Literature DB >> 29654821

PRISMA and AMSTAR show systematic reviews on health literacy and cancer screening are of good quality.

Sakshi Sharma1, Mark Oremus2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) on health literacy and cancer screening and to investigate factors that may influence overall quality. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: We reviewed SRs published between 2009 and 2017. We calculated indices to represent the included SRs' adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). To assess possible determinants of SRs' quality, we regressed the index scores on year and region of publication, journal impact factor, authors' reported use of PRISMA, and presence of funding statements.
RESULTS: We included 19 SRs, and median index scores were 0.86 for PRISMA (interquartile range [IQR] = 0.11; range = 0.32-1.00) and 0.67 for AMSTAR (IQR = 0.30; range = 0.22-1.00). Methodological and reporting problems pertained to protocol registration or publication, number of raters used, gray literature searches, excluded article lists, and unintegrated discussions of risk of bias and efficacy. Only journal impact factor was statistically significantly associated (positively) with PRISMA and AMSTAR index scores.
CONCLUSION: The quality of SRs on health literacy and cancer screening was generally good. Systematic reviewers should register or publish their protocols, include PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists when submitting SRs to journals, and self-evaluate their SRs before submission.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AMSTAR; Cancer screening; Evidence-based practice; Health literacy; PRISMA; Systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29654821     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.03.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  9 in total

Review 1.  Journal impact factor is associated with PRISMA endorsement, but not with the methodological quality of low back pain systematic reviews: a methodological review.

Authors:  Dafne Port Nascimento; Gabrielle Zoldan Gonzalez; Amanda Costa Araujo; Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-11-09       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Adopting AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews: speed of the tool uptake and barriers for its adoption.

Authors:  Ruzica Bojcic; Mate Todoric; Livia Puljak
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2022-04-10       Impact factor: 4.615

3.  Methodological steps used by authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Hoang Thi Nam Giang; Ali Mahmoud Ahmed; Reem Yousry Fala; Mohamed Magdy Khattab; Mona Hassan Ahmed Othman; Sara Attia Mahmoud Abdelrahman; Le Phuong Thao; Ahmed Elsaid Abd Elsamie Gabl; Samar Ahmed Elrashedy; Peter N Lee; Kenji Hirayama; Hosni Salem; Nguyen Tien Huy
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2019-07-26       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  Testing the Preliminary Validity of a Multidimensional Framework for Studying the Effects of Cancer Health Literacy on Cancer Screening Behaviors among Diverse Populations.

Authors:  Margarita Echeverri; David Anderson; Jacqueline M Haas; Marc E Johnson; Friar Sergio A Serrano; Anna María Nápoles
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-04-25       Impact factor: 3.390

5.  Methodological quality and reporting standards in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of physical activity studies: a report from the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative).

Authors:  Nórton Luís Oliveira; Cíntia Ehlers Botton; Angélica Trevisan De Nardi; Daniel Umpierre
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2021-12-02

6.  Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019.

Authors:  Dawid Pieper; Irma Hellbrecht; Linlu Zhao; Clemens Baur; Georgia Pick; Sarah Schneider; Thomas Harder; Kelsey Young; Andrea C Tricco; Ella Westhaver; Matthew Tunis
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2022-08-22

7.  Use of AMSTAR-2 in the methodological assessment of systematic reviews: protocol for a methodological study.

Authors:  Cuncun Lu; Tingting Lu; Long Ge; Nan Yang; Peijing Yan; Kehu Yang
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-05

Review 8.  The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Katja Matthias; Olesja Rissling; Dawid Pieper; Johannes Morche; Marc Nocon; Anja Jacobs; Uta Wegewitz; Jaqueline Schirm; Robert C Lorenz
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2020-09-01

Review 9.  Critical problems associated with climate change: a systematic review and meta-analysis of Philippine fisheries research.

Authors:  Jen-Ming Liu; Elaine Quinatana Borazon; Kyrie Eleison Muñoz
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2021-08-03       Impact factor: 4.223

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.