Fesperman, & Dahm, 2010).…”

unclassified

Qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas em periódicos de psicologia brasileiros

Zoltowski

Costa

Teixeira

et al. 2014

Psic.: Teor. e Pesq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMO -Buscou-se avaliar a qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas (RS) publicadas em periódicos brasileiros de psicologia. Foi conduzida uma RS nas bases PePSIC e SciELO, usando as palavras-chave: "revisão" e "sistemática".Foram identificados e analisados 33 artigos através do instrumento Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). A pontuação média das revisões foi 5,39 (em um escore que podia variar de 0 a 11). Houve diferença de qualidade entre as RS publicadas no SciELO e as que o foram no PePSIC, mas não foi observada diferença conforme o estrato do periódico, segundo o Qualis CAPES. Além disso, não verificou-se incremento na qualidade das publicações de 2001 a 2012. Sugere-se adoção de diretrizes por parte dos periódicos e dos autores de forma a melhorar a qualidade das RS no Brasil.Palavras-chave: revisão sistemática, metodologia, psicologia Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in Brazilian Psychology JournalsQuality of systematic reviews in Psychology ABSTRACT -The aim of this study is to measure the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SR) published in Brazilian psychology journals. It was conducted a SR in SciELO and PePSIC databases, using "review" and "systematic" as keywords. 33 articles were identified and analyzed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). The mean value of quality was 5.39 (SD = 1.91) on a scale ranging from 0 to 11. Using criteria of Qualis CAPES, significant differences were found in the quality of RS published in SciELO compared to those published in PePSIC, but not according to the journal extract. No increase in quality was observed from 2001 to 2012. The adoption of guidelines for publication of SR is suggested, in order to improve their quality in Brazil.

show abstract

“…외국의 경우 1990년대부터 메타분석 연구의 질 평가를 꾸준히 수행해 왔다 [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. 하지만 국내의 경우 거의 이루어 지지 않았으며 선행 연구에 의하면 체계적인 연구의 질 평가 도구 의 사용 없이 연구특성만을 서술하여 경영학 분야의 메타분석 연 구의 현황을 보고한 연구 [13], 연구자가 고안한 평가내용으로 국내 메타분석 연구의 방법론적 고찰을 수행한 연구 [14], APA 평가도구 를 사용하여 특수교육 분야의 메타분석 연구의 질을 평가한 연구 Meta-analysis [15], QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses) [5], MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observation Studies in Epidemiology) [16], PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) [17], OQAQ (The Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire) [18], AMSTAR (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) [19,20] 등을 주로 사용하여 메타분석 연구의 질 평가를 수행해 왔 다 [13][14][15][16][17][18][19].…”

unclassified

Review of Meta-analysis Research on Exercise in South Korea

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

연구의 필요성최근Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of meta-analysis regarding exercise using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) as well as to compare effect size according to outcomes. Methods: Electronic databases including the Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS), the National Assembly Library and the DBpia, HAKJISAand RISS4U for the dates 1990 to January 2014 were searched for 'meta-analysis' and 'exercise' in the fields of medical, nursing, physical therapy and physical exercise in Korea. AMSTAR was scored for quality assessment of the 33 articles included in the study. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA and χ 2 -test. Results: The mean score for AMSTAR evaluations was 4.18 (SD= 1.78) and about 67% were classified at the low-quality level and 30% at the moderate-quality level. The scores of quality were statistically different by field of research, number of participants, number of databases, financial support and approval by IRB. The effect size that presented in individual studies were different by type of exercise in the applied intervention. Conclusion: This critical appraisal of meta-analysis published in various field that focused on exercise indicates that a guideline such as the PRISMA checklist should be strongly recommended for optimum reporting of meta-analysis across research fields. If the original work is properly cited and retained without any modification or reproduction, it can be used and re-distributed in any format and medium.

show abstract

Assessment of the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature From 1998 to 2008

Cited by 48 publications

References 25 publications

Garlic in Clinical Practice: An Evidence-Based Overview

Garlic in Clinical Practice: An Evidence-Based Overview

Qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas em periódicos de psicologia brasileiros

Review of Meta-analysis Research on Exercise in South Korea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About