Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies.

ResearchSpace/Manakin Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Windsor, B en
dc.contributor.author Popovich, I en
dc.contributor.author Jordan-Cole, Vanessa en
dc.contributor.author Showell, Marian en
dc.contributor.author Shea, B en
dc.contributor.author Farquhar, Cynthia en
dc.date.accessioned 2018-10-15T03:57:16Z en
dc.date.issued 2012-12 en
dc.identifier.issn 0268-1161 en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2292/41711 en
dc.description.abstract STUDY QUESTION: Are there differences in the methodological quality of Cochrane systematic reviews (CRs) and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (NCRs) of assisted reproductive technologies? SUMMARY ANSWER: CRs on assisted reproduction are of higher methodological quality than similar reviews published in other journals. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The quality of systematic reviews varies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: This was a cross-sectional study of 30 CR and 30 NCR systematic reviews that were randomly selected from the eligible reviews identified from a literature search for the years 2007-2011. MATERIALS, SETTING AND METHODS: We extracted data on the reporting and methodological characteristics of the included systematic reviews. We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the 11-domain Measurement Tool to Assess the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and subsequently compared CR and NCR systematic reviews. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The AMSTAR quality assessment found that CRs were superior to NCRs. For 10 of 11 AMSTAR domains, the requirements were met in >50% of CRs, but only 4 of 11 domains showed requirements being met in >50% of NCRs. The strengths of CRs are the a priori study design, comprehensive literature search, explicit lists of included and excluded studies and assessments of internal validity. Significant failings in the CRs were found in duplicate study selection and data extraction (67% meeting requirements), assessment for publication bias (53% meeting requirements) and reporting of conflicts of interest (47% meeting requirements). NCRs were more likely to contain methodological weaknesses as the majority of the domains showed <40% of reviews meeting requirements, e.g. a priori study design (17%), duplicate study selection and data extraction (17%), assessment of study quality (27%), study quality in the formulation of conclusions (23%) and reporting of conflict of interests (10%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The AMSTAR assessment can only judge what is reported by authors. Although two of the five authors are involved in the production of CRs, the risk of bias was reduced by not involving these authors in the assessment of the systematic review quality. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Not all systematic reviews are equal. The reader needs to consider the quality of the systematic review when they consider the results and the conclusions of a systematic review. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There are no conflicts with any commercial organization. Funding was provided for the students by the summer studentship programme of the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences of the University of Auckland. en
dc.format.medium Print-Electronic en
dc.language eng en
dc.relation.ispartofseries Human reproduction (Oxford, England) en
dc.rights Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. en
dc.rights.uri https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm en
dc.subject Humans en
dc.subject Infertility en
dc.subject Cross-Sectional Studies en
dc.subject Pregnancy en
dc.subject Research Design en
dc.subject Publishing en
dc.subject Publication Bias en
dc.subject Female en
dc.subject Male en
dc.subject Review Literature as Topic en
dc.subject Meta-Analysis as Topic en
dc.title Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies. en
dc.type Journal Article en
dc.identifier.doi 10.1093/humrep/des342 en
pubs.issue 12 en
pubs.begin-page 3460 en
pubs.volume 27 en
dc.rights.holder Copyright: The author en
dc.identifier.pmid 23034152 en
pubs.end-page 3466 en
pubs.publication-status Published en
dc.rights.accessrights http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/RestrictedAccess en
pubs.subtype Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't en
pubs.subtype Journal Article en
pubs.elements-id 361668 en
pubs.org-id Medical and Health Sciences en
pubs.org-id School of Medicine en
pubs.org-id Obstetrics and Gynaecology en
dc.identifier.eissn 1460-2350 en
pubs.record-created-at-source-date 2012-11-20 en
pubs.dimensions-id 23034152 en


Full text options

Full text for this item is not available in ResearchSpace.

Find Full text

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Share

Search ResearchSpace


Advanced Search

Browse