Quality of reporting of systematic reviews published in “evidence-based” Chinese journals

Li, Jinlong; Ge, Long; Ma, Jichun; Zeng, Qiao-ling; Lu, Yao; An, Ni; Ding, Jie-xian; Gan, Yuhong; Tian, Jinhui

doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-58

Cited by 31 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Over 85% provided a rationale for the review when assessed using PRISMA, yet less than 6% gave protocol information in their SR report. Our study, like others, shows that reporting of review protocols is poorly reported [2, 24]. Review protocols are important to reduce duplication of research, allow researchers to plan and anticipate potential issues, assess validity of methods and replication of the review if desired, and prevent arbitrary decision-making [78, 79].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundGuidelines for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) were developed to contribute to implementing evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. As SRs assessing a cohort of SRs is becoming more prevalent in the literature and with the increased uptake of SR evidence for decision-making, methodological quality and standard of reporting of SRs is of interest. The objective of this study is to evaluate SR adherence to the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) and PRISMA reporting guidelines and the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) quality assessment tools as evaluated in methodological overviews.MethodsThe Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® databases were searched from January 1990 to October 2014. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the quality or reporting of a cohort of SRs of interventions using PRISMA, QUOROM, OQAQ, or AMSTAR were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports and SRs respectively.ResultsOf the 20,765 independent records retrieved from electronic searching, 1189 reports were reviewed for eligibility at full text, of which 56 reports (5371 SRs in total) evaluating the PRISMA, QUOROM, AMSTAR, and/or OQAQ tools were included. Notable items include the following: of the SRs using PRISMA, over 85% (1532/1741) provided a rationale for the review and less than 6% (102/1741) provided protocol information. For reports using QUOROM, only 9% (40/449) of SRs provided a trial flow diagram. However, 90% (402/449) described the explicit clinical problem and review rationale in the introduction section. Of reports using AMSTAR, 30% (534/1794) used duplicate study selection and data extraction. Conversely, 80% (1439/1794) of SRs provided study characteristics of included studies. In terms of OQAQ, 37% (499/1367) of the SRs assessed risk of bias (validity) in the included studies, while 80% (1112/1387) reported the criteria for study selection.ConclusionsAlthough reporting guidelines and quality assessment tools exist, reporting and methodological quality of SRs are inconsistent. Mechanisms to improve adherence to established reporting guidelines and methodological assessment tools are needed to improve the quality of SRs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0527-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is ample literature assessing the quality of systematic reviews across many disciplines [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16], and a common theme that has emerged from a number of these studies has been the need for improving the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Many studies have advocated for and described various roles that librarians and information professionals could play on a review team [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews

Meert

Torabi

Chen³

2016

J Med Libr Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: A critical element in conducting a systematic review is the identification of studies. To date, very little empirical evidence has been reported on whether the presence of a librarian or information professional can contribute to the quality of the final product. The goal of this study was to compare the reporting rigor of the literature searching component of systematic reviews with and without the help of a librarian.Method: Systematic reviews published from 2002 to 2011 in the twenty highest impact factor pediatrics journals were collected from MEDLINE. Corresponding authors were contacted via an email survey to determine if a librarian was involved, the role that the librarian played, and functions that the librarian performed. The reviews were scored independently by two reviewers using a fifteen-item checklist.Results: There were 186 reviews that met the inclusion criteria, and 44% of the authors indicated the involvement of a librarian in conducting the systematic review. With the presence of a librarian as coauthor or team member, the mean checklist score was 8.40, compared to 6.61 (p,0.001) for reviews without a librarian.Conclusions: Findings indicate that having a librarian as a coauthor or team member correlates with a higher score in the literature searching component of systematic reviews.Keywords: Systematic Review, Librarian, Critical Appraisal, Literature Search, Reporting There is ample literature assessing the quality of systematic reviews across many disciplines [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16], and a common theme that has emerged from a number of these studies has been the need for improving the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Many studies have advocated for and described various roles that librarians and information professionals could play on a review team [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. Several standards and organizations also suggest that a librarian or information professional be involved in the review process [27][28][29][30]. Documents produced by the Campbell Collaboration and a recent Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) Knowledge Synthesis grant competition strongly recommend that an information professional or librarian be included among the members of a review team [31,32].However, to date, there has been very little empirical evidence on whether the presence of a librarian or information professional on a systematic review team contributes to the quality of a systematic review. Golder et al. found that only a very small percentage of reviews reported their search strategy with enough detail to be reproducible, and of those with reproducible searches, nearly half employed an information professional [33]. In the same study, the authors noted that literature searches performed by information professionals tended to be carried out

show abstract

“…Pilot çalışma sonrası literatürdeki örneklerden yararlanılarak derlemelerdeki bilgilerin kılavuzdaki maddeleri karşılama durumuna göre puanlamaya "kısmen" maddesi eklendi. (25) Çalışma kapsamına alınan sistematik derleme makaleler her iki araştırmacı tarafından PRISMA Bildirgesi Formu kullanılarak, 0-27 puan arasında bağımsız olarak değerlendirildi. Yapılan Kappa Analizine göre bağımsız gözlemciler arasındaki tutarlılık/uyum oldukça yüksek (κ=0.813; p=0.000) bulundu.…”

Section: Tarama Stratejisiunclassified

Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews Published in Nursing Journals in Turkey

Nahcivan¹,

Incirkuş²

2018

HEAD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bu makalede, ülkemizde 2000-2016 yılları arasında hemşirelik dergilerinde yayınlanmış sistematik derlemelerin metodolojik ve raporlama özelliklerini incelemek amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: Tanımlayıcı tipteki araştırmanın örneklemi Türkiye'de yayınlanan tüm hemşirelik dergilerini kapsamaktadır. Makaleler hemşirelik dergilerinin web sayfaları, Türk Medline, TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Dergi-Park veri tabanları ve Google Akademik arama motorunda "hemşire", "sistematik derleme", "sistematik inceleme", "literatür inceleme", "literatür tarama" anahtar kelimeleri kullanılarak tarandı. Makale özelliklerini ortaya koymak amacıyla araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan Veri Çekme Formu, raporlama özelliklerinin değerlendirilmesinde 27 maddeli PRISMA Bildirimi kullanıldı. İki araştırmacı bağımsız olarak makalelerin raporlama kalitesini değerlendirdi. Veriler, Cohen's kappa, frekans, ortalama ve standart sapma kullanılarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Hemşirelik dergilerinde yayınlanan toplam 26 sistematik derleme/literatür inceleme çalışmaya dâhil edildi. Ortalama PRISMA puanı 7.46±3.20 (min-maks=1.5-13) bulundu. Gözlemciler arası uyum yüksekti (κ=0.813, p=0.000). Başlık (%76.9), yapılandırılmış özet (%57.7) en iyi raporlandırılan; yöntem, sonuçlar, tartışma ve fonlanma kaynakları en yetersiz raporlandırılan bölümlerdi. Tartışma ve Sonuç: Ülkemizde hemşirelik dergilerinde sistematik derleme sayısı giderek artmakla birlikte, derlemelerin raporlama kaliteleri oldukça düşüktür. Hemşirelik dergi editörlerinin, hakemlerin ve araştırmacıların sistematik derlemelerde rapor kalitesini artırmak için PRISMA kılavuzlarını kullanmaları önerilir.

show abstract

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews published in “evidence-based” Chinese journals

Cited by 31 publications

References 10 publications

Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality

Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality

Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews

Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews Published in Nursing Journals in Turkey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About