Methodological quality and reporting of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology

Wasiak, Jason; Shen, Ay; Ware, Robert S.; O'Donohoe, TJ; Faggion, Clóvis Mariano

doi:10.1177/1753193417712660

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They also offered main conclusions and useful information related to the primary questions, the search strategy, and the characteristics of the included studies. These criteria were comparable to other studies, such as hand surgery systematic reviews, which scored the highest on Q3 (comprehensive literature search), Q7 (scientific quality assessed), and Q9 (methods used to combine the findings appropriate) 15…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Most SRs/MAs had comparable issues depending on the field of study. In quality assessments of SRs/MAs in hand surgery, the lowest scoring items were Q11 (conflict of interest included), Q1 (a priori design provided) and Q10 (likelihood of publication bias assessed) 15. While in health literacy and cancer screening, the main issues were protocol registration, sources of literature searches, and a list of excluded articles 16,18.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are several ways to check the quality of these SRs/MAs, such as Sack’s quality assessment (1988), overview quality assessment questionnaire (OQAQ) (1991),2 and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews scale (AMSTAR) (2007) 3. Additionally, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP),9 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE),10 and the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI-SUMARI) checklists or scales11 were developed by researchers to assess the quality of SRs/MAs published across a variety of disciplines, such as surgery,12,13 neuropathic pain, pulmonary disease,14 hand surgery,15 telerehabilitation, health literacy,16 nursing,17 cancer screening,18,19 and gastroenterology and hepatology 8,20-23…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Saudi journals from 1997 to 2017

Natto

Alghamdi

2019

SMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To assess the quality of the meta-analyses (MAs) and systematic reviews (SRs) in Saudi journals indexed in PubMed using 2 scales: A MeaSurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and the overview quality assessment questionnaire (OQAQ). Methods: This study focused on SRs/MAs published in 8 Saudi journals. We investigated, screened, and extracted the data, which included recording the main topic of each SRs/MAs and the date of publication. Furthermore, we assessed the quality of each included SRs/MAs using the AMSTAR and the OQAQ. The reviews concluded in January 2018. Results: The search uncovered 201 unique articles; of these, the researchers screened 110 full texts and included 103 in this review. Most of the included studies were published in Saudi Medical Journal (50 articles, 48.5%), followed by Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology (21 articles, 20.4%), and Annals of Saudi Medicine (16 articles, 15.5%). The main topics in these published articles were gastroenterology (20 articles, 19.5%), followed by oncology (14 articles, 13.7%), and pharmacology (9 articles, 8.7%). The AMSTAR and the OQAQ scales showed that most SRs/MAs were of medium quality. Conclusion: Quality of SRs and MAs published in Saudi journals was distributed in all categories (low, medium, and high) and it can be improved using critical evaluation by authors, journal editors, and readers. PROSPERO REG. NO. CRD: 42018102210

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Saudi journals from 1997 to 2017

Natto

Alghamdi

2019

SMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our inclusion criteria were as follows: These characteristics were selected as descriptive comparators and have been reported in other studies as being associated with improved review quality. [14][15][16]…”

Section: Study Selection Criteria and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in articles hand and wrist pathology: a review

Shen

Ware

O’Donohoe

et al. 2019

Australas J Plast Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: An increasing number of systematic reviews are published on an annual basis. Although perusal of the full text of articles is preferable, abstracts are sometimes relied upon to guide clinical decisions. Despite this, the abstracts of systematic reviews have historically been poorly reported. We evaluated the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts within hand and wrist pathology literature. Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2017 for systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology using the 12-item PRISMA-A checklist to assess abstract reporting quality. Results: A total of 114 abstracts were included. Most related to fracture (38%) or arthritis (17%) management. Forty-seven systematic reviews (41%) included meta-analysis. Mean PRISMA-A score was 3.6/12 with Cochrane reviews having the highest mean score and hand-specific journals having the lowest. Abstracts longer than 300 words (mean difference [MD]: 1.43, 95% CI [0.74, 2.13]; p <0.001) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (MD: 0.64, 95% CI [0.05, 1.22]; p = 0.034) were associated with higher scores. Unstructured abstracts were associated with lower scores (MD: –0.65, 95% CI [–1.28, –0.02]; p = 0.044). A limitation of this study is the possible exclusion of relevant studies that were not published in the English language. Conclusion: Abstracts of systematic reviews pertaining to hand and wrist pathology have been suboptimally reported as assessed by the PRISMA-A checklist. Improvements in reporting quality could be achieved by endorsement of PRISMA-A guidelines by authors and journals, and reducing constraints on abstract length.

show abstract

“…However, recently, the rigorousness of numerous studies published as SRs and MAs has been questioned due to methodological limitations and lack of adherence to international standards [ 3 ]. A number of studies in various fields of medicine and health sciences have addressed this issue [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ], confirming important shortcomings [ 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of Higher Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Nutrition and Cancer Prevention

Storman

Koperny

Zając

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are considered a reliable source of information in healthcare. We aimed to explore the association of several characteristics of SR/MAs addressing nutrition in cancer prevention and their quality/risk of bias (using assessments from AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools). The analysis included 101 SR/MAs identified in a systematic survey. Associations of each specified characteristic (e.g., information about the protocol, publication year, reported use of GRADE, or other methods for assessing overall certainty of evidence) with the number of AMSTAR-2 not met (‘No’ responses) and the number of ROBIS items met (‘Probably Yes’ or “Yes’ responses) were examined. Poisson regression was used to identify predictors of the number of ‘No’ answers (indicating lower quality) for all AMSTAR-2 items and the number of ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably Yes’ answers (indicating higher quality/lower concern for bias) for all ROBIS items. Logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with at least one domain assessed as ‘low concern for bias’ in the ROBIS tool. In multivariable analysis, SR/MAs not reporting use of any quality/risk of bias assessment instrument for primary studies were associated with a higher number of ‘No’ answers for all AMSTAR-2 items (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.45), and a lower number of ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably Yes’ answers for all ROBIS items (IRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66–0.87). Providing information about the protocol and search for unpublished studies was associated with a lower number of ‘No’ answers (IRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56–0.97 and IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59–0.95, respectively) and a higher number of ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably Yes’ answers (IRR 1.43, 95% CI 1.17–1.74 and IRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07–1.52, respectively). Not using at least one quality/risk of bias assessment tool for primary studies within an SR/MA was associated with lower odds that a study would be assessed as ‘low concern for bias’ in at least one ROBIS domain (odds ratio 0.061, 95% CI 0.007–0.527). Adherence to methodological standards in the development of SR/MAs was associated with a higher overall quality of SR/MAs addressing nutrition for cancer prevention.

show abstract

Methodological quality and reporting of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology

Cited by 9 publications

References 15 publications

Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Saudi journals from 1997 to 2017

Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Saudi journals from 1997 to 2017

Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in articles hand and wrist pathology: a review

Predictors of Higher Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Nutrition and Cancer Prevention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About