6533b85efe1ef96bd12c080a

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Assessing the quality of studies in meta-research: Review/guidelines on the most important quality assessment tools

Alessia NottegarUmberto GranziolJae Il ShinLee SmithGiovanni GentileOvidiu AlexinschiPinar SoysalMarco SolmiNicola VeroneseClaudio Luchini

subject

Statistics and ProbabilityCONSORTmedia_common.quotation_subjectPRISMAmeta-researchStrengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology01 natural sciencesAMSTAR-PLUS; AMSTAR2; CONSORT; Cochrane; NOS; PRISMA; STROBE; meta-analysis; meta-research; quality010104 statistics & probability03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicineAMSTAR-PLUSBiasSTROBEMedicineHumansPharmacology (medical)Quality (business)AMSTAR2 AMSTAR-PLUS Cochrane CONSORT meta-analysis meta-research NOSPRISMA quality STROBE030212 general & internal medicine0101 mathematicsmedia_commonPharmacologyReview/guidelines on the most important quality assessment tools- PHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS 2020 [Luchini C. Veronese N. Nottegar A. Shin J. I. Gentile G. Granziol U. SOYSAL P. Alexinschi O. Smith L. Solmi M. -Assessing the quality of studies in meta-research]business.industryConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsReproducibility of ResultsEvidence-based medicineNOSJadad scaleAMSTAR2meta-analysisSystematic reviewCochraneRisk analysis (engineering)AMSTAR-PLUS; AMSTAR2; Cochrane; CONSORT; meta-analysis; meta-research; NOS; PRISMA; quality; STROBEqualityResearch DesignMeta-analysisObservational studybusiness

description

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses pool data from individual studies to generate a higher level of evidence to be evaluated by guidelines. These reviews ultimately guide clinicians and stakeholders in health-related decisions. However, the informativeness and quality of evidence synthesis inherently depend on the quality of what has been pooled into meta-research projects. Moreover, beyond the quality of included individual studies, only a methodologically correct process, in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analyses themselves, can produce a reliable and valid evidence synthesis. Hence, quality of meta-research projects also affects evidence synthesis reliability. In this overview, the authors provide a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages and main characteristics of some of the most frequently used tools to assess quality of individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Specifically, the tools considered in this work are the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), the Jadad scale, the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 (RoB2) for randomized controlled trials, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2), and AMSTAR-PLUS for meta-analyses. What is already known?: The informativeness and quality of evidence synthesis inherently depend on the quality of what has been pooled into meta-research projects. Beyond the quality of included individual studies, only a methodologically correct process, in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analyses themselves, can produce a reliable and valid evidence synthesis. What is new?: In this overview, the authors provide a synthesis of advantages and disadvantages and main characteristics of some of the most frequently used tools to assess quality of individual studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Potential impact: This overview serves as a starting point and a brief guide to identify and understand the main and most frequently used tools for assessing the quality of studies included in meta-research. The authors here share their experience in publishing several meta-research-related articles covering different areas of medical sciences. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

yearjournalcountryeditionlanguage
2020-09-01
10.1002/pst.2068http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12645/20494