+ Site Statistics
References:
52,572,879
Abstracts:
28,705,754
PMIDs:
27,750,366
DOIs:
25,464,004
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Assessment for Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in the Field of Hepatology



Assessment for Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in the Field of Hepatology



Gut and Liver 9(6): 701-706



A systematic review (SR) provides the best and most objective analysis of the existing evidence in a particular field. SRs and derived conclusions are essential for evidence-based strategies in medicine and evidence-based guidelines in clinical practice. The popularity of SRs has also increased markedly in the field of hepatology. However, although SRs are considered to provide a higher level of evidence with greater confidence than original articles, there have been no reports on the quality of SRs and meta-analyses (MAs) in the field of hepatology. Therefore, we performed a quality assessment of 225 SRs and MAs that were recently published in the field of hepatology (January 2011 to September 2014) using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Using AMSTAR, we revealed both a shortage of assessments of the scientific quality of individual studies and a publication bias in many SRs and MAs. This review addresses the concern that SRs and MAs need to be conducted in a stricter and more objective manner to minimize bias and random errors. Thus, SRs and MAs should be supported by a multidisciplinary approach that includes clinical experts, methodologists, and statisticians.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 057240565

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 26503570


Related references

Tu1628 - Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews of Existing Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Probiotic use in Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Gastroenterology 154(6): S-974, 2018

Risk of bias tool in systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture in Chinese journals. Plos One 6(12): E28130, 2012

"Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 10(11): 1184-1186, 2013

Overview and recent trends of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in hepatology. Clinical and Molecular Hepatology 20(2): 137-150, 2015

On the criteria used for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses addressing adverse effects. European Journal of Epidemiology 30(3): 249-250, 2015

Systematic assessment of environmental risk factors for bipolar disorder: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Bipolar Disorders 19(2): 84-96, 2017

Reading and critically appraising systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a short primer with a focus on hepatology. Journal of Hepatology 43(4): 729-736, 2005

When poorly conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses can mislead: a critical appraisal and update of systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining the effects of probiotics in the treatment of functional constipation in children. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2019, 2019

Evaluating the methodologic quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool for the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews. Rofo 185(10): 937-940, 2014

Evaluation of methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool for the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews). Rofo 184(10): 937-940, 2013

Publication bias in dermatology systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Journal of Dermatological Science 82(2): 69-74, 2017

Publication bias in meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Statistics in Medicine 34(20): 2781-2793, 2016

Not All Systematic Reviews are Systematic: A Meta-review of the Quality of Current Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Remote Monitoring in Heart Failure. Heart Lung & Circulation 22: S84-S85, 2013

Technology-assisted risk of bias assessment in systematic reviews requires precise definitions of risk of bias. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 99: 168-169, 2018

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Laboratory Animals 45(4): 225-230, 2012