scholarly journals Predictors of Citations of Systematic Reviews in Oral Implantology: A Cross-Sectional Bibliometric Analysis

SAGE Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 215824401983594
Author(s):  
Blake M. Louscher ◽  
Veerasathpurush Allareddy ◽  
Satheesh Elangovan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Status Number ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Oral Implantology ◽  
Evidence Dissemination ◽  
Number Of Authors

Citation count is an important measure of academic productivity and evidence dissemination. This cross-sectional bibliometric assessment is aimed at identifying predictors of citations of systematic reviews (SRs) published in 2010 in the field of oral implantology. SRs published in the field of oral implantology in the year 2010 in three electronic databases were identified. Following which, data were extracted from selected SRs including number of authors, number of institutions, international collaboration status, number of references, and journal impact factor (JIF). Methodological quality of SR was evaluated separately using the “Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews” (AMSTAR) checklist. Bivariate associations between the extracted variables, including AMSTAR score, and citation count were examined. Simultaneous effect of all extracted variables and SR citation count were examined by a multivariable linear regression model. In the included 26 SRs, the number of authors and institutions ranged from 1 to 8 and 1 to 5, respectively. The JIF was on average 3.22 (±1.81), and the AMSTAR score ranged from 2 to 10. Total citations ranged from 0 to 123 in Web of Science and 1 to 245 in Google Scholar. Our analysis revealed a lack of significant ( p > .05) correlation between the extracted variables and citation count. No reliable indicator that could predict the citation counts for SRs published in 2010 in oral implantology was identified. Of importance was the lack of significant correlation between AMSTAR score and citation count, which underscores the importance of careful appraisal of SR before incorporating its findings in clinical practice.

scholarly journals Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for depression: a cross-sectional study

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 619-627 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. C. H. Chung ◽  
X. Y. Wu ◽  
Y. Feng ◽  
R. S. T. Ho ◽  
S. Y. S. Wong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Pharmacological Treatments ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Depression Treatments

Aims.Depression is one of the most common mental disorders and identifying effective treatment strategies is crucial for the control of depression. Well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses can provide the best evidence for supporting treatment decision-making. Nevertheless, the trustworthiness of conclusions can be limited by lack of methodological rigour. This study aims to assess the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on depression treatments.Methods.A cross-sectional study on the bibliographical and methodological characteristics of SRs published on depression treatments trials was conducted. Two electronic databases (the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) were searched for potential SRs. SRs with at least one meta-analysis on the effects of depression treatments were considered eligible. The methodological quality of included SRs was assessed using the validated AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool. The associations between bibliographical characteristics and scoring on AMSTAR items were analysed using logistic regression analysis.Results.A total of 358 SRs were included and appraised. Over half of included SRs (n = 195) focused on non-pharmacological treatments and harms were reported in 45.5% (n = 163) of all studies. Studies varied in methods and reporting practices: only 112 (31.3%) took the risk of bias among primary studies into account when formulating conclusions; 245 (68.4%) did not fully declare conflict of interests; 93 (26.0%) reported an ‘a priori’ design and 104 (29.1%) provided lists of both included and excluded studies. Results from regression analyses showed: more recent publications were more likely to report ‘a priori’ designs [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.57], to describe study characteristics fully (AOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06–1.28), and to assess presence of publication bias (AOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06–1.19), but were less likely to list both included and excluded studies (AOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81–0.92). SRs published in journals with higher impact factor (AOR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04–1.25), completed by more review authors (AOR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01–1.24) and SRs on non-pharmacological treatments (AOR 1.62, 95% CI 1.01–2.59) were associated with better performance in publication bias assessment.Conclusion.The methodological quality of included SRs is disappointing. Future SRs should strive to improve rigour by considering of risk of bias when formulating conclusions, reporting conflict of interests and authors should explicitly describe harms. SR authors should also use appropriate methods to combine the results, prevent language and publication biases, and ensure timely updates.

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

Heliyon ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. e04776
Author(s):  
Katja Matthias ◽  
Olesja Rissling ◽  
Dawid Pieper ◽  
Johannes Morche ◽  
Marc Nocon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Major Depression ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional

Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for osteoporosis: A cross-sectional study

Bone ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 139 ◽  
pp. 115541
Author(s):  
Anna K.N. Tsoi ◽  
Leonard T.F. Ho ◽  
Irene X.Y. Wu ◽  
Charlene H.L. Wong ◽  
Robin S.T. Ho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional

scholarly journals Critically Low Confidence in the Results Produced by Spine Surgery Systematic Reviews: An AMSTAR-2 Evaluation From 4 Spine Journals

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 667-673 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Dettori ◽  
Andrea C. Skelly ◽  
Erika D. Brodt
Keyword(s):  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Surgery Research

Study Design: A systematic cross-sectional survey of systematic reviews (SRs). Objective: To evaluate the methodological quality of spine surgery SRs published in 2018 using the updated AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal instrument. Methods: We identified the PubMed indexed journals devoted to spine surgery research in 2018. All SRs of spine surgical interventions from those journals were critically appraised for quality independently by 2 reviewers using the AMSTAR 2 instrument. We calculated the percentage of SRs achieving a positive response for each AMSTAR 2 domain item and assessed the levels of confidence in the results of each SR. Results: We identified 28 SRs from 4 journals that met our criteria for inclusion. Only 49.5% of the AMSTAR 2 domain items satisfied the AMSTAR 2 criteria. Critical domain items were satisfied less often (39.1%) compared with noncritical domain items (57.3%). Domain items most poorly reported include accounting for individual study risk of bias when interpreting results (14%), list and justification of excluded articles (18%), and an a priori establishment of methods prior to the review or registered protocol (18%). The overall confidence in the results was rated “low” in 2 SRs and “critically low” in 26. Conclusions: The credibility of a SR and its value to clinicians and policy makers are dependent on its methodological quality. This appraisal found significant methodological limitations in several critical domains, such that the confidence in the findings of these reviews is “critically low.”

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis on Asthma Treatments. A Cross-Sectional Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 949-957
Author(s):  
Irene X. Y. Wu ◽  
Yihong Deng ◽  
Huan Wang ◽  
Yancong Chen ◽  
Charlene H. L. Wong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional

scholarly journals Low Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews on Acupuncture: A Cross- Sectional Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard TF Ho ◽  
Fiona YT Ke ◽  
Charlene HL Wong ◽  
Irene XY Wu ◽  
Andy KL Cheung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Quality Ratings ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

Abstract Background: While well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs) can provide best evidence on the potential effectiveness of acupuncture, limitations on methodological rigour of SRs may impact trustworthiness of their conclusions. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on acupuncture effectiveness.Methods: CDSR, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for SRs on acupuncture. AMSTAR2 was applied for assessing methodological quality. Associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality ratings were examined. Results: A total of 106 SRs were appraised. Only one (0.9%) SR was of high overall methodological quality, zero (0%) was of moderate-quality, six (5.7%) and 99 (93.4%) were of low-quality and critically low-quality respectively. Among appraised SRs, only ten (9.4%) provided an a priori protocol, four (3.8%) conducted a comprehensive literature search, five (4.7%) provided a list of excluded study, and six (5.7%) performed meta-analysis appropriately. Cochrane reviews, update reviews, reviews with corresponding authors from the America, and reviews that searched non-English databases had relatively higher overall quality. Conclusions: Methodological quality of SRs on acupuncture is unsatisfactory. Future reviewers should improve critical areas of publishing protocols, performing comprehensive search, providing a list of excluded studies with justifications for exclusion, and conducting meta-analysis appropriately.

scholarly journals Low methodological quality of systematic reviews on acupuncture: a cross-sectional study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard Ho ◽  
Fiona Y. T. Ke ◽  
Charlene H. L. Wong ◽  
Irene X. Y. Wu ◽  
Andy K. L. Cheung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
English Language ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Rank Correlation ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional

Abstract Background While well-conducted systematic reviews (SRs) can provide the best evidence on the potential effectiveness of acupuncture, limitations on the methodological rigour of SRs may impact the trustworthiness of their conclusions. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on acupuncture effectiveness. Methods Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for SRs focusing on the treatment effect of manual acupuncture or electro-acupuncture published during January 2018 and March 2020. Eligible SRs must contain at least one meta-analysis and be published in English language. Two independent reviewers extracted the bibliographical characteristics of the included SRs with a pre-designed questionnaire and appraised the methodological quality of the studies with the validated AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2). The associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality ratings were explored using Kruskal-Wallis rank tests and Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients. Results A total of 106 SRs were appraised. Only one (0.9%) SR was of high overall methodological quality, zero (0%) was of moderate-quality, six (5.7%) and 99 (93.4%) were of low-quality and critically low-quality respectively. Among appraised SRs, only ten (9.4%) provided an a priori protocol, four (3.8%) conducted a comprehensive literature search, five (4.7%) provided a list of excluded studies, and six (5.7%) performed meta-analysis appropriately. Cochrane SRs, updated SRs, and SRs that did not search non-English databases had relatively higher overall quality. Conclusions Methodological quality of SRs on acupuncture is unsatisfactory. Future reviewers should improve critical methodological aspects of publishing protocols, performing comprehensive search, providing a list of excluded studies with justifications for exclusion, and conducting appropriate meta-analyses. These recommendations can be implemented via enhancing the technical competency of reviewers in SR methodology through established education approaches as well as quality gatekeeping by journal editors and reviewers. Finally, for evidence users, skills in SR critical appraisal remain to be essential as relevant evidence may not be available in pre-appraised formats.

scholarly journals Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality and interpretation of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016–2019

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawid Pieper ◽  
Irma Hellbrecht ◽  
Linlu Zhao ◽  
Clemens Baur ◽  
Georgia Pick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Total Sample ◽  
Summary Score ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Important Indicator ◽  
Exact Test

Abstract Background Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the highest level of evidence and inform evidence-based decision making in health care. Earlier studies found association with industry to be negatively associated with methodological quality of SRs. However, this has not been investigated in SRs on vaccines. Methods We performed a systematic literature search using MEDLINE and EMBASE in March 2020. The results were restricted to those published between 2016 to 2019 with no language restrictions. Study characteristics were extracted by one person and checked by an experienced reviewer. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool by multiple reviewers after a calibration exercise was performed. A summary score for each SR was calculated. The Mann-Whitney U-Test and Fisher’s Exact Test were performed to compare both groups. Results Out of 185 SRs that met all inclusion criteria, 27 SRs were industry funded. Those were matched with 30 non-industry funded SRs resulting in a total sample size of 57. The mean AMSTAR 2 summary score across all SRs was 0.49. Overall, the median AMSTAR 2 summary score was higher for the non-industry funded SRs than for the industry-funded SRs (0.62 vs. 0.36; p < .00001). Lower ratings for industry funded SRs were consistent across all but one AMSTAR 2 item, though significantly lower only for three specific items. Conclusion The methodological quality of SRs in vaccination is comparable to SRs in other fields, while it is still suboptimal. We are not able to provide a satisfactory explanation why industry funded SRs had a significantly lower methodological quality than non-industry funded SRs over recent years. Industry funding is an important indicator of methodological quality for vaccine SRs and should be carefully considered when appraising SR quality.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document