Annapoorani Muthiah, Loch Kith Lee, John Koh, Ashly Liu, Aidan Tan
{"title":"皮肤病学系统综述和荟萃分析的质量","authors":"Annapoorani Muthiah, Loch Kith Lee, John Koh, Ashly Liu, Aidan Tan","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Although the number of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology has increased over the past decade, their quality is unknown.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>The objective of this study was to determine the change in risk of bias, methodological quality and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology between 2010 and 2019.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We conducted a comparative study of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the 10 highest-ranked dermatology journals in 2010 and 2019. Studies were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other bibliographic databases. Risk of bias and methodological quality were assessed in duplicate with the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) tools, respectively, with the latter only applied to studies of interventions. Reporting quality was assessed with the Preferred Reporting Items of systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009 and PRISMA for abstracts (PRISMA-A) 2013 statements.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>We included 27 systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in 2010 and 127 published in 2019. There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses at high/unclear risk of bias with ROBIS (Fisher's exact test = 1.00) or critically low methodological quality using AMSTAR-2 (Fisher's exact test = 0.456), between 2010 and 2019. There was evidence of a difference in proportion of PRISMA (<i>t</i>(26) = 2.7, <i>p</i> = 0.01), and very strong evidence of a difference in proportion of PRISMA-A (<i>t</i>(26) = 4.2, <i>p</i> < 0.001) checklist items adequately reported between 2010 and 2019. The difference in mean proportion of PRISMA checklist items adequately reported was 3.6 items more (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8–5.4 items more) in 2019 (mean = 10.7 items, SD = 2.4 items) than in 2010 (mean = 7.1 items, SD = 2.9 items), and of PRISMA-A checklist items adequately reported was 1.1 items more (95% CI: 0.2–2.0 items more) in 2019 (mean = 5.6 items, SD = 1.5 items) than in 2010 (mean = 4.4 items, SD = 1.7 items)</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>No improvement was observed in the overall methodological quality of included systematic reviews and meta-analyses; however, there was strong evidence of improvement in the overall reporting quality.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12056","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology\",\"authors\":\"Annapoorani Muthiah, Loch Kith Lee, John Koh, Ashly Liu, Aidan Tan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cesm.12056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Although the number of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology has increased over the past decade, their quality is unknown.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>The objective of this study was to determine the change in risk of bias, methodological quality and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology between 2010 and 2019.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We conducted a comparative study of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the 10 highest-ranked dermatology journals in 2010 and 2019. Studies were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other bibliographic databases. Risk of bias and methodological quality were assessed in duplicate with the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) tools, respectively, with the latter only applied to studies of interventions. Reporting quality was assessed with the Preferred Reporting Items of systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009 and PRISMA for abstracts (PRISMA-A) 2013 statements.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>We included 27 systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in 2010 and 127 published in 2019. There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses at high/unclear risk of bias with ROBIS (Fisher's exact test = 1.00) or critically low methodological quality using AMSTAR-2 (Fisher's exact test = 0.456), between 2010 and 2019. There was evidence of a difference in proportion of PRISMA (<i>t</i>(26) = 2.7, <i>p</i> = 0.01), and very strong evidence of a difference in proportion of PRISMA-A (<i>t</i>(26) = 4.2, <i>p</i> < 0.001) checklist items adequately reported between 2010 and 2019. The difference in mean proportion of PRISMA checklist items adequately reported was 3.6 items more (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8–5.4 items more) in 2019 (mean = 10.7 items, SD = 2.4 items) than in 2010 (mean = 7.1 items, SD = 2.9 items), and of PRISMA-A checklist items adequately reported was 1.1 items more (95% CI: 0.2–2.0 items more) in 2019 (mean = 5.6 items, SD = 1.5 items) than in 2010 (mean = 4.4 items, SD = 1.7 items)</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>No improvement was observed in the overall methodological quality of included systematic reviews and meta-analyses; however, there was strong evidence of improvement in the overall reporting quality.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"volume\":\"2 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12056\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12056\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology
Introduction
Although the number of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology has increased over the past decade, their quality is unknown.
Objective
The objective of this study was to determine the change in risk of bias, methodological quality and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology between 2010 and 2019.
Methods
We conducted a comparative study of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the 10 highest-ranked dermatology journals in 2010 and 2019. Studies were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other bibliographic databases. Risk of bias and methodological quality were assessed in duplicate with the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) tools, respectively, with the latter only applied to studies of interventions. Reporting quality was assessed with the Preferred Reporting Items of systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009 and PRISMA for abstracts (PRISMA-A) 2013 statements.
Results
We included 27 systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in 2010 and 127 published in 2019. There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses at high/unclear risk of bias with ROBIS (Fisher's exact test = 1.00) or critically low methodological quality using AMSTAR-2 (Fisher's exact test = 0.456), between 2010 and 2019. There was evidence of a difference in proportion of PRISMA (t(26) = 2.7, p = 0.01), and very strong evidence of a difference in proportion of PRISMA-A (t(26) = 4.2, p < 0.001) checklist items adequately reported between 2010 and 2019. The difference in mean proportion of PRISMA checklist items adequately reported was 3.6 items more (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8–5.4 items more) in 2019 (mean = 10.7 items, SD = 2.4 items) than in 2010 (mean = 7.1 items, SD = 2.9 items), and of PRISMA-A checklist items adequately reported was 1.1 items more (95% CI: 0.2–2.0 items more) in 2019 (mean = 5.6 items, SD = 1.5 items) than in 2010 (mean = 4.4 items, SD = 1.7 items)
Conclusions
No improvement was observed in the overall methodological quality of included systematic reviews and meta-analyses; however, there was strong evidence of improvement in the overall reporting quality.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
