Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent

Jadbinder Seehra; Nikolaos Pandis; Despina Koletsi; Padhraig S Fleming

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.023

Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent

Jadbinder Seehra
, Nikolaos Pandis
, Despina Koletsi
, Padhraig S Fleming

Centre for Dental Education

Dental Institute Kings College London, Department of Orthodontics, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS, United Kingdom. Electronic address: [email protected].
University of Bern
Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, University of Athens and Private Practice, 2 Thivon str, 11527 Goudi, Athens, Greece.
Queen Mary University of London

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the use of quality assessment tools among a cross-section of systematic reviews (SRs) and to further evaluate whether quality was used as a parameter in the decision to include primary studies within subsequent meta-analysis.

Study design and setting: We searched PubMed for SRs (interventional, observational, and diagnostic) published in Core Clinical Journals between January 1 and March 31, 2014.

Results: Three hundred nine SRs were identified. Quality assessment was undertaken in 222 (71.8%) with isolated use of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (26.1%, n = 58) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (15.3%, n = 34) most common. A threshold level of primary study quality for subsequent meta-analysis was used in 12.9% (40 of 309) of reviews. Overall, fifty-four combinations of quality assessment tools were identified with a similar preponderance of tools used among observational and interventional reviews. Multiple tools were used in 11.7% (n = 36) of SRs overall.

Conclusion: We found that quality assessment tools were used in a majority of SRs; however, a threshold level of quality for meta-analysis was stipulated in just 12.9% (n = 40). This cross-sectional analysis provides further evidence of the need for more active or intuitive editorial processes to enhance the reporting of SRs.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	179-184.e5
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	69
Early online date	4 Jul 2015
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.023
Publication status	Published - Jan 2016

Keywords

Bias
Data Accuracy
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Review Literature as Topic

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.023

Cite this

@article{24dd61383aac40ac8999cdce1f9344bd,

title = "Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent",

abstract = "Objectives: To assess the use of quality assessment tools among a cross-section of systematic reviews (SRs) and to further evaluate whether quality was used as a parameter in the decision to include primary studies within subsequent meta-analysis. Study design and setting: We searched PubMed for SRs (interventional, observational, and diagnostic) published in Core Clinical Journals between January 1 and March 31, 2014. Results: Three hundred nine SRs were identified. Quality assessment was undertaken in 222 (71.8\%) with isolated use of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (26.1\%, n = 58) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (15.3\%, n = 34) most common. A threshold level of primary study quality for subsequent meta-analysis was used in 12.9\% (40 of 309) of reviews. Overall, fifty-four combinations of quality assessment tools were identified with a similar preponderance of tools used among observational and interventional reviews. Multiple tools were used in 11.7\% (n = 36) of SRs overall. Conclusion: We found that quality assessment tools were used in a majority of SRs; however, a threshold level of quality for meta-analysis was stipulated in just 12.9\% (n = 40). This cross-sectional analysis provides further evidence of the need for more active or intuitive editorial processes to enhance the reporting of SRs.",

keywords = "Bias, Data Accuracy, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Review Literature as Topic",

author = "Jadbinder Seehra and Nikolaos Pandis and Despina Koletsi and Fleming, \{Padhraig S\}",

year = "2016",

month = jan,

doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.023",

language = "English",

volume = "69",

pages = "179--184.e5",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent

AU - Seehra, Jadbinder

AU - Pandis, Nikolaos

AU - Koletsi, Despina

AU - Fleming, Padhraig S

PY - 2016/1

Y1 - 2016/1

N2 - Objectives: To assess the use of quality assessment tools among a cross-section of systematic reviews (SRs) and to further evaluate whether quality was used as a parameter in the decision to include primary studies within subsequent meta-analysis. Study design and setting: We searched PubMed for SRs (interventional, observational, and diagnostic) published in Core Clinical Journals between January 1 and March 31, 2014. Results: Three hundred nine SRs were identified. Quality assessment was undertaken in 222 (71.8%) with isolated use of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (26.1%, n = 58) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (15.3%, n = 34) most common. A threshold level of primary study quality for subsequent meta-analysis was used in 12.9% (40 of 309) of reviews. Overall, fifty-four combinations of quality assessment tools were identified with a similar preponderance of tools used among observational and interventional reviews. Multiple tools were used in 11.7% (n = 36) of SRs overall. Conclusion: We found that quality assessment tools were used in a majority of SRs; however, a threshold level of quality for meta-analysis was stipulated in just 12.9% (n = 40). This cross-sectional analysis provides further evidence of the need for more active or intuitive editorial processes to enhance the reporting of SRs.

AB - Objectives: To assess the use of quality assessment tools among a cross-section of systematic reviews (SRs) and to further evaluate whether quality was used as a parameter in the decision to include primary studies within subsequent meta-analysis. Study design and setting: We searched PubMed for SRs (interventional, observational, and diagnostic) published in Core Clinical Journals between January 1 and March 31, 2014. Results: Three hundred nine SRs were identified. Quality assessment was undertaken in 222 (71.8%) with isolated use of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (26.1%, n = 58) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (15.3%, n = 34) most common. A threshold level of primary study quality for subsequent meta-analysis was used in 12.9% (40 of 309) of reviews. Overall, fifty-four combinations of quality assessment tools were identified with a similar preponderance of tools used among observational and interventional reviews. Multiple tools were used in 11.7% (n = 36) of SRs overall. Conclusion: We found that quality assessment tools were used in a majority of SRs; however, a threshold level of quality for meta-analysis was stipulated in just 12.9% (n = 40). This cross-sectional analysis provides further evidence of the need for more active or intuitive editorial processes to enhance the reporting of SRs.

KW - Bias

KW - Data Accuracy

KW - Meta-Analysis as Topic

KW - Review Literature as Topic

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.023

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.023

M3 - Article

C2 - 26151664

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 69

SP - 179-184.e5

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

ER -

Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this