Dataset Information

Characteristics, trend, and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nuclear medicine: A bibliometric analysis of studies published between 2005 and 2016.

ABSTRACT: To evaluate the characteristics, trend, and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nuclear medicine.We performed a PubMed search to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2005 and 2016 in the field of nuclear medicine. The following data were extracted: journal name, impact factor, type of study, topics with cancer type, imaging modalities, authors (number, country, affiliation, presence of nuclear medicine specialists and statisticians, discordance between the first and corresponding authors), funding, methodological quality, methods used for quality assessment, and statistical methods.We included 185 nuclear medicine articles. Meta-analyses (n?=?164; 88.6%) were published about 7 times more frequently than systematic reviews. Oncology was the most commonly studied topic (n?=?125, 67.6%). The first authors were most frequently located in China (n?=?73; 39.5%). PET was the most commonly used modality (n?=?150; 81.1%). Both the number of authors and the ratio of discordance between the first and corresponding authors tended to progressively increase over time.The mean AMSTAR score increased over time (5.77 in 2005-2008, 6.71 in 2009-2012, and 7.44 in 2013-2016). The proportion of articles with quality assessment increased significantly (20/26 in 2005-2008, 54/65 in 2009-2012, and 79/94 in 2013-2016). The most commonly used assessment tool was quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (n?=?85; 54.9%).The number and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nuclear medicine have significantly increased over the review period; however, the quality of these articles varies. Efforts to overcome specific weaknesses of the methodologies can provide opportunities for quality improvement.

SUBMITTER: Hong JU

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6571355 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Characteristics, trend, and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nuclear medicine: A bibliometric analysis of studies published between 2005 and 2016.

Hong Jung Ui JU Kim Jun Ho JH Lee Kyung Hee KH Lee Minkyung M Hyun In Young IY Cho Soon Gu SG Kim Yeo Ju YJ Lee Ha Young HY Kim Ga Ram GR

Medicine 20190501 21

To evaluate the characteristics, trend, and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nuclear medicine.We performed a PubMed search to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2005 and 2016 in the field of nuclear medicine. The following data were extracted: journal name, impact factor, type of study, topics with cancer type, imaging modalities, authors (number, country, affiliation, presence of nuclear medicine specialists and statisticians, discordance between t ...[more]

PMID: 31124972

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBibliometric analysis is a quantitative method which applies mathematical and statistical tools to evaluate the inter-relationships and impacts of publications, authors, institutions and countries in a specific research area. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) are summaries of the best available evidence to address a specific research question via comprehensively literature search, in-depth analysis and synthesis of results. To date, there have been several studies summarizing the publication trends of SRMAs in research specialties, however, none has conducted specifically in ophthalmology. The purpose of this study is to establish the scientometric landscape of SRMAs published in the field of ophthalmology over time.MethodsWe retrieved relevant ophthalmological SRMAs and the corresponding bibliometric parameters during 2000 to 2020 from Web of Science Core Collection. Bibliometric analysis was performed using bibliometrix package. Pre-registration and guideline compliance of each article was independently assessed by two investigators.ResultsA total of 2,660 SRMAs were included, and the average annual growth rate was 21.26%. China and the United States were the most productive countries, while Singapore was the country with the highest average citations per document. Wong TY was not only the most productive, but also the most frequently cited author. The most productive affiliation was National University of Singapore (n = 236). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses output in most subspecialties had steadily increased with retina/vitreous (n = 986), glaucoma (n = 411) and cornea/external diseases (n = 303) constantly as the most dominant fields. Rates of pre-registration and guideline compliance had dramatically increased over time, with 20.0 and 63.5% of article being pre-registered and reported guideline in 2020, respectively. However, SRMAs published on ophthalmology journals tended to be less frequently pre-registered and guideline complied than those on non-ophthalmology journals (both p < 0.001).ConclusionThe annual output of SRMAs has been rapidly increasing over the past two decades. China and the United States were the most productive countries, whereas Singapore has the most prolific and influential scholar and institution. Raising awareness and implementation of SRMAs pre-registration and guideline compliance is still necessary to ensure quality, especially for ophthalmology journals.

