Dataset Information

A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Meta-analyses have been suggested to be the highest form of evidence available to clinicians to guide clinical practice in critical care. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of meta-analyses that address topics pertinent to critical care.

Methods

To identify potentially eligible meta-analyses for inclusion, a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was undertaken, using broad search terms relevant to intensive care, including: intensive care, critical care, shock, resuscitation, inotropes and mechanical ventilation. Predetermined inclusion criteria were applied to each identified meta-analysis independently by two authors. To assess report quality, the included meta-analyses were assessed using the component and overall scores from the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ). The quality of reports published before and after the publication of the QUOROM statement was compared.

Results

A total of 139 reports of meta-analyses were included (kappa = 0.93). The overall quality of reports of meta-analyses was found to be poor, with an estimated mean overall OQAQ score of 3.3 (95% CI; 3.0-3.6). Only 43 (30.9%) were scored as having minimal or minor flaws (>5). We noted problems with the reporting of key characteristics of meta-analyses, such as performing a thorough literature search, avoidance of bias in the inclusion of studies and appropriately referring to the validity of the included studies. After the release of the QUOROM statement, however, an improvement in the overall quality of published meta-analyses was noted.

Conclusion

The overall quality of the reports of meta-analyses available to critical care physicians is poor. Physicians should critically evaluate these studies prior to considering applying the results of these studies in their clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Delaney A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1297628 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature.

Delaney Anthony A Bagshaw Sean M SM Ferland Andre A Manns Braden B Laupland Kevin B KB Doig Christopher J CJ

Critical care (London, England) 20050909 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>Meta-analyses have been suggested to be the highest form of evidence available to clinicians to guide clinical practice in critical care. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of meta-analyses that address topics pertinent to critical care.<h4>Methods</h4>To identify potentially eligible meta-analyses for inclusion, a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was undertaken, using broad search terms re ...[more]

PMID: 16277721

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this systematic review is to appraise evidence on the economic evaluations of advanced practice physiotherapy (APP) care compared to usual medical care.MethodsSystematic searches were conducted up to September 2021 in selected electronic bibliographical databases. Economic evaluation studies on an APP model of care were included. Economic data such as health care costs, patient costs, productivity losses were extracted. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed with the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Meta-analyses were performed and mean differences (MD) in costs per patient were calculated using random-effect inverse variance models. Certainty of the evidence was assessed with the GRADE Approach.ResultsTwelve studies (n = 14,649 participants) including four randomized controlled trials, seven analytical cohort studies and one economic modeling study were included. The clinical settings of APP models of care included primary, emergency and specialized secondary care such as orthopaedics, paediatrics and gynaecology. The majority of the included participants were adults with musculoskeletal disorders (n = 12,915). Based on low quality evidence, health system costs including salaries, diagnostic tests, medications, and follow-up visits were significantly lower with APP care than with usual medical care, at 2 to 12-month follow-up (MD: - 145.02 €/patient; 95%CI: - 251.89 to - 38.14; n = 7648). Based on low quality evidence, patient costs including travel and paid medication prescriptions, or treatments were significantly higher with APP care compared to usual medical care, at 2 to 6-month follow-up (MD: 22.18 €/patient; 95%CI: 0.40 to 43.96; n = 1485). Based on very low quality evidence, no significant differences in productivity losses per patient were reported between both types of care (MD: 450 €/patient; 95%CI: - 80 to 970; n = 819).ConclusionsThis is the first systematic review and meta-analysis on the economic evaluation of APP models of care. Low quality evidence suggests that APP care might result in lower health care costs, but higher patient costs compared to usual medical care. Costs differences may vary depending on various factors such as the cost methodology used and on the clinical setting. More evidence is needed to evaluate cost benefits of APP models of care.

Project description:BackgroundThe QUOROM and PRISMA statements were published in 1999 and 2009, respectively, to improve the consistency of reporting systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of clinical trials. However, not all SRs/MAs adhere completely to these important standards. In particular, it is not clear how well SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies adhere to reporting standards and which reporting criteria are generally ignored in these analyses.ObjectivesTo evaluate reporting quality in SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies.MethodsWe performed a literature search for studies published prior to 2014 using the following public archives: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) database, the Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), the Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database (CSJD), and the Wanfang database. Data were extracted into pre-prepared Excel data-extraction forms. Reporting quality was assessed based on the PRISMA checklist (27 items).ResultsOf 476 appropriate SRs/MAs identified in our search, 203, 227, and 46 were published in Chinese journals, international journals, and the Cochrane Database, respectively. In 476 SRs/MAs, only 3 reported the information completely. By contrast, approximately 4.93% (1/203), 8.81% (2/227) and 0.00% (0/46) SRs/Mas reported less than 10 items in Chinese journals, international journals and CDSR, respectively. In general, the least frequently reported items (reported≤50%) in SRs/MAs were "protocol and registration", "risk of bias across studies", and "additional analyses" in both methods and results sections.ConclusionsSRs/MAs of acupuncture studies have not comprehensively reported information recommended in the PRISMA statement. Our study underscores that, in addition to focusing on careful study design and performance, attention should be paid to comprehensive reporting standards in SRs/MAs on acupuncture studies.

Project description:Objectives: To carry out an integrated and stratified meta-analysis on occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), metals and pesticides and its effects on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, and investigate the possibility of publication bias. Methods: In the current study, we updated our recently published meta-analyses on occupational exposures in relation to ALS, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. Based on 66 original publications of good scientific epidemiological standard, according to the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines, we analysed subgroups by carrying out stratified meta-analyses on publication year, statistical precision of the relative risk (RR) estimates, inspection of the funnel plots and test of bias. Results: Based on 19 studies the weighted RR for occupational exposure to EMFs was 1.26 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07?1.50) for ALS, 1.33 (95% CI 1.07?1.64) for Alzheimer's disease and 1.02 (95% CI 0.83?1.26) for Parkinson's disease. Thirty-one studies concerned occupational exposure to pesticides and the weighted RR was 1.35 (95% CI 1.02?1.79) for ALS, 1.50 (95% CI 0.98?2.29) for Alzheimer's disease and 1.66 (95% CI 1.42?1.94) for Parkinson's disease. Finally, 14 studies concerned occupational exposure to metals and only exposure to lead (five studies) involved an elevated risk for ALS or Parkinson's disease and the weighted RR was 1.57 (95% CI 1.11?2.20). The weighted RR for all the non-lead exposures was 0.97 (95% CI 0.88?1.06). Conclusions: Exposure to pesticides increased the risk of getting the mentioned neurodegenerative diseases by at least 50%. Exposure to lead was only studied for ALS and Parkinson's disease and involved 50% increased risk. Occupational exposure to EMFs seemed to involve some 10% increase in risk for ALS and Alzheimer's disease only.

Dataset Information

A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets