The methodological quality of systematic reviews indexed in the MEDLINE database

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyse the methodology quality of the literature search protocols of systematic reviews and to assess the relevance of the search filter that applies PubMed for retrieving this type of publication of the MEDLINE database. Design/methodology/approach For the selection of the document type, a literature search about nutritional and metabolic diseases was carried out in MEDLINE and the PubMed filter was used for retrieving “Systematic Reviews”, selecting “Nutritional and Metabolic Diseases” from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) database as Major Topic to determine the area of knowledge. Data analysis was carried out using “External Logistic Biplot”, a novel multivariate statistical technique in the field of medical documentation. Findings The results highlight the large variability of the methodology used in the literature search protocols of the systematic reviews analysed and confirm the low precision of the filter used by PubMed for the recovery of systematic reviews. Originality/value The Logistic Biplot used in this research allows an optimal categorization of the different documentary typologies and classifies the documents by their methodological quality, demonstrating its usefulness for the future development of the bibliometric analysis.

Developing a Feasible and Credible Method for Analyzing Healthcare Documents as Written Data

“…In addition, the search query parameters were formulated in collaboration with an information specialist, to decrease the search bias. However, as we only limited our searches to publications in English, this may have caused language bias ( Martín-Rodero et al, 2018 ). We conducted both electronic and manual searches to decrease publication bias.…”

“…The papers were selected by three independent researchers to strengthen the quality and trustworthiness of the study but the use of screening software would have decreased the human error of selection. We also used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist to verify the comprehensiveness of our review (Martín-Rodero et al, 2018; Moher et al, 2009). However, the quality of the reviewed publications was not evaluated, due to the lack of specific criteria for methodological papers and book chapters.…”

“…We used systematic methodological review design by applying the theory review method (Campbell et al, 2014) with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist (Martín-Rodero et al, 2018; Moher et al, 2009) to identify previous methodological literature on document analysis. In addition, we used our experience of carrying out 14 studies using document analysis to examine the feasibility and credibility of the method.…”

Comunicar la ciencia

“…La necesidad de hacer público el conocimiento científico se formaliza con la Revolución Científica en el siglo XVII y se mantiene hasta el momento actual, debido, entre otros factores, a la progresiva institucionalización y profesionalización de la ciencia, especialmente desde mediados del siglo XIX (13).…”

Development of an efficient search filter to retrieve systematic reviews from PubMed

“…The PubMed SR filter was initially developed by Shojania and Bero [ 16 ]. Although it has been updated over the years, it retrieves a large number of studies that are not systematic reviews, causing a loss of precision [ 28 – 29 ]. This filter has also been adapted for other platforms (Ovid, EBSCO) and databases (EMBASE) [ 30 ].…”