0 13

Cited 0 times in

Assessing the quality of studies in meta-research: Review/guidelines on the most important quality assessment tools

Authors
 Claudio Luchini  ;  Nicola Veronese  ;  Alessia Nottegar  ;  Jae Il Shin  ;  Giovanni Gentile  ;  Umberto Granziol  ;  Pinar Soysal  ;  Ovidiu Alexinschi  ;  Lee Smith  ;  Marco Solmi 
Citation
 PHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, Vol.20(1) : 185-195, 2021-01 
Journal Title
 PHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS 
ISSN
 1539-1604 
Issue Date
2021-01
Keywords
AMSTAR-PLUS ; AMSTAR2 ; CONSORT ; Cochran ; NOS ; PRISMA ; STROBE ; meta-analysis ; meta-research ; quality
Abstract
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses pool data from individual studies to generate a higher level of evidence to be evaluated by guidelines. These reviews ultimately guide clinicians and stakeholders in health-related decisions. However, the informativeness and quality of evidence synthesis inherently depend on the quality of what has been pooled into meta-research projects. Moreover, beyond the quality of included individual studies, only a methodologically correct process, in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analyses themselves, can produce a reliable and valid evidence synthesis. Hence, quality of meta-research projects also affects evidence synthesis reliability. In this overview, the authors provide a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages and main characteristics of some of the most frequently used tools to assess quality of individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Specifically, the tools considered in this work are the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), the Jadad scale, the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 (RoB2) for randomized controlled trials, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2), and AMSTAR-PLUS for meta-analyses. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN?: The informativeness and quality of evidence synthesis inherently depend on the quality of what has been pooled into meta-research projects. Beyond the quality of included individual studies, only a methodologically correct process, in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analyses themselves, can produce a reliable and valid evidence synthesis. WHAT IS NEW?: In this overview, the authors provide a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages and main characteristics of some of the most frequently used tools to assess quality of individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. POTENTIAL IMPACT: This overview serves as a starting point and a brief guide to identify and understand the main and most frequently used tools for assessing the quality of studies included in meta-research. The authors here share their experience in publishing several meta-research-related articles covering different areas of medical sciences.
Full Text
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pst.2068
DOI
10.1002/pst.2068
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Others (기타) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Shin, Jae Il(신재일) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2326-1820
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/182384
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse

Links