Methodological quality of meta-analyses on treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A cross-sectional study using the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool

npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine

Volumn 25, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Ho, Robin St ^a   Wu, Xinyin ^a   Yuan, Jinqiu ^a   Liu, Siya ^a   Lai, Xin ^a   Wong, Samuel Ys ^a   Chung, Vincent Ch ^a  

^a CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE LUNG DISEASE; COCHRANE LIBRARY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DATA BASE; DATABASE OF ABSTRACTS OF REVIEWS; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PUBLISHING; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PULMONARY DISEASE, CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REPRODUCIBILITY;

CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PUBLICATION BIAS; PULMONARY DISEASE, CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84937046545     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20551010     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/npjpcrm.2014.102     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Buist AS, McBurnie MA, Vollmer WM, Gillespie S, Burney P, Mannino DM et al. International variation in the prevalence of COPD (the BOLD Study): a populationbased prevalence study. Lancet 2007; 370: 741-750.
2. Gershon AS, Warner L, Cascagnette P, Victor JC, To T. Lifetime risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a longitudinal population study. Lancet 2011; 378: 991-996.
3. Global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Updated 2013. Available from http://www.goldcopd.org/uploads/users/files/GOLD-Report-2013-Feb20.pdf.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults-United States, 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012; 61: 938-943.
5. Celli BR, MacNee W. Standards for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with COPD: a summary of the ATS/ERS position paper. Eur Respir J 2004; 23: 932-946.
6. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine-Levels of Evidence (March 2009). University of Oxford. Available from http://www.cebm.net/?o = 1025.
7. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 252-260.
8. Whittington CJ, Kendall T, Fonagy P, Cottrell D, Cotgrove A, Boddington E. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: systematic review of published versus unpublished data. Lancet 2004; 363: 1341-1345.
9. 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.
10. AMSTAR offical website. Available from: amstar.ca.
11. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 1013-1020.
12. Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence. Health Res Policy Syst 2006; 4: 20.
13. 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: 648-653.
14. Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA, Athanasiou AE. Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011; 14: 116-137.
15. Seo HJ, Kim KU. Quality assessment of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012; 12: 129.
16. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination-The University of York. Welcome to PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews:: National Institute for Health Research; [updated 21/2/2014]. Available from http://www.crd. york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.
17. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Juni P, Altman DG et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2008; 336: 601-605.
18. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jöni P, Moher D, Oxman AD et al. The Cochrane Collaborations tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928.
19. Jorgensen AW, Hilden J, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 2006; 333: 782.
20. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003; 326: 1167-1170.
21. Yank V, Rennie D, Bero LA. Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2007; 335: 1202-1205.
22. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337: 867-872.
23. Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, Oxman AD, Dickersin K. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(1): MR000006.
24. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, Cronin E et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE 2008; 3: e3081.
25. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence-publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1277-1282.
26. Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D. Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. Part 2: General methods for Cochrane reviews 2011. Available from www.cochranehandbook. org.
27. Mueller K, Meerpohl J, Briel M, Antes G, Ev Elm, Lang B et al. Detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses: protocol of a systematic review on methods. Syst Rev 2013; 2: 60.
28. Egger M, Zellweger-Zähner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 1997; 350: 326-329.
29. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination-The University of York. Welcome to the CRD Database: National Institute for Health Research; [updated 21/2/2014]. Available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/AboutPage.asp.
30. Deeks JJ. Word limits best explain failings of industry supported meta-analyses. BMJ 2006; 333: 1021.
31. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264-269, W64.