Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology--a systematic review

Andreas Lundh, Sebastiaan L Knijnenburg, Anders W Jørgensen, Elvira C van Dalen, Leontien C M Kremer

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

Resumé

BACKGROUND: To ensure evidence-based decision making in pediatric oncology systematic reviews are necessary. The objective of our study was to evaluate the methodological quality of all currently existing systematic reviews in pediatric oncology.

METHODS: We identified eligible systematic reviews through a systematic search of the literature. Data on clinical and methodological characteristics of the included systematic reviews were extracted. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed using the overview quality assessment questionnaire, a validated 10-item quality assessment tool. We compared the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in regular journals with that of Cochrane systematic reviews.

RESULTS: We included 117 systematic reviews, 99 systematic reviews published in regular journals and 18 Cochrane systematic reviews. The average methodological quality of systematic reviews was low for all ten items, but the quality of Cochrane systematic reviews was significantly higher than systematic reviews published in regular journals. On a 1-7 scale, the median overall quality score for all systematic reviews was 2 (range 1-7), with a score of 1 (range 1-7) for systematic reviews in regular journals compared to 6 (range 3-7) in Cochrane systematic reviews (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION: Most systematic reviews in the field of pediatric oncology seem to have serious methodological flaws leading to a high risk of bias. While Cochrane systematic reviews were of higher methodological quality than systematic reviews in regular journals, some of them also had methodological problems. Therefore, the methodology of each individual systematic review should be scrutinized before accepting its results.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftCancer Treatment Reviews
Vol/bind35
Udgave nummer8
Sider (fra-til)645-52
Antal sider8
ISSN0305-7372
DOI
StatusUdgivet - dec. 2009

Fingeraftryk

Pediatrics

Citer dette

Lundh, A., Knijnenburg, S. L., Jørgensen, A. W., van Dalen, E. C., & Kremer, L. C. M. (2009). Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology--a systematic review. Cancer Treatment Reviews, 35(8), 645-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.08.010
Lundh, Andreas ; Knijnenburg, Sebastiaan L ; Jørgensen, Anders W ; van Dalen, Elvira C ; Kremer, Leontien C M. / Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology--a systematic review. I: Cancer Treatment Reviews. 2009 ; Bind 35, Nr. 8. s. 645-52.
@article{38740ea6335b47c6a6540985973d163d,
title = "Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology--a systematic review",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: To ensure evidence-based decision making in pediatric oncology systematic reviews are necessary. The objective of our study was to evaluate the methodological quality of all currently existing systematic reviews in pediatric oncology.METHODS: We identified eligible systematic reviews through a systematic search of the literature. Data on clinical and methodological characteristics of the included systematic reviews were extracted. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed using the overview quality assessment questionnaire, a validated 10-item quality assessment tool. We compared the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in regular journals with that of Cochrane systematic reviews.RESULTS: We included 117 systematic reviews, 99 systematic reviews published in regular journals and 18 Cochrane systematic reviews. The average methodological quality of systematic reviews was low for all ten items, but the quality of Cochrane systematic reviews was significantly higher than systematic reviews published in regular journals. On a 1-7 scale, the median overall quality score for all systematic reviews was 2 (range 1-7), with a score of 1 (range 1-7) for systematic reviews in regular journals compared to 6 (range 3-7) in Cochrane systematic reviews (p<0.001).CONCLUSION: Most systematic reviews in the field of pediatric oncology seem to have serious methodological flaws leading to a high risk of bias. While Cochrane systematic reviews were of higher methodological quality than systematic reviews in regular journals, some of them also had methodological problems. Therefore, the methodology of each individual systematic review should be scrutinized before accepting its results.",
keywords = "Bias, Bibliometrics, Child, Evidence-Based Medicine, Humans, Journalism, Medical, Medical Oncology, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Pediatrics, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic, Comparative Study, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't, Review",
author = "Andreas Lundh and Knijnenburg, {Sebastiaan L} and J{\o}rgensen, {Anders W} and {van Dalen}, {Elvira C} and Kremer, {Leontien C M}",
year = "2009",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.08.010",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "645--52",
journal = "Cancer Treatment Reviews",
issn = "0305-7372",
publisher = "W.B.Saunders Co. Ltd.",
number = "8",

}

Lundh, A, Knijnenburg, SL, Jørgensen, AW, van Dalen, EC & Kremer, LCM 2009, 'Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology--a systematic review', Cancer Treatment Reviews, bind 35, nr. 8, s. 645-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.08.010

Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology--a systematic review. / Lundh, Andreas; Knijnenburg, Sebastiaan L; Jørgensen, Anders W; van Dalen, Elvira C; Kremer, Leontien C M.

I: Cancer Treatment Reviews, Bind 35, Nr. 8, 12.2009, s. 645-52.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology--a systematic review

AU - Lundh, Andreas

AU - Knijnenburg, Sebastiaan L

AU - Jørgensen, Anders W

AU - van Dalen, Elvira C

AU - Kremer, Leontien C M

PY - 2009/12

Y1 - 2009/12

N2 - BACKGROUND: To ensure evidence-based decision making in pediatric oncology systematic reviews are necessary. The objective of our study was to evaluate the methodological quality of all currently existing systematic reviews in pediatric oncology.METHODS: We identified eligible systematic reviews through a systematic search of the literature. Data on clinical and methodological characteristics of the included systematic reviews were extracted. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed using the overview quality assessment questionnaire, a validated 10-item quality assessment tool. We compared the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in regular journals with that of Cochrane systematic reviews.RESULTS: We included 117 systematic reviews, 99 systematic reviews published in regular journals and 18 Cochrane systematic reviews. The average methodological quality of systematic reviews was low for all ten items, but the quality of Cochrane systematic reviews was significantly higher than systematic reviews published in regular journals. On a 1-7 scale, the median overall quality score for all systematic reviews was 2 (range 1-7), with a score of 1 (range 1-7) for systematic reviews in regular journals compared to 6 (range 3-7) in Cochrane systematic reviews (p<0.001).CONCLUSION: Most systematic reviews in the field of pediatric oncology seem to have serious methodological flaws leading to a high risk of bias. While Cochrane systematic reviews were of higher methodological quality than systematic reviews in regular journals, some of them also had methodological problems. Therefore, the methodology of each individual systematic review should be scrutinized before accepting its results.

AB - BACKGROUND: To ensure evidence-based decision making in pediatric oncology systematic reviews are necessary. The objective of our study was to evaluate the methodological quality of all currently existing systematic reviews in pediatric oncology.METHODS: We identified eligible systematic reviews through a systematic search of the literature. Data on clinical and methodological characteristics of the included systematic reviews were extracted. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed using the overview quality assessment questionnaire, a validated 10-item quality assessment tool. We compared the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in regular journals with that of Cochrane systematic reviews.RESULTS: We included 117 systematic reviews, 99 systematic reviews published in regular journals and 18 Cochrane systematic reviews. The average methodological quality of systematic reviews was low for all ten items, but the quality of Cochrane systematic reviews was significantly higher than systematic reviews published in regular journals. On a 1-7 scale, the median overall quality score for all systematic reviews was 2 (range 1-7), with a score of 1 (range 1-7) for systematic reviews in regular journals compared to 6 (range 3-7) in Cochrane systematic reviews (p<0.001).CONCLUSION: Most systematic reviews in the field of pediatric oncology seem to have serious methodological flaws leading to a high risk of bias. While Cochrane systematic reviews were of higher methodological quality than systematic reviews in regular journals, some of them also had methodological problems. Therefore, the methodology of each individual systematic review should be scrutinized before accepting its results.

KW - Bias

KW - Bibliometrics

KW - Child

KW - Evidence-Based Medicine

KW - Humans

KW - Journalism, Medical

KW - Medical Oncology

KW - Meta-Analysis as Topic

KW - Pediatrics

KW - Research Design

KW - Review Literature as Topic

KW - Comparative Study

KW - Journal Article

KW - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

KW - Review

U2 - 10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.08.010

DO - 10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.08.010

M3 - Review

C2 - 19836897

VL - 35

SP - 645

EP - 652

JO - Cancer Treatment Reviews

JF - Cancer Treatment Reviews

SN - 0305-7372

IS - 8

ER -