A Methodological Quality Assessment of Meta-Analysis of Health Research in Korea

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 1183-1191
Author(s):  
Hye-Ryeon Kim ◽  
So-Eun Lee
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Methodological quality assessment of network meta-analysis of drug interventions: implications from a systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 620-632 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernanda S Tonin ◽  
Helena H Borba ◽  
Leticia P Leonart ◽  
Antonio M Mendes ◽  
Laiza M Steimbach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Drug Interventions

Utility of Routine Frozen Section of Thyroid Nodules Classified as Follicular Neoplasm

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jhorman Grisales ◽  
Alvaro Sanabria
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Thyroid Nodules ◽  
Frozen Section ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Characteristic Curve ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Follicular Neoplasm ◽  
Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic

Abstract Objectives To evaluate the diagnostic performance of frozen section in thyroid nodules classified as follicular neoplasm. Methods A diagnostic test meta-analysis was designed. Studies that assessed frozen section in patients with thyroid nodules and a fine-needle aspiration biopsy result of Bethesda IV were selected. The outcomes measured were the number of false- and true-positive and -negative results. We used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) instrument for methodological quality assessment and a bivariate mixed-effects regression framework and a likelihood-based estimation of the exact binomial approach. Results Forty-six studies from 1991 to 2018 were included. Most studies had moderate methodological quality. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 43% (95% confidence internal [CI], 0.34-0.53) and 100% (95% CI, 0.99-1.00), respectively. The hierarchic summary receiver operating characteristic curve showed an area under the curve of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.80-0.97). Conclusions Frozen section demonstrates moderate diagnostic performance in patients with follicular neoplasm, and its utility for making intraoperative decisions is limited. Its routine use should be discouraged.

scholarly journals Overview of biomedical and public health reviews in Ethiopia from 1970 to 2018: trends, methodological qualities, gaps and future directions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tesfa Dejenie Habtewold ◽  
Sisay Mulugeta Alemu ◽  
Shimels Hussien Mohammed ◽  
Aklilu Endalamaw ◽  
Mohammed Akibu Mohammed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
List Type ◽  
Future Directions

AbstractIntroductionGlobally, there has been a dramatic increment of narrative reviews, systematic reviews and overview publication rates. In Ethiopia, only small number of reviews are published and no overviews conducted in biomedical and public health disciplines. Therefore, we aimed to (1) assess the trend of narrative and systematic reviews in Ethiopia, (2) examine their methodological quality and (3) suggest future directions for improvement.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, CINHAL, WHO Global Index Medicus, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO electronic databases were searched and supplemented by hand searching as well. All narrative reviews and systematic reviews with or without a meta-analysis from 1970 to April 2018 were included. The International Narrative Systematic assessment (INSA) for narrative reviews and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) for systematic reviews with or without a meta-analysis were used for quality appraisal. Fisher’s exact test at the p-value threshold of 0.05 was used to compare the differences in methodological quality.ResultsOf the 2,201 initially identified articles, 106 articles published from 1970 to 2018 were eligible for full-text review. Among included reviews, 50.9% were narrative reviews, 16% were systematic reviews and 33.1% were systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Twenty-nine percent were published in Ethiopia and 43.4% were published after 2015. 85.1% of narrative reviews poorly described the characteristics of included studies and 63.8% did not report a conflict of interest. In systematic reviews, 89.6%, 91.7%, and 100% did not register/publish the protocol, justifying the selection of the study designs for inclusion and report sources of funding for the primary studies respectively. Overall, 55.3% of narrative reviews and 75% of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis had poor methodological quality.ConclusionsAlthough publication rate of narrative and systematic reviews have risen in Ethiopia, half of the narrative reviews and three-quarters of the systematic reviews had poor methodological quality. We recommend authors to strictly follow standardized quality assessment tools during conducting reviews. Moreover, immediate interventions such as providing methodological training and employers, editors and peer-reviewers should carefully evaluate all reviews before submission or publication.What is new?Key findingsThe publication rate of narrative and systematic reviews have risen in Ethiopia.Almost half of narrative reviews and three-fourths of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis had poor scientific methodological quality.What this adds to what is knownTo our knowledge, this is the first overview of its kind providing insight into the publication trend of narrative and systematic reviews, and their methodological rigor in Ethiopia.What is the implication, what should change nowOur review shows that the methodological quality of reviews in biomedical and public health discipline in Ethiopia is substantially low and urges immediate intervention.We recommended authors to strictly follow standardized quality assessment tools during designing, conducting and reporting (systematic)reviews.

scholarly journals Methodological quality and reporting standards in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of physical activity studies: a report from the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative)

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nórton Luís Oliveira ◽  
Cíntia Ehlers Botton ◽  
Angélica Trevisan De Nardi ◽  
Daniel Umpierre
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Physical Activity Intervention ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Reporting Standards ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Recommended Practices

Abstract Background Several resources have been developed (e.g., reporting guidelines) to promote high-standard practices in health research. However, there was no continuous and systematic assessment of recommended practices in published systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SRMAs), which increases the usability of the available resources. Therefore, we aimed to assess the methodological and reporting standards in SRMAs of physical activity studies. This report presents the main results of the SEES Initiative in 2019. Methods Our approach is based on a prospective systematic review methodology to implement post-publication surveillance of research practices in exercise sciences. Briefly, during the year 2019, pre-specified searches were conducted monthly (PubMed/MEDLINE) in journals from the exercise sciences (n = 9) and medicine (n = 5). The assessments were independently conducted by two authors, based on 36 items/practices derived from established statements/tools (PRISMA, AMSTAR 2, ROBIS). To be eligible, SRMAs should summarize studies that had, at least, one arm consisting of physical activity interventions/exposures and one health or behavioral outcome. Results Out of 1028 studies assessed for eligibility, 103 SRMAs were included. The minimum adherence was 13/36 items, whereas only one SRMA adhered to all items. Some highly contemplated items included identification of title as SRMA (97.1%) and descriptions of the main outcome in the abstract (95.1%) and risk of bias (RoB) assessment (95.1%). Some poorly contemplated items included publicly available protocol (4.9%), discussion of the results in light of RoB in studies included (32.0%), and data sharing statements (35.9%). Conclusion In summary, there is a suboptimal adherence to recommended practices on methodological quality and reporting standards in the SRMAs of physical activity intervention/exposure evaluated from the selected journals in 2019, which likely reduce the reproducibility and usefulness of these studies. This incipient evidence from our first 12 months of post-publication surveillance should serve as a call for attention and action for multiple stakeholders (e.g., authors, reviewers, editors, funders, academic institutions) in this important health research field.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document