+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

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



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



Saudi Medical Journal 40(5): 426-431



To assess the quality of the meta-analyses (MAs) and systematic reviews (SRs) in Saudi journals indexed in PubMed using 2 scales: A MeaSurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and the overview quality assessment questionnaire (OQAQ). This study focused on SRs/MAs published in 8 Saudi journals. We investigated, screened and extracted the data, which included recording the main topic of each SRs/MAs and the date of publication. Furthermore, we assessed the quality of each included SRs/MAs using the AMSTAR and the OQAQ. The reviews concluded in January 2018. Results: The search uncovered 201 unique articles; of these, the researchers screened 110 full texts and included 103 in this review. Most of the included studies were published in Saudi Medical Journal (50 articles, 48.5%), followed by Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology (21 articles, 20.4%), and Annals of Saudi Medicine (16 articles, 15.5%) . The main topics in these published articles were gastroenterology (20 articles, 19.5%), followed by oncology (14 articles, 13.7%), and pharmacology (9 articles, 8.7%). The AMSTAR and the OQAQ scales showed that most SRs/MAs were of medium quality. Quality of SRs and MAs published in Saudi journals was distributed in all categories (low, medium, and high) and it can be improved using critical evaluation by authors, journal editors, and readers. PROSPERO REG. NO. CRD: 42018102210.

(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 066755264

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 31056617


Related references

Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions published in Chinese journals. Nursing Outlook 63(4): 446-455.E4, 2016

Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study. Bmj Open 7(2): E013905-E013905, 2017

Is quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in high impact radiology journals associated with citation rates?. Plos One 10(3): E0119892, 2016

Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 280(3): 278-280, 1998

Epidemiology characteristics, reporting characteristics, and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on traditional Chinese medicine nursing interventions published in Chinese journals. International Journal of Nursing Practice 23(1), 2016

Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. Plos One 8(12): E83138, 2014

Quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in pediatric surgery. Journal of Pediatric Surgery 52(11): 1732-1735, 2017

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

A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer. Bmj Open 8(3): E020869, 2018

Quality Assessment of Meta-analyses Published in Leading Anesthesiology Journals From 2005 to 2014. Anesthesia and Analgesia 124(6): 2063-2067, 2017

Quality appraisal of systematic reviews or meta-analysis on traditional Chinese medicine published in Chinese journals. Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi Zhongguo Zhongxiyi Jiehe Zazhi 27(4): 306-311, 2007

A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Evaluation and the Health Professions 25(1): 116-129, 2002

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

The quality of evidence on nutrition intervention published in Chinese journals: an assessment of meta-analyses on vitamin interventions. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition 27(4): 925-934, 2018