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