Project description:AimWe performed a bibliometric analysis of top 100 systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) in orthopaedic literature and also evaluated articles with maximum average citation per year, which were unable to make up in the present top 100 cited list, but may have a promising future in the world of citations.MethodsThis bibliometric study was performed by searching Web of Science database according to a specific search strategy by two independent authors according to eligibility criteria of the studies. Articles with more than 100 citations were eligible for analysis and were evaluated for following parameters: number of citations, journal name, publication date and year, first author, the total number of authors, average citations per year, methodological design of the study, geographic origin and institute associated. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using Kappa coefficient.ResultsThe number of citations ranged from 1073 to 198 with a total citation count of 30,589. Inter-rater reliability came to out in the good agreement (Kappa value-0.8). There was visible up-gradation of the research from the 2000 year till today. Spine journal had the maximum articles (26) followed by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-America (12 articles). The topics "Spine" and "Sports Medicine" were the most frequently cited topics with 41 and 20 articles, respectively. USA has the maximum articles in the top 100 cited SR and MA. Based on the maximum average citations per year, 34 old articles were replaced in the list with the latest articles that have a bright future ahead and can be predicted to be in the top 100 cited SR and MA of Orthopaedics soon.ConclusionThis study recognizes those articles that have contributed significantly to the growth of knowledge and influenced clinical practices in orthopaedics. We believe that this will facilitate and encourage researchers and clinicians in their future research.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-022-00604-9.

Project description:Objective: The aim of this study is to critically appraise whether published systematic reviews/meta-analyses of traditional Chinese medicine for adults with ischemic stroke are of sufficient quality and to rate the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Method: A literature search was performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and SinoMed databases by March 2022. The inclusion criteria were systematic reviews/meta-analyses of traditional Chinese medicine in adults who suffered from ischemic stroke. A Measurement Tool to Access Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Abstract (PRISMA-A) statements were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the included reviews. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was utilized to assess each report’s evidence level. Results: Of the 1,908 titles and abstracts, 83 reviews met the inclusion criteria. These studies were published between 2005 and 2022. The results of AMSTAR-2 showed that 51.4% of the items were reported, but the registration, reasons for the inclusion of study design, the list of excluded studies, and funding information were ignored in the majority of the reviews. The results of PRISMA-A showed that 33.9% of items were reported, and the information on registration, limitation, and funding was not available in many publications. The assessment of the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation showed that more than half (52/83) of the included studies had either low or very low levels of evidence. Conclusion: The reporting quality in the abstract of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on traditional Chinese medicine for ischemic stroke is poor and does not facilitate timely access to valid information for clinical practitioners. Although the methodological quality is of a medium level, this evidence lacks certainty, especially with a high risk of bias in individual studies.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether network meta-analyses, increasingly used to assess comparative effectiveness of healthcare interventions, follow the key methodological recommendations for reporting and conduct of systematic reviews.DesignMethodological systematic review of reports of network meta-analyses.Data sourcesCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Medline, and Embase, searched from inception to 12 July 2012.Review methodsAll network meta-analyses comparing clinical efficacy of three or more interventions based on randomised controlled trials, excluding meta-analyses with an open loop network of three interventions. We assessed the reporting of general characteristics and key methodological components of the systematic review process using two composite outcomes. For some components, if reporting was adequate, we assessed their conduct quality.ResultsOf 121 network meta-analyses covering a wide range of medical areas, 100 (83%) assessed pharmacological interventions and 11 (9%) non-pharmacological interventions; 56 (46%) were published in journals with a high impact factor. The electronic search strategy for each database was not reported in 88 (73%) network meta-analyses; for 36 (30%), the primary outcome was not clearly identified. Overall, 61 (50%) network meta-analyses did not report any information regarding the assessment of risk of bias of individual studies, and 103 (85%) did not report any methods to assess the likelihood of publication bias. Overall, 87 (72%) network meta-analyses did not report the literature search, searched only one database, did not search other sources, or did not report an assessment of risk of bias of individual studies. These methodological components did not differ by publication in a general or specialty journal or by public or private funding.ConclusionsEssential methodological components of the systematic review process-conducting a literature search and assessing risk of bias of individual studies-are frequently lacking in reports of network meta-analyses, even when published in journals with high impact factors.

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.

Dataset Information

Characteristics, trend, and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nuclear medicine: A bibliometric analysis of studies published between 2005 and 2016.

Publications

Characteristics, trend, and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in nuclear medicine: A bibliometric analysis of studies published between 2005 and 2016.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets