Is the best evidence good enough: Quality assessment and factor analysis of meta-analyses on depression

PLoS ONE

Volumn 11, Issue 6, 2016, Pages

  Zhu, Yingbo ^a   Fan, Lin ^a   Zhang, Han ^b   Wang, Meijuan ^a   Mei, Xinchun ^a   Hou, Jiaojiao ^a   Shi, Zhongyong ^a   Shuai, Yu ^a   Shen, Yuan ^a  

^a TONGJI UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (China)

^b SECOND MILITARY MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHECKLIST; COCHRANE LIBRARY; EMBASE; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HUMAN; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS; PSYCINFO; QUALITY CONTROL; REGISTRATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; DEPRESSION; FACTOR ANALYSIS; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PUBLICATION; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

DEPRESSION; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PUBLICATIONS;

EID: 84976628707     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157808     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. World Health Report 2001 (2001) Mental Health: New Understanding, New Hope. WHO Press, Geneva.
2. Lopez AD, Murray CC (1998) The global burden of disease, 1990-2020. Nat Med 4: 1241-1243. PMID: 9809543.
3. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB (1997) Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 126: 376-380. PMID: 9054282.
4. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC (1987) Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 316: 450-455. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198702193160806 PMID: 3807986.
5. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP (1997) A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ 156: 1411-1416. PMID: 9164400.
6. Adie S, Ma D, Harris IA, Naylor JM, Craig JC (2015) Quality of conduct and reporting of meta-analyses of surgical interventions. Ann Surg 261: 685-694. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000836 PMID: 25575252.
7. Dawson DV, Pihlstrom BL, Blanchette DR (2015) Understanding and evaluating meta-analysis. J Am Dent Assoc 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2015.10.023 PMID: 26705602.
8. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. The PRISMA Group. (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6: e1000097. PMID: 19621072. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
9. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Metaanalyses. Lancet 354: 1896-1900. PMID: 10584742.
10. Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JS, Zhang C, Li S, Sun F, et al. (2015) The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med 8: 2-10. PMID: 25594108. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12141
11. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. (2007) Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7: 10. PMID: 17302989.
12. Zhang H, Han J, Zhu YB, Lau WY, Schwartz ME, Xie GQ, et al. (2015) Reporting and Methodological Qualities of Published Surgical Meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol [Epub ahead of print] doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.009 PMID: 26117439.
13. Drake RE, Goldman HH, Leff HS, Lehman AF, Dixon L, Mueser KT, et al. (2001) Implementing evidence- based practices in routine mental health service settings. Psychiatr Serv 52: 179-182. PMID: 11157115.
14. Anello C, Fleiss JL (1995) Exploratory or analytic meta-analysis: should we distinguish between them? J Clin Epidemiol 48: 109-116. PMID: 7853037.
15. The Thomson Reuters Links Open Access Journal Title List. Available: http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/linksj/opensearch.cgi. Accessed 10 December 2015.
16. SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Available: http://www.scimagojr.com. Accessed 10 December 2015.
17. Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L (2011) An international registry of systematic- review protocols. Lancet 377: 108-109. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60903-8 PMID: 20630580.
18. Hemels ME, Vicente C, Sadri H, Masson MJ, Einarson TR (2004) Quality assessment of meta-analyses of RCTs of pharmacotherapy in major depressive disorder. Curr Med Res Opin 20: 477-484. doi: 10. 1185/030079904125003197 PMID: 15119985.
19. Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, Esmail K (2013) Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? Radiology 269: 413-426. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13130273 PMID: 23824992.
20. Liu D, Jin J, Tian J, Yang K (2015) Quality Assessment and Factor Analysis of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Endoscopic Ultrasound Diagnosis. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0120911. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120911 PMID: 25905713
21. van der Pol CB, McInnes MDF, Petrcich W, Tunis AS, Hanna R (2015) Is Quality and Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Published in High Impact Radiology Journals Associated with Citation Rates? PLoS ONE 10(3): e0119892. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119892 PMID: 25775455
22. Ipser JC, Stein DJ (2009) A systematic review of the quality and impact of anxiety disorder meta-analyses. Curr Psychiatry Rep 11: 302-309. PMID: 19635239.
23. Klimo P Jr, Thompson CJ, Ragel BT, Boop FA (2014) Methodology and reporting of meta-analyses in the neurosurgical literature. J Neurosurg 120: 796-810. PMID: 24460488. doi: 10.3171/2013.11. JNS13195
24. Liu D, Jin J, Tian J, Yang K (2015) Quality assessment and factor analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis. PLoS One 10: e0120911. PMID: 25905713. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120911
25. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Available: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations. Accessed 10 December 2015.
26. Greenland S, O' Rourke K, editors. Meta-Analysis. 3rd ed: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2008. pp. 652.
27. Higgins JPT, Green S, Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester, England; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008. pp. 649.
28. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z, et al. (2007) External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One 2: e1350. doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0001350 PMID: 18159233.
29. Finckh A, Tramer MR (2008) Primer: strengths and weaknesses of meta-analysis. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol 4: 146-152. PMID: 18227829. doi: 10.1038/ncprheum0732
30. Berman NG, Parker RA (2002) Meta-analysis: neither quick nor easy. BMC Med Res Methodol 2: 10. PMID: 12171604.
31. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG (2007) Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 4: e78. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078 PMID: 17388659.
32. Jorgensen AW, Hilden J, Gotzsche PC (2006) Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 333: 782. doi: 10. 1136/bmj.38973.444699.0B PMID: 17028106.
33. Young NS, Ioannidis JP, Al-Ubaydli O (2008) Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Med 5: e201. PMID: 18844432. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050201
34. Naci H, Dias S, Ades AE (2014) Industry sponsorship bias in research findings: a network meta-analysis of LDL cholesterol reduction in randomised trials of statins. BMJ 349: g5741. PMID: 25281681. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5741