Journal article
Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent.
- Seehra J Dental Institute Kings College London, Department of Orthodontics, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS, United Kingdom. Electronic address: jad_seehra@hotmail.com.
- Pandis N Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Dental School/Medical Faculty, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7 CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland.
- Koletsi D Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, University of Athens and Private Practice, 2 Thivon str, 11527 Goudi, Athens, Greece.
- Fleming PS Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Turner St., London E1 2 AD, United Kingdom.
- 2015-07-08
Published in:
- Journal of clinical epidemiology. - 2016
Meta-analysis
Quality assessment
Review
Risk of bias
Systematic
Threshold
Bias
Data Accuracy
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Review Literature as Topic
English
OBJECTIVES
To assess the use of quality assessment tools among a cross-section of systematic reviews (SRs) and to further evaluate whether quality was used as a parameter in the decision to include primary studies within subsequent meta-analysis.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
We searched PubMed for SRs (interventional, observational, and diagnostic) published in Core Clinical Journals between January 1 and March 31, 2014.
RESULTS
Three hundred nine SRs were identified. Quality assessment was undertaken in 222 (71.8%) with isolated use of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (26.1%, n = 58) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (15.3%, n = 34) most common. A threshold level of primary study quality for subsequent meta-analysis was used in 12.9% (40 of 309) of reviews. Overall, fifty-four combinations of quality assessment tools were identified with a similar preponderance of tools used among observational and interventional reviews. Multiple tools were used in 11.7% (n = 36) of SRs overall.
CONCLUSION
We found that quality assessment tools were used in a majority of SRs; however, a threshold level of quality for meta-analysis was stipulated in just 12.9% (n = 40). This cross-sectional analysis provides further evidence of the need for more active or intuitive editorial processes to enhance the reporting of SRs.
To assess the use of quality assessment tools among a cross-section of systematic reviews (SRs) and to further evaluate whether quality was used as a parameter in the decision to include primary studies within subsequent meta-analysis.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
We searched PubMed for SRs (interventional, observational, and diagnostic) published in Core Clinical Journals between January 1 and March 31, 2014.
RESULTS
Three hundred nine SRs were identified. Quality assessment was undertaken in 222 (71.8%) with isolated use of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (26.1%, n = 58) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (15.3%, n = 34) most common. A threshold level of primary study quality for subsequent meta-analysis was used in 12.9% (40 of 309) of reviews. Overall, fifty-four combinations of quality assessment tools were identified with a similar preponderance of tools used among observational and interventional reviews. Multiple tools were used in 11.7% (n = 36) of SRs overall.
CONCLUSION
We found that quality assessment tools were used in a majority of SRs; however, a threshold level of quality for meta-analysis was stipulated in just 12.9% (n = 40). This cross-sectional analysis provides further evidence of the need for more active or intuitive editorial processes to enhance the reporting of SRs.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- closed
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.023
- PMID 26151664
- Persistent URL
- https://folia.unifr.ch/global/documents/278546
Statistics
Document views: 17
File downloads: