Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2005 May 7;330(7499):1053.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.38414.515938.8F. Epub 2005 Apr 7.

Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study

Lorenzo P Moja  1 , Elena Telaro, Roberto D'Amico, Ivan Moschetti, Laura Coe, Alessandro Liberati
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study

Lorenzo P Moja et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objectives: To describe how the methodological quality of primary studies is assessed in systematic reviews and whether the quality assessment is taken into account in the interpretation of results.

Data sources: Cochrane systematic reviews and systematic reviews in paper based journals.

Study selection: 965 systematic reviews (809 Cochrane reviews and 156 paper based reviews) published between 1995 and 2002.

Data synthesis: The methodological quality of primary studies was assessed in 854 of the 965 systematic reviews (88.5%). This occurred more often in Cochrane reviews than in paper based reviews (93.9% v 60.3%, P < 0.0001). Overall, only 496 (51.4%) used the quality assessment in the analysis and interpretation of the results or in their discussion, with no significant differences between Cochrane reviews and paper based reviews (52% v 49%, P = 0.58). The tools and methods used for quality assessment varied widely.

Conclusions: Cochrane reviews fared better than systematic reviews published in paper based journals in terms of assessment of methodological quality of primary studies, although they both largely failed to take it into account in the interpretation of results. Methods for assessment of methodological quality by systematic reviews are still in their infancy and there is substantial room for improvement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow of systematic reviews through trial
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Juni P, Altman DG, Matthias E. Assessing the quality of randomised controlled trials. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context, 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books, 2001.
    1. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354: 1896-900. - PubMed
    1. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Guidelines for reading literature reviews. CMAJ 1988;138: 697-703. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess 2003;7: 1-76. - PubMed
    1. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;282: 1054-60. - PubMed

Publication types