SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2006
Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
41 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of the quality of distal radius systematic reviews: Methodology and reporting assessment.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Quality assessment and factor analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2014Pooled it
- A comprehensive appraisal of meta-analyses focusing on nonsurgical treatments aimed at decreasing perioperative mortality or major cardiac complications.Journal of anesthesia · 2012Pooled it
- A systematic review of the quality and impact of anxiety disorder meta-analyses.Current psychiatry reports · 2009Pooled it
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2009Guideline
- The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2009Guideline
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.PLoS medicine · 2009Guideline
- The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.PLoS medicine · 2009Guideline
- A meta-analysis of N-acetylcysteine in contrast-induced nephrotoxicity: unsupervised clustering to resolve heterogeneity.BMC medicine · 2007Pooled it
- The cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents: a systematic review.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2007Pooled it
- Assessing the compliance of systematic review articles published in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review.JAAD international · 2020Review
- Non-Vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants (NOAC) Versus Vitamin K Antagonists (VKA) for Atrial Fibrillation with Elective or Urgent Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis with a Particular Focus on Combination Type.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Exploring reporting quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses on nursing interventions in patients with Alzheimer's disease before and after PRISMA introduction.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2018Review
- Reporting and methodologic evaluation of meta-analyses published in the anesthesia literature according to AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists: a preliminary study.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2017Article
- Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study.Systematic reviews · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo appraise multiple systematic reviews on the same clinical topic, focusing on predictors and correlates of quality of reporting of meta-analysis (QUOROM) scores.
designCase study.
settingReviews providing at least individual quantitative estimates on role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, the database of abstracts of reviews of effects, and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews (updated March 2005).
main outcome measuresFunding, compliance with the QUOROM checklist, scores on the Oxman and Guyatt quality index, and authors' recommendations.
results10 systematic reviews, published August 2003 to March 2005, were included. Nine pooled events despite heterogeneity and five recommended routine use of acetylcysteine, whereas the remaining studies called for further research. Compliance with the 18 items on the QUOROM checklist was relatively high (median 16, range 11 to 17), although shorter manuscripts had significantly lower scores (R = 0.73; P = 0.016). Reviewers who reported previous not for profit funding were more likely to score higher on the Oxman and Guyatt quality index. No association was found between QUOROM and Oxman and Guyatt scores (R = -0.06; P = 0.86), mainly because of greater emphasis of the Oxman and Guyatt scores on the appraisal of bias in selection and validity assessment (inadequate in five reviews).
conclusionsMultiple systematic reviews on the same clinical topic varied in quality of reporting and recommendations. Longer manuscripts and previous not for profit funding were associated with higher quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.