Does updating improve the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews?

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 6, Issue , 2006, Pages

  Shea, Beverley ^a,b   Boers, Maarten ^b   Grimshaw, Jeremy M ^c   Hamel, Candyce ^a   Bouter, Lex M ^b  

^a Community Information and Epidemiological Technologies ^*  (Canada)

^b VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COCHRANE LIBRARY; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; METHODOLOGY; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; BIBLIOMETRICS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; STANDARDS;

BIBLIOMETRICS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SOFTWARE DESIGN;

EID: 33748762515     PISSN: 14712288     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-27     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC: Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1987, 316:450-5.
2. Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B: Meta-analysis: an update. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine 1996, 63:216-24.
3. Shea B: Assessing the quality of reporting meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. In MSc thesis University of Ottawa, Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine; 1999.
4. Assendelft WJJ, Koes BW, Knipschild PG, Bouter LM: The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation. JAMA 1995, 274:1942-1948.
5. Jadad AR, McQuay HJ: Meta-analyses to evaluate analogies interventions: a systematic qualitative review of their methodology. J Clin Epidemiol 1996, 49:235-43.
6. The Cochrane Collaboration [http://www.cochrane.org/]
7. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, Moher D: Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and metaanalyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998, 280:278-280.
8. Jadad AR, Moher M, Brownman GP, Booker L, Sigouin C, Fuentes M, Stevens R: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. BMJ 2000, 320:537-540.
9. Shea B, Moher D, Graham I, Pham B, Tugwell P: A comparison of the quality of reporting of Cochrane review and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Evaluations and the Health Professions 2002, 25:116-129.
10. The Cochrane Library Issue 4 Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2002.
11. Clarke M, Oxman AD, editors: Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook. In The Cochrane Library Issue 2 UK: Update Softeware; 2002.
12. Shea B, Dube C, Moher D: Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews: the QUOROM statement compared to other tools. In Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context Edited by: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG. London, UK: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001:122-39.
13. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH: Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991, 44:1271-8.
14. Oxman AD: Checklists for review articles. BMJ 1994, 309:648-651.
15. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF: Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 1999, 354:1896-900.
16. Moja LP, Telaro E, D'Amico R, Moschetti I, Coe L, Liberati A, on behalf of the Metaquality Study Group: Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic review: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ 2005, 330:1053-1058.
17. The Cochrane Library Issue 4 Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2005.