Dataset Information

An assessment of the quality of current clinical meta-analyses.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The objective of this study was to assess the overall quality of study-level meta-analyses in high-ranking journals using commonly employed guidelines and standards for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. METHODS:100 randomly selected study-level meta-analyses published in ten highest-ranking clinical journals in 2016-2017 were evaluated by medical librarians against 4 assessments using a scale of 0-100: the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Standards for Systematic Reviews, and quality items from the Cochrane Handbook. Multiple regression was performed to assess meta-analyses characteristics' associated with quality scores. RESULTS:The overall median (interquartile range) scores were: PRESS 62.5(45.8-75.0), PRISMA 92.6(88.9-96.3), IOM 81.3(76.6-85.9), and Cochrane 66.7(50.0-83.3). Involvement of librarians was associated with higher PRESS and IOM scores on multiple regression. Compliance with journal guidelines was associated with higher PRISMA and IOM scores. CONCLUSION:This study raises concerns regarding the reporting and methodological quality of published MAs in high impact journals Early involvement of information specialists, stipulation of detailed author guidelines, and strict adherence to them may improve quality of published meta-analyses.

SUBMITTER: Hameed I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7204021 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An assessment of the quality of current clinical meta-analyses.

Hameed Irbaz I Demetres Michelle M Tam Derrick Y DY Rahouma Mohamed M Khan Faiza M FM Wright Drew N DN Mages Keith K DeRosa Antonio P AP Baltich Nelson Becky B Pain Kevin K Delgado Diana D Girardi Leonard N LN Fremes Stephen E SE Gaudino Mario M

BMC medical research methodology 20200507 1

<h4>Background</h4>The objective of this study was to assess the overall quality of study-level meta-analyses in high-ranking journals using commonly employed guidelines and standards for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.<h4>Methods</h4>100 randomly selected study-level meta-analyses published in ten highest-ranking clinical journals in 2016-2017 were evaluated by medical librarians against 4 assessments using a scale of 0-100: the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS), Preferr ...[more]

PMID: 32380945

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe American Dental Association (ADA) defines evidence-based dentistry (EBD) as "an approach to oral healthcare that requires the judicious integration of systematic assessments of clinically relevant scientific evidence, relating to the oral and medical condition and history, with the dentist's clinical expertise and the patient's treatment needs and preferences." Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options. Therefore, ADA CPGs are the most rigorous examples of EBD to inform clinical practice. CPGs should be of the highest level of quality to ensure the appropriateness and timeliness of clinical recommendations.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to measure the methodological rigor and transparency of the ADA CPGs.MethodsEach ADA CPG was appraised by 4 independent assessors using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. Quantitative quality scores were obtained for 6 domains and overall quality. In addition, assessors provided a qualitative analysis by providing comments for each item and an appraisal of the full recommendation.ResultsA quality score of 75% was used as the threshold for high-quality guidelines. Using this metric, 6 of the current 10 current ADA CPGs were considered to be of high quality, 1 was slightly below the quality threshold, and 3 were considered marginal. Even among those evaluated to be high quality in overall assessment, certain domains did not reach the quality threshold of 75%.ConclusionOverall, the ADA CPGs collectively provide high-quality guidance for the clinician. While the AGREE appraisal guidelines have been used in CPG development since 2016, there is still room for improvement in certain domains (i.e., stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence).Knowledge transfer statementThe results of this study summarize the methodological rigor and transparency of the 10 current ADA clinical practice guidelines. Since adoption of AGREE standards (2016), CPGs have been uniformly of high quality. The quality of older CPGs was somewhat lower but overall deemed acceptable. Thus, ADA CPGs may be used with confidence to inform practitioners of treatment options supported by rigorous evidence-based dentistry standards. However, there is still room for improvement in methodological quality.

Project description:BackgroundOver the last decade there have been a number of guidelines published, aimed at improving the quality of reporting in published studies and reviews. In systematic reviews this may be measured by their compliance with the PRISMA statement. This review aims to evaluate the quality of reporting in published meta-analyses of diagnostic tests, using the PRISMA statement and establish whether there has been a measurable improvement over time.MethodsEight databases were searched for reviews published prior to 31(st) December 2008. Studies were selected if they evaluated a diagnostic test, measured performance, searched two or more databases, stated the search terms and inclusion criteria, and used a statistical method to summarise a test's performance. Data were extracted on the review characteristics and items of the PRISMA statement. To measure the change in the quality of reporting over time, PRISMA items for two periods of equal duration were compared.ResultsCompliance with the PRISMA statement was generally poor: none of the reviews completely adhered to all 27 checklist items. Of the 236 meta-analyses included following selection: only 2(1%) reported the study protocol; 59(25%) reported the searches used; 76(32%) reported the results of a risk of bias assessment; and 82(35%) reported the abstract as a structured summary. Only 11 studies were published before 2000. Thus, the impact of QUOROM on the quality of reporting was not evaluated. However, the periods 2001-2004 and 2005-2008 (covering 93% of studies) were compared using relative risks (RR). There was an increase in the proportion of reviews reporting on five PRISMA items: eligibility criteria (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00 - 1.27); risk of bias across studies (methods) (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.34 - 2.44); study selection results (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.05 - 2.09); results of individual studies (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09 - 1.72); risk of bias across studies (results) (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.20 - 2.25).ConclusionAlthough there has been an improvement in the quality of meta-analyses in diagnostic research, there are still many deficiencies in the reporting which future reviewers need to address if readers are to trust the validity of the reported findings.

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.

Dataset Information

An assessment of the quality of current clinical meta-analyses.

Publications

An assessment of the quality of current clinical meta-analyses.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets