Cargando…

The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ‐ A systematic review

AIMS: The aim of this review was to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (SRs/MAs) on nursing interventions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and to determine potential factors that predict high quality. DESIGN: The rev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sun, Xiao, Wang, Duo, Wang, Mei, Li, Han, Liu, Bo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8046131/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33465288
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nop2.767
_version_ 1783678789965840384
author Sun, Xiao
Wang, Duo
Wang, Mei
Li, Han
Liu, Bo
author_facet Sun, Xiao
Wang, Duo
Wang, Mei
Li, Han
Liu, Bo
author_sort Sun, Xiao
collection PubMed
description AIMS: The aim of this review was to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (SRs/MAs) on nursing interventions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and to determine potential factors that predict high quality. DESIGN: The review is a quantitative systematic review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. REVIEW METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in three databases for SRs/MAs published up to 6 May 2020. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR checklist were used to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality. RESULTS: A total of 130 articles published between 1996–2020 from 69 journals were included in this review. Multivariate regression analyses demonstrated that the following factors were related to the higher reporting quality of included articles: having a protocol or registration and being published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Systematic reviews including meta‐analyses, number of authors >5, number of pages and having protocol or registration were related to higher methodological quality. A strong linear correlation (r = 0.860) was detected between the scores of PRISMA and AMSTAR. CONCLUSION: A significant number of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on nursing interventions in patients with COPD show suboptimal reporting and poor methodology quality. The use of PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines in conducting, reading, reviewing and editing systematic reviews and meta‐analyses is recommended to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. IMPACT: The findings of this review can provide references for health workers and health policy makers to evaluate and apply evidence‐based knowledge. Additionally, such high‐quality systematic reviews/meta‐analyses can guide medical and health practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8046131
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80461312021-04-16 The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ‐ A systematic review Sun, Xiao Wang, Duo Wang, Mei Li, Han Liu, Bo Nurs Open Research Articles AIMS: The aim of this review was to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (SRs/MAs) on nursing interventions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and to determine potential factors that predict high quality. DESIGN: The review is a quantitative systematic review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. REVIEW METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in three databases for SRs/MAs published up to 6 May 2020. The PRISMA statement and AMSTAR checklist were used to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality. RESULTS: A total of 130 articles published between 1996–2020 from 69 journals were included in this review. Multivariate regression analyses demonstrated that the following factors were related to the higher reporting quality of included articles: having a protocol or registration and being published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Systematic reviews including meta‐analyses, number of authors >5, number of pages and having protocol or registration were related to higher methodological quality. A strong linear correlation (r = 0.860) was detected between the scores of PRISMA and AMSTAR. CONCLUSION: A significant number of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on nursing interventions in patients with COPD show suboptimal reporting and poor methodology quality. The use of PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines in conducting, reading, reviewing and editing systematic reviews and meta‐analyses is recommended to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. IMPACT: The findings of this review can provide references for health workers and health policy makers to evaluate and apply evidence‐based knowledge. Additionally, such high‐quality systematic reviews/meta‐analyses can guide medical and health practice. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC8046131/ /pubmed/33465288 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nop2.767 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Nursing Open published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Sun, Xiao
Wang, Duo
Wang, Mei
Li, Han
Liu, Bo
The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ‐ A systematic review
title The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ‐ A systematic review
title_full The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ‐ A systematic review
title_fullStr The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ‐ A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ‐ A systematic review
title_short The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ‐ A systematic review
title_sort reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ‐ a systematic review
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8046131/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33465288
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nop2.767
work_keys_str_mv AT sunxiao thereportingandmethodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofnursinginterventionsforchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseasystematicreview
AT wangduo thereportingandmethodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofnursinginterventionsforchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseasystematicreview
AT wangmei thereportingandmethodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofnursinginterventionsforchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseasystematicreview
AT lihan thereportingandmethodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofnursinginterventionsforchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseasystematicreview
AT liubo thereportingandmethodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofnursinginterventionsforchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseasystematicreview
AT sunxiao reportingandmethodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofnursinginterventionsforchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseasystematicreview
AT wangduo reportingandmethodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofnursinginterventionsforchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseasystematicreview
AT wangmei reportingandmethodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofnursinginterventionsforchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseasystematicreview
AT lihan reportingandmethodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofnursinginterventionsforchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseasystematicreview
AT liubo reportingandmethodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofnursinginterventionsforchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseasystematicreview