Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in medicine and health science fields in Ethiopia: Leveraging quantity to improve quality

Author:

Habtewold Tesfa Dejenie1,Sharew Nigussie Tadesse2ORCID,Endalamaw Aklilu3,Mulugeta Henok4,Dessie Getenet5,Kassa Getachew Mullu6,Bayih Wubet Alebachew7,Birhanu Mulugeta Molla8,Teferra Andreas A.9,Tegegne Balewgize Sileshi1,Asefa Nigus G.1,Tura Abera Kenay10,Alemu Sisay Mulugeta11

Affiliation:

1. University of Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

2. Debre Berhan University

3. University of Queensland School of Population Health: The University of Queensland School of Public Health

4. Debre Markos University College of Health Science

5. Bahir Dar University College of Medical and Health Sciences

6. Ethiopian Public Health Institute

7. Debre Tabor University

8. Monash University

9. The Ohio State University College of Public Health

10. Haramaya University College of Health Sciences: Haramaya University College of Health and Medical Sciences

11. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Abstract

Abstract Background Despite the rise in the number of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) in medicine and health science fields in Ethiopia, there is limited up-to-date evidence on their methodological and reporting quality for using them in decision-making. The aim of this study was to characterize epidemiological trends and evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of SR and MA in Ethiopia. Methods A retrospective observational overview study was conducted on SR and MA in medicine and health science fields in Ethiopia that were accessed through PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL databases and additional manual searching. Title/abstract and full-text screening were conducted in duplicate using EndNote and Covidence semi-automated reference management tools. Data extraction tool was developed in consultation with standard guidelines. We summarized the data using frequencies and median. Two-tailed Chi-Square and Fisher’s Exact tests for categorical variables, while Kruskal-Wallis test for quantitative variables, were used at alpha level 0.05 to compare the differences in the background characteristics of SR and MA as well as across the publication years. All analyses were done using R version 4.0.2 for macOS. Results Of the total 3,125 records initially identified, 349 articles were included in our analyses. Of these, 48 (13.75%) were SR and 301 (86.25%) were MA. The publication rate was dramatically increased with nearly three-quarters (73.9%) of SR and MA published after 2018. Most of the SR and MA included observational studies (92.8%), and infectious disease was the most researched (20.9%) subject area. Number of authors, number of affiliations, publication year, protocol registration, number of primary studies, number of references, citation counts and journal quality were significantly different between SR and MA (p < 0.05). Both SR and MA had a low methodological and reporting quality even though there were improvements in registering protocols, searching databases, and transparently reporting search strategy. Conclusions The production of SR and MA in Ethiopia has been increased over time, especially during the last three years. There is a promising trend of improvement in methodological and reporting quality even though there is much more to do. Authors should equally prioritize quality in addition to the fast-track publication.

Publisher

Research Square Platform LLC

Reference57 articles.

1. Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews;Fusar-Poli P;Evid Based Ment Health Aug,2018

2. Umbrella review as an emerging approach of evidence synthesis in health sciences: a bibliometric analysis;Hossain MM;Available at SSRN,2020

3. Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000–2019;Hoffmann F;J Clin Epidemiol,2021

4. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews;Moher D;PLoS Med Mar,2007

5. Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study;Page MJ;PLoS Med,2016

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3