Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: In 2003 the quality of the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group (CDAG) reviews was assessed using the QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses) checklist. Based on these results a template was prepared and given to each reviewer. Before the publication the adherence to the template of each review is evaluated by the group quality advisor. In the following years the quality and readability of the CDAG reviews are improved. Given this experience, we decided to use the same process with the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis Group (MS) reviews.
Objectives: To assess the quality of the MS Group reviews, in terms of adherence to the QUOROM checklist. To identify suggestions to improve the quality of the reviews adapting the template to this field.
Methods: We applied the QUOROM checklist with additional items concerning the specificity of the objectives and the readability to the 15 MS Group reviews (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 1).
Results: The weaknesses concerned: search strategy description: 6/15; specification of no language restriction: 4/15; criteria for primary studies quality assessment clearly described: 3/15; validity assessment use described: 6/15; handing of missing data described: 5/15; assessment of publication bias: 0/15. The reviews were very specific: only 3/15 had more than two comparisons; 7/15 included only placebo controlled trials. The reviews used stringent inclusion criteria for methodological quality: only 2/15 included controlled clinical trials (CCTs), 8/15 included only double-blind studies, 2/15 included only studies with adequate allocation concealment; 2/15 included only studies with blinding of outcome assessor and intention-to-treat analysis.
Conclusions: The quality was good for specificity of the objectives and readability. The main weaknesses concerned the quality of reporting. