Dataset Information

Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses in urological literature.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To assess the overall quality of published urological meta-analyses and identify predictive factors for high quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We 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. RESULTS:A 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. CONCLUSIONS:Reporting 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.

SUBMITTER: Xia L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5399869 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses in urological literature.

Xia Leilei L Xu Jing J Guzzo Thomas J TJ

PeerJ 20170419

<h4>Purpose</h4>To assess the overall quality of published urological meta-analyses and identify predictive factors for high quality.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We 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) a ...[more]

PMID: 28439452

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:BackgroundZheng Qing Feng Tong Ning (ZQFTN) is a sinomenine (SIN) preparation that has been used in clinical practice. Our study aimed to assess the methodological and reporting quality of meta-analyses on the Chinese herbal formula ZQFTN for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsSystematic searches were carried out with the 5 following electronic databases from inception to July 2019: China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, VIP database for Chinese technical periodicals (VIP), Cochrane Library and PubMed. The quality of the methodology and reporting was measured with the assessment of multiple systematic reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) scale, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).ResultsEight studies were identified. Among the 16 items of the AMSTAR 2 scale, four items were optimally reported ("Y" =100% of the items), and another four items were poorly reported ("Y" =0% of the items). Only 2 studies received a good overall score ("Y" ?50% of the items). Regarding the PRISMA statement, the scores of 5 studies were lower than the average score (17.69), indicating that the quality of the reports was very low. In terms of the GRADE, none of the 61 results were of high quality (0.0%). Fifteen results were of medium quality (25%), 34 were of low quality (55%), and 12 were of very low quality (20%). Among the five downgrading factors, deviation risk (n?=?61, 100%) was the most common downgrading factor, followed by inconsistency (n?=?30, 50%), publication bias (n?=?17, 28%), inaccuracy (n?=?11, 18%) and indirectness (n?=?0, 0%).ConclusionsThe methodological and reporting quality of the meta-analyses and systematic reviews in the included studies are less than optimal, and researchers should undergo additional training and follow the AMSTAR 2 scale, PRISMA statement and GRADE to design high-quality studies in the future.

Project description:BackgroundThe indirect comparison of two interventions can be valuable in many situations. However, the quality of an indirect comparison will depend on several factors including the chosen methodology and validity of underlying assumptions. Published indirect comparisons are increasingly more common in the medical literature, but as yet, there are no published recommendations of how they should be reported. Our aim is to systematically review the quality of published indirect comparisons to add to existing empirical data suggesting that improvements can be made when reporting and applying indirect comparisons.Methodology/findingsReviews applying statistical methods to indirectly compare the clinical effectiveness of two interventions using randomised controlled trials were eligible. We searched (1966-2008) Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects, The Cochrane library, and Medline. Full review publications were assessed for eligibility. Specific criteria to assess quality were developed and applied. Forty-three reviews were included. Adequate methodology was used to calculate the indirect comparison in 41 reviews. Nineteen reviews assessed the similarity assumption using sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, or meta-regression. Eleven reviews compared trial-level characteristics. Twenty-four reviews assessed statistical homogeneity. Twelve reviews investigated causes of heterogeneity. Seventeen reviews included direct and indirect evidence for the same comparison; six reviews assessed consistency. One review combined both evidence types. Twenty-five reviews urged caution in interpretation of results, and 24 reviews indicated when results were from indirect evidence by stating this term with the result.ConclusionsThis review shows that the underlying assumptions are not routinely explored or reported when undertaking indirect comparisons. We recommend, therefore, that the quality of indirect comparisons should be improved, in particular, by assessing assumptions and reporting the assessment methods applied. We propose that the quality criteria applied in this article may provide a basis to help review authors carry out indirect comparisons and to aid appropriate interpretation.

Project description:BackgroundStudies have shown that industry-sponsored meta-analyses of drugs lack scientific rigour and have biased conclusions. However, these studies have been restricted to certain medical specialities. We compared all industry-supported meta-analyses of drug-drug comparisons with those without industry support.MethodsWe searched PubMed for all meta-analyses that compared different drugs or classes of drugs published in 2004. Two authors assessed the meta-analyses and independently extracted data. We used a validated scale for judging the methodological quality and a binary scale for judging conclusions. We divided the meta-analyses according to the type of support in 3 categories: industry-supported, non-profit support or no support, and undeclared support.ResultsWe included 39 meta-analyses. Ten had industry support, 18 non-profit or no support, and 11 undeclared support. On a 0-7 scale, the median quality score was 6 for meta-analyses with non-profit or no support and 2.5 for the industry-supported meta-analyses (P < 0.01). Compared with industry-supported meta-analyses, more meta-analyses with non-profit or no support avoided bias in the selection of studies (P = 0.01), more often stated the search methods used to find studies (P = 0.02), searched comprehensively (P < 0.01), reported criteria for assessing the validity of the studies (P = 0.02), used appropriate criteria (P = 0.04), described methods of allocation concealment (P = 0.05), described methods of blinding (P = 0.05), and described excluded patients (P = 0.08) and studies (P = 0.15). Forty percent of the industry-supported meta-analyses recommended the experimental drug without reservations, compared with 22% of the meta-analyses with non-profit or no support (P = 0.57).In a sensitivity analysis, we contacted the authors of the meta-analyses with undeclared support. Eight who replied that they had not received industry funding were added to those with non-profit or no support, and 3 who did not reply were added to those with industry support. This analysis did not change the results much.ConclusionTransparency is essential for readers to make their own judgment about medical interventions guided by the results of meta-analyses. We found that industry-supported meta-analyses are less transparent than meta-analyses with non-profit support or no support.

Dataset Information

Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses in urological literature.

Publications

Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses in urological literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets