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

Sharma, Sakshi; Oremus, Mark

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.03.012

Cited by 26 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Flow charts to illustrate identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion, are used in 14 of the 20 [70%] reviews in our study, although only three of these use the PRISMA flow diagram (Moher et al, 2009). This result corresponds with Page et al (2016) and Sharma and Oremus (Sharma and Oremus, 2018), 69 and 89.5% respectively. Page et al differentiate between complete, partial, and no reporting, which can explain the difference.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Only five of the twenty reviews or meta-analyses in our sample fulfilled this criterion. This is similar to findings by Koffel and Rethlefsen (2016) [24%] and Page et al (2016) [30%] for non-Cochrane reviews, while Sharma and Oremus (2018) report higher adherence [63.2%]. The main reason for this advice is to make critical evaluation possible and allow replication and updating (Bastian et al, 2010; McGowan et al, 2016), thus giving the reader a chance to decide whether or not the foundations of the work are sound (Sampson et al, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Item 7 of the PRISMA guideline recommends detailed reporting of information sources, whereas Item 8, Search, can be answered with Yes or No. This can explain why Sharma and Oremus (2018) found high compliance with Item 7 in their study. We argue that adherence to the PRISMA guidelines is necessary to provide sufficient detail to reproduce and assess search strategies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Page et al (2016) found that 94% of the publications examined included “systematic review” or “meta-analysis” in the title, increasing from 68.2% for non-Cochrane reviews in 2004 (Moher et al, 2007). Another new study using the PRISMA to assess quality, found that 79 % of systematic reviews include this information (Sharma and Oremus, 2018). We expect a further rise in precise titles, as found by Page, and believe readers will welcome this improvement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Poor Quality in Systematic Reviews on PTSD and EMDR – An Examination of Search Methodology and Reporting

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Different user groups regard systematic reviews as reliable and valuable sources for answering research questions. For systematic reviews to fulfill their purpose, methodological quality in all stages are of importance. The studies identified in a systematic search form the basis of the review, thus the search process methodology is important for both performing and reporting the search. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the quality of non-Cochrane systematic reviews by analyzing how they perform and report the search. This is exemplified by systematic reviews on eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), a trauma-focused therapy commonly used for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Methods and Results: We examined the method chapters of 20 systematic reviews on the subject, and rated their searches and reporting using relevant elements from the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA. We found inadequacies in the methods employed for searching and reporting the search strategy, which could have been avoided by greater adherence to guiding documents for performing systematic reviews. Conclusion: Our findings raise important questions for future debate on the risk of omitting studies, thus impairing the conclusions in a systematic review. For clinical purposes, researchers should investigate if, and how, the search strategy in a systematic review affects the body of knowledge and the results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Poor Quality in Systematic Reviews on PTSD and EMDR – An Examination of Search Methodology and Reporting

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, there are only few areas in medicine in which studies showed a good quality of SR. They include health literacy and cancer screening ( Sharma and Oremus, 2018 ) and SRs referenced in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid use disorder ( Ross et al., 2017 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Matthias

Rissling

Pieper

et al. 2020

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Several standards have been developed to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews (SR). One widely used tool is the AMSTAR. A recent update - AMSTAR 2 - is a 16 item evaluation tool that enables a detailed assessment of SR that include randomised (RCT) or non-randomised studies (NRS) of healthcare interventions. Methods A cross-sectional study of SR on pharmacological or psychological interventions in major depression in adults was conducted. SR published during 2012–2017 were sampled from MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of SR. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Potential predictive factors associated with quality were examined. Results In rating overall confidence in the results of 60 SR four reviews were rated “high”, two were “moderate”, one was “low” and 53 were “critically low”. The mean AMSTAR 2 percentage score was 45.3% (standard deviation 22.6%) in a wide range from 7.1% to 93.8%. Predictors of higher quality were: type of review (higher quality in Cochrane Reviews), SR including only randomized trials and higher journal impact factor. Limitations AMSTAR 2 is not intended to be used for the generation of a percentage score. Conclusions According to AMSTAR 2 the overall methodological quality of SR on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement. Although there is a high need for summarized information in the field of mental health, this work demonstrates the need to critically assess SR before using their findings. Better adherence to established reporting guidelines for SR is needed.

show abstract

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

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To analyze the association of impact factor of the journals publishing low back pain systematic reviews with whether these journals endorsed the PRISMA recommendations and the reviews methodological quality. Methods We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database on January 2018 for all low back pain systematic reviews, published between 2015 and 2017. Our primary outcomes were PRISMA recommendations endorsement by the journal and 2017 journal impact factor. We assessed systematic review methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) and reported descriptive statistics. A multivariate linear regression model was built. We assessed 66 systematic reviews published in 42 journals. Thirty-seven journals had an impact factor (mean 4.0, SD 4.8). 55% journals endorsed the PRISMA recommendations. The methodological quality of 75.8% systematic reviews was critically low. Journals with higher impact factor were associated with journals endorsing the PRISMA recommendations (ß 3.7; 95% CI 1.2, 6.3), but were not associated with the reviews' methodological quality (ß − 0.3; 95% CI − 4.8, 4.3). Limitations Our findings may not be generalized to other study populations and interventions such as medical devices, surgery and medication. Conclusions Three out of every four published low back pain systematic reviews had critically low methodological quality. Journals with higher impact factor were associated with journals endorsing the PRISMA recommendations. Clinicians must know how to critically appraise reviews. Journals' editorial policies should include the assessment of study methodological quality and reporting in the review process of an article.

show abstract

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

Cited by 26 publications

References 35 publications

Poor Quality in Systematic Reviews on PTSD and EMDR – An Examination of Search Methodology and Reporting

Poor Quality in Systematic Reviews on PTSD and EMDR – An Examination of Search Methodology and Reporting

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About