SynthesisJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2017
Methodological quality evaluation of systematic reviews or meta-analyses on ERCC1 in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Saudi journals from 1997 to 2017.Saudi medical journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposesTo assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) or meta-analysis concerning the predictive value of ERCC1 in platinum chemotherapy of non-small cell lung cancer.
methodsWe searched the PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane library, international prospective register of systematic reviews, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang and VIP database for SRs or meta-analysis. The methodological quality of included literatures was evaluated by risk of bias in systematic review (ROBIS) scale.
resultsNineteen eligible SRs/meta-analysis were included. The most frequently searched databases were EMbase (74%), PubMed, Medline and CNKI. Fifteen SRs did additional retrieval manually, but none of them retrieved the registration platform. 47% described the two-reviewers model in the screening for eligible original articles, and seven SRs described the two reviewers to extract data. In methodological quality assessment, inter-rater reliability Kappa was 0.87 between two reviewers. Research question were well related to all SRs in phase 1 and the eligibility criteria was suitable for each SR, and rated as 'low' risk bias. But the 'high' risk bias existed in all the SRs regarding methods used to identify and/or select studies, and data collection and study appraisal. More than two-third of SRs or meta-analysis were finished with high risk of bias in the synthesis, findings and the final phase.
conclusionsThe study demonstrated poor methodological quality of SRs/meta-analysis assessing the predictive value of ERCC1 in chemotherapy among the NSCLC patients, especially the high performance bias. Registration or publishing the protocol is recommended in future research.
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.