Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality

Pussegoda, Kusala; Turner, Lucy; Garritty, Chantelle; Mayhew, Alain; Skidmore, Becky; Stevens, Adrienne; Boutron, Isabelle; Sarkis‐Onofre, Rafael; Bjerre, Lise M.; Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn; Altman, Douglas G.; Moher, David

doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0527-2

Cited by 218 publications

(180 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

156

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…15 (risk of bias across studies) and no. 27 (funding source) – have also been identified as problematic in other large‐scale studies on SR adherence …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Background Reporting of systematic reviews (SRs) using PRISMA increases transparency and reproducibility; adherence in the dermatology literature has not been assessed. Objectives To assess selected, primarily methodological items from the PRISMA reporting guideline among SRs published in dermatology journals. Methods We reviewed SRs published from 2013 to 2017 in the five highest‐impact dermatology journals according to the Science Citation Index. We descriptively assessed reporting of selected PRISMA items, the proportion of PRISMA items fully and partially reported, and whether SRs described using a preregistered protocol. We used univariate and multivariate linear regression to evaluate associations between exposures (year, protocol registration, funding source, type of included study, disease and journal), and outcomes (proportion of PRISMA items fully reported, and fully and partially reported, for each SR). Results We identified 136 SRs. All had more than one inadequately reported PRISMA item. Protocol registration (73%) and risk of bias (38%) were most often unreported. Reporting improved over time in our primary multivariate analysis [fully reported vs. partially and not reported, β = 2·48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·73–4·27] and secondary analysis (fully and partially reported vs. not reported, β = 1·28, 95% CI 0·06–2·50). Only 15% (20 of 136) of SRs stated that their protocols were registered; this was associated with PRISMA adherence to the evaluated PRISMA items in our primary multivariate analysis (β = 10·05, 95% CI 2·89–17·2) and secondary analysis (β = 8·87, 95% CI 3·84–13·9). Conclusions SR reporting in dermatology journals is often inadequate but improving over time; protocol registration is associated with better reporting. What's already known about this topic? No studies to date have examined the adherence of dermatology systematic reviews (SRs) to reporting guidelines, such as PRISMA. In other medical fields, reporting is variable with some improvement in adherence to reporting standards over time. What does this study add? Among SRs published in five dermatology journals from 2013 to 2017, all (n = 136) had at least one inadequately reported PRISMA item, while 93% (127 of 136) had at least one fully nonreported item. Reporting improved over time and SRs that stated use of a preregistered protocol were associated with better reporting. Several items remain commonly underreported in dermatology SRs. Authors, reviewers, journal editors and editorial committees should encourage preregistration of SR protocols and improved SR reporting.

show abstract

“…15 (risk of bias across studies) and no. 27 (funding source) – have also been identified as problematic in other large‐scale studies on SR adherence …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and item nine ("Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?"). In the previous systematic review of reviews, these items were also well addressed by review authors [30,58,59]. Duplicate selection of articles to be included in a systematic review can decrease the chance of missing articles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation: Umbrella review and quality assessment of systematic reviews

Melka

Chojenta²,

Holliday

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In the long term, smoking cessation can decrease the risk of cancer, stroke, and heart attacks and improve overall survival. This umbrella review aimed to assess the effect of pharmacological interventions on smoking cessation and to evaluate the methodological quality of previously conducted systematic reviews. Methods: Databases including the Cochrane library, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar were used to retrieve reviews. Systematic reviews that included only randomized controlled trials designed to assess pharmacotherapeutic interventions supporting abstinence from smoking were considered in this umbrella review. Each review was assessed for quality using the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) tool. Two authors (AM, AB) screened the titles and abstracts of all reviews obtained by the search strategy, assessed the full text of selected articles for inclusion and extracted data independently. Two authors (AM, AB) also performed a quality appraisal independently and Cohen’s Kappa statistic was used to assess inter-rater agreement. The findings of the studies were narrated qualitatively to describe the evidence regarding the effectiveness of pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation.Results: Nine reviews were included in this umbrella review. Most of the reviews included in this review reported that Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT), bupropion and varenicline were effective for smoking cessation. The combination of a nicotine patch with other nicotine formulations was also more effective than monotherapy. Similarly, the combination of nicotine with the non-nicotine therapy varenicline was found to be more effective than varenicline alone. However, the opioid antagonist naltrexone alone was not found to be effective for smoking cessation nor in combination with nicotine replacement therapy. The quality of reviews published after the development of the R-AMSTAR tool was higher than reviews published before the inception of the tool.Conclusions: This review revealed that drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are effective for smoking cessation. A combination of nicotine patches with other nicotine formulations was also effective for smoking cessation compared to nicotine monotherapy. The quality of papers published after the development of the AMSTAR tool demonstrated better quality compared to papers published before the inception of the tool.

show abstract

“…However, if the included studies are poorly reported, the findings can be unusable or even misleading with a waste of time and resources invested and avoiding the reproducibility of studies. Recent studies have been putting forth that the reporting quality of SRs is inconsistent and suboptimal 44,45 -it is necessary, hence, there be a multistage approach during the presubmission, reviewing, publication, and postpublication stages to improve the reporting and use of reporting guidelines. 2 as in vitro and preclinical animal studies (discussed earlier).…”

Section: Use Of Prisma Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic reviews in restorative dentistry: discussing relevant aspects

Sarkis‐Onofre

Pereira‐Cenci

Tricco

et al. 2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This article aims to discuss key aspects of systematic reviews (SR) focusing on the improvement of the conduct and reporting. Methods Important aspects of SRs, such as prospective registration of the review protocol, basic structure, inclusion criteria, use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, confidence in the results and future directions are discussed. To determine relevant aspects, a search was conducted without date limitations in PubMed (October 15th, 2017) to identify SRs written in English evaluating clinical performance of direct composite resin restoration in permanent posterior teeth or comparing direct composite resin with other material/techniques. The quality of SRs included was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 tool. Results Fifteen SRs were included. The overall confidence in the results of SRs was classified as critically low. Some aspects should be highlighted: SRs of in vitro studies are an important tool in restorative dentistry, and initiatives such as the PRISMA Statement and PROSPERO should be considered a standard code of practice. Conclusions The compliance with and awareness of the discussed aspects may be a significant feature of the improvement of SR quality in the dentistry. Clinical significance Initiatives such as the PRISMA Statement and PROSPERO should be taken in account by systematic reviewers in dentistry to improve the conduct and reporting of SRs, and to make their reviews are more clinically helpful.

show abstract

Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality

Cited by 218 publications

References 84 publications

Quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals

Quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals

Effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation: Umbrella review and quality assessment of systematic reviews

Systematic reviews in restorative dentistry: discussing relevant aspects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About