Prevalence and methodological quality of systematic reviews in Korean medical journals
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study aimed to assess and evaluate the prevalence and methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published in major Korean medical journals (KMJs). The top 15 journals with the highest Korean Medical Citation Index, published between 2018 to 2021, were selected. We assessed the methodological quality of SRs using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). In total, 126 SRs were included, with an average of 32 SRs being reported annually. The overall prevalence of SRs in KMJs was 2.8%, with an increase from 2.6% in 2018 to 3.4% in 2021. Overall, the methodological quality of SRs was low (9.5% low, 90.5% critically low). More than 80% of the studies adhered to critical domain items such as a comprehensive literature search and risk of bias assessment, but for items such as protocol registration and listing excluded studies and the justification for exclusion, the adherence rate was less than 15%. While the number of SRs in KMJs steadily increased, the overall confidence in the methodological quality was low to critically low. Therefore, in order to provide the best evidence for decision-making in clinical and public health areas, editors, reviewers, and authors need to pay more attention to improving the quality of SRs.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess and evaluate the prevalence and methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published in major Korean medical journals (KMJs). The top 15 journals with the highest Korean Medical Citation Index, published between 2018 to 2021, were selected. We assessed the methodological quality of SRs using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). In total, 126 SRs were included, with an average of 32 SRs being reported annually. The overall prevalence of SRs in KMJs was 2.8%, with an increase from 2.6% in 2018 to 3.4% in 2021. Overall, the methodological quality of SRs was low (9.5% low, 90.5% critically low). More than 80% of the studies adhered to critical domain items such as a comprehensive literature search and risk of bias assessment, but for items such as protocol registration and listing excluded studies and the justification for exclusion, the adherence rate was less than 15%. While the number of SRs in KMJs steadily increased, the overall confidence in the methodological quality was low to critically low. Therefore, in order to provide the best evidence for decision-making in clinical and public health areas, editors, reviewers, and authors need to pay more attention to improving the quality of SRs.
참고문헌 (26)
- Page MJ, "Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research : a cross-sectional study", PLoS Med, 13, pp.e1002028~ (2016)
- Fontelo P, "A review of recent publication trends from top publishing countries", Syst Rev, 7, pp.147~ (2018)
- 이윤석, "Publication Delay of Korean Medical Journals", Journal of Korean Medical Science, 32(8), pp.1235~1242 (2017), 대한의학회
- Nagendrababu V, "Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in endodontics", J Endod, 44, pp.903~913 (2018)
- Sun X, "The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-a systematic review", Nurs Open, 8, pp.1489~1500 (2021)
- Zhu X, "Total glucosides of paeony for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis : a methodological and reporting quality evaluation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses", Int Immunopharmacol, 88, pp.106920~ (2020)
- Jin YH, "Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses in nursing field in China", Int J Nurs Pract, 20, pp.70~78 (2014)
- Cao L, "Clinical epidemiology in China series. Paper 3: the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published by China’ researchers in English-language is higher than those published in Chinese-language", J Clin Epidemiol, pp.178~188 (2021)
- Shea BJ, "AMSTAR 2 : a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both", BMJ, 358, pp.j4008~ (2017)
- González Block MA, "The state of international collaboration for health systems research: what do publications tell?", Health Res Policy Syst, 4, pp.7~ (2006)
- Anderson G, "Calling for international collaborative research in nursing, genetics and genomics : a discussion paper", Int J Nurs Stud, 45, pp.323~328 (2008)
- Butrous G, "International cooperation to promote advances in medicine", Ann Thorac Med, 3, pp.79~81 (2008)
- Pussegoda K, "Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews : a descriptive study", Syst Rev, 6, pp.117~ (2017)
- Nissen T, "Methodological quality, completeness of reporting and use of systematic reviews as evidence in clinical practice guidelines for paediatric overweight and obesity", Clin Obes, 7, pp.34~45 (2017)
- Jamilian A, "Methodological quality and outcome of systematic reviews reporting on orthopaedic treatment for class III malocclusion : overview of systematic reviews", J Orthod, 43, pp.102~120 (2016)
- Ge L, "The assessment of the quality of reporting of systematic reviews", meta-analyses in diagnostic tests published by authors in China, 2014, pp.9, e85908~
- Nicolau I, "Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on tuberculosis", Int J Tuberc Lung Dis, 17, pp.1160~1169 (2013)
- Gagnier JJ, "Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature", J Bone Joint Surg Am, 95, pp.e771~e777 (2013)
- Seo HJ, "Quality assessment of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of nursing interventions conducted by Korean reviewers", BMC Med Res Methodol, 12, pp.129~ (2012)
- Raynaud M, "Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on publication dynamics and non-COVID-19 research production", BMC Med Res Methodol, 21, pp.255~ (2021)
- Rainkie DC, "Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis with protocols in diabetes mellitus type II : a systematic review", PLoS One, 15, pp.e0243091~ (2020)
- Lyu Z, "A methodological and reporting quality assessment of systematic reviews", meta-analyses about Chinese medical treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease, 2020, pp.2020, 3868057~
- Ding M, "Low methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature(2016-2018)", Urology, 138, pp.5~10 (2020)
- Stansfield C, "The selection of search sources influences the findings of a systematic review of people’s views : a case study in public health", BMC Med Res Methodol, 12, pp.55~ (2012)
- Li Y, "Reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews needs to be improved : an evidence mapping", J Clin Epidemiol, 135, pp.17~28 (2021)
- Yank V, "Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses : retrospective cohort study", BMJ, 335, pp.1202~1205 (2007)