scholarly journals Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of non‐Cochrane updates of systematic reviews: A cross‐sectional study

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 471-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanja Rombey ◽  
Valerie Lochner ◽  
Livia Puljak ◽  
Nadja Könsgen ◽  
Tim Mathes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional

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 Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts

BMC Medicine ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor M Montori ◽  
◽  
Nancy L Wilczynski ◽  
Douglas Morgan ◽  
R Brian Haynes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Citation Counts

scholarly journals Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. e1002028 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Page ◽  
Larissa Shamseer ◽  
Douglas G. Altman ◽  
Jennifer Tetzlaff ◽  
Margaret Sampson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional

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 Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilson W. S. Tam ◽  
Kenneth K. H. Lo ◽  
Parames Khalechelvam ◽  
Joey Seah ◽  
Shawn Y. S. Goh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document