Same family, different species: methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis

Publication date: Available online 2 November 2017
Source:Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Author(s): Andrea C. Tricco, Wasifa Zarin, Marco Ghassemi, Vera Nincic, Erin Lillie, Matthew J. Page, Larissa Shamseer, Jesmin Antony, Patricia Rios, Jeremiah Hwee, Areti Angeliki Veroniki, David Moher, Lisa Hartling, Ba' Pham, Sharon E. Straus
ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to characterize methodological conduct, reporting, and quality of five knowledge synthesis (KS) approaches.Study Design and SettingRetrospective analysis of a convenience sample of five published databases: overview of reviews (n = 74), scoping reviews (n = 494), rapid reviews (n = 84), systematic reviews (n = 300), and network meta-analyses (NMAs; n = 456). Reporting characteristics and methodological conduct were abstracted by one reviewer. Methods were appraised using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Descriptive analysis was performed.ResultsReporting the use of a protocol ranged from 4% for rapid reviews to 32% for systematic reviews. The use of two reviewers for citation and full-text screening ranged from 20% for scoping reviews to 60% for NMA. Data abstraction was performed in duplicate for 11% of rapid reviews and 54% for NMA, and for risk of bias appraisal, this ranged from 6% for scoping reviews to 41% for NMA. NMA had the highest median percentage of maximum obtainable AMSTAR score (64%; Q1–Q3:45–73%), while scoping reviews had the lowest (25%; Q1–Q3:13–38%).ConclusionNMA consistently scored the highest on the AMSTAR tool likely because the purpose is to estimate treatment effects statistically. Scoping reviews scored the lowest (even after adjusting the score for not relevant items) likely because the purpose is to characterize the literature.



from ! ORL Sfakianakis via paythelady.61 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2jhIib5
via IFTTT