Review ArticleSystematic Review
Open Access

Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in Saudi journals from 1997 to 2017

Zuhair S. Natto and Doaa S. AlGhamdi
Saudi Medical Journal May 2019, 40 (5) 426-431; DOI: https://doi.org/10.15537/smj.2019.5.23690

References

  1. ↵
    (1992) Evidence-Based Medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. Jama 268:2420–2425.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Oxman AD,
    2. Guyatt GH
    (1991) Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 44:1271–1278.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    1. Shea BJ,
    2. Hamel C,
    3. Wells GA,
    4. Bouter LM,
    5. Kristjansson E,
    6. Grimshaw J,
    7. et al.
    (2009) AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 62:1013–1020.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    1. Gasparyan AY,
    2. Ayvazyan L,
    3. Blackmore H,
    4. Kitas GD
    (2011) Writing a narrative biomedical review:considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatol Int 31:1409–1417.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Misra DP,
    2. Agarwal V
    (2018) Systematic Reviews:Challenges for their justification, related comprehensive searches, and implications. J Korean Med Sci 33:e92.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Makhdom AM,
    2. Alqahtani SM,
    3. Alsheikh KA,
    4. Samargandi OA,
    5. Saran N
    (2013) Level of evidence of clinical orthopedic surgery research in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J 34:395–400.
    OpenUrl
    1. Rohrig B,
    2. du Prel JB,
    3. Wachtlin D,
    4. Blettner M
    (2009) Types of study in medical research:part 3 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int 106:262–268.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Almaghrabi MM,
    2. Alamoudi AS,
    3. Radi SA,
    4. Merdad AA,
    5. Makhdoum AM,
    6. Batwa FA
    (2015) Quality of gastroenterology research published in Saudi Arabian scientific journals. Saudi J Gastroenterol 21:90–94.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    CASP Qualitative Checklist, Available from: www.casp-uk.net/#!casp-tools-checklists/c18f8. [cited 2018].
  10. ↵
    National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The guidelines manual (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London (UK)) Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg6/chapter/introduction. [Updated 2012 November;Cited 2012].
  11. ↵
    1. Munn Z
    (2016) Software to support the systematic review process:the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI-SUMARI). JBI Database Systematic Rev Implement Rep 14:1.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Adie S,
    2. Ma D,
    3. Harris IA,
    4. Naylor JM,
    5. Craig JC
    (2015) Quality of conduct and reporting of meta-analyses of surgical interventions. Ann Surg 261:685–694.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Tan WK,
    2. Wigley J,
    3. Shantikumar S
    (2014) The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vascular surgery needs improvement:a systematic review. Int J Surg 12:1262–1265.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Ho RS,
    2. Wu X,
    3. Yuan J,
    4. Liu S,
    5. Lai X,
    6. Wong SY,
    7. et al.
    (2015) Methodological quality of meta-analyses on treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease:a cross-sectional study using the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med 25:14102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Wasiak J,
    2. Shen AY,
    3. Ware R,
    4. O'Donohoe TJ,
    5. Faggion CM Jr.
    (2017) Methodological quality and reporting of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 42:852–856.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Rogante M,
    2. Kairy D,
    3. Giacomozzi C,
    4. Grigioni M
    (2015) A quality assessment of systematic reviews on telerehabilitation:what does the evidence tell us? Ann Ist Super Sanita 51:11–18.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Shi C,
    2. Zhu L,
    3. Wang X,
    4. Qin C,
    5. Xu Q,
    6. Tian J
    (2014) Epidemiology, methodological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of nursing interventions published in China. Int J Nurs Pract 20:689–700.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Lundh A,
    2. Knijnenburg SL,
    3. Jorgensen AW,
    4. van Dalen EC,
    5. Kremer LC
    (2009) Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology--a systematic review. Cancer Treat Res 35:645–652.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Tao H,
    2. Zhang Y,
    3. Li Q,
    4. Chen J
    (2017) Methodological quality evaluation of systematic reviews or meta-analyses on ERCC1 in non-small cell lung cancer:a systematic review. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 143:2245–2256.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Buscaglia J,
    2. Nagula S,
    3. Yuan J,
    4. Bucobo JC,
    5. Kumar A,
    6. Forsmark CE,
    7. et al.
    (2011) The practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in gastroenterology:discrepancies between EBM familiarity and EBM competency. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 4:283–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Dong J,
    2. Teng G,
    3. Wei T,
    4. Gao W,
    5. Wang H
    (2016) Methodological quality assessment of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of probiotics in inflammatory bowel disease and pouchitis. PloS One 11:e0168785.
    OpenUrl
    1. Heavener T,
    2. Richards J,
    3. Bird H,
    4. Vassar M
    (2018) Heterogeneity assessment in gastroenterology systematic reviews:an analysis of current practices. Int J Evid Based Healthc 16:101–106.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Liu P,
    2. Qiu Y,
    3. Qian Y,
    4. Chen X,
    5. Wang Y,
    6. Cui J,
    7. et al.
    (2017) Quality of meta-analyses in major leading gastroenterology and hepatology journals:A systematic review. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 32:39–44.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Suebnukarn S,
    2. Ngamboonsirisingh S,
    3. Rattanabanlang A
    (2010) A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in endodontics. J Endod 36:602–608.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. ↵
    1. Ernst E,
    2. Canter PH
    (2006) A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation. J R Soc Med 99:192–196.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. ↵
    1. Delaney A,
    2. Bagshaw SM,
    3. Ferland A,
    4. Manns B,
    5. Laupland KB,
    6. Doig CJ
    (2005) A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care 9:R575–R582.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. ↵
    1. Moher D,
    2. Liberati A,
    3. Tetzlaff J,
    4. Altman DG
    (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 62:1006–1012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools
Bookmark this article

Jump to section