Quality of Systematic Reviews of Observational Nontherapeutic Studies
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Language:

Dates

Publication Date Range:

to

Document Data

Title:

Document Type:

Library

Collection:

Series:

People

Author:

Help
Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Help
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

Quality of Systematic Reviews of Observational Nontherapeutic Studies

Filetype[PDF-1.25 MB]


  • English
    • Details Supporting Files You May Also Like

    Details:

    • Alternative Title:
      Prev Chronic Dis
    • Personal Author:
    • Description:
      Introduction

      High-quality epidemiologic research is essential in reducing chronic diseases. We analyzed the quality of systematic reviews of observational nontherapeutic studies.

      Methods

      We searched several databases for systematic reviews of observational nontherapeutic studies that examined the prevalence of or risk factors for chronic diseases and were published in core clinical journals from 1966 through June 2008. We analyzed the quality of such reviews by using prespecified criteria and internal quality evaluation of the included studies.

      Results

      Of the 145 systematic reviews we found, fewer than half met each quality criterion; 49% reported study flow, 27% assessed gray literature, 2% abstracted sponsorship of individual studies, and none abstracted the disclosure of conflict of interest by the authors of individual studies. Planned, formal internal quality evaluation of included studies was reported in 37% of systematic reviews. The journal of publication, topic of review, sponsorship, and conflict of interest were not associated with better quality. Odds of formal internal quality evaluation (odds ratio [OR], 1.10 per year; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.19) and either planned, formal internal quality evaluation or abstraction of quality criteria of included studies (OR, 1.17 per year; 95% CI, 1.08-1.26) increased over time, without positive trends in other quality criteria from 1990 through June 2008. Systematic reviews with internal quality evaluation did not meet other quality criteria more often than those that ignored the quality of included studies.

      Conclusion

      Collaborative efforts from investigators and journal editors are needed to improve the quality of systematic reviews.

    • Subject:
    • Source:
      Prev Chronic Dis. 7(6).
    • Document Type:
      Journal Article
    • Genre:
      Systematic Review
    • Collection(s):
      Preventing Chronic Disease
    • Main Document Checksum:
    • File Type:

    You May Also Like

    Checkout today's featured content at stacks.cdc.gov