Dataset Information

Quality assessment of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A systematic review is used to investigate the best available evidence of clinical safety and effectiveness of healthcare intervention. This requires methodological rigor in order to minimize bias and random error. The purpose of this study is to assess the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses for nursing interventions conducted by Korean researchers.

Methods

We searched electronic databases from 1950 to July 2010, including ovidMEDLINE, ovidEMBASE, and Korean databases, including KoreaMed, Korean Medical Database, and Korean studies Information Service System etc. Two reviewers independently screened and selected all references, and assessed the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses using the "Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR) tool.

Results

Twenty two systematic reviews or meta-analyses were included in this study. The median overall score (out of 11) for included reviews was 5 (range 2-11) and the mean overall score for AMSTAR was 4.7 (95% confidence interval 3.8-5.7). Nine out of 22 reviews were rated as low quality (AMSTAR score 0-4), 11 were rated as moderate quality (AMSTAR score 5-8), and two reviews were categorized as high quality (AMSTAR score 9-11).

Conclusions

The methodological quality of published reviews on nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers was assessed as low to moderate. In order to use the best available evidence in clinical decision making, reviewers should conduct systematic reviews or meta- analyses using rigorous research methods.

SUBMITTER: Seo HJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3552770 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality assessment of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers.

Seo Hyun-Ju HJ Kim Kyeong Uoon KU

BMC medical research methodology 20120828

<h4>Background</h4>A systematic review is used to investigate the best available evidence of clinical safety and effectiveness of healthcare intervention. This requires methodological rigor in order to minimize bias and random error. The purpose of this study is to assess the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses for nursing interventions conducted by Korean researchers.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched electronic databases from 1950 to July 2010, including ovidMEDLINE, ovidEMBASE, and Korean ...[more]

PMID: 22928687

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundAlthough non-pharmacological smoking cessation measures have been widely used among smokers, current research evidence on the effects of smoking cessation is inconsistent and of mixed quality. Moreover, there is a lack of comprehensive evidence synthesis. This study seeks to systematically identify, describe, and evaluate the available evidence for non-pharmacological interventions in smoking populations through evidence mapping (EM), and to search for best-practice smoking cessation programs.MethodsA comprehensive search for relevant studies published from the establishment of the library to January 8, 2023, was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang, and VIP. Two authors independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR 2 tool were used to evaluate the report quality and methodology quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs), respectively. Bubble plots were utilized to display information, such as the study population, intervention type, evidence quality, and original study sample size.ResultsA total of 145 SRs/MAs regarding non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation were investigated, with 20 types of interventions identified. The most commonly used interventions were cognitive behaviour education (n = 32, 22.07%), professional counselling (n = 20, 13.79%), and non-nicotine electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) (n = 13, 8.97%). Among them, counselling and behavioural support can improve smoking cessation rates, but the effect varies depending on the characteristics of the support provided. These findings are consistent with previous SRs/MAs. The general population (n = 108, 74.48%) was the main cohort included in the SRs/MAs. The total score of PRISMA for the quality of the reports ranged from 8 to 27, and 13 studies (8.97%) were rated as high confidence, and nine studies (6.21%) as moderate confidence, in the AMSTAR 2 confidence rating.ConclusionsThe abstinence effect of cognitive behaviour education and money incentive intervention has advantages, and non-nicotine e-cigarettes appear to help some smokers transition to less harmful replacement tools. However, the methodological shortcomings of SRs/MAs should be considered. Therefore, to better guide future practice in the field of non-pharmacological smoking cessation, it is essential to improve the methodological quality of SRs and carry out high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Project description:Rationale, aims, and objectivesCOVID-19 has caused an ongoing public health crisis. Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been performed to synthesize evidence for better understanding this new disease. However, some concerns have been raised about rapid COVID-19 research. This meta-epidemiological study aims to methodologically assess the current systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19.MethodsWe searched in various databases for systematic reviews with meta-analyses published between 1 January 2020 and 31 October 2020. We extracted their basic characteristics, data analyses, evidence appraisal, and assessment of publication bias and heterogeneity.ResultsWe identified 295 systematic reviews on COVID-19. The median time from submission to acceptance was 33 days. Among these systematic reviews, 73.9% evaluated clinical manifestations or comorbidities of COVID-19. Stata was the most used software programme (43.39%). The odds ratio was the most used effect measure (34.24%). Moreover, 28.14% of the systematic reviews did not present evidence appraisal. Among those reporting the risk of bias results, 14.64% of studies had a high risk of bias. Egger's test was the most used method for assessing publication bias (38.31%), while 38.66% of the systematic reviews did not assess publication bias. The I2 statistic was widely used for assessing heterogeneity (92.20%); many meta-analyses had high values of I2 . Among the meta-analyses using the random-effects model, 75.82% did not report the methods for model implementation; among those meta-analyses reporting implementation methods, the DerSimonian-Laird method was the most used one.ConclusionsThe current systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19 might suffer from low transparency, high heterogeneity, and suboptimal statistical methods. It is recommended that future systematic reviews on COVID-19 strictly follow well-developed guidelines. Sensitivity analyses may be performed to examine how the synthesized evidence might depend on different methods for appraising evidence, assessing publication bias, and implementing meta-analysis models.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many reviews with conflicting findings on dementia caregiver interventions have been published. A meta-review was conducted to synthesize the findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. METHODS:MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched to identify reviews published during 2006-2018. RESULTS:Sixty reviews covering >?500 intervention studies were selected and appraised with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) II. The great majority of studies were of low quality according to AMSTAR II, but quality factors appeared unrelated to the conclusions obtained. Depression was most modifiable, with effects found across a spectrum of interventions (psychoeducation, counseling/psychotherapy, occupational therapy, mindfulness-based interventions, multicomponent interventions, etc.). Evidence of intervention effect was also found for quality of life (psychoeducation), mastery (psychoeducation, occupational therapy and multicomponent interventions) and communication skills (communication training). Null or weak results were found for anxiety, social support and burden. Support groups and respite were generally ineffective. There was no evidence that dyadic programs were better than caregiver-only programs, or that programs delivered individually or in groups would differ in their impacts. The evidence also does not support multicomponent interventions to have broader impacts than single-component programs. Methodological issues in the existing reviews (e.g., selective use of studies to serve different research purposes and inconsistent classification of interventions) were noted and taken into account when interpreting findings. CONCLUSIONS:This meta-review clarified variations in review methodology and identified a few potent groups of intervention (most notably psychoeducation, psychotherapy, occupational therapy, and multicomponent interventions), although no intervention type had broad effects on caregiver outcomes. We note that improvements are needed in the reporting of intervention studies and in making the classification of interventions more transparent and consistent. We further recommend fewer and larger-scale reviews and more attention to positive outcomes in order to better inform the field. Developing interventions with broader impacts and packaging them to meet caregivers' changing needs in the course of dementia should be a priority for researchers and practitioners.

Dataset Information

Quality assessment of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Quality assessment of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets