Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28629396›Full record

ReviewSystematic reviews2017

Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study.

Kusala Pussegoda, Lucy Turner, Chantelle Garritty, Alain Mayhew, Becky Skidmore, Adrienne Stevens, Isabelle Boutron, Rafael Sarkis-Onofre, Lise M Bjerre, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Antimicrobial potential of pyroligneous extracts - a systematic review and technological prospecting.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2018
    Pooled it
  7. 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 · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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 · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1.Journal of pediatric rehabilitation medicine · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Predictors of Higher Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Nutrition and Cancer Prevention.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Kusala PussegodaOttawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Lucy TurnerOttawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Chantelle GarrittyOttawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Alain MayhewOttawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Becky SkidmoreOttawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Adrienne StevensOttawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Isabelle BoutronINSERM, UMR 1153, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité, University Paris Descartes, Paris, France.
Rafael Sarkis-OnofreGraduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.
Lise M BjerreDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Asbjørn HróbjartssonCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Southern Denmark & Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Douglas G AltmanCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David MoherCentre for Journalology, Canadian EQUATOR Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. dmoher@ohri.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-2434-4206
Ottawa Hospital · CAInserm · FRNuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GBUniversidade Federal de Pelotas · BRUniversity of Ottawa · CAUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16895
6 · The paper itself

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

Guideline AdherenceReview Literature as TopicHumansResearch DesignResearch ReportGuideline adherenceMethodological qualityReporting qualitySystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID28629396
PMCPMC5477124
OpenAlexW2624852015

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.