Literature DB >> 27495352

Characteristics and Methodological Quality of Meta-Analyses on Hypertension Treatments-A Cross-Sectional Study.

Xin Yin Wu1,2,3, Xin Jian Du1, Robin S T Ho1, Clarence C Y Lee1, Benjamin H K Yip1, Martin C S Wong1, Samuel Y S Wong1, Vincent C H Chung1,2,3.   

Abstract

Methodological quality of meta-analyses on hypertension treatments can affect treatment decision-making. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study to investigate the methodological quality of meta-analyses on hypertension treatments. One hundred and fifty-eight meta-analyses were identified. Overall, methodological quality was unsatisfactory in the following aspects: comprehensive reporting of financial support (1.9%), provision of included and excluded lists of studies (22.8%), inclusion of grey literature (27.2%), and inclusion of protocols (32.9%). The 126 non-Cochrane meta-analyses had poor performance on almost all the methodological items. Non-Cochrane meta-analyses focused on nonpharmacologic treatments were more likely to consider scientific quality of included studies when making conclusions. The 32 Cochrane meta-analyses generally had good methodological quality except for comprehensive reporting of the sources of support. These results highlight the need for cautious interpretation of these meta-analyses, especially among physicians and policy makers when guidelines are formulated. Future meta-analyses should pay attention to improving these methodological aspects. ©2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27495352      PMCID: PMC8030759          DOI: 10.1111/jch.12889

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)        ISSN: 1524-6175            Impact factor:   3.738


  35 in total

1.  Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?

Authors:  Padhraig S Fleming; Jadbinder Seehra; Argy Polychronopoulou; Zbys Fedorowicz; Nikolaos Pandis
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2012-04-16       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Publication bias in clinical research.

Authors:  P J Easterbrook; J A Berlin; R Gopalan; D R Matthews
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1991-04-13       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 3.  Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review.

Authors:  Anders W Jørgensen; Jørgen Hilden; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-10-06

Review 4.  A systematic review identified few methods and strategies describing when and how to update systematic reviews.

Authors:  David Moher; Alexander Tsertsvadze; Andrea C Tricco; Martin Eccles; Jeremy Grimshaw; Margaret Sampson; Nick Barrowman
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2007-08-03       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 5.  Are meta-analyses of Chinese herbal medicine trials trustworthy and clinically applicable? A cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Vincent C H Chung; Robin S T Ho; Xinyin Wu; Daisy H Y Fung; Xin Lai; Justin C W Wu; Samuel Y S Wong
Journal:  J Ethnopharmacol       Date:  2014-12-29       Impact factor: 4.360

Review 6.  Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties.

Authors:  Dawid Pieper; Roland Brian Buechter; Lun Li; Barbara Prediger; Michaela Eikermann
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-12-30       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 7.  Methodological quality of meta-analyses on the blood pressure response to exercise: a review.

Authors:  Blair T Johnson; Hayley V MacDonald; Michael L Bruneau; Tashauna U Goldsby; Justin C Brown; Tania B Huedo-Medina; Linda S Pescatello
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.844

8.  Detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses: protocol of a systematic review on methods.

Authors:  Katharina Felicitas Mueller; Joerg J Meerpohl; Matthias Briel; Gerd Antes; Erik von Elm; Britta Lang; Viktoria Gloy; Edith Motschall; Guido Schwarzer; Dirk Bassler
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2013-07-25

9.  Quality assessment of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers.

Authors:  Hyun-Ju Seo; Kyeong Uoon Kim
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 10.  A review of the methodological features of systematic reviews in maternal medicine.

Authors:  Lumaan Sheikh; Shelley Johnston; Shakila Thangaratinam; Mark D Kilby; Khalid S Khan
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2007-05-24       Impact factor: 8.775

View more
  4 in total

1.  Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for depression: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  V C H Chung; X Y Wu; Y Feng; R S T Ho; S Y S Wong; D Threapleton
Journal:  Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 6.892

2.  Low methodological quality of systematic reviews on acupuncture: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Leonard Ho; Fiona Y T Ke; Charlene H L Wong; Irene X Y Wu; Andy K L Cheung; Chen Mao; Vincent C H Chung
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2021-10-30       Impact factor: 4.615

3.  Methodological quality of systematic reviews on Chinese herbal medicine: a methodological survey.

Authors:  Andy K L Cheung; Leonard Ho; Charlene H L Wong; Irene X Y Wu; Fiona Y T Ke; Vincent C H Chung
Journal:  BMC Complement Med Ther       Date:  2022-02-23

4.  Characteristics and Methodological Quality of Meta-Analyses on Hypertension Treatments-A Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Xin Yin Wu; Xin Jian Du; Robin S T Ho; Clarence C Y Lee; Benjamin H K Yip; Martin C S Wong; Samuel Y S Wong; Vincent C H Chung
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2016-08-06       Impact factor: 3.738

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.