An assessment of the quality of current clinical meta-analyses.
Clinical
Cochrane
Epidemiology
IOM
Meta-analysis
Methodology
PRESS
PRISMA
Quality
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 05 2020
07 05 2020
Historique:
received:
13
09
2019
accepted:
29
04
2020
entrez:
9
5
2020
pubmed:
10
5
2020
medline:
25
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The objective of this study was to assess the overall quality of study-level meta-analyses in high-ranking journals using commonly employed guidelines and standards for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. 100 randomly selected study-level meta-analyses published in ten highest-ranking clinical journals in 2016-2017 were evaluated by medical librarians against 4 assessments using a scale of 0-100: the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Standards for Systematic Reviews, and quality items from the Cochrane Handbook. Multiple regression was performed to assess meta-analyses characteristics' associated with quality scores. The overall median (interquartile range) scores were: PRESS 62.5(45.8-75.0), PRISMA 92.6(88.9-96.3), IOM 81.3(76.6-85.9), and Cochrane 66.7(50.0-83.3). Involvement of librarians was associated with higher PRESS and IOM scores on multiple regression. Compliance with journal guidelines was associated with higher PRISMA and IOM scores. This study raises concerns regarding the reporting and methodological quality of published MAs in high impact journals Early involvement of information specialists, stipulation of detailed author guidelines, and strict adherence to them may improve quality of published meta-analyses.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The objective of this study was to assess the overall quality of study-level meta-analyses in high-ranking journals using commonly employed guidelines and standards for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
METHODS
100 randomly selected study-level meta-analyses published in ten highest-ranking clinical journals in 2016-2017 were evaluated by medical librarians against 4 assessments using a scale of 0-100: the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Standards for Systematic Reviews, and quality items from the Cochrane Handbook. Multiple regression was performed to assess meta-analyses characteristics' associated with quality scores.
RESULTS
The overall median (interquartile range) scores were: PRESS 62.5(45.8-75.0), PRISMA 92.6(88.9-96.3), IOM 81.3(76.6-85.9), and Cochrane 66.7(50.0-83.3). Involvement of librarians was associated with higher PRESS and IOM scores on multiple regression. Compliance with journal guidelines was associated with higher PRISMA and IOM scores.
CONCLUSION
This study raises concerns regarding the reporting and methodological quality of published MAs in high impact journals Early involvement of information specialists, stipulation of detailed author guidelines, and strict adherence to them may improve quality of published meta-analyses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32380945
doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-00999-9
pii: 10.1186/s12874-020-00999-9
pmc: PMC7204021
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
105Références
Hum Reprod. 2014 Aug;29(8):1622-6
pubmed: 24903204
PLoS One. 2018 Jan 29;13(1):e0191124
pubmed: 29377889
BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008
pubmed: 28935701
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;68(6):617-26
pubmed: 25766056
PLoS One. 2015 May 04;10(5):e0125931
pubmed: 25938454
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):e1-34
pubmed: 19631507
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010 Nov;40(5):669-77
pubmed: 20732826
Nature. 2018 Mar 7;555(7695):175-182
pubmed: 29517004
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82
pubmed: 23092060
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Jul;67(7):754-9
pubmed: 24709031
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jul;75:40-6
pubmed: 27005575
PLoS Med. 2010 Sep 21;7(9):e1000326
pubmed: 20877712