Ho Robin Sze-Tak, Chui King Yin, Huang Wendy Yajun, Wong Stephen Heung-Sang
Department of Sports Science and Physical Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, CHINA.
Department of Sport, Physical Education and Health, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, CHINA.
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2023 May 1;55(5):892-899. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000003116. Epub 2023 Jan 10.
Systematic reviews (SRs) synthesize empirical evidence from randomized controlled trials, to answer a research question. Methodological flaws in SRs can, however, reduce the trustworthiness of conclusions, subsequently hindering decision making. We aimed to appraise the methodological quality of existing SRs on bodyweight management strategies for children and adolescents.
We searched Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SPORTDiscus. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) was used to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs including 16 individual AMSTAR 2 domains and the total AMSTAR score. Association between bibliographical characteristics and total AMSTAR score of SRs was explored using multiple linear regression analysis.
Three critical domain-specific items of AMSTAR 2 among the included SRs showed unsatisfactory results including (i) justifying deviation from their SR protocols, (ii) using comprehensive literature search strategies, and (iii) giving details of both included and excluded studies. "More recent publication year journal," "higher impact factor of the journal," and "greater number of review authors" were associated with better methodological quality of the included SRs.
Future SRs' authors in the field of bodyweight management strategies for children and adolescents should improve the following criteria: (i) justify deviations from SR protocol, (ii) explain selection of the included study designs, (iii) use comprehensive literature search strategy, (iv) give details for both included and excluded studies, (v) report funding sources among included studies, and (vi) assess the potential impact of risk of bias among the included studies on meta-analysis results.
系统评价（SRs）综合随机对照试验的实证证据，以回答研究问题。然而，SRs中的方法学缺陷可能会降低结论的可信度，进而阻碍决策制定。我们旨在评估现有关于儿童和青少年体重管理策略的SRs的方法学质量。
我们检索了Cochrane系统评价数据库、MEDLINE、EMBASE和SPORTDiscus。使用系统评价测量工具（AMSTAR 2）来评估SRs的方法学质量，包括16个单独的AMSTAR 2领域和AMSTAR总分。使用多元线性回归分析探讨SRs的文献特征与AMSTAR总分之间的关联。
纳入的SRs中，AMSTAR 2的三个关键领域特定项目结果不尽人意，包括（i）说明偏离其SR方案的理由，（ii）使用全面的文献检索策略，以及（iii）详细说明纳入和排除的研究。“更近的出版年份期刊”、“期刊的更高影响因子”和“更多的综述作者”与纳入的SRs更好的方法学质量相关。
儿童和青少年体重管理策略领域未来SRs的作者应改进以下标准：（i）说明偏离SR方案的理由，（ii）解释纳入研究设计的选择，（iii）使用全面的文献检索策略，（iv）详细说明纳入和排除的研究，（v）报告纳入研究中的资金来源，以及（vi）评估纳入研究中偏倚风险对荟萃分析结果的潜在影响。
