Ottawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Translational Research in Biomedicine (TRIBE) Program, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 19;6(1):131. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0527-2.
Guidelines for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) were developed to contribute to implementing evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. As SRs assessing a cohort of SRs is becoming more prevalent in the literature and with the increased uptake of SR evidence for decision-making, methodological quality and standard of reporting of SRs is of interest. The objective of this study is to evaluate SR adherence to the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) and PRISMA reporting guidelines and the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) quality assessment tools as evaluated in methodological overviews.
The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® databases were searched from January 1990 to October 2014. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the quality or reporting of a cohort of SRs of interventions using PRISMA, QUOROM, OQAQ, or AMSTAR were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports and SRs respectively.
Of the 20,765 independent records retrieved from electronic searching, 1189 reports were reviewed for eligibility at full text, of which 56 reports (5371 SRs in total) evaluating the PRISMA, QUOROM, AMSTAR, and/or OQAQ tools were included. Notable items include the following: of the SRs using PRISMA, over 85% (1532/1741) provided a rationale for the review and less than 6% (102/1741) provided protocol information. For reports using QUOROM, only 9% (40/449) of SRs provided a trial flow diagram. However, 90% (402/449) described the explicit clinical problem and review rationale in the introduction section. Of reports using AMSTAR, 30% (534/1794) used duplicate study selection and data extraction. Conversely, 80% (1439/1794) of SRs provided study characteristics of included studies. In terms of OQAQ, 37% (499/1367) of the SRs assessed risk of bias (validity) in the included studies, while 80% (1112/1387) reported the criteria for study selection.
Although reporting guidelines and quality assessment tools exist, reporting and methodological quality of SRs are inconsistent. Mechanisms to improve adherence to established reporting guidelines and methodological assessment tools are needed to improve the quality of SRs.
为了促进循证医疗保健的实施和减少研究浪费，制定了评估系统评价（SR）方法学和报告质量的指南。随着评估 SR 队列的 SR 在文献中越来越普遍，以及越来越多的 SR 证据用于决策，SR 的方法学质量和报告标准受到关注。本研究的目的是评估 SR 对 Meta 分析报告质量（QUOROM）和 PRISMA 报告指南以及 A 测量工具评估系统评价（AMSTAR）和概述质量评估问卷（OQAQ）质量评估工具的依从性，这些工具在方法学综述中进行了评估。
从 1990 年 1 月到 2014 年 10 月，检索了 Cochrane 图书馆、MEDLINE®和 EMBASE®数据库。两名评审员独立进行了标题和摘要筛选以及全文筛选。纳入了使用 PRISMA、QUOROM、OQAQ 或 AMSTAR 评估干预措施的 SR 队列质量或报告的报告。所有结果均以报告和 SR 的频率和百分比报告。
从电子检索中检索到的 20765 条独立记录中，有 1189 篇全文进行了资格审查，其中有 56 篇报告（共 5371 篇 SR）评估了 PRISMA、QUOROM、AMSTAR 和/或 OQAQ 工具。值得注意的项目包括以下内容：使用 PRISMA 的 SR 中，超过 85%（1532/1741）提供了审查的理由，不到 6%（102/1741）提供了方案信息。对于使用 QUOROM 的报告，只有 9%（449/449）的 SR 提供了试验流程图。然而，90%（402/449）在引言部分描述了明确的临床问题和审查理由。对于使用 AMSTAR 的报告，30%（534/1794）使用了重复的研究选择和数据提取。相反，80%（1794/1794）的 SR 提供了纳入研究的研究特征。就 OQAQ 而言，37%（499/1367）的 SR 评估了纳入研究的偏倚（有效性）风险，而 80%（1112/1387）报告了研究选择的标准。
尽管存在报告指南和质量评估工具，但 SR 的报告和方法学质量不一致。需要建立机制来提高对既定报告指南和方法学评估工具的依从性，以提高 SR 的质量。
Zotero 插件