SynthesisNursing open2021
The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - A systematic review.
Synthesis in Nursing open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methodological quality of network meta-analyses of Chinese herbal medicine could be improved: an evidence mapping.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - A systematic review.Nursing open · 2021Pooled it
- The methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome using AMSTAR2.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- TFOS Lifestyle - Evidence quality report: Advancing the evaluation and synthesis of research evidence.The ocular surface · 2023Article
- A systematic evaluation of methodological and reporting quality of meta-analysis published in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Review
- Prevalence and methodological quality of systematic reviews in Korean medical journals.Epidemiology and health · 2023Article
- Reporting of methods to prepare, pilot and perform data extraction in systematic reviews: analysis of a sample of 152 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe aim of this review was to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on nursing interventions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and to determine potential factors that predict high quality.
designThe review is a quantitative systematic review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. REVIEW
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in three databases for SRs/MAs published up to 6 May 2020. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR checklist were used to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality.
resultsA total of 130 articles published between 1996-2020 from 69 journals were included in this review. Multivariate regression analyses demonstrated that the following factors were related to the higher reporting quality of included articles: having a protocol or registration and being published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Systematic reviews including meta-analyses, number of authors >5, number of pages and having protocol or registration were related to higher methodological quality. A strong linear correlation (r = 0.860) was detected between the scores of PRISMA and AMSTAR.
conclusionA significant number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on nursing interventions in patients with COPD show suboptimal reporting and poor methodology quality. The use of PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines in conducting, reading, reviewing and editing systematic reviews and meta-analyses is recommended to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. IMPACT: The findings of this review can provide references for health workers and health policy makers to evaluate and apply evidence-based knowledge. Additionally, such high-quality systematic reviews/meta-analyses can guide medical and health practice.
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.