Dataset Information

PROTOCOL: Critical appraisal of methodological quality and reporting items of systematic reviews with meta-analysis in evidence-based social science in China: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: (1) To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews published in Chinese social science journals against the PRISMA and MOOSE standards; (2) To evaluate the methodology quality of systematic reviews published in Chinese social science journals against the AMSTAR-2 and DART standards; and (3) To analyze other characteristics of systematic reviews published in Chinese social science journals using content analysis.

SUBMITTER: Guo L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9521792 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

PROTOCOL: Critical appraisal of methodological quality and reporting items of systematic reviews with meta-analysis in evidence-based social science in China: A systematic review.

Guo Liping L Zhou Wenjie W Xing Xin X Wei Zhipeng Z Yang Minyan M Ma Mina M Yang Kehu K White Howard H

Campbell systematic reviews 20220929 4

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: (1) To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews published in Chinese social science journals against the PRISMA and MOOSE standards; (2) To evaluate the methodology quality of systematic reviews published in Chinese social science journals against the AMSTAR-2 and DART standards; and (3) To analyze other characteristics of systematic reviews published in Chinese social science journals using content ...[more]

PMID: 36908832

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSystematic 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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).ConclusionThe 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.

Dataset Information

PROTOCOL: Critical appraisal of methodological quality and reporting items of systematic reviews with meta-analysis in evidence-based social science in China: A systematic review.

Publications

PROTOCOL: Critical appraisal of methodological quality and reporting items of systematic reviews with meta-analysis in evidence-based social science in China: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets