ArticlePreventing chronic disease2010
Quality of systematic reviews of observational nontherapeutic studies.
Article in Preventing chronic disease, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: A systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Pooled it
- The contribution from psychological, social, and organizational work factors to risk of disability retirement: a systematic review with meta-analyses.BMC public health · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 2-risk of bias assessment; synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings; and assessment of the certainty of the evidence.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionHigh-quality epidemiologic research is essential in reducing chronic diseases. We analyzed the quality of systematic reviews of observational nontherapeutic studies.
methodsWe searched several databases for systematic reviews of observational nontherapeutic studies that examined the prevalence of or risk factors for chronic diseases and were published in core clinical journals from 1966 through June 2008. We analyzed the quality of such reviews by using prespecified criteria and internal quality evaluation of the included studies.
resultsOf the 145 systematic reviews we found, fewer than half met each quality criterion; 49% reported study flow, 27% assessed gray literature, 2% abstracted sponsorship of individual studies, and none abstracted the disclosure of conflict of interest by the authors of individual studies. Planned, formal internal quality evaluation of included studies was reported in 37% of systematic reviews. The journal of publication, topic of review, sponsorship, and conflict of interest were not associated with better quality. Odds of formal internal quality evaluation (odds ratio [OR], 1.10 per year; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.19) and either planned, formal internal quality evaluation or abstraction of quality criteria of included studies (OR, 1.17 per year; 95% CI, 1.08-1.26) increased over time, without positive trends in other quality criteria from 1990 through June 2008. Systematic reviews with internal quality evaluation did not meet other quality criteria more often than those that ignored the quality of included studies.
conclusionCollaborative efforts from investigators and journal editors are needed to improve the quality of systematic reviews.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20950540PMC2995597What 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.