Literature DB >> 32935459

Assessing the quality of studies in meta-research: Review/guidelines on the most important quality assessment tools.

Claudio Luchini1, Nicola Veronese2, Alessia Nottegar3, Jae Il Shin4, Giovanni Gentile5, Umberto Granziol6, Pinar Soysal7, Ovidiu Alexinschi8, Lee Smith9, Marco Solmi5.   

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses pool data from individual studies to generate a higher level of evidence to be evaluated by guidelines. These reviews ultimately guide clinicians and stakeholders in health-related decisions. However, the informativeness and quality of evidence synthesis inherently depend on the quality of what has been pooled into meta-research projects. Moreover, beyond the quality of included individual studies, only a methodologically correct process, in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analyses themselves, can produce a reliable and valid evidence synthesis. Hence, quality of meta-research projects also affects evidence synthesis reliability. In this overview, the authors provide a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages and main characteristics of some of the most frequently used tools to assess quality of individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Specifically, the tools considered in this work are the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), the Jadad scale, the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 (RoB2) for randomized controlled trials, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2), and AMSTAR-PLUS for meta-analyses. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN?: The informativeness and quality of evidence synthesis inherently depend on the quality of what has been pooled into meta-research projects. Beyond the quality of included individual studies, only a methodologically correct process, in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analyses themselves, can produce a reliable and valid evidence synthesis. WHAT IS NEW?: In this overview, the authors provide a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages and main characteristics of some of the most frequently used tools to assess quality of individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. POTENTIAL IMPACT: This overview serves as a starting point and a brief guide to identify and understand the main and most frequently used tools for assessing the quality of studies included in meta-research. The authors here share their experience in publishing several meta-research-related articles covering different areas of medical sciences.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AMSTAR-PLUS; AMSTAR2; CONSORT; Cochrane; NOS; PRISMA; STROBE; meta-analysis; meta-research; quality

Year:  2020        PMID: 32935459     DOI: 10.1002/pst.2068

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharm Stat        ISSN: 1539-1604            Impact factor:   1.894


  9 in total

1.  The effect of medication on serum anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) levels in women of reproductive age: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wei-Wei Yin; Chang-Chang Huang; Yi-Ru Chen; Dan-Qing Yu; Min Jin; Chun Feng
Journal:  BMC Endocr Disord       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 3.263

Review 2.  Effectivity and efficacy probiotics for Bacterial Vaginosis treatments: Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sri Adila Nurainiwati; Mochammad Ma'roef; Dwi Nurwulan Pravitasari; Probo Yudha Pratama Putra
Journal:  Infect Dis Model       Date:  2022-09-28

Review 3.  Community-based care models for arterial hypertension management in non-pregnant adults in sub-Saharan Africa: a literature scoping review and framework for designing chronic services.

Authors:  Lucia González Fernández; Emmanuel Firima; Elena Robinson; Fabiola Ursprung; Jacqueline Huber; Alain Amstutz; Ravi Gupta; Felix Gerber; Joalane Mokhohlane; Thabo Lejone; Irene Ayakaka; Hongyi Xu; Niklaus Daniel Labhardt
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2022-06-04       Impact factor: 4.135

4.  Landscaping the evidence of intimate partner violence and postpartum depression: a systematic review.

Authors:  Lea Bo Sønderlund Ankerstjerne; Sweetness Naftal Laizer; Karen Andreasen; Anne Katrine Normann; Chunsen Wu; Ditte Søndergaard Linde; Vibeke Rasch
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-05-18       Impact factor: 3.006

Review 5.  A Methodological Quality Evaluation of Meta-Analyses on Nursing Home Research: Overview and Suggestions for Future Directions.

Authors:  In-Soo Shin; Juh-Hyun Shin; Dong-Eun Jang; Jiyeon Lee
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 6.  Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Microsatellite Instability Based on Tumor Histomorphology: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Ji Hyun Park; Eun Young Kim; Claudio Luchini; Albino Eccher; Kalthoum Tizaoui; Jae Il Shin; Beom Jin Lim
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-02-23       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 7.  A scoping review of autoantibodies as biomarkers for canine autoimmune disease.

Authors:  Amy E Treeful; Emily L Coffey; Steven G Friedenberg
Journal:  J Vet Intern Med       Date:  2022-02-22       Impact factor: 3.333

Review 8.  Ki-67 assessment of pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: Systematic review and meta-analysis of manual vs. digital pathology scoring.

Authors:  Claudio Luchini; Liron Pantanowitz; Volkan Adsay; Sylvia L Asa; Pietro Antonini; Ilaria Girolami; Nicola Veronese; Alessia Nottegar; Sara Cingarlini; Luca Landoni; Lodewijk A Brosens; Anna V Verschuur; Paola Mattiolo; Antonio Pea; Andrea Mafficini; Michele Milella; Muhammad K Niazi; Metin N Gurcan; Albino Eccher; Ian A Cree; Aldo Scarpa
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2022-03-05       Impact factor: 8.209

9.  The Prognostic Value of lncRNA MCM3AP-AS1 on Clinical Outcomes in Various Cancers: A Meta- and Bioinformatics Analysis.

Authors:  Liangyin Fu; Guangming Zhang; Yongfeng Wang; Tingting Lu; Bin Liu; Yajun Jiao; Haizhong Ma; Shixun Ma; Kehu Yang; Hui Cai
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2022-06-24       Impact factor: 3.464

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.