Jadbinder Seehra1, Nikolaos Pandis2, Despina Koletsi3, Padhraig S Fleming4. 1. Dental Institute Kings College London, Department of Orthodontics, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS, United Kingdom. Electronic address: jad_seehra@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Dental School/Medical Faculty, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7 CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland. 3. Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, University of Athens and Private Practice, 2 Thivon str, 11527 Goudi, Athens, Greece. 4. Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Turner St., London E1 2 AD, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the use of quality assessment tools among a cross-section of systematic reviews (SRs) and to further evaluate whether quality was used as a parameter in the decision to include primary studies within subsequent meta-analysis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched PubMed for SRs (interventional, observational, and diagnostic) published in Core Clinical Journals between January 1 and March 31, 2014. RESULTS: Three hundred nine SRs were identified. Quality assessment was undertaken in 222 (71.8%) with isolated use of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (26.1%, n = 58) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (15.3%, n = 34) most common. A threshold level of primary study quality for subsequent meta-analysis was used in 12.9% (40 of 309) of reviews. Overall, fifty-four combinations of quality assessment tools were identified with a similar preponderance of tools used among observational and interventional reviews. Multiple tools were used in 11.7% (n = 36) of SRs overall. CONCLUSION: We found that quality assessment tools were used in a majority of SRs; however, a threshold level of quality for meta-analysis was stipulated in just 12.9% (n = 40). This cross-sectional analysis provides further evidence of the need for more active or intuitive editorial processes to enhance the reporting of SRs.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the use of quality assessment tools among a cross-section of systematic reviews (SRs) and to further evaluate whether quality was used as a parameter in the decision to include primary studies within subsequent meta-analysis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched PubMed for SRs (interventional, observational, and diagnostic) published in Core Clinical Journals between January 1 and March 31, 2014. RESULTS: Three hundred nine SRs were identified. Quality assessment was undertaken in 222 (71.8%) with isolated use of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (26.1%, n = 58) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (15.3%, n = 34) most common. A threshold level of primary study quality for subsequent meta-analysis was used in 12.9% (40 of 309) of reviews. Overall, fifty-four combinations of quality assessment tools were identified with a similar preponderance of tools used among observational and interventional reviews. Multiple tools were used in 11.7% (n = 36) of SRs overall. CONCLUSION: We found that quality assessment tools were used in a majority of SRs; however, a threshold level of quality for meta-analysis was stipulated in just 12.9% (n = 40). This cross-sectional analysis provides further evidence of the need for more active or intuitive editorial processes to enhance the reporting of SRs.
Authors: James Samwel Ngocho; Best Magoma; Gaudencia Alois Olomi; Michael Johnson Mahande; Sia Emmanueli Msuya; Marien Isaäk de Jonge; Blandina Theophil Mmbaga Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 3.240