Scholarlink

Objective <p>To evaluate the methodological quality and the reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MA) published in the highest-impact endocrinology and general medicine journals.</p> Methods <p>We included SR/MA of healthcare interventions’ effects and diagnostic accuracy published in the top 5 journals of endocrinology and general medicine that publish SRs. The methodological quality of the articles was assessed with the AMSTAR tool, and the quality in the reporting was assessed by the PRISMA tool. Results were described with frequencies and percentages. To determine whether statistical differences exist, a chi-square test was performed.</p> Results <p>A total of 147 SR/MA met the inclusion criteria. More than half of the included studies were from a journal of general medicine (56%). Overall, most SRs had a low (31.97% (<i>n</i> = 47)) or critically low (25.85% (<i>n</i> = 38)) overall confidence in the results. None of AMSTAR’s domains was met by all the included reviews. Regarding PRISMA items, just 2 items were fully reported in all journals: “information sources” (item 6) and“Discussion – interpretation” (item 23a). The least fully reported item was“Abstract” (28.76%).</p> Conclusion <p>The use of AMSTAR and PRISMA has improved the quality of the SRs across different fields in medicine; however, until today, there is still an inconsistency in the report quality of systematic reviews, even when only evaluating the highest-ranking journals; thus, the development of new strategies is a must to generate better and more quality evidence.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Quality of systematic reviews in the top medical and endocrinology journals—should we have confidence in them? A meta-epidemiological study

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月19日

查看全文
  • Jorge Rafael Violante-Cumpa,
  • Sofia Mariño-Velasco,
  • Luz Adriana Ramírez-García,
  • Javier Obeso,
  • Daniela Cecilia González-Cruz,
  • Fernando González-Colmeneros,
  • Alexandra Daniela Magaña-García,
  • Cristian Valdemar Domínguez-Rivera,
  • Diana Jaqueline Valeriano-Quiroz,
  • Isaías García-Resendiz,
  • Fernando Gerardo Ruíz-Hernández,
  • José Gerardo González-González,
  • René Rodríguez-Gutiérrez

摘要

Objective

To evaluate the methodological quality and the reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MA) published in the highest-impact endocrinology and general medicine journals.

Methods

We included SR/MA of healthcare interventions’ effects and diagnostic accuracy published in the top 5 journals of endocrinology and general medicine that publish SRs. The methodological quality of the articles was assessed with the AMSTAR tool, and the quality in the reporting was assessed by the PRISMA tool. Results were described with frequencies and percentages. To determine whether statistical differences exist, a chi-square test was performed.

Results

A total of 147 SR/MA met the inclusion criteria. More than half of the included studies were from a journal of general medicine (56%). Overall, most SRs had a low (31.97% (n = 47)) or critically low (25.85% (n = 38)) overall confidence in the results. None of AMSTAR’s domains was met by all the included reviews. Regarding PRISMA items, just 2 items were fully reported in all journals: “information sources” (item 6) and“Discussion – interpretation” (item 23a). The least fully reported item was“Abstract” (28.76%).

Conclusion

The use of AMSTAR and PRISMA has improved the quality of the SRs across different fields in medicine; however, until today, there is still an inconsistency in the report quality of systematic reviews, even when only evaluating the highest-ranking journals; thus, the development of new strategies is a must to generate better and more quality evidence.