Scope for improvement in the quality of reporting of systematic reviews. From the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group.

EMGO Institute, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
The Journal of Rheumatology (Impact Factor: 3.17). 02/2006; 33(1):9-15.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To assess the quality of reporting in Cochrane musculoskeletal systematic reviews (excluding back and injury reviews).
This study assessed all the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's systematic reviews from Issue 4, 2002, of the Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality. Two assessment tools were used, including an 18 item checklist and flow chart developed by the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) consensus group, and a 10 item scale, the Oxman-Guyatt Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ). One question on the latter scale (item 10) scores overall quality on a 7 point scale, with high scores indicating superior quality. Data were analyzed using univariate approaches.
The 57 systematic reviews assessed were found to have good overall quality, with scores on individual items revealing only minor flaws. Documenting the flow of included and excluded studies and summarizing the results are 2 areas needing improvement in reporting. According to the Oxman-Guyatt scale the overall scientific quality of the Cochrane musculoskeletal reviews was good [mean 5.02 (95% CI 3.71-6.32)].
Our study found that the reporting quality of Cochrane musculoskeletal systematic reviews was generally good, although there was room for improvement. For example, it might be feasible to develop specific guidelines for reporting protocols. Certainly more work is needed in reporting search results, documentation of the flow of studies, identification of the type of studies, and summarization of the key findings.


Available from: Lex Bouter, Jul 05, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Research indicates that the methods used to identify data for systematic reviews of adverse effects may need to differ from other systematic reviews.Objectives To compare search methods in systematic reviews of adverse effects with other reviews.Methods The search methodologies in 849 systematic reviews of adverse effects were compared with other reviews.ResultsPoor reporting of search strategies is apparent in both systematic reviews of adverse effects and other types of systematic reviews. Systematic reviews of adverse effects are less likely to restrict their searches to MEDLINE or include only randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The use of other databases is largely dependent on the topic area and the year the review was conducted, with more databases searched in more recent reviews.Adverse effects search terms are used by 72% of reviews and despite recommendations only two reviews report using floating subheadings.Conclusions The poor reporting of search strategies in systematic reviews is universal, as is the dominance of searching MEDLINE. However, reviews of adverse effects are more likely to include a range of study designs (not just RCTs) and search beyond MEDLINE.
    Health Information & Libraries Journal 04/2014; 31(2). DOI:10.1111/hir.12041 · 0.89 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper was to evaluate reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses in the nursing field in China. Over the last decade, evidence-based nursing has been gradually known and accepted by nurses in China, and the number of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of nursing flied has steadily increased, but the quality of these reviews is unsatisfactory. The Chinese Journal Full-Text Database, the Chinese Biomedicine Literature Database and the Wanfang Database were searched for systematic reviews or meta-analyses in the nursing field, from inception through December 2011. The Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively. A total of 63 systematic reviews or meta-analyses were identified. The deficiencies of methodological quality were mainly in literature searches, heterogeneity handling, recognition and assessment of publication bias. In addition, the deficiencies of reporting characteristics were reflected in incomplete reporting of literature search, quality assessment, risk of bias and results. Focusing on improving the quality of reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses in the nursing field in China is urgently needed.
    International Journal of Nursing Practice 02/2014; 20(1):70-8. DOI:10.1111/ijn.12123 · 0.54 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aims to critically evaluate the effects of a walking intervention on bone mineral density (BMD) in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women and to identify the optimal duration of this walking exercise intervention. Two independent reviewers assessed for eligibility randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of walking on BMD in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. Heterogeneity, potential publication bias, and the quality of the included trials were assessed. Ten trials were eligible for inclusion. A meta-analysis of trials assessing lumbar spine BMD showed no significant effects (weighted mean difference [WMD] [fixed effects], 0.01 g/cm; 95% CI, -0.00 to 0.02; P = 0.05) regardless of the length of the intervention duration. BMD at the femoral neck increased after long intervention durations (6 mo to 1-2 y), although no significant effect could be seen when all trials assessing femoral neck BMD were taken into account (WMD [fixed effects], 0.01 g/cm; 95% CI, -0.00 to 0.01; P = 0.07). The effects of walking on the radius and whole body were not significant (WMD [random effects], -0.01 g/cm; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.04; P = 0.71; and WMD [fixed effects], 0.04 g/cm; 95% CI, -0.00 to 0.08; P = 0.06, respectively). Walking as a singular exercise therapy has no significant effects on BMD at the lumbar spine, at the radius, or for the whole body in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women, although significant and positive effects on femoral neck BMD in this population are evident with interventions more than 6 months in duration.
    Menopause (New York, N.Y.) 10/2013; DOI:10.1097/GME.0000000000000100 · 2.81 Impact Factor