Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37326665›Full record

ArticleRheumatology international2023

A scoping review on quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews and meta-analysis of real-world studies.

Tadesse Gebrye, Francis Fatoye, Chidozie Mbada, Zalmai Hakimi

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Rheumatology international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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

4 authors.

Tadesse GebryeDepartment of Health Professions, Faculty of Health, Psychology, and Social Care, Manchester Metropolitan University, Brooks Building, Birley Fields Campus, Bonsall Street, 53 Bonsall Street, Manchester, M15 6GX, UK. t.gebrye@mmu.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7976-2013
Francis FatoyeDepartment of Health Professions, Faculty of Health, Psychology, and Social Care, Manchester Metropolitan University, Brooks Building, Birley Fields Campus, Bonsall Street, 53 Bonsall Street, Manchester, M15 6GX, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3502-3953
Chidozie MbadaDepartment of Health Professions, Faculty of Health, Psychology, and Social Care, Manchester Metropolitan University, Brooks Building, Birley Fields Campus, Bonsall Street, 53 Bonsall Street, Manchester, M15 6GX, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3666-7432
Zalmai HakimiApellis Pharmaceuticals, Zug, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5835-8599

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk of bias tools is important in identifying inherent methodical flaws and for generating evidence in studies involving systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), hence the need for sensitive and study-specific tools. This study aimed to review quality assessment (QA) tools used in SRs and MAs involving real-world data. Electronic databases involving PubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and MEDLINE were searched for SRs and MAs involving real-world data. Search was delimited to articles published in English, and between inception to 20 of November 2022 following the SRs and MAs extension for scoping checklist. Sixteen articles on real-world data published between 2016 and 2021 that reported their methodological quality met the inclusion criteria. Seven of these articles were observational studies, while the others were of interventional type. Overall, 16 QA tools were identified. Except one, all the QA tools employed in SRs and MAs involving real-world data are generic, and only three of these were validated. Generic QA tools are mostly used for real-world data SRs and MAs, while no validated and reliable specific tool currently exist. Thus, there is need for a standardized and specific QA tool of SRs and MAs for real-world data.

Indexed as

ChecklistPublicationsBiasDatabases, FactualHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicMeta-analysisQuality assessment toolReal-world dataSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37326665
PMCPMC10348931

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.