Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36674398›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature.

Giuseppe La Torre, Remigio Bova, Rosario Andrea Cocchiara, Cristina Sestili, Anna Tagliaferri, Simona Maggiacomo, Camilla Foschi, William Zomparelli, Maria Vittoria Manai, David Shaholli and 4 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

14 authors.

Giuseppe La TorreDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1233-2040
Remigio BovaDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Rosario Andrea CocchiaraDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0787-2904
Cristina SestiliDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Anna TagliaferriDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Simona MaggiacomoDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Camilla FoschiDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
William ZomparelliDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Maria Vittoria ManaiDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
David ShaholliDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0902-0302
Vanessa India BarlettaDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Luca MorettiDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Francesca VezzaDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.
Alice MannocciFaculty of Economics, Universitas Mercatorum, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8527-6940

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in occupational medicine journals from 2014 to 2021. Methods: Papers edited between 2014 and 2021 in the 14 open access journals with the highest impact were assessed for their quality. Studies were included if they were systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and if they were published in English. Results: The study included 335 studies. Among these, 149 were meta-analyses and 186 were systematic reviews. The values of the AMSTAR-2 score range between three and fourteen with a mean value of 9.85 (SD = 2.37). The factors that significantly and directly associate to a higher AMSTAR-2 score were impact factor (p = 0.003), number of consulted research databases (p = 0.011), declaration of PRISMA statement (p = 0.003), year of publication (p < 0.001) and performing a meta-analysis (p < 0.001).The R² values from the multivariate analysis showed that the AMSTAR-2 score could be predicted by the inclusion of these parameters by up to 23%. Conclusions: This study suggests a quality assessment methodology that could help readers in a fast identification of good systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Future studies should analyze more journals without applying language restrictions and consider a wider range of years of publication in order to give a more robust evidence for results.

Indexed as

Occupational MedicinePeriodicals as TopicDatabases, FactualLanguageResearch DesignAMSTAR-2 scoreoccupational healthPRISMA statementpublic healthquality assessment

Identifiers

PMID36674398
PMCPMC9862101

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.