ArticleClinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN2008
Need for quality improvement in renal systematic reviews.
Article in Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reporting and methodological quality of systematic literature reviews evaluating the associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking behaviors: a systematic quality review.Harm reduction journal · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- Effect of premedication on the success of inferior alveolar nerve block in patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis: An umbrella review.Dental research journal · 2023Review
- Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017.Nature communications · 2021Article
- 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
- A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics.The Angle orthodontist · 2013Article
- Quality of systematic reviews of observational nontherapeutic studies.Preventing chronic disease · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesSystematic reviews of clinical studies aim to compile best available evidence for various diagnosis and treatment options. This study assessed the methodologic quality of all systematic reviews relevant to the practice of nephrology published in 2005. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We searched electronic databases (Medline, Embase, American College of Physicians Journal Club, Cochrane) and hand searched Cochrane renal group records. Clinical practice guidelines, case reports, narrative reviews, and pooled individual patient data meta-analyses were excluded. Methodologic quality was measured using a validated questionnaire (Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire). For reviews of randomized trials, we also evaluated adherence to recommended reporting guidelines (Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses).
resultsNinety renal systematic reviews were published in year 2005, 60 of which focused on therapy. Many systematic reviews (54%) had major methodologic flaws. The most common review flaws were failure to assess the methodologic quality of included primary studies and failure to minimize bias in study inclusion. Only 2% of reviews of randomized trials fully adhered to reporting guidelines. A minority of journals (four of 48) endorsed adherence to consensus guidelines for review reporting, and these journals published systematic reviews of higher methodologic quality (P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe majority of systematic reviews had major methodologic flaws. The majority of journals do not endorse consensus guidelines for review reporting in their instructions to authors; however, journals that recommended such adherence published systemic reviews of higher methodologic 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.