Quality appraisal of systematic reviews on methods of labour induction: a systematic review

Chow, Ryan; Li, Allen; Wu, Nicole; Martin, Melanie; Wessels, Jocelyn M.; Foster, Lauren

doi:10.1007/s00404-021-06228-y

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, our study also found a significant and positive association between the AMSTAR-2 score and the number of authors in the study, and again, this is in agreement with the results found by Cheung et al (Chinese Medicine) [ 27 ] and in disagreement with Chow et al [ 30 ]. These findings could be linked to the so-called phenomenon of “knowledge diffusion”.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…An evident relationship between AMSTAR-2 score and the study impact factor score was found, and this is in agreement with the results found by Cheung et al (Chinese Medicine) [ 27 ], McGregor et al (pain management) [ 28 ], and in disagreement with Pauletto et al (dentistry) [ 26 ] and Chow et al (gynecology and obstetrics) [ 30 ]. In our study, an increase in the impact factor was associated with a higher score of the AMSTAR-2, suggesting that occupational medicine journals with a higher impact factor are more likely to publish systematic reviews with a higher methodological quality, as suggested by Saha et al, who found that usually researchers consider impact factor as a reasonable indicator of study quality [ 36 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…In this study, an improvement over time of the methodological quality was found, as well as the association between the PRISMA statement declaration in the systematic reviews, the number of databases used and the AMSTAR score. This is in agreement with McGregor et al (pain management) [ 28 ], Yuan et al (oncologic surgery) [ 29 ], Yuan et al (cosmetic surgery) [ 31 ], Aran et al (psychiatry) [ 34 ], Ross et al (pain management) [ 35 ], and in disagreement with Chow et al (gynecology and obstetrics) [ 30 ]. This fact could be related, as suggested by Shamseer et al [ 38 ], to the adoption of reporting guidelines for systematic reviews, endorsement of complete and transparent reporting by higher impact journals and increased attention to methodological quality.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…In this study, an improvement over time of the methodological quality was found, as well as the association between the PRISMA statement declaration in the systematic reviews, the number of databases used and the AMSTAR score. This is in agreement with [30]. This fact could be related, as suggested by Shamseer et al [38], to the adoption of reporting guidelines for systematic reviews, endorsement of complete and transparent reporting by higher impact journals and increased attention to methodological quality.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Chow et al, making the quality appraisal of systematic reviews on methods of labor induction, studied the association between study quality and number of citations, journal impact factor and publication year [ 30 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature

Torre

Bova

Cocchiara

et al. 2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in occupational medicine journals from 2014 to 2021. Methods: Papers edited between 2014 and 2021 in the 14 open access journals with the highest impact were assessed for their quality. Studies were included if they were systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and if they were published in English. Results: The study included 335 studies. Among these, 149 were meta-analyses and 186 were systematic reviews. The values of the AMSTAR-2 score range between three and fourteen with a mean value of 9.85 (SD = 2.37). The factors that significantly and directly associate to a higher AMSTAR-2 score were impact factor (p = 0.003), number of consulted research databases (p = 0.011), declaration of PRISMA statement (p = 0.003), year of publication (p < 0.001) and performing a meta-analysis (p < 0.001).The R² values from the multivariate analysis showed that the AMSTAR-2 score could be predicted by the inclusion of these parameters by up to 23%.Conclusions: This study suggests a quality assessment methodology that could help readers in a fast identification of good systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Future studies should analyze more journals without applying language restrictions and consider a wider range of years of publication in order to give a more robust evidence for results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…In this study, an improvement over time of the methodological quality was found, as well as the association between the PRISMA statement declaration in the systematic reviews, the number of databases used and the AMSTAR score. This is in agreement with [30]. This fact could be related, as suggested by Shamseer et al [38], to the adoption of reporting guidelines for systematic reviews, endorsement of complete and transparent reporting by higher impact journals and increased attention to methodological quality.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature

Torre

Bova

Cocchiara

et al. 2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Application of Nano Drug Delivery Systems in Female Upper Genital Tract Disorders

van Staden,

Gerber,

Lemmer

2024

Pharmaceutics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The prevalence of female reproductive system disorders is increasing, especially among women of reproductive age, significantly impacting their quality of life and overall health. Managing these diseases effectively is challenging due to the complex nature of the female reproductive system, characterized by dynamic physiological environments and intricate anatomical structures. Innovative drug delivery approaches are necessary to facilitate the precise regulation and manipulation of biological tissues. Nanotechnology is increasingly considered to manage reproductive system disorders, for example, nanomaterial imaging allows for early detection and enhances diagnostic precision to determine disease severity and progression. Additionally, nano drug delivery systems are gaining attention for their ability to target the reproductive system successfully, thereby increasing therapeutic efficacy and decreasing side effects. This comprehensive review outlines the anatomy of the female upper genital tract by highlighting the complex mucosal barriers and their impact on systemic and local drug delivery. Advances in nano drug delivery are described for their sustainable therapeutic action and increased biocompatibility to highlight the potential of nano drug delivery strategies in managing female upper genital tract disorders.

show abstract

Quality appraisal of systematic reviews on methods of labour induction: a systematic review

Cited by 2 publications

References 28 publications

What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature

What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature

The Application of Nano Drug Delivery Systems in Female Upper Genital Tract Disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About