A systematic review of the quality and impact of anxiety disorder meta-analyses

Current Psychiatry Reports

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 302-309

  Ipser, Jonathan C ^a   Stein, Dan J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANXIETY DISORDER; BIBLIOMETRICS; CITATION ANALYSIS; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER; POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ANXIETY DISORDERS; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE; HUMANS; INTERNET; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 67849085225     PISSN: 15233812     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11920-009-0044-7     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Kessler RC, Angermeyer M, Anthony JC, et al.: Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of mental disorders in the World Health Organization's World Mental Health Survey Initiative. World Psychiatry 2007, 6:168-176.
2. Wittchen HU, Jacobi F: Size and burden of mental disorders in Europe - a critical review and appraisal of 27 studies. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2005, 15:357-376.
3. Demyttenaere K, Bruffaerts R, Posada-Villa J, et al.: Prevalence, severity, and unmet need for treatment of mental disorders in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys. JAMA 2004, 291:2581-2590.
4. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al.: A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care 2005, 9:R575-R582.
5. Higgins J, Green S, eds: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1 (updated September 2008). Chichester, United Kingdom: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.
6. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al.: Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Metaanalyses. Lancet 1999, 354:1896-1900.
7. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, et al.: Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2007, 4:e78.
8. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al.: AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009 Feb 18 (Epub ahead of print).
9. Bhandari M, Busse J, Devereaux PJ, et al.: Factors associated with citation rates in the orthopedic literature. Can J Surg 2007, 50:119-123.
10. Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP: Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA 2005, 293:2362-2366.
11. Lin Y, Li W, Chen K, Liu Y: A document clustering and ranking system for exploring MEDLINE citations. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007, 14:651-661.
12. Garfield E: Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 1955, 122: 108-111.
13. Seglen PO: Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997, 314: 498-502.
14. Kurmis AP: Understanding the limitations of the journal impact factor. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003, 85-A: 2449-2454.
15. Ha TC, Tan SB, Soo KCT The journal impact factor: too much of an impact? Ann Acad Med Singapore 2006, 35: 911-916.
16. Foo JY: Effect of bibliographical classification on the impact factor of science- and engineering-based journals. Account Res 2009, 16:1-12.
17. Nieminen P, Carpenter J, Rucker G, Schumacher M: The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006, 6:42.
18. Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Debalini MG, et al.: Relation of study quality, concordance, take home message, funding, and impact in studies of influenza vaccines: SysteBatic review. BMJ 2009, 338: b354.
19. West R, McIlwaine A: What do citation counts count for in the field of addiction? An empirical evaluation of citation counts and their link with peer ratings of quality. Addiction 2002, 97:501-504.
20. Bergstrom CT, West JD: Assessing citations with the Eigenfactor metrics. Neurology 2008, 71:1850-1851.
21. Wen J, Ren Y, Wang L, et al.: The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: A random sampling study. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:770-775.
22. Ipser JC, Dewing S, Stein DJ: A systematic review of the quality of information on the treatment of anxiety disorders on the Internet. Curr Psychiatry Rep 2007, 9:303-309.
23. Stein DJ, Ipser JC, Baldwin DS, Bandelow B: Treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder. CNS Spectr 2007, 12(2 Suppl 3): 28-35.
24. Stein DJ, Ipser J, McAnda N: Pharmacotherapy of post-traumatic stress disorder: A review of meta-analyses and treatment guidelines. CNS Spectr 2009, 14(1 Suppl 1): 25-31.
25. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, et al.: Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: An annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995, 16:62-73.
26. Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, et al.: Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ 2006, 332:202-209.
27. Hemels ME, Vicente C, Sadri H, et al.: Quality assessment of meta-analyses of RCTs of pharmacotherapy in major depressive disorder. Curr Med Res Opin 2004, 20:477-484.
28. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH: Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991, 44:1271-1278.
29. Choi PT, Halpern SH, Malik N, et al.: Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: A critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg 2001, 92:700-709.
30. Kelly KD, Travers A, Dorgan M, et al.: Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med 2001, 38:518-526.
31. Bereza BG, Machado M, Einarson TR: Assessing the reporting and scientific quality of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of treatments for anxiety disorders. Ann Pharmacother 2008, 42:1402-1409.
32. Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Pham B, et al.: Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:380.e1-386.e1.
33. Braun T, Glänzel W, Grupp H: The scientometric weight of 50 nations in 27 science areas, 1989-1993. Part II. Life sciences (1995). Scientometrics 1995, 34:207-237.