Source:Cancer Epidemiology, Volume 50, Part A
Author(s): Haroon Hasan, Taaha Muhammed, Jennifer Yu, Kelsi Taguchi, Osama A. Samargandi, A. Fuchsia Howard, Andrea C. Lo, Robert Olson, Karen Goddard
ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in Radiation Oncology.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted for all eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses in Radiation Oncology from 1966 to 2015. Methodological characteristics were abstracted from all works that satisfied the inclusion criteria and quality was assessed using the critical appraisal tool, AMSTAR. Regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with a higher score of quality.ResultsFollowing exclusion based on a priori criteria, 410 studies (157 systematic reviews and 253 meta-analyses) satisfied the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were found to be of fair to good quality while systematic reviews were found to be of less than fair quality. Factors associated with higher scores of quality in the multivariable analysis were including primary studies consisting of randomized control trials, performing a meta-analysis, and applying a recommended guideline related to establishing a systematic review protocol and/or reporting.ConclusionsSystematic reviews and meta-analyses may introduce a high risk of bias if applied to inform decision-making based on AMSTAR. We recommend that decision-makers in Radiation Oncology scrutinize the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses prior to assessing their utility to inform evidence-based medicine and researchers adhere to methodological standards outlined in validated guidelines when embarking on a systematic review.
http://ift.tt/2w48QFY
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου