Quality assessment of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Kyeong Uoon Kim²  Hyun-Ju Seo¹ 

[1] Department of Nursing, College of Medicine, Chosun University, 309 Pilmum-daero, Dong-gu Gwangju, 501-759, Republic of Korea;Department of Nursing, College of Oriental Medicine, Public Health & Welfare, Samcheok 2nd Campus, Kangwon National University, 3 Hwangjo-ri, Dogye-eup, Samcheok-si, Kangwon-do 245-907, Republic of Korea

关键词: Nursing intervention;    Quality assessment;    Meta analysis;    Systematic review;   

Others  :  1126883
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2288-12-129

 received in 2011-11-23, accepted in 2012-08-24,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

A systematic review is used to investigate the best available evidence of clinical safety and effectiveness of healthcare intervention. This requires methodological rigor in order to minimize bias and random error. The purpose of this study is to assess the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses for nursing interventions conducted by Korean researchers.

Methods

We searched electronic databases from 1950 to July 2010, including ovidMEDLINE, ovidEMBASE, and Korean databases, including KoreaMed, Korean Medical Database, and Korean studies Information Service System etc. Two reviewers independently screened and selected all references, and assessed the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses using the “Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR) tool.

Results

Twenty two systematic reviews or meta-analyses were included in this study. The median overall score (out of 11) for included reviews was 5 (range 2–11) and the mean overall score for AMSTAR was 4.7 (95% confidence interval 3.8-5.7). Nine out of 22 reviews were rated as low quality (AMSTAR score 0–4), 11 were rated as moderate quality (AMSTAR score 5–8), and two reviews were categorized as high quality (AMSTAR score 9–11).

Conclusions

The methodological quality of published reviews on nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers was assessed as low to moderate. In order to use the best available evidence in clinical decision making, reviewers should conduct systematic reviews or meta- analyses using rigorous research methods.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Seo and Kim.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]DiCenso A, Cullum N, Ciliska D: Implementing evidence based nursing: some misconceptions. Evid Based Nurs 1998, 1:38-40.
• [2]Chalmers I, Altman DG: Systematic review (eds). London: British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 1995.
• [3]Melchiors AC, Correr CJ, Venson R, Pontarolo R: An analysis of quality of systematic reviews on pharmacist health interventions. Int J Clin Pharm 2012, 34:32-42.
• [4]Mulrow CD: Rational for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994, 309:597-599.
• [5]Slutsky J, Atkins D, Chang S: Collins Sharp B: Methods Reference Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. US Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008.
• [6]Sequeira-Byron P, Fedorowicz Z, Jagannath VA, Sharif MO: An AMSTAR assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS). J Appl Oral Sci 2011, 19:440-447.
• [7]Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA, Athanasiou AE: Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011, 14:116-137.
• [8]Lundh A, Knijnenburg SL, Jørgensen AW, van Dalen EC, Kremer LC: Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology - a systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev 2009, 35:645-652.
• [9]Ma B, Guo J, Qi G, Li H, Peng J, Zhang Y, Ding Y, Yang K: Epidemiology, quality and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine interventions published in Chinese journals. PLoS One 2011, 6:e20185.
• [10]Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network: Search filters. http://www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/filters.html# systematic webcite.
• [11]Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM: Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007, 7:10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, Henry DA, Boers M: AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:1013-1020.
• [13]Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z, Ramsay T, Bai A, Shukla VK, Grimshaw JM: External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic review (AMSTAR). PLoS One 2007, 2:e1350.
• [14]Mikton C, Butchart A: Child maltreatment prevention: a systematic review of reviews. Bull World Health Organ 2009, 87:353-361.
• [15]Shin HS, Hyun MS, Ku MO, Cho MO, Kim SY, Jeong JS, Jeong GH, Seomoon GA, Son YJ: Analysis of research papers published in the journal of the Korea academy of nursing-focused on research trends, intervention studies, and level of evidence in the research. J Korean Acad Nurs 2010, 40:139-149. Korean
• [16]Moja LP, Telaro E, D'Amico R, Moschetti I, Coe L, Liberati A: Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the meta quality cross sectional study. BMJ 2005, 330:1053.
• [17]Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic review and meta analysis of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:e1-e34.
• [18]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: PRISMA Group: Reprint-preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta analysis: the PRISMA statement. Phys Ther 2009, 89:873-880.