Cargando…

Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND: The methodological quality and completeness of reporting of the systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental to optimal implementation of evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. Methods exist to appraise SRs yet little is known about how they are used in SRs or where t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pussegoda, Kusala, Turner, Lucy, Garritty, Chantelle, Mayhew, Alain, Skidmore, Becky, Stevens, Adrienne, Boutron, Isabelle, Sarkis-Onofre, Rafael, Bjerre, Lise M., Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn, Altman, Douglas G., Moher, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5477124/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28629396
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0507-6
_version_ 1783244729531498496
author Pussegoda, Kusala
Turner, Lucy
Garritty, Chantelle
Mayhew, Alain
Skidmore, Becky
Stevens, Adrienne
Boutron, Isabelle
Sarkis-Onofre, Rafael
Bjerre, Lise M.
Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn
Altman, Douglas G.
Moher, David
author_facet Pussegoda, Kusala
Turner, Lucy
Garritty, Chantelle
Mayhew, Alain
Skidmore, Becky
Stevens, Adrienne
Boutron, Isabelle
Sarkis-Onofre, Rafael
Bjerre, Lise M.
Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn
Altman, Douglas G.
Moher, David
author_sort Pussegoda, Kusala
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The methodological quality and completeness of reporting of the systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental to optimal implementation of evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. Methods exist to appraise SRs yet little is known about how they are used in SRs or where there are potential gaps in research best-practice guidance materials. The aims of this study are to identify reports assessing the methodological quality (MQ) and/or reporting quality (RQ) of a cohort of SRs and to assess their number, general characteristics, and approaches to ‘quality’ assessment over time. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® were searched from January 1990 to October 16, 2014, for reports assessing MQ and/or RQ of SRs. Title, abstract, and full-text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the MQ and/or RQ of a cohort of ten or more SRs of interventions were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports. RESULTS: Of 20,765 unique records retrieved, 1189 of them were reviewed for full-text review, of which 76 reports were included. Eight previously published approaches to assessing MQ or reporting guidelines used as proxy to assess RQ were used in 80% (61/76) of identified reports. These included two reporting guidelines (PRISMA and QUOROM) and five quality assessment tools (AMSTAR, R-AMSTAR, OQAQ, Mulrow, Sacks) and GRADE criteria. The remaining 24% (18/76) of reports developed their own criteria. PRISMA, OQAQ, and AMSTAR were the most commonly used published tools to assess MQ or RQ. In conjunction with other approaches, published tools were used in 29% (22/76) of reports, with 36% (8/22) assessing adherence to both PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria and 26% (6/22) using QUOROM and OQAQ. CONCLUSIONS: The methods used to assess quality of SRs are diverse, and none has become universally accepted. The most commonly used quality assessment tools are AMSTAR, OQAQ, and PRISMA. As new tools and guidelines are developed to improve both the MQ and RQ of SRs, authors of methodological studies are encouraged to put thoughtful consideration into the use of appropriate tools to assess quality and reporting. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0507-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5477124
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54771242017-06-22 Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study Pussegoda, Kusala Turner, Lucy Garritty, Chantelle Mayhew, Alain Skidmore, Becky Stevens, Adrienne Boutron, Isabelle Sarkis-Onofre, Rafael Bjerre, Lise M. Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn Altman, Douglas G. Moher, David Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: The methodological quality and completeness of reporting of the systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental to optimal implementation of evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. Methods exist to appraise SRs yet little is known about how they are used in SRs or where there are potential gaps in research best-practice guidance materials. The aims of this study are to identify reports assessing the methodological quality (MQ) and/or reporting quality (RQ) of a cohort of SRs and to assess their number, general characteristics, and approaches to ‘quality’ assessment over time. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® were searched from January 1990 to October 16, 2014, for reports assessing MQ and/or RQ of SRs. Title, abstract, and full-text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the MQ and/or RQ of a cohort of ten or more SRs of interventions were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports. RESULTS: Of 20,765 unique records retrieved, 1189 of them were reviewed for full-text review, of which 76 reports were included. Eight previously published approaches to assessing MQ or reporting guidelines used as proxy to assess RQ were used in 80% (61/76) of identified reports. These included two reporting guidelines (PRISMA and QUOROM) and five quality assessment tools (AMSTAR, R-AMSTAR, OQAQ, Mulrow, Sacks) and GRADE criteria. The remaining 24% (18/76) of reports developed their own criteria. PRISMA, OQAQ, and AMSTAR were the most commonly used published tools to assess MQ or RQ. In conjunction with other approaches, published tools were used in 29% (22/76) of reports, with 36% (8/22) assessing adherence to both PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria and 26% (6/22) using QUOROM and OQAQ. CONCLUSIONS: The methods used to assess quality of SRs are diverse, and none has become universally accepted. The most commonly used quality assessment tools are AMSTAR, OQAQ, and PRISMA. As new tools and guidelines are developed to improve both the MQ and RQ of SRs, authors of methodological studies are encouraged to put thoughtful consideration into the use of appropriate tools to assess quality and reporting. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0507-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-06-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5477124/ /pubmed/28629396 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0507-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Pussegoda, Kusala
Turner, Lucy
Garritty, Chantelle
Mayhew, Alain
Skidmore, Becky
Stevens, Adrienne
Boutron, Isabelle
Sarkis-Onofre, Rafael
Bjerre, Lise M.
Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn
Altman, Douglas G.
Moher, David
Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study
title Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study
title_full Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study
title_fullStr Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study
title_full_unstemmed Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study
title_short Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study
title_sort identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5477124/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28629396
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0507-6
work_keys_str_mv AT pussegodakusala identifyingapproachesforassessingmethodologicalandreportingqualityofsystematicreviewsadescriptivestudy
AT turnerlucy identifyingapproachesforassessingmethodologicalandreportingqualityofsystematicreviewsadescriptivestudy
AT garrittychantelle identifyingapproachesforassessingmethodologicalandreportingqualityofsystematicreviewsadescriptivestudy
AT mayhewalain identifyingapproachesforassessingmethodologicalandreportingqualityofsystematicreviewsadescriptivestudy
AT skidmorebecky identifyingapproachesforassessingmethodologicalandreportingqualityofsystematicreviewsadescriptivestudy
AT stevensadrienne identifyingapproachesforassessingmethodologicalandreportingqualityofsystematicreviewsadescriptivestudy
AT boutronisabelle identifyingapproachesforassessingmethodologicalandreportingqualityofsystematicreviewsadescriptivestudy
AT sarkisonofrerafael identifyingapproachesforassessingmethodologicalandreportingqualityofsystematicreviewsadescriptivestudy
AT bjerrelisem identifyingapproachesforassessingmethodologicalandreportingqualityofsystematicreviewsadescriptivestudy
AT hrobjartssonasbjørn identifyingapproachesforassessingmethodologicalandreportingqualityofsystematicreviewsadescriptivestudy
AT altmandouglasg identifyingapproachesforassessingmethodologicalandreportingqualityofsystematicreviewsadescriptivestudy
AT moherdavid identifyingapproachesforassessingmethodologicalandreportingqualityofsystematicreviewsadescriptivestudy