Reporting and methodological qualities of published surgical meta-analyses

Zhang, Han; Han, Jun; Zhu, Yingbo; Lau, W. Y.; Schwartz, Myron; Xie, Guoqiang; Dai, Shuyang; Shen, Yinan; Wu, Mengchao; Shen, Feng; Yang, Tian

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.009

Cited by 33 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reporting and methodological qualities of meta-analyses in other medical disciplines were evaluated with similar methods (Liu et al, 2017; Zhang et al, 2016). Zhang et al (2016) focused on meta-analyses of surgical interventions in year 2013 and showed the mean PRISMA and AMSTAR adherences (by items) were 22.3 and 7.9, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Zhang et al (2016) focused on meta-analyses of surgical interventions in year 2013 and showed the mean PRISMA and AMSTAR adherences (by items) were 22.3 and 7.9, respectively. A recent study showed the mean PRISMA and AMSTAR adherences (by items) in the leading gastroenterology and hepatology journals were 20.8 and 7.6, respectively (Liu et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rapidly expanding literature across all medical disciplines raise the increasing need to summarize and synthesis the currently available evidence. Such factors have contributed to the increased number of published meta-analyses in medical journals (Tunis et al, 2013; Zhang et al, 2016). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although still debatable, a number of studies in various surgical and medical fields have used the “scores” based on the fulfillments of PRISMA and AMSTA to assess the qualities of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Adie et al, 2015; Gagnier & Kellam, 2013; Liu et al, 2017; Shea et al, 2007a; Tunis et al, 2013; Zhang et al, 2016). There exist several duplicate items in the two tools, generally they are considered separate tools and are commonly used together for the assessment, PRISMA for reporting quality and AMSTAR for methodological quality (Adie et al, 2015; Gagnier & Kellam, 2013; Liu et al, 2017; Shea et al, 2007a; Tunis et al, 2013; Zhang et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There exist several duplicate items in the two tools, generally they are considered separate tools and are commonly used together for the assessment, PRISMA for reporting quality and AMSTAR for methodological quality (Adie et al, 2015; Gagnier & Kellam, 2013; Liu et al, 2017; Shea et al, 2007a; Tunis et al, 2013; Zhang et al, 2016). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses in urological literature

Xia

Guzzo

2017

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo assess the overall quality of published urological meta-analyses and identify predictive factors for high quality.Materials and MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed to identify meta-analyses published from January 1st, 2011 to December 31st, 2015 in 10 predetermined major paper-based urology journals. The characteristics of the included meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting and methodological qualities were assessed by the PRISMA checklist (27 items) and AMSTAR tool (11 items), respectively. Descriptive statistics were used for individual items as a measure of overall compliance, and PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were calculated as the sum of adequately reported domains. Logistic regression was used to identify predictive factors for high qualities.ResultsA total of 183 meta-analyses were included. The mean PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were 22.74 ± 2.04 and 7.57 ± 1.41, respectively. PRISMA item 5, protocol and registration, items 15 and 22, risk of bias across studies, items 16 and 23, additional analysis had less than 50% adherence. AMSTAR item 1, “a priori” design, item 5, list of studies and item 10, publication bias had less than 50% adherence. Logistic regression analyses showed that funding support and “a priori” design were associated with superior reporting quality, following PRISMA guideline and “a priori” design were associated with superior methodological quality.ConclusionsReporting and methodological qualities of recently published meta-analyses in major paper-based urology journals are generally good. Further improvement could potentially be achieved by strictly adhering to PRISMA guideline and having “a priori” protocol.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses in urological literature

Xia

Guzzo

2017

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in Thyroidectomy

Sanábria

Kowalski

Nixon

et al. 2019

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered the best evidence for clinical decision making. Many reviews of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) in thyroidectomy have conflicting results, owing in large part to methodological quality. OBJECTIVE To assess the methodological quality and the causes of heterogeneous results of systematic reviews that compare routine IONM vs visual identification of the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) in patients undergoing thyroidectomy.DATA SOURCES A systematic search was performed of MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, the Cochrane Library, LILACS (Literatura Latino Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde),

show abstract

The quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses assessing the effects of ankle–foot orthosis on clinical outcomes in stroke patients: A methodological systematic review

Shahabi

Mojgani

Lankarani

et al. 2023

Health Science Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims Given the importance of systematic reviews (SRs) for practitioners, researchers, and policymakers, it is essential to assess them to ensure robust methodology and reliable results before applying them. The purpose of this methodological study was to assess the methodological and reporting quality of recently published SRs and/or meta‐analyses (MAs) evaluating the effects of ankle–foot orthoses (AFOs) on clinical outcomes in stroke survivors. Methods PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, ProQuest, CENTRAL, REHABDATA, and PEDro were searched. The research team applied A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR‐2) tool and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) checklist for evaluating the reporting and methodological quality, respectively, and the ROBIS tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias (RoB) in the included reviews. The quality of the evidence was also judged using the (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) GRADE method. Results In final, 14 SRs/MAs met inclusion criteria. Evaluation of methodological quality using the AMSTAR‐2 tool demonstrated that the overall quality of included reviews was mostly “critically low” or “low,” except for two studies that were “high.” In addition, the findings showed that the mean score of the reporting quality of the included reviews based on the PRISMA criteria was 24.9, down from 42. In accordance with the overall evaluation applying the ROBIS tool, 14.3% of the review studies were evaluated as high RoB, 64.3% were evaluated as unclear RoB, and 21.4% were evaluated as low RoB. Regarding the level of evidence quality, the GRADE results indicated that the evidence quality of the included reviews was unsatisfactory. Conclusion This study showed that although the reporting quality of recently published SR/MAs evaluating the clinical effects of AFOs in stroke survivors was moderate, the methodological quality of almost all reviews was suboptimal. Therefore, reviewers must consider a number of criteria in designing, conducting, and reporting their studies to move toward transparent and conclusive results.

show abstract

Reporting and methodological qualities of published surgical meta-analyses

Cited by 33 publications

References 29 publications

Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses in urological literature

Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses in urological literature

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews of Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in Thyroidectomy

The quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses assessing the effects of ankle–foot orthosis on clinical outcomes in stroke patients: A methodological systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About