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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |