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
  • [41] Plasma levels of amino acids and osteoporosis: a cross-sectional study
    Yang, Shuman
    Liu, Tong
    Wang, Xinwei
    Lei, Jie
    Vuong, Ann M.
    Shi, Xianbao
    Han, Qinghe
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2025, 15 (01):
  • [42] Spin on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 2)
    Steegmans, Pauline A. J.
    Di Girolamo, Nicola
    Meursinge Reynders, Reint A.
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2023, 12 (01)
  • [43] Methodological quality assessment of paper-based systematic reviews published in oral health
    Wasiak, J.
    Shen, A. Y.
    Tan, H. B.
    Mahar, R.
    Kan, G.
    Khoo, W. R.
    Faggion, C. M., Jr.
    CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2016, 20 (03) : 399 - 431
  • [44] Contacting of authors by systematic reviewers: protocol for a cross-sectional study and a survey
    Reynders, Reint Meursinge
    Ladu, Luisa
    Di Girolamo, Nicola
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2017, 6 : 249
  • [45] Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study
    Steegmans, Pauline A. J.
    Bipat, Shandra
    Reynders, Reint A. Meursinge
    SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2019, 8 (1)
  • [46] Forest plots in reports of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study reviewing current practice
    Schriger, David L.
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Vetter, Julia A.
    Heafner, Thomas
    Moher, David
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2010, 39 (02) : 421 - 429
  • [47] Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study
    Tam, Wilson W. S.
    Lo, Kenneth K. H.
    Khalechelvam, Parames
    BMJ OPEN, 2017, 7 (02):
  • [48] Methodological quality of systematic reviews on Chinese herbal medicine: a methodological survey
    Cheung, Andy K. L.
    Wong, Charlene H. L.
    Ho, Leonard
    Wu, Irene X. Y.
    Ke, Fiona Y. T.
    Chung, Vincent C. H.
    BMC COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE AND THERAPIES, 2022, 22 (01)
  • [49] Impact of industry sponsorship on the quality of systematic reviews of vaccines: a cross-sectional analysis of studies published from 2016 to 2019
    Dawid Pieper
    Irma Hellbrecht
    Linlu Zhao
    Clemens Baur
    Georgia Pick
    Sarah Schneider
    Thomas Harder
    Kelsey Young
    Andrea C. Tricco
    Ella Westhaver
    Matthew Tunis
    Systematic Reviews, 11
  • [50] Evaluation of the correlation between frailty and sleep quality among elderly patients with osteoporosis: a cross-sectional study
    Xu, Xiaoru
    Zhou, Xiaoping
    Liu, Wenjing
    Ma, Qing
    Deng, Xuexue
    Fang, Ronghua
    BMC GERIATRICS, 2022, 22 (01)