ReviewSystematic reviews2017
Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study.
Review in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 6 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tools used to appraise the quality of studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in human genetics: a systematic review.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2025Pooled it
- Health outcomes, health services utilization, and costs consequences of medicare uninsurance among migrants in Canada: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- Feasibility study and evaluation of expert opinion on the semi-automated meta-analysis and the conventional meta-analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- The impact of behavioural risk factors on communicable diseases: a systematic review of reviews.BMC public health · 2021Pooled it
- Are clinical practice guidelines for low back pain interventions of high quality and updated? A systematic review using the AGREE II instrument.BMC health services research · 2020Pooled it
- Antimicrobial potential of pyroligneous extracts - a systematic review and technological prospecting.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2018Pooled it
- The impact of funding on the quality and interpretation of systematic reviews of mechanical thrombectomy in stroke patients.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026Review
- The impact of Evidence-Based Pharmacy on the quality of pharmaceutical care: A survey study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Antimicrobial Resistance in the WHO African Region: A Systematic Literature Review 2016-2020.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Effect of librarian collaboration on otolaryngology systematic review and meta-analysis quality.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- Mental health outcomes, literacy and service provision in low- and middle-income settings: a systematic review of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.Npj mental health research · 2024Review
- Several methods for assessing research waste in reviews with a systematic search: a scoping review.PeerJ · 2024Article
- Quality of systematic reviews in African emergency medicine: a cross-sectional methodological study.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2023Article
- Reporting quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1.Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine · 2023Article
- Prevalence and methodological quality of systematic reviews in Korean medical journals.Epidemiology and health · 2023Article
- Methodological assessment of systematic reviews of in-vitro dental studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Predictors of Higher Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Nutrition and Cancer Prevention.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe methodological quality and completeness of reporting of the systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental to optimal implementation of evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. Methods exist to appraise SRs yet little is known about how they are used in SRs or where there are potential gaps in research best-practice guidance materials. The aims of this study are to identify reports assessing the methodological quality (MQ) and/or reporting quality (RQ) of a cohort of SRs and to assess their number, general characteristics, and approaches to 'quality' assessment over time.
methodsThe Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® were searched from January 1990 to October 16, 2014, for reports assessing MQ and/or RQ of SRs. Title, abstract, and full-text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the MQ and/or RQ of a cohort of ten or more SRs of interventions were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports.
resultsOf 20,765 unique records retrieved, 1189 of them were reviewed for full-text review, of which 76 reports were included. Eight previously published approaches to assessing MQ or reporting guidelines used as proxy to assess RQ were used in 80% (61/76) of identified reports. These included two reporting guidelines (PRISMA and QUOROM) and five quality assessment tools (AMSTAR, R-AMSTAR, OQAQ, Mulrow, Sacks) and GRADE criteria. The remaining 24% (18/76) of reports developed their own criteria. PRISMA, OQAQ, and AMSTAR were the most commonly used published tools to assess MQ or RQ. In conjunction with other approaches, published tools were used in 29% (22/76) of reports, with 36% (8/22) assessing adherence to both PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria and 26% (6/22) using QUOROM and OQAQ.
conclusionsThe methods used to assess quality of SRs are diverse, and none has become universally accepted. The most commonly used quality assessment tools are AMSTAR, OQAQ, and PRISMA. As new tools and guidelines are developed to improve both the MQ and RQ of SRs, authors of methodological studies are encouraged to put thoughtful consideration into the use of appropriate tools to assess quality and reporting.
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.