Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28720117›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2017

Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality.

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 read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 112 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
112citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
16.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

112 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 314 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. [Extensions of guidelines for reporting types of study in medicine].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2022
    Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

52 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Lucy TurnerOttawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Chantelle GarrittyOttawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Alain MayhewOttawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Becky SkidmoreOttawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Adrienne StevensOttawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Isabelle BoutronParis Descartes University, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS), UMR 1153, INSERM, Paris, France.
Rafael Sarkis-OnofreGraduate Program in Dentistry, IMED, Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil.
Lise M BjerreBruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, 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 and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David MoherCentre for Journalology; Canadian EQUATOR Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa, ON, Canada. dmoher@ohri.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-2434-4206
Ottawa Hospital · CAAtitus Educação · BRInserm · FRNuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GBUniversity of Ottawa · CAUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16895
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuidelines for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) were developed to contribute to implementing evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. As SRs assessing a cohort of SRs is becoming more prevalent in the literature and with the increased uptake of SR evidence for decision-making, methodological quality and standard of reporting of SRs is of interest. The objective of this study is to evaluate SR adherence to the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) and PRISMA reporting guidelines and the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) quality assessment tools as evaluated in methodological overviews.

methodsThe Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® databases were searched from January 1990 to October 2014. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the quality or reporting of a cohort of SRs of interventions using PRISMA, QUOROM, OQAQ, or AMSTAR were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports and SRs respectively.

resultsOf the 20,765 independent records retrieved from electronic searching, 1189 reports were reviewed for eligibility at full text, of which 56 reports (5371 SRs in total) evaluating the PRISMA, QUOROM, AMSTAR, and/or OQAQ tools were included. Notable items include the following: of the SRs using PRISMA, over 85% (1532/1741) provided a rationale for the review and less than 6% (102/1741) provided protocol information. For reports using QUOROM, only 9% (40/449) of SRs provided a trial flow diagram. However, 90% (402/449) described the explicit clinical problem and review rationale in the introduction section. Of reports using AMSTAR, 30% (534/1794) used duplicate study selection and data extraction. Conversely, 80% (1439/1794) of SRs provided study characteristics of included studies. In terms of OQAQ, 37% (499/1367) of the SRs assessed risk of bias (validity) in the included studies, while 80% (1112/1387) reported the criteria for study selection.

conclusionsAlthough reporting guidelines and quality assessment tools exist, reporting and methodological quality of SRs are inconsistent. Mechanisms to improve adherence to established reporting guidelines and methodological assessment tools are needed to improve the quality of SRs.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherenceResearch DesignResearch ReportSystematic Reviews as TopicEvidence-Based MedicineHumansGuideline adherenceMethodological qualityReporting qualitySystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID28720117
PMCPMC5516390
OpenAlexW2724414049

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.