Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in occupational medicine journals from 2014 to 2021. Methods: Papers edited between 2014 and 2021 in the 14 open access journals with the highest impact were assessed for their quality. Studies were included if they were systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and if they were published in English. Results: The study included 335 studies. Among these, 149 were meta-analyses and 186 were systematic reviews. The values of the AMSTAR-2 score range between three and fourteen with a mean value of 9.85 (SD = 2.37). The factors that significantly and directly associate to a higher AMSTAR-2 score were impact factor (p = 0.003), number of consulted research databases (p = 0.011), declaration of PRISMA statement (p = 0.003), year of publication (p < 0.001) and performing a meta-analysis (p < 0.001).The R² values from the multivariate analysis showed that the AMSTAR-2 score could be predicted by the inclusion of these parameters by up to 23%. Conclusions: This study suggests a quality assessment methodology that could help readers in a fast identification of good systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Future studies should analyze more journals without applying language restrictions and consider a wider range of years of publication in order to give a more robust evidence for results.
Subject
Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference42 articles.
1. Quality of Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Cancer Nursing Research;Guo;Nurs. Res.,2014
2. Panic, N., Leoncini, E., De Belvis, G., Ricciardi, W., and Boccia, S. (2013). Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS ONE, 26.
3. A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature;Samaan;J. Multidiscip. Healthc.,2013
4. The Medical Review Article: State of the Science;Mulrow;Ann. Intern. Med.,1987
5. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement;Moher;Qual. Report. Meta-Anal. Lancet,1999
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献