Skip to main content
Erschienen in:

23.12.2019 | Commentary

Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?

verfasst von: Demian Glujovsky, Carlos E. Sueldo, Ariel Bardach, María del Pilar Valanzasca, Daniel Comandé, Agustín Ciapponi

Erschienen in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Ausgabe 2/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate if the authors of published systematic reviews (SRs) reported the level of quality of evidence (QoE) in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals and to analyze if they used an appropriate wording to describe it.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study. We searched in PubMed for SRs published in 2017 in the five infertility journals with the highest impact factor. We analyzed the proportion of SRs published in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals that reported the SRs’ QoE, and the proportion of those SRs in which authors used consistent wording to describe QoE and magnitude of effect.

Results

The QoE was reported in only 21.4% of the 42 included SRs and in less than 10% of the abstracts. Although we did not find important differences in the report of QoE of those that showed statistically significant differences or not, p value was associated with the wording chosen by the authors. We found inconsistent reporting of the size the effect estimate in 54.8% (23/42) and in the level of QoE in 92.9% (39/42). Whereas the effect size was more consistently expressed in studies with statistically significant findings, QoE was better expressed in those cases in which the p value was over 0.05.

Conclusion

We found that in 2017, less than 25% of the authors reported the overall QoE when publishing SRs. Authors focused more on statistical significance as a binary concept than on methodological limitations like study design, imprecision, indirectness, inconsistency, and publication bias. Authors should make efforts to report the QoE and interpret results accordingly.
Literatur
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Higgins J, Green S, (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. 2011. Higgins J, Green S, (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. 2011.
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Schünemann HJ, Vist GE, Higgins JPT, Santesso N, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P et al. Chapter 15: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M et al. editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6 [updated September 2018]: Cochrane. 2018. Schünemann HJ, Vist GE, Higgins JPT, Santesso N, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P et al. Chapter 15: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M et al. editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6 [updated September 2018]: Cochrane. 2018.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Ciapponi A, Glujovsky D, Comande D, Bardach A, editors. Do Cochrane systematic reviews report results integrating certainty of evidence and effect size? 25th Cochrane Colloquium. Scotland: Edinburgh; 2018. Ciapponi A, Glujovsky D, Comande D, Bardach A, editors. Do Cochrane systematic reviews report results integrating certainty of evidence and effect size? 25th Cochrane Colloquium. Scotland: Edinburgh; 2018.
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Higgins J, Thomas J, Cumpston M, Chandler J, Li T, Page M, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6: DRAFT. 2018. Higgins J, Thomas J, Cumpston M, Chandler J, Li T, Page M, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6: DRAFT. 2018.
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​bmj.​j4008.
Metadaten
Titel
Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?
verfasst von
Demian Glujovsky
Carlos E. Sueldo
Ariel Bardach
María del Pilar Valanzasca
Daniel Comandé
Agustín Ciapponi
Publikationsdatum
23.12.2019
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Ausgabe 2/2020
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01663-y

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Adjuvantes Atezolizumab ohne Nutzen bei frühem TNBC

Patientinnen mit frühem triple-negativem Brustkrebs profitieren nach der Operation offenbar nicht von einer Zugabe des PD-L1-Hemmers Atezolizumab zur adjuvanten Standardchemotherapie. Die Studie, die das untersucht hat, wurde vorzeitig abgebrochen. Was könnte die schlechte Wirksamkeit erklären?

Brustkrebstherapie: zu wenig Aufklärung über Nebenwirkungen?

Ergebnisse eines internationalen Surveys legen nahe, dass die Aufklärung über Nebenwirkungen einer Brustkrebstherapie häufig unzureichend ausfällt bzw. zu spät erfolgt.

Ab sofort gelten die neuen Verordnungsausnahmen für Lipidsenker

Freie Fahrt für Lipidsenker? Das nicht, doch mit niedrigerem Schwellenwert fürs Infarktrisiko und neuen Indikationen hat der G-BA die Verordnungs-Handbremse ein gutes Stück weit gelockert.

VTE-Risiko auch unter aktuellen Hormonkontrazeptiva erhöht

Registerdaten aus Dänemark helfen dabei, das Risiko für venöse Thromboembolien (VTE) unter verschiedenen aktuellen Verfahren zur hormonellen Verhütung einzuschätzen. Verhältnismäßig hoch ist es demnach unter Kombi-Pillen mit Drittgenerations-Gestagenen.  

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.