Quality and transparency of overviews of systematic reviews

Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 166-173

  Li, Lun ^a   Tian, Jinhui ^a   Tian, Hongliang ^a   Sun, Rao ^a   Liu, Yali ^a   Yang, Kehu ^a  

^a LANZHOU UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Meta epidemiological study; Overview of systematic reviews; Quality assessment

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; COCHRANE LIBRARY; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA COLLECTION METHOD; EMBASE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDLINE; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SCORING SYSTEM; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); VALIDITY;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE;

EID: 84865627559     PISSN: 17565383     EISSN: 17565391     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-5391.2012.01185.x     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Al Faleh K, Al-Omran M. Reporting and methodologic quality of Cochrane Neonatal review group systematic reviews. BMC Pediatr 2009; 9: 38.
2. Lau J, Ioannidis J, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. The Lancet 1998; 351(9096): 123-7.
3. Wardlaw J. Overview of Cochrane thrombolysis meta-analysis. Neurology 2001; 57 (Suppl. 2): S69-76.
4. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126(5): 376-80.
5. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7: 10.
6. Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, Cook DJ, Doig C. Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal. Ann Surg 2005; 241(3): 450-9.
7. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, Hayward R, Cook DJ, Cook RJ. Users' guides to the medical literature: IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. JAMA 1995; 274(22): 1800-4.
8. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998; 280(3):278-80.
9. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 2010; 7(9): e1000326.
10. Higgins JPT, Green S (editorsS). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed March 2011).
11. Cruciani M, Mengoli C. An overview of meta-analyses of diagnostic tests in infectious diseases. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2009; 23(2): 225-67.
12. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009; 6(7): e1000100.
13. Potting C, Mistiaen P, Poot E, Blijlevens N, Donnelly P, van Achterberg T. A review of quality assessment of the methodology used in guidelines and systematic reviews on oral mucositis. J Clin Nurs 2009; 18(1): 3-12.
14. Karjalainen A, Ebrary I, International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems (ICD-10) in occupational health. 1999: World Health Organization, Sustainable Development and Healthy Environments, Protection of the Human Environment.
15. Landis JR, Koch GG. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics 1977; 33(2): 363-74.
16. Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, Mowatt G, Fraser C, Bero L, et al. Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Med Care 2001; 39(8 Suppl 2): II2-45.
17. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336(7650): 924-6.
18. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151(4): W65-94.
19. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 339: b2700. DOI:10.1136/bmj.b2700.
20. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62(10): e1-34.
21. Jones AP, Remmington T, Williamson PR, Ashby D, Smyth RL. High prevalence but low impact of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58(7): 741-2.
22. MacDonald SL, Canfield SE, Fesperman SF, Dahm P. Assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2008. J Urol 2010; 184(2): 648-53.
23. Lundh A, Knijnenburg SL, Jørgensen AW, van Dalen EC, Kremer LC. Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology-a systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev 2009; 35(8): 645-52.
24. Sharma S, Harrison JE. Structured abstracts: do they improve the quality of information in abstracts? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130(4): 523-30.
25. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, et al. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2008; 5(1): e20.
26. Steckler A, McLeroy KR. The importance of external validity. Am J Public Health 2008; 98(1): 9-10.
27. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17(1): 1-12.