Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study
Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.38693.516782.7c
复制
发表时间：
2006-01-28
影响因子：
105.7
通讯作者：
Agostoni, P
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Biondi-Zoccai, GGL;Lotrionte, M;Agostoni, P
目的评价同一临床主题的多篇系统评价，重点关注荟萃分析（QUOROM）评分报告质量的预测因素和相关因素。设计病例研究。设置评价，至少提供乙酰半胱氨酸在预防造影剂相关肾病中作用的个体定量估计数据来源PubMed，效果评价摘要数据库，和系统评价的科克伦数据库（2005年3月更新）。主要结果的措施资金，遵守QUOROM检查表，分数的Oxman和Guyatt质量指数，和authentics.Results 10系统评价，发表于2003年8月至2005年3月，包括。尽管存在异质性，但9例合并事件和5例建议常规使用乙酰半胱氨酸，而其余研究需要进一步研究。QUOROM检查表上18个项目的依从性相对较高（中位数16，范围11 - 17），尽管较短的手稿得分显著较低（R = 0.73; P = 0.016）。报告先前非营利资金的评论者更有可能在Oxman和Guyatt质量指数上得分更高。QUOROM和Oxman和Guyatt评分之间没有发现关联（R =-0.06，P = 0.86），主要是因为更强调的Oxman和Guyatt评分的评估偏差的选择和有效性assessment.Conclusions多个系统性评价在同一临床主题不同的报告和建议的质量。较长的手稿和以前的非营利资金与较高的质量有关。
Objective To appraise multiple systematic reviews on the same clinical topic, focusing on predictors and correlates of quality of reporting of meta-analysis (QUOROM) scores.Design Case study.Setting Reviews providing at least individual quantitative estimates on role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathyData sources PubMed, the database of abstracts of reviews of effects, and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews (updated March 2005).Main outcome measures Funding, compliance with the QUOROM checklist, scores on the Oxman and Guyatt quality index, and authors' recommendations.Results 10 systematic reviews, published August 2003 to March 2005, were included. Nine pooled events despite heterogeneity and five recommended routine use of acetylcysteine, whereas the remaining studies called for further research. Compliance with the 18 items on the QUOROM checklist was relatively high (median 16, range 11 to 17), although shorter manuscripts had significantly lower scores (R = 0.73; P = 0.016). Reviewers who reported previous not for profit funding were more likely to score higher on the Oxman and Guyatt quality index. No association was found between QUOROM and Oxman and Guyatt scores (R = - 0.06; P = 0.86), mainly because of greater emphasis of the Oxman and Guyatt scores on the appraisal of bias in selection and validity assessment (inadequate in five reviews).Conclusions Multiple systematic reviews on the same clinical topic varied in quality of reporting and recommendations. Longer manuscripts and previous not for profit funding were associated with higher quality.