Dataset Information

Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multi-method studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In the context of the volume of mixed- and multi-methods studies in health services research, the present study sought to develop an appraisal tool to determine the methodological and reporting quality of such studies when included in systematic reviews. Evaluative evidence regarding the design and use of our existing Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD) was synthesised to enhance and refine it for application across health services research.

Methods

Secondary data were collected through a literature review of all articles identified using Google Scholar that had cited the QATSDD tool from its inception in 2012 to December 2019. First authors of all papers that had cited the QATSDD (n=197) were also invited to provide further evaluative data via a qualitative online survey. Evaluative findings from the survey and literature review were synthesised narratively and these data used to identify areas requiring refinement. The refined tool was subject to inter-rater reliability, face and content validity analyses.

Results

Key limitations of the QATSDD tool identified related to a lack of clarity regarding scope of use of the tool and in the ease of application of criteria beyond experimental psychological research. The Quality Appraisal for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool emerged as a revised tool to address the limitations of the QATSDD. The QuADS tool demonstrated substantial inter-rater reliability (k=0.66), face and content validity for application in systematic reviews with mixed, or multi-methods health services research.

Conclusion

Our findings highlight the perceived value of appraisal tools to determine the methodological and reporting quality of studies in reviews that include heterogeneous studies. The QuADS tool demonstrates strong reliability and ease of use for application to multi or mixed-methods health services research.

SUBMITTER: Harrison R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7885606 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) must be of high quality. The purpose of our research was to compare the methodological and reporting quality of original versus updated Cochrane SRs to determine whether updating had improved these two quality dimensions. METHODS: We identified updated Cochrane SRs published in issue 4, 2002 of the Cochrane Library. We assessed the updated and original versions of the SRs using two instruments: the 10 item enhanced Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), and an 18-item reporting quality checklist and flow chart based upon the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) statement. At least two reviewers extracted data and assessed quality. We calculated the percentage (with a 95% confidence interval) of 'yes' answers to each question. We calculated mean differences in percentage, 95% confidence intervals and p-values for each of the individual items and the overall methodological quality score of the updated and pre-updated versions using OQAQ. RESULTS: We assessed 53 SRs. There was no significant improvement in the global quality score of the OQAQ (mean difference 0.11 (-0.28; 0.70 p = 0.52)). Updated reviews showed a significant improvement of 18.9 (7.2; 30.6 p < .01) on the OQAQ item assessing whether the conclusions drawn by the author(s) were supported by the data and/or analysis presented in the SR. The QUOROM statement showed that the quality of reporting of Cochrane reviews improved in some areas with updating. Improvements were seen on the items relating to data sources reported in the abstract, with a significant difference of 17.0 (9.8; 28.7 p = 0.01), review methods, reported in the abstract 35 (24.1; 49.1 p = 0.00), searching methods 18.9 (9.7; 31.6 p = 0.01), and data abstraction 18.9 (11.7; 30.9 p = 0.00). CONCLUSION: The overall quality of Cochrane SRs is fair-to-good. Although reporting quality improved on certain individual items there was no overall improvement seen with updating and methodological quality remained unchanged. Further improvement of quality of reporting is possible. There is room for improvement of methodological quality as well. Authors updating reviews should address identified methodological or reporting weaknesses. We recommend to give full attention to both quality domains when updating SRs.

Project description:The methodological and reporting quality of burn-specific systematic reviews has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews in burn care management. Computerised searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and The Cochrane Library through to February 2016 for systematic reviews relevant to burn care using medical subject and free-text terms such as 'burn', 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching five discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted and evaluated methodological quality using the 11-item A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and reporting quality using the 27-item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Characteristics of systematic reviews associated with methodological and reporting quality were identified. Descriptive statistics and linear regression identified features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 60 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Six of the 11 AMSTAR items reporting on 'a priori' design, duplicate study selection, grey literature, included/excluded studies, publication bias and conflict of interest were reported in less than 50% of the systematic reviews. Of the 27 items listed for PRISMA, 13 items reporting on introduction, methods, results and the discussion were addressed in less than 50% of systematic reviews. Multivariable analyses showed that systematic reviews associated with higher methodological or reporting quality incorporated a meta-analysis (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·3; 95% CI: 3·8, 8·7) were published in the Cochrane library (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2·9; 95% CI: 1·6, 4·2; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·1; 95% CI: 3·1, 9·2) and included a randomised control trial (AMSTAR regression coefficient 1·4; 95%CI: 0·4, 2·4; PRISMA regression coefficient 3·4; 95% CI: 0·9, 5·8). The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in burn care requires further improvement with stricter adherence by authors to the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The methodological quality and completeness of reporting of the systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental to optimal implementation of evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. Methods exist to appraise SRs yet little is known about how they are used in SRs or where there are potential gaps in research best-practice guidance materials. The aims of this study are to identify reports assessing the methodological quality (MQ) and/or reporting quality (RQ) of a cohort of SRs and to assess their number, general characteristics, and approaches to 'quality' assessment over time. METHODS:The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® were searched from January 1990 to October 16, 2014, for reports assessing MQ and/or RQ of SRs. Title, abstract, and full-text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the MQ and/or RQ of a cohort of ten or more SRs of interventions were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports. RESULTS:Of 20,765 unique records retrieved, 1189 of them were reviewed for full-text review, of which 76 reports were included. Eight previously published approaches to assessing MQ or reporting guidelines used as proxy to assess RQ were used in 80% (61/76) of identified reports. These included two reporting guidelines (PRISMA and QUOROM) and five quality assessment tools (AMSTAR, R-AMSTAR, OQAQ, Mulrow, Sacks) and GRADE criteria. The remaining 24% (18/76) of reports developed their own criteria. PRISMA, OQAQ, and AMSTAR were the most commonly used published tools to assess MQ or RQ. In conjunction with other approaches, published tools were used in 29% (22/76) of reports, with 36% (8/22) assessing adherence to both PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria and 26% (6/22) using QUOROM and OQAQ. CONCLUSIONS:The methods used to assess quality of SRs are diverse, and none has become universally accepted. The most commonly used quality assessment tools are AMSTAR, OQAQ, and PRISMA. As new tools and guidelines are developed to improve both the MQ and RQ of SRs, authors of methodological studies are encouraged to put thoughtful consideration into the use of appropriate tools to assess quality and reporting.

Project description:BackgroundScoping reviews have emerged as a valuable method for synthesizing emerging evidence, providing a comprehensive contextual overview, and influencing policy and practice developments. The objective of this study is to provide an overview of scoping reviews conducted in Chinese academic institutions over the last decades.MethodWe conducted a comprehensive search of nine databases and six grey literature databases for scoping reviews conducted in Chinese academic institutions. The reporting quality of the included reviews was assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for PRISMA-ScR checklist. We performed both quantitative and qualitative analyses, examining the conduct of the scoping reviews and exploring the breadth of research topics covered. We used Chi-squared and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests to compare methodological issues and reporting quality in English and Chinese-language reviews.ResultsA total of 392 reviews published between 2013 and 2022 were included, 238 English-reported reviews and 154 Chinese-reported reviews, respectively. The primary purposes of these reviews were to map and summarize the evidence, with a particular focus on health and nursing topics. 98.7% of reviews explicitly used the term "scoping review", and the Arksey and O'Malley framework was the most frequently cited framework. Thirty-five English-reported scoping reviews provided a protocol for scoping review. PubMed was the most common source in English-reported reviews and CNKI in Chinese-reported reviews. Reviews published in English were more likely to search the grey literature (P = 0.005), consult information specialists (P < 0.001) and conduct an updated search (P = 0.012) than those in Chinese. Reviews published in English had a significantly high score compared to those published in Chinese (16 vs. 14; P < 0.001). The reporting rates in English-reported reviews were higher than those in Chinese reviews for seven items, but lower for structured summary (P < 0.001), eligibility criteria (P < 0.001), data charting process (P = 0.009) and data items (P = 0.015).ConclusionThere has been a significant increase in the number of scoping reviews conducted in Chinese academic institutions each year since 2020. While the research topics covered are diverse, the overall reporting quality of these reviews is need to be improved. And there is a need for greater standardization in the conduct of scoping reviews in Chinese academic institutions.

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.