The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0460-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Article summaries’ information and structure may influence researchers/clinicians’ decisions to conduct deeper full-text analyses. Specifically, abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA) should provide structured summaries for quick assessment. This study explored a method for determining the methodological quality and bias risk of full-text reviews using abstract information alone.
Systematic literature searches for SRs and/or MA about psoriasis were undertaken on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database. For each review, quality, abstract-reporting completeness, full-text methodological quality, and bias risk were evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A), Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and ROBIS tools, respectively. Article-, author-, and journal-derived metadata were systematically extracted from eligible studies using a piloted template, and explanatory variables concerning abstract-reporting quality were assessed using univariate and multivariate-regression models. Two classification models concerning SRs’ methodological quality and bias risk were developed based on per-item and total PRISMA-A scores and decision-tree algorithms. This work was supported, in part, by project ICI1400136 (JR). No funding was received from any pharmaceutical company.
This study analysed 139 SRs on psoriasis interventions. On average, they featured 56.7% of PRISMA-A items. The mean total PRISMA-A score was significantly higher for high-methodological-quality SRs than for moderate- and low-methodological-quality reviews. SRs with low-bias risk showed higher total PRISMA-A values than reviews with high-bias risk. In the final model, only ’authors per review > 6’ (OR: 1.098; 95%CI: 1.012-1.194), ’academic source of funding’ (OR: 3.630; 95%CI: 1.788-7.542), and ’PRISMA-endorsed journal’ (OR: 4.370; 95%CI: 1.785-10.98) predicted PRISMA-A variability. Reviews with a total PRISMA-A score < 6, lacking identification as SR or MA in the title, and lacking explanation concerning bias risk assessment methods were classified as low-methodological quality. Abstracts with a total PRISMA-A score ≥ 9, including main outcomes results and explanation bias risk assessment method were classified as having low-bias risk.
The methodological quality and bias risk of SRs may be determined by abstract’s quality and completeness analyses. Our proposal aimed to facilitate synthesis of evidence evaluation by clinical professionals lacking methodological skills. External validation is necessary.
Additional file 7 Supplementary graph S1. Analysis of total PRISMA-A scores by risk of bias levels. (TIFF 17203 kb)
Additional file 8 Supplementary graph S2. Analysis of total PRISMA-A scores by methodological quality levels. (TIFF 17203 kb)
Additional file 9 Supplementary graph S3. Ranked variable importance based on mean values after running 2000 random AMSTAR-based classification tree models. (TIFF 1249 kb)
Gómez-García F, Epstein D, Isla-Tejera B, Lorente A, Vélez García-Nieto A, Ruano J. Short-term efficacy and safety of new biological agents targeting the interleukin-23-T helper 17 pathway for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Br J Dermatol. 2017; 176:594–603. CrossRefPubMed
Gomez-Garcia F, Ruano J, Gay-Mimbrera J, Aguilar-Luque M, Sanz-Cabanillas JL, Alcalde-Mellado P, Maestre-Lopez B, Carmona-Fernandez PJ, Gonzalez-Padilla M, Velez Garcia-Nieto A, Isla-Tejera B. Most systematic reviews of high methodological quality on psoriasis interventions are classified as high risk of bias using ROBIS tool. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; S0895-4356(17):30534–6.
Hempel S, Shetty KD, Shekelle PG, Rubenstein LV, Danz MS, Johnsen B, Dalal SR, (eds).Machine Learning Methods in Systematic Reviews: Identifying Quality Improvement Intervention Evaluations [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012. Report No.: 12-EHC125-EF.
Interventions Directed to Consumers. [cited 9 October 2017];Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) 2014. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/interventions-directed-professionals.
Bühn S, Mathes T, Prengel P, Wegewitz U, Ostermann T, Robens S, Pieper D. The risk of bias in systematic reviews tool showed fair reliability and good construct validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; S0895-4356(16):30672–2.
Chapman SJ, Drake TM, Bolton WS, Bernard J, Bhangu A. Longitudinal analysis of reporting and quality of systematic reviews in high-impact surgical journals. Br J Surg. 2017; 3:198–204. CrossRef
Bigna JJ, Um LN, Nansseu JR. A comparison of quality of abstracts of systematic reviews including meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in high-impact general medicine journals before and after the publication of PRISMA extension for abstracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2016; 5:174. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Higgings JPT, Green S, (eds).Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.1.0 [updated March 2011], The Cochrane Colaboration, 2011. Available at: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/. Accessed 5 May 2017.
- Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions
José Luis Hernández-Romero
Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas
Pedro J. Carmona-Fernández
Antonio Vélez García-Nieto
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet AINS
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet AINS
Mail Icon II