Back to Search
Start Over
Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions
- Source :
- BMC Medical Research Methodology, BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol 17, Iss 1, Pp 1-11 (2017)
- Publication Year :
- 2017
- Publisher :
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2017.
-
Abstract
- Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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
- Subjects :
- Quality Control
Research Report
Research design
medicine.medical_specialty
Abstracting and Indexing
Epidemiology
Decision trees
MEDLINE
Decision tree
Psychological intervention
Health Informatics
PRISMA for abstracts
030207 dermatology & venereal diseases
03 medical and health sciences
0302 clinical medicine
Bias
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Risk Factors
Quality of reporting
medicine
Psoriasis
Humans
Medical physics
Methodological quality
030212 general & internal medicine
Publishing
lcsh:R5-920
AMSTAR
Univariate
Review Literature as Topic
Systematic review
Research Design
Abstract readability
Periodicals as Topic
lcsh:Medicine (General)
Psychology
Risk assessment
Research Article
Subjects
Details
- ISSN :
- 14712288
- Volume :
- 17
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....7e8e24af24056a9c1cf09b332b134563