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
. 2008 Jul;3(4):1102-14.
doi: 10.2215/CJN.04401007. Epub 2008 Apr 9.

Need for quality improvement in renal systematic reviews

Marko Mrkobrada  1 , Heather Thiessen-Philbrook, R Brian Haynes, Arthur V Iansavichus, Faisal Rehman, Amit X Garg
Affiliations

Need for quality improvement in renal systematic reviews

Marko Mrkobrada et al. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008 Jul.

Abstract

Background and objectives: Systematic reviews of clinical studies aim to compile best available evidence for various diagnosis and treatment options. This study assessed the methodologic quality of all systematic reviews relevant to the practice of nephrology published in 2005.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements: We searched electronic databases (Medline, Embase, American College of Physicians Journal Club, Cochrane) and hand searched Cochrane renal group records. Clinical practice guidelines, case reports, narrative reviews, and pooled individual patient data meta-analyses were excluded. Methodologic quality was measured using a validated questionnaire (Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire). For reviews of randomized trials, we also evaluated adherence to recommended reporting guidelines (Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses).

Results: Ninety renal systematic reviews were published in year 2005, 60 of which focused on therapy. Many systematic reviews (54%) had major methodologic flaws. The most common review flaws were failure to assess the methodologic quality of included primary studies and failure to minimize bias in study inclusion. Only 2% of reviews of randomized trials fully adhered to reporting guidelines. A minority of journals (four of 48) endorsed adherence to consensus guidelines for review reporting, and these journals published systematic reviews of higher methodologic quality (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: The majority of systematic reviews had major methodologic flaws. The majority of journals do not endorse consensus guidelines for review reporting in their instructions to authors; however, journals that recommended such adherence published systemic reviews of higher methodologic quality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Selection of systematic reviews.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Haynes RB, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH: Physicians’ and patients’ choices in evidence based practice. BMJ 324: 1350, 2002 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fones CS, Kua EH, Goh LG: ‘What makes a good doctor?’ Views of the medical profession and the public in setting priorities for medical education. Singapore Med J 39: 537–542, 1998 - PubMed
    1. Glasziou P, Irwig L, Bain C: Systematic Reviews in Health Care: A Practical Guide, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001
    1. Garg AX, Hackam D, Tonelli M: Systematic review and meta-analysis: When one study is just not enough. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 3: 253–260, 2008 - PubMed
    1. Haynes RB, Cotoi C, Holland J, Walters L, Wilczynski N, Jedraszewski D, McKinlay J, Parrish R, McKibbon KA, McMaster Premium Literature Service (PLUS) Project: Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners. JAMA 295: 1801–1808, 2006 - PubMed

Publication types