Quality of meta-analyses in major leading gastroenterology and hepatology journals: A systematic review

Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia)

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 39-44

  Liu, Pengfei ^a   Qiu, Yuanyu ^a   Qian, Yuting ^c   Chen, Xiao ^b   Wang, Yiran ^b   Cui, Jin ^b   Zhai, Xiao ^b  

^a JIANGYIN PEOPLE S HOSPITAL   (China)

^b SECOND MILITARY MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c SHANGHAI SECOND MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

assessing the methodological quality of systematic review; gastroenterology and hepatology; meta analysis; methodological quality; preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta analyses

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; DATA EXTRACTION; EVALUATION RESEARCH; FUNDING; GASTROENTEROLOGY; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY;

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MEDICINE; DATA ACCURACY; GASTROENTEROLOGY; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 85008440098     PISSN: 08159319     EISSN: 14401746     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.13591     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Kanwal F, White D. "Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2012; 10: 1184–1186.
2. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007; 4:e78.
3. 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: R575–82.
4. Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F et al. Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal. Ann. Surg. 2005; 241: 450–459.
5. 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.
6. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339: b2535. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2535.
7. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2007; 7: 10. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10.
8. Adie S, Ma D, Harris IA et al. Quality of conduct and reporting of meta-analyses of surgical interventions. Ann. Surg. 2015; 261: 685–694.
9. Tan WK, Wigley J, Shantikumar S. The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vascular surgery needs improvement: a systematic review. Int. J. Surg. 2014; 12: 1262–1265.
10. Ho RS, Wu X, Yuan J et al. 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 Prim Care Respir. Med. 2015; 25: 14102.
11. Rogante M, Kairy D, Giacomozzi C et al. A quality assessment of systematic reviews on telerehabilitation: what does the evidence tell us? Ann. Ist. Super. Sanita 2015; 51: 11–18.
12. Shi C, Zhu L, Wang X et al. Epidemiology, methodological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of nursing interventions published in China. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 2014; 20: 689–700.
13. Robinson KA, Dickersin K. Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2002; 31: 150–153.
14. Gluud LL, Thorlund K, Gluud C et al. Correction: reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann. Intern. Med. 2008; 149: 219. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-149-3-200808050-00022.
15. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J 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.
16. Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA 2002; 287: 2831–2834.
17. Bagshaw SM, McAlister FA, Manns BJ et al. Acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a case study of the pitfalls in the evolution of evidence. Arch. Intern. Med. 2006; 166: 161–166.
18. 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.
19. Ioannidis JP, Rosenberg PS, Goedert JJ et al. Commentary: meta-analysis of individual participants' data in genetic epidemiology. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2002; 156: 204–210.
20. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D et al. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N. Engl. J. Med. 1987; 316: 450–455.
21. Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S et al. Publication and related biases. Health Technol. Assess. 2000; 4: 1–115.
22. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Stat. Med. 2004; 23: 1663–1682.
23. Williamson PR, Gamble C. Identification and impact of outcome selection bias in meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 2005; 24: 1547–1561.
24. 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; 62: 1013–1020.
25. Sharif MO, Janjua-Sharif FN, Ali H et al. Systematic reviews explained: AMSTAR-how to tell the good from the bad and the ugly. Oral. Health Dent. Manag. 2013; 12: 9–16.
26. Elamin MB, Flynn DN, Bassler D et al. Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 506–510.
27. Jones AP, Remmington T, Williamson PR et al. High prevalence but low impact of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2005; 58: 741–742.
28. Aguiar PM, Brito GD, Correr CJ et al. Exploring the Quality of Systematic Reviews on Pharmacist Interventions in Patients With Diabetes: An Overview. Ann. Pharmacother. 2014; 48: 887–896.
29. Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C et al. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 2003; 290: 921–928.
30. Bero L, Oostvogel F, Bacchetti P et al. Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug-drug comparisons: why some statins appear more efficacious than others. PLoS Med. 2007; 4:e184.
31. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B et al. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003; 326: 1167–1170.
32. Tao KM, Li XQ, Zhou QH et al. From QUOROM to PRISMA: a survey of high-impact medical journals' instructions to authors and a review of systematic reviews in anesthesia literature. PLoS One 2011; 6:e27611.
33. Mills E, Wu P, Gagnier J et al. An analysis of general medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT found that reporting was not enforced consistently. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2005; 58: 662–667.
34. Zavitsanos PJ, Bird VG, Mince KA et al. Low methodological and reporting quality of randomized, controlled trials of devices to treat urolithiasis. J. Urol. 2014; 191: 988–993.