Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for osteoporosis: A cross-sectional study

被引:17
|
作者
Tsoi, Anna K. N. [1 ]
Ho, Leonard T. F. [2 ]
Wu, Irene X. Y. [3 ]
Wong, Charlene H. L. [1 ]
Ho, Robin S. T. [1 ]
Lim, Joanne Y. Y. [1 ]
Mao, Chen [4 ]
Lee, Eric K. P. [1 ]
Chung, Vincent C. H. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Fac Med, Jockey Club Sch Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[2] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Fac Med, Sch Chinese Med, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[3] Cent South Univ, Xiangya Sch Publ Hlth, Changsha, Peoples R China
[4] Southern Med Univ, Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Epidemiol, Guangzhou, Peoples R China
关键词
Systematic reviews; Meta-analysis; Osteoporosis; Evidence-based practice; Research design; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; METAANALYSES; RELIABILITY; HEALTH; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.bone.2020.115541
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Purpose: Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the best evidence on the effectiveness of treatment strategies for osteoporosis. Carefully conducted SRs provide high-quality evidence for supporting decision-making, but the trustworthiness of conclusions can be hampered by limitation in rigor. We aimed to appraise the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on osteoporosis treatments in a cross-sectional study. Methods: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched for SRs on osteoporotic treatments. AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2 was used to evaluate methodological quality of SRs. Associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality ratings were explored using multivariate regression analyses. Results: A total of 101 SRs were appraised. Overall, one (1.0%) was rated "high quality", three (3.0%) were rated "moderate quality", eleven (10.9%) were rated "low quality", and eighty-six (85.1%) were rated "critically low quality". Ninety-nine (98.0%) did not explain study design selection, eighty-five (84.2%) did not provide a list of excluded studies (84.2%), and eighty-five (84.2%) did not report funding sources of included studies. SRs published in 2018 or after were associated with higher overall quality [adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 5.48; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-26.89], while SRs focused on pharmacological interventions were associated with lower overall quality [AOR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.06-0.96]. Conclusion: The methodological quality of the included SRs is far from satisfactory. Future reviewers must strengthen rigor by improving literature search comprehensiveness, registering and publishing a priori protocols, and optimising study selection and data extraction. Better transparency in reporting conflicts of interest among reviewers, as well as sources of funding among included primary studies, are also needed.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for depression: a cross-sectional study
    Chung, V. C. H.
    Wu, X. Y.
    Feng, Y.
    Ho, R. S. T.
    Wong, S. Y. S.
    Threapleton, D.
    EPIDEMIOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRIC SCIENCES, 2018, 27 (06) : 619 - 627
  • [2] Methodological quality of systematic reviews on sepsis treatments: A cross-sectional study
    Ho, Leonard
    Chen, Xi
    Kwok, Yan Ling
    Wu, Irene X. Y.
    Mao, Chen
    Chung, Vincent Chi Ho
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2024, 77 : 21 - 28
  • [3] Methodological quality of systematic reviews on atopic dermatitis treatments: a cross-sectional study
    Ho, Leonard
    Cheung, Yolenda Man Kei
    Choi, Cyrus Chung Ching
    Wu, Irene Xinyin
    Mao, Chen
    Chung, Vincent Chi Ho
    JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGICAL TREATMENT, 2024, 35 (01)
  • [4] Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for Alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional study
    Claire C. W. Zhong
    Jinglun Zhao
    Charlene H. L. Wong
    Irene X. Y. Wu
    Chen Mao
    Jerry W. F. Yeung
    Vincent C. H. Chung
    Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, 14
  • [5] Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for Alzheimer's disease: a cross-sectional study
    Zhong, Claire C. W.
    Zhao, Jinglun
    Wong, Charlene H. L.
    Wu, Irene X. Y.
    Mao, Chen
    Yeung, Jerry W. F.
    Chung, Vincent C. H.
    ALZHEIMERS RESEARCH & THERAPY, 2022, 14 (01)
  • [6] Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis on Asthma Treatments A Cross-Sectional Study
    Wu, Irene X. Y.
    Deng, Yihong
    Wang, Huan
    Chen, Yancong
    Wong, Charlene H. L.
    Chung, Vincent C. H.
    ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY, 2020, 17 (08) : 949 - 957
  • [7] Low methodological quality of systematic reviews on acupuncture: a cross-sectional study
    Leonard Ho
    Fiona Y. T. Ke
    Charlene H. L. Wong
    Irene X. Y. Wu
    Andy K. L. Cheung
    Chen Mao
    Vincent C. H. Chung
    BMC Medical Research Methodology, 21
  • [8] Methodological quality of systematic reviews on interventions for osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study
    Wu, Irene X. Y.
    Wang, Huan
    Zhu, Lin
    Chen, Yancong
    Wong, Charlene H. L.
    Mao, Chen
    Chung, Vincent C. H.
    THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES IN MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE, 2020, 12
  • [9] METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY OF DRUG SAFETY SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY
    Li, L.
    Deng, K.
    Zhou, X.
    Xu, C.
    Sun, X.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2018, 21 : S85 - S85
  • [10] Low methodological quality of systematic reviews on acupuncture: a cross-sectional study
    Ho, Leonard
    Ke, Fiona Y. T.
    Wong, Charlene H. L.
    Wu, Irene X. Y.
    Cheung, Andy K. L.
    Mao, Chen
    Chung, Vincent C. H.
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2021, 21 (01)