Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41348663›Full record

SynthesisDigestive surgery2026

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews on Treatments for Gastric Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Yuning Zhang, Betty H Wang, Billy Z Z Cheng, Claire C W Zhong, Faifai Ho, Vincent C H Chung

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Digestive surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Yuning ZhangJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Betty H WangJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China, huanwang@link.cuhk.edu.hk.
Billy Z Z ChengJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Claire C W ZhongJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Faifai HoSchool of Chinese Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Vincent C H ChungJockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

<p>Introduction: Systematic reviews (SRs) provide crucial evidence for gastric cancer interventions, but their reliability can be compromised by methodological flaws. We aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs on gastric cancer interventions and identify factors affecting their quality.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, Embase, and Cochrane Database of SRs for eligible SRs published between January 2014 and October 2023. The methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted to identify factors influencing quality.

resultsAmong 119 identified SRs (including 1,305 randomized controlled trials with 233,197 participants), only 2.5% were rated as high quality, while 89.1% were critically low quality. Higher journal impact factor was associated with better performance in addressing heterogeneity (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.84), investigating publication bias (AOR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.03-1.94), reporting conflicts of interest (AOR: 2.85, 95% CI: 1.59-5.11), and establishing protocols (AOR: 3.33, 95% CI: 1.89-5.87). More review authors predicted better statistical methods (AOR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.03-1.40) and protocol establishment (AOR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.06-1.63). Recent publications showed improved conflict of interest reporting (AOR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.09-2.10) and risk of bias assessment (AOR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.03-1.75). Non-pharmacological SRs better discussed heterogeneity compared to pharmacological (AOR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.09-0.85) or mixed interventions (AOR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.03-0.53).

conclusionThe methodological quality of gastric cancer intervention SRs is unsatisfactory. Future SRs should focus on establishing protocols, explaining study design selection, using comprehensive search strategies, documenting excluded studies with reasons, and describing primary studies in detail. </p>.

Indexed as

Research DesignStomach NeoplasmsSystematic Reviews as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesHumansJournal Impact FactorPublication BiasRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAMSTAR 2Gastric cancerMethodological qualitySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41348663
PMCPMC12880829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.