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

被引:17
|
作者
Tsoi, Anna K. N. [1 ]
Ho, Leonard T. F. [2 ]
Wu, Irene X. Y. [3 ]
Wong, Charlene H. L. [1 ]
Ho, Robin S. T. [1 ]
Lim, Joanne Y. Y. [1 ]
Mao, Chen [4 ]
Lee, Eric K. P. [1 ]
Chung, Vincent C. H. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Fac Med, Jockey Club Sch Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[2] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Fac Med, Sch Chinese Med, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[3] Cent South Univ, Xiangya Sch Publ Hlth, Changsha, Peoples R China
[4] Southern Med Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Epidemiol, Guangzhou, Peoples R China
关键词
Systematic reviews; Meta-analysis; Osteoporosis; Evidence-based practice; Research design; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; METAANALYSES; RELIABILITY; HEALTH; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.bone.2020.115541
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose: Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the best evidence on the effectiveness of treatment strategies for osteoporosis. Carefully conducted SRs provide high-quality evidence for supporting decision-making, but the trustworthiness of conclusions can be hampered by limitation in rigor. We aimed to appraise the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on osteoporosis treatments in a cross-sectional study. Methods: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched for SRs on osteoporotic treatments. AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2 was used to evaluate methodological quality of SRs. Associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality ratings were explored using multivariate regression analyses. Results: A total of 101 SRs were appraised. Overall, one (1.0%) was rated "high quality", three (3.0%) were rated "moderate quality", eleven (10.9%) were rated "low quality", and eighty-six (85.1%) were rated "critically low quality". Ninety-nine (98.0%) did not explain study design selection, eighty-five (84.2%) did not provide a list of excluded studies (84.2%), and eighty-five (84.2%) did not report funding sources of included studies. SRs published in 2018 or after were associated with higher overall quality [adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 5.48; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-26.89], while SRs focused on pharmacological interventions were associated with lower overall quality [AOR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.06-0.96]. Conclusion: The methodological quality of the included SRs is far from satisfactory. Future reviewers must strengthen rigor by improving literature search comprehensiveness, registering and publishing a priori protocols, and optimising study selection and data extraction. Better transparency in reporting conflicts of interest among reviewers, as well as sources of funding among included primary studies, are also needed.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational nutritional epidemiology: a cross-sectional study
    Zeraatkar, Dena
    Bhasin, Arrti
    Morassut, Rita E.
    Churchill, Isabella
    Gupta, Arnav
    Lawson, Daeria O.
    Miroshnychenko, Anna
    Sirotich, Emily
    Aryal, Komal
    Mikhail, David
    Khan, Tauseef A.
    Ha, Vanessa
    Sievenpiper, John L.
    Hanna, Steven E.
    Beyene, Joseph
    de Souza, Russell J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION, 2021, 113 (06): : 1578 - 1592
  • [22] Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study
    Luo, Jiefeng
    Chen, Zhe
    Liu, Dan
    Li, Hailong
    He, Siyi
    Zeng, Linan
    Yang, Mengting
    Liu, Zheng
    Xiao, Xue
    Zhang, Lingli
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [23] Methodological steps used by authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials: a cross-sectional study
    Hoang Thi Nam Giang
    Ali Mahmoud Ahmed
    Reem Yousry Fala
    Mohamed Magdy Khattab
    Mona Hassan Ahmed Othman
    Sara Attia Mahmoud Abdelrahman
    Le Phuong Thao
    Ahmed Elsaid Abd Elsamie Gabl
    Samar Ahmed Elrashedy
    Peter N. Lee
    Kenji Hirayama
    Hosni Salem
    Nguyen Tien Huy
    BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19
  • [24] Most systematic reviews reporting adherence to AMSTAR 2 had critically low methodological quality: a cross-sectional meta-research study
    Bojcic, Ruzica
    Todoric, Mate
    Puljak, Livia
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2024, 165
  • [25] Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019
    Pieper, Dawid
    Hellbrecht, Irma
    Zhao, Linlu
    Baur, Clemens
    Pick, Georgia
    Schneider, Sarah
    Harder, Thomas
    Young, Kelsey
    Tricco, Andrea C.
    Westhaver, Ella
    Tunis, Matthew
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2022, 11 (01)
  • [26] Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study
    Pussegoda, Kusala
    Turner, Lucy
    Garritty, Chantelle
    Mayhew, Alain
    Skidmore, Becky
    Stevens, Adrienne
    Boutron, Isabelle
    Sarkis-Onofre, Rafael
    Bjerre, Lise M.
    Hrobjartsson, Asbjorn
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Moher, David
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2017, 6
  • [27] Scope and quality of Cochrane reviews of nutrition interventions: a cross-sectional study
    Naude, Celeste E.
    Durao, Solange
    Harper, Abigail
    Volmink, Jimmy
    NUTRITION JOURNAL, 2017, 16
  • [28] Sex/gender reporting and analysis in Campbell and Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional methods study
    Petkovic, Jennifer
    Trawin, Jessica
    Dewidar, Omar
    Yoganathan, Manosila
    Tugwell, Peter
    Welch, Vivian
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2018, 7
  • [29] AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews
    Shea, Beverley J.
    Hamel, Candyce
    Wells, George A.
    Bouter, Lex M.
    Kristjansson, Elizabeth
    Grimshaw, Jeremy
    Henry, David A.
    Boers, Maarten
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2009, 62 (10) : 1013 - 1020
  • [30] Conduct and reporting of citation searching in Cochrane systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study
    Briscoe, Simon
    Bethel, Alison
    Rogers, Morwenna
    RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2020, 11 (02) : 169 - 180