Cargando…

Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are commonly conducted to evaluate and summarize medical literature. This is especially useful in assessing in vitro studies for consistency. Our study aims to systematically review all available quality assessment (QA) tools employed on i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tran, Linh, Tam, Dao Ngoc Hien, Elshafay, Abdelrahman, Dang, Thao, Hirayama, Kenji, Huy, Nguyen Tien
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8106836/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33964880
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01295-w
_version_ 1783689841397989376
author Tran, Linh
Tam, Dao Ngoc Hien
Elshafay, Abdelrahman
Dang, Thao
Hirayama, Kenji
Huy, Nguyen Tien
author_facet Tran, Linh
Tam, Dao Ngoc Hien
Elshafay, Abdelrahman
Dang, Thao
Hirayama, Kenji
Huy, Nguyen Tien
author_sort Tran, Linh
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are commonly conducted to evaluate and summarize medical literature. This is especially useful in assessing in vitro studies for consistency. Our study aims to systematically review all available quality assessment (QA) tools employed on in vitro SRs/MAs. METHOD: A search on four databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Virtual Health Library and Web of Science, was conducted from 2006 to 2020. The available SRs/MAs of in vitro studies were evaluated. DARE tool was applied to assess the risk of bias of included articles. Our protocol was developed and uploaded to ResearchGate in June 2016. RESULTS: Our findings reported an increasing trend in publication of in vitro SRs/MAs from 2007 to 2020. Among the 244 included SRs/MAs, 126 articles (51.6%) had conducted the QA procedure. Overall, 51 QA tools were identified; 26 of them (51%) were developed by the authors specifically, whereas 25 (49%) were pre-constructed tools. SRs/MAs in dentistry frequently had their own QA tool developed by the authors, while SRs/MAs in other topics applied various QA tools. Many pre-structured tools in these in vitro SRs/MAs were modified from QA tools of in vivo or clinical trials, therefore, they had various criteria. CONCLUSION: Many different QA tools currently exist in the literature; however, none cover all critical aspects of in vitro SRs/MAs. There is a need for a comprehensive guideline to ensure the quality of SR/MA due to their precise nature. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01295-w.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8106836
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81068362021-05-10 Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: A systematic review Tran, Linh Tam, Dao Ngoc Hien Elshafay, Abdelrahman Dang, Thao Hirayama, Kenji Huy, Nguyen Tien BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are commonly conducted to evaluate and summarize medical literature. This is especially useful in assessing in vitro studies for consistency. Our study aims to systematically review all available quality assessment (QA) tools employed on in vitro SRs/MAs. METHOD: A search on four databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Virtual Health Library and Web of Science, was conducted from 2006 to 2020. The available SRs/MAs of in vitro studies were evaluated. DARE tool was applied to assess the risk of bias of included articles. Our protocol was developed and uploaded to ResearchGate in June 2016. RESULTS: Our findings reported an increasing trend in publication of in vitro SRs/MAs from 2007 to 2020. Among the 244 included SRs/MAs, 126 articles (51.6%) had conducted the QA procedure. Overall, 51 QA tools were identified; 26 of them (51%) were developed by the authors specifically, whereas 25 (49%) were pre-constructed tools. SRs/MAs in dentistry frequently had their own QA tool developed by the authors, while SRs/MAs in other topics applied various QA tools. Many pre-structured tools in these in vitro SRs/MAs were modified from QA tools of in vivo or clinical trials, therefore, they had various criteria. CONCLUSION: Many different QA tools currently exist in the literature; however, none cover all critical aspects of in vitro SRs/MAs. There is a need for a comprehensive guideline to ensure the quality of SR/MA due to their precise nature. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01295-w. BioMed Central 2021-05-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8106836/ /pubmed/33964880 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01295-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Tran, Linh
Tam, Dao Ngoc Hien
Elshafay, Abdelrahman
Dang, Thao
Hirayama, Kenji
Huy, Nguyen Tien
Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: A systematic review
title Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: A systematic review
title_full Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: A systematic review
title_fullStr Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: A systematic review
title_short Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: A systematic review
title_sort quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: a systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8106836/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33964880
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01295-w
work_keys_str_mv AT tranlinh qualityassessmenttoolsusedinsystematicreviewsofinvitrostudiesasystematicreview
AT tamdaongochien qualityassessmenttoolsusedinsystematicreviewsofinvitrostudiesasystematicreview
AT elshafayabdelrahman qualityassessmenttoolsusedinsystematicreviewsofinvitrostudiesasystematicreview
AT dangthao qualityassessmenttoolsusedinsystematicreviewsofinvitrostudiesasystematicreview
AT hirayamakenji qualityassessmenttoolsusedinsystematicreviewsofinvitrostudiesasystematicreview
AT huynguyentien qualityassessmenttoolsusedinsystematicreviewsofinvitrostudiesasystematicreview