Cargando…

Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Saudi journals from 1997 to 2017

OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of the meta-analyses (MAs) and systematic reviews (SRs) in Saudi journals indexed in PubMed using 2 scales: A MeaSurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and the overview quality assessment questionnaire (OQAQ). METHODS: This study focused on SRs/MAs publ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Natto, Zuhair S., AlGhamdi, Doaa S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Saudi Medical Journal 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6535175/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31056617
http://dx.doi.org/10.15537/smj.2019.5.23690
_version_ 1783421551359557632
author Natto, Zuhair S.
AlGhamdi, Doaa S.
author_facet Natto, Zuhair S.
AlGhamdi, Doaa S.
author_sort Natto, Zuhair S.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of the meta-analyses (MAs) and systematic reviews (SRs) in Saudi journals indexed in PubMed using 2 scales: A MeaSurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and the overview quality assessment questionnaire (OQAQ). METHODS: This study focused on SRs/MAs published in 8 Saudi journals. We investigated, screened, and extracted the data, which included recording the main topic of each SRs/MAs and the date of publication. Furthermore, we assessed the quality of each included SRs/MAs using the AMSTAR and the OQAQ. The reviews concluded in January 2018. RESULTS: The search uncovered 201 unique articles; of these, the researchers screened 110 full texts and included 103 in this review. Most of the included studies were published in Saudi Medical Journal (50 articles, 48.5%), followed by Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology (21 articles, 20.4%), and Annals of Saudi Medicine (16 articles, 15.5%). The main topics in these published articles were gastroenterology (20 articles, 19.5%), followed by oncology (14 articles, 13.7%), and pharmacology (9 articles, 8.7%). The AMSTAR and the OQAQ scales showed that most SRs/MAs were of medium quality. CONCLUSION: Quality of SRs and MAs published in Saudi journals was distributed in all categories (low, medium, and high) and it can be improved using critical evaluation by authors, journal editors, and readers. PROSPERO REG. NO. CRD: 42018102210
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6535175
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Saudi Medical Journal
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65351752019-06-12 Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Saudi journals from 1997 to 2017 Natto, Zuhair S. AlGhamdi, Doaa S. Saudi Med J Systematic Review OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality of the meta-analyses (MAs) and systematic reviews (SRs) in Saudi journals indexed in PubMed using 2 scales: A MeaSurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and the overview quality assessment questionnaire (OQAQ). METHODS: This study focused on SRs/MAs published in 8 Saudi journals. We investigated, screened, and extracted the data, which included recording the main topic of each SRs/MAs and the date of publication. Furthermore, we assessed the quality of each included SRs/MAs using the AMSTAR and the OQAQ. The reviews concluded in January 2018. RESULTS: The search uncovered 201 unique articles; of these, the researchers screened 110 full texts and included 103 in this review. Most of the included studies were published in Saudi Medical Journal (50 articles, 48.5%), followed by Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology (21 articles, 20.4%), and Annals of Saudi Medicine (16 articles, 15.5%). The main topics in these published articles were gastroenterology (20 articles, 19.5%), followed by oncology (14 articles, 13.7%), and pharmacology (9 articles, 8.7%). The AMSTAR and the OQAQ scales showed that most SRs/MAs were of medium quality. CONCLUSION: Quality of SRs and MAs published in Saudi journals was distributed in all categories (low, medium, and high) and it can be improved using critical evaluation by authors, journal editors, and readers. PROSPERO REG. NO. CRD: 42018102210 Saudi Medical Journal 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6535175/ /pubmed/31056617 http://dx.doi.org/10.15537/smj.2019.5.23690 Text en Copyright: © Saudi Medical Journal http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Natto, Zuhair S.
AlGhamdi, Doaa S.
Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Saudi journals from 1997 to 2017
title Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Saudi journals from 1997 to 2017
title_full Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Saudi journals from 1997 to 2017
title_fullStr Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Saudi journals from 1997 to 2017
title_full_unstemmed Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Saudi journals from 1997 to 2017
title_short Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Saudi journals from 1997 to 2017
title_sort quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in saudi journals from 1997 to 2017
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6535175/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31056617
http://dx.doi.org/10.15537/smj.2019.5.23690
work_keys_str_mv AT nattozuhairs qualityassessmentofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysespublishedinsaudijournalsfrom1997to2017
AT alghamdidoaas qualityassessmentofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysespublishedinsaudijournalsfrom1997to2017