Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25905713›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Quality assessment and factor analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis.

Danlu Liu, Jiaxin Jin, Jinhui Tian, Kehu Yang

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Predictors of Higher Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Nutrition and Cancer Prevention.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Dietary Patterns and Overweight/Obesity: A Review Article.Iranian journal of public health · 2017
    Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Danlu LiuThe First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China; Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Science of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Jiaxin JinEvidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Science of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, Gansu, China; The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Jinhui TianEvidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Science of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Kehu YangThe First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China; Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Science of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComprehensive monitoring of the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) requires complete and accurate reporting and methodology.

objectiveTo assess the reporting and methodological quality of SRs/MAs on EUS diagnosis and to explore the potential factors influencing articles' quality.

methodsThe quality of the reporting and methodology was evaluated in relation to the adherence of papers to the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR quality scale. The total scores for every criterion and for every article on the two standards were calculated. Data were evaluated and analyzed using SPSS17.0 and RevMan 5.1 in terms of publication time, category of reviews, category of journals, and funding resource.

resultsA total of 72 SRs/MAs was included, but no Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) were obtained. The number of SRs/MAs ranged from 1 in 1998 to 15 in 2013; 88.1% used the QUADAS tool; the average overall scores by PRISMA statement and AMSTAR tool were 19.9 and 5.4, respectively. Scores on some items showed substantial improvement after publication of PRISMA and AMSTAR. However, no reviews followed the criterion of protocol and registration, and only 11.1% of articles fulfilled the criterion of literature search. SRs/MAs from the Science Citation Index (SCI) were of better quality than non-SCI studies. Funding resource made no difference to quality. Regression analysis showed that time of publication and inclusion in the SCI were significantly correlated with total scores on the two standards.

conclusionThe reporting and methodological quality of SRs/MAs on EUS diagnosis has improved measurably since PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists released. It is hoped that CSR in this field will be produced. Literature searching and protocol criteria, as well as QUADAS-2 tool need to be addressed more in the future. Time of publication and SCI relate more to the overall quality of SRs/MAs than does funding resource.

Indexed as

ChecklistEndoscopyFactor Analysis, StatisticalHumansPublicationsPublishingResearch DesignUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID25905713
PMCPMC4408104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.