Meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting when they mention PRISMA

Leclercq, Victoria; Beaudart, Charlotte; Ajamieh, Sara; Rabenda, Véronique; Tirelli, Ezio; Bruyère, Olivier

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.014

Cited by 50 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the presented results by Leclercq et al supported our findings. In the original Leclercq study [2], the effect of the explicit mention of PRISMA on the completeness of the reporting was investigated. The authors assessed the 27 PRIS-MA items.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Psychometric measurements of AMSTAR 2 in a sample of meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) has been developed by Shea et al in 2007 [1] to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (MA). In 2017, Shea et al proposed a revised version of this tool [2]. Recently, Lorenz et al [3] published, in this journal, an important article in which they confirmed the validity of this revised tool and highlighted the moderate inter-rater reliability (IRR) of AM-STAR 2 in a sample of 60 MAs published between 2012 and 2017 in the field of depression.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

AMSTAR 2 overall confidence rating: lacking discriminating capacity or requirement of high methodological quality?

Lorenz

Matthias

Pieper

et al. 2020

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

AMSTAR 2 overall confidence rating: lacking discriminating capacity or requirement of high methodological quality?

Lorenz

Matthias

Pieper

et al. 2020

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Compared to other studies that checked reporting quality according to PRISMA, it can be said that the introduction of PRISMA in 2009 has led to the improvement of the reporting quality, 43,44 and so does its explicit endorsement. [45][46][47] The better reporting on average in the PRISMA subgroup versus the Non-PRISMA subgroups could be attributed to using the PRISMA checklist. However, we have to acknowledge that, in light of the small numbers of the subgroup analysis, this could also be a result of chance and it cannot be excluded that other causes might also have been relevant.…”

Section: (3%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic reviews of empirical literature on bioethical topics: Results from a meta-review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In bioethics, especially nursing ethics, systematic reviews are increasingly popular. The overall aim of a systematic review is to provide an overview of the published discussions on a specific topic. While a meta-review on systematic reviews on normative bioethical literature has already been performed, there is no equivalent for systematic reviews of empirical literature on ethical topics. Objective This meta-review aims to present the general trends and characteristics of systematic reviews of empirical bioethical literature and to evaluate their reporting quality. Research design Literature search was performed on PubMed and Google Scholar. Qualitative content analysis and quantitative approaches were used to evaluate the systematic reviews. Characteristics of systematic reviews were extracted and quantitatively analyzed. The reporting quality was measured using an adapted PRISMA checklist. Findings Seventy-six reviews were selected for analysis. Most reviews came from the field of nursing (next to bioethics and medicine). Selected systematic reviews investigated issues related to clinical ethics (50%), followed by research ethics (36%) and public health ethics or organizational ethics (14%). In all, 72% of the systematic reviews included authors’ ethical reflections on the findings and 59% provided ethical recommendations. Despite the heterogeneous reporting of the reviews, reviews using PRISMA tended to score better regarding reporting quality. Discussion The heterogeneity currently observed is due both to the interdisciplinary nature of nursing ethics and bioethics, and to the emerging nature of systematic review methods in these fields. These results confirm the findings of our previous review of systematic reviews on normative literature, thereby highlighting a recurring methodological gap in systematic reviews of bioethical literature. This also indicates the need to develop more robust methodological standards. Conclusion Through its extensive overview of the characteristics of systematic reviews of empirical literature on ethical topics, this meta-review is expected to inform further discussions on minimal standards and reporting guidelines.

show abstract

“…, 2010;Moher et al, 2009). Moreover, a recent study found explicit mention of the PRISMA guidelines to be associated with more complete reporting of meta-analyses in psychology (Leclercq et al, 2019). For a meta-analysis to be completely reproducible, we would add to the existing guidelines the requirement that effect size computations should be specified per effect size in supplementary materials.…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Likewise, meta-analysts often need to perform complex computations to synthesize primary study results, which increases the risk of faulty data handling and erroneous estimates (Cooper, Hedges, & Valentine, 2009). When these decisions and calculations are not carefully undertaken and specifically reported, the methodological quality of the meta-analysis cannot be assessed (Leclercq et al, 2019;Page et al, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducibility of Individual Effect Sizes in Meta-Analyses in Psychology

Maassen¹,

Assen²,

Nuijten³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting when they mention PRISMA

Cited by 50 publications

References 29 publications

AMSTAR 2 overall confidence rating: lacking discriminating capacity or requirement of high methodological quality?

AMSTAR 2 overall confidence rating: lacking discriminating capacity or requirement of high methodological quality?

Systematic reviews of empirical literature on bioethical topics: Results from a meta-review

Reproducibility of Individual Effect Sizes in Meta-Analyses in Psychology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About