Literature DB >> 16415336

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.

Giuseppe G L Biondi-Zoccai1, Marzia Lotrionte, Antonio Abbate, Luca Testa, Enrico Remigi, Francesco Burzotta, Marco Valgimigli, Enrico Romagnoli, Filippo Crea, Pierfrancesco Agostoni.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To appraise multiple systematic reviews on the same clinical topic, focusing on predictors and correlates of quality of reporting of meta-analysis (QUOROM) scores.
DESIGN: Case study.
SETTING: Reviews providing at least individual quantitative estimates on role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, the database of abstracts of reviews of effects, and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews (updated March 2005). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Funding, compliance with the QUOROM checklist, scores on the Oxman and Guyatt quality index, and authors' recommendations.
RESULTS: 10 systematic reviews, published August 2003 to March 2005, were included. Nine pooled events despite heterogeneity and five recommended routine use of acetylcysteine, whereas the remaining studies called for further research. Compliance with the 18 items on the QUOROM checklist was relatively high (median 16, range 11 to 17), although shorter manuscripts had significantly lower scores (R = 0.73; P = 0.016). Reviewers who reported previous not for profit funding were more likely to score higher on the Oxman and Guyatt quality index. No association was found between QUOROM and Oxman and Guyatt scores (R = -0.06; P = 0.86), mainly because of greater emphasis of the Oxman and Guyatt scores on the appraisal of bias in selection and validity assessment (inadequate in five reviews).
CONCLUSIONS: Multiple systematic reviews on the same clinical topic varied in quality of reporting and recommendations. Longer manuscripts and previous not for profit funding were associated with higher quality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16415336      PMCID: PMC1352049          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38693.516782.7C

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  36 in total

1.  Validation of an index of the quality of review articles.

Authors:  A D Oxman; G H Guyatt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 2.  The relation between treatment benefit and underlying risk in meta-analysis.

Authors:  S J Sharp; S G Thompson; D G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-09-21

3.  Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough.

Authors:  J Lau; J P Ioannidis; C H Schmid
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-01-10       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews.

Authors:  A R Jadad; D J Cook; G P Browman
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1997-05-15       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline. II: Replicate variability and comparison of studies that agree and disagree.

Authors:  T C Chalmers; J Berrier; H S Sacks; H Levin; D Reitman; R Nagalingam
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1987 Oct-Nov       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 6.  Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: a systematic qualitative review of their methodology.

Authors:  A R Jadad; H J McQuay
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation.

Authors:  W J Assendelft; B W Koes; P G Knipschild; L M Bouter
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-12-27       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. A concern for standards;.

Authors:  D Moher; I Olkin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-12-27       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 9.  The role of N-acetylcysteine in preventing radiographic contrast-induced nephropathy.

Authors:  V Guru; S E Fremes
Journal:  Clin Nephrol       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 0.975

10.  Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. Resolving discordant meta-analyses.

Authors:  D J Cook; B K Reeve; G H Guyatt; D K Heyland; L E Griffith; L Buckingham; M Tryba
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996 Jan 24-31       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  41 in total

Review 1.  The cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents: a systematic review.

Authors:  Suzanne Ligthart; Floortje Vlemmix; Nandini Dendukuri; James M Brophy
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2006-12-19       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Registering systematic reviews.

Authors:  Sharon Straus; David Moher
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2009-07-20       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Cardiac protection by volatile anesthetics in non-cardiac surgery? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies on clinically relevant endpoints.

Authors:  G Landoni; O Fochi; E Bignami; M G Calabrò; M C D'Arpa; E Moizo; A Mizzi; F Pappalardo; A Morelli; A Zangrillo
Journal:  HSR Proc Intensive Care Cardiovasc Anesth       Date:  2009

4.  Transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement and medical treatment : Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials.

Authors:  A Ak; I Porokhovnikov; F Kuethe; P C Schulze; M Noutsias; P Schlattmann
Journal:  Herz       Date:  2017-04-27       Impact factor: 1.443

Review 5.  A comprehensive appraisal of meta-analyses focusing on nonsurgical treatments aimed at decreasing perioperative mortality or major cardiac complications.

Authors:  Massimo Zambon; Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai; Elena Bignami; Laura Ruggeri; Alberto Zangrillo; Giovanni Landoni
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2012-04-03       Impact factor: 2.078

Review 6.  Contrast induced nephropathy: updated ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee guidelines.

Authors:  Fulvio Stacul; Aart J van der Molen; Peter Reimer; Judith A W Webb; Henrik S Thomsen; Sameh K Morcos; Torsten Almén; Peter Aspelin; Marie-France Bellin; Olivier Clement; Gertraud Heinz-Peer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-08-25       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-07-21

8.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

9.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-07-21

10.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Authors:  David Moher; Alessandro Liberati; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.