Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions
Abstract Background Article summaries’ information and structure may influence researchers/clinicians’ decisions to conduct deeper full-text analyses. Specifically, abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA) should provide structured summaries for quick assessment. This study explo...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2017-12-01
|
| Series: | BMC Medical Research Methodology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-017-0460-z |
| _version_ | 1828517619365314560 |
|---|---|
| author | Francisco Gómez-García Juan Ruano Macarena Aguilar-Luque Patricia Alcalde-Mellado Jesús Gay-Mimbrera José Luis Hernández-Romero Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas Beatriz Maestre-López Marcelino González-Padilla Pedro J. Carmona-Fernández Antonio Vélez García-Nieto Beatriz Isla-Tejera |
| author_facet | Francisco Gómez-García Juan Ruano Macarena Aguilar-Luque Patricia Alcalde-Mellado Jesús Gay-Mimbrera José Luis Hernández-Romero Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas Beatriz Maestre-López Marcelino González-Padilla Pedro J. Carmona-Fernández Antonio Vélez García-Nieto Beatriz Isla-Tejera |
| author_sort | Francisco Gómez-García |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Article summaries’ information and structure may influence researchers/clinicians’ decisions to conduct deeper full-text analyses. Specifically, abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA) should provide structured summaries for quick assessment. This study explored a method for determining the methodological quality and bias risk of full-text reviews using abstract information alone. Methods Systematic literature searches for SRs and/or MA about psoriasis were undertaken on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database. For each review, quality, abstract-reporting completeness, full-text methodological quality, and bias risk were evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A), Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and ROBIS tools, respectively. Article-, author-, and journal-derived metadata were systematically extracted from eligible studies using a piloted template, and explanatory variables concerning abstract-reporting quality were assessed using univariate and multivariate-regression models. Two classification models concerning SRs’ methodological quality and bias risk were developed based on per-item and total PRISMA-A scores and decision-tree algorithms. This work was supported, in part, by project ICI1400136 (JR). No funding was received from any pharmaceutical company. Results This study analysed 139 SRs on psoriasis interventions. On average, they featured 56.7% of PRISMA-A items. The mean total PRISMA-A score was significantly higher for high-methodological-quality SRs than for moderate- and low-methodological-quality reviews. SRs with low-bias risk showed higher total PRISMA-A values than reviews with high-bias risk. In the final model, only ’authors per review > 6’ (OR: 1.098; 95%CI: 1.012-1.194), ’academic source of funding’ (OR: 3.630; 95%CI: 1.788-7.542), and ’PRISMA-endorsed journal’ (OR: 4.370; 95%CI: 1.785-10.98) predicted PRISMA-A variability. Reviews with a total PRISMA-A score < 6, lacking identification as SR or MA in the title, and lacking explanation concerning bias risk assessment methods were classified as low-methodological quality. Abstracts with a total PRISMA-A score ≥ 9, including main outcomes results and explanation bias risk assessment method were classified as having low-bias risk. Conclusions The methodological quality and bias risk of SRs may be determined by abstract’s quality and completeness analyses. Our proposal aimed to facilitate synthesis of evidence evaluation by clinical professionals lacking methodological skills. External validation is necessary. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-11T18:43:54Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ff998f18f46d400a8d99c62baf6181e9 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1471-2288 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-11T18:43:54Z |
| publishDate | 2017-12-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Medical Research Methodology |
| spelling | doaj.art-ff998f18f46d400a8d99c62baf6181e92022-12-22T00:54:32ZengBMCBMC Medical Research Methodology1471-22882017-12-0117111110.1186/s12874-017-0460-zAbstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventionsFrancisco Gómez-García0Juan Ruano1Macarena Aguilar-Luque2Patricia Alcalde-Mellado3Jesús Gay-Mimbrera4José Luis Hernández-Romero5Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas6Beatriz Maestre-López7Marcelino González-Padilla8Pedro J. Carmona-Fernández9Antonio Vélez García-Nieto10Beatriz Isla-Tejera11Department of Dermatology, Reina Sofía University HospitalDepartment of Dermatology, Reina Sofía University HospitalDepartment of Dermatology, Reina Sofía University HospitalSchool of Medicine, University of CórdobaIMIBIC/Reina Sofía University Hospital/UNiversity of CórdobaDepartment of Dermatology, Reina Sofía University HospitalDepartment of Dermatology, Reina Sofía University HospitalSchool of Medicine, University of CórdobaDepartment of Dermatology, Reina Sofía University HospitalIMIBIC/Reina Sofía University Hospital/UNiversity of CórdobaDepartment of Dermatology, Reina Sofía University HospitalIMIBIC/Reina Sofía University Hospital/UNiversity of CórdobaAbstract Background Article summaries’ information and structure may influence researchers/clinicians’ decisions to conduct deeper full-text analyses. Specifically, abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA) should provide structured summaries for quick assessment. This study explored a method for determining the methodological quality and bias risk of full-text reviews using abstract information alone. Methods Systematic literature searches for SRs and/or MA about psoriasis were undertaken on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database. For each review, quality, abstract-reporting completeness, full-text methodological quality, and bias risk were evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A), Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and ROBIS tools, respectively. Article-, author-, and journal-derived metadata were systematically extracted from eligible studies using a piloted template, and explanatory variables concerning abstract-reporting quality were assessed using univariate and multivariate-regression models. Two classification models concerning SRs’ methodological quality and bias risk were developed based on per-item and total PRISMA-A scores and decision-tree algorithms. This work was supported, in part, by project ICI1400136 (JR). No funding was received from any pharmaceutical company. Results This study analysed 139 SRs on psoriasis interventions. On average, they featured 56.7% of PRISMA-A items. The mean total PRISMA-A score was significantly higher for high-methodological-quality SRs than for moderate- and low-methodological-quality reviews. SRs with low-bias risk showed higher total PRISMA-A values than reviews with high-bias risk. In the final model, only ’authors per review > 6’ (OR: 1.098; 95%CI: 1.012-1.194), ’academic source of funding’ (OR: 3.630; 95%CI: 1.788-7.542), and ’PRISMA-endorsed journal’ (OR: 4.370; 95%CI: 1.785-10.98) predicted PRISMA-A variability. Reviews with a total PRISMA-A score < 6, lacking identification as SR or MA in the title, and lacking explanation concerning bias risk assessment methods were classified as low-methodological quality. Abstracts with a total PRISMA-A score ≥ 9, including main outcomes results and explanation bias risk assessment method were classified as having low-bias risk. Conclusions The methodological quality and bias risk of SRs may be determined by abstract’s quality and completeness analyses. Our proposal aimed to facilitate synthesis of evidence evaluation by clinical professionals lacking methodological skills. External validation is necessary.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-017-0460-zSystematic reviewMethodological qualityQuality of reportingAMSTARPRISMA for abstractsAbstract readability |
| spellingShingle | Francisco Gómez-García Juan Ruano Macarena Aguilar-Luque Patricia Alcalde-Mellado Jesús Gay-Mimbrera José Luis Hernández-Romero Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas Beatriz Maestre-López Marcelino González-Padilla Pedro J. Carmona-Fernández Antonio Vélez García-Nieto Beatriz Isla-Tejera Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions BMC Medical Research Methodology Systematic review Methodological quality Quality of reporting AMSTAR PRISMA for abstracts Abstract readability |
| title | Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions |
| title_full | Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions |
| title_fullStr | Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions |
| title_full_unstemmed | Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions |
| title_short | Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions |
| title_sort | abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low methodological quality and high bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions |
| topic | Systematic review Methodological quality Quality of reporting AMSTAR PRISMA for abstracts Abstract readability |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-017-0460-z |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT franciscogomezgarcia abstractanalysismethodfacilitatesfilteringlowmethodologicalqualityandhighbiasrisksystematicreviewsonpsoriasisinterventions AT juanruano abstractanalysismethodfacilitatesfilteringlowmethodologicalqualityandhighbiasrisksystematicreviewsonpsoriasisinterventions AT macarenaaguilarluque abstractanalysismethodfacilitatesfilteringlowmethodologicalqualityandhighbiasrisksystematicreviewsonpsoriasisinterventions AT patriciaalcaldemellado abstractanalysismethodfacilitatesfilteringlowmethodologicalqualityandhighbiasrisksystematicreviewsonpsoriasisinterventions AT jesusgaymimbrera abstractanalysismethodfacilitatesfilteringlowmethodologicalqualityandhighbiasrisksystematicreviewsonpsoriasisinterventions AT joseluishernandezromero abstractanalysismethodfacilitatesfilteringlowmethodologicalqualityandhighbiasrisksystematicreviewsonpsoriasisinterventions AT juanluissanzcabanillas abstractanalysismethodfacilitatesfilteringlowmethodologicalqualityandhighbiasrisksystematicreviewsonpsoriasisinterventions AT beatrizmaestrelopez abstractanalysismethodfacilitatesfilteringlowmethodologicalqualityandhighbiasrisksystematicreviewsonpsoriasisinterventions AT marcelinogonzalezpadilla abstractanalysismethodfacilitatesfilteringlowmethodologicalqualityandhighbiasrisksystematicreviewsonpsoriasisinterventions AT pedrojcarmonafernandez abstractanalysismethodfacilitatesfilteringlowmethodologicalqualityandhighbiasrisksystematicreviewsonpsoriasisinterventions AT antoniovelezgarcianieto abstractanalysismethodfacilitatesfilteringlowmethodologicalqualityandhighbiasrisksystematicreviewsonpsoriasisinterventions AT beatrizislatejera abstractanalysismethodfacilitatesfilteringlowmethodologicalqualityandhighbiasrisksystematicreviewsonpsoriasisinterventions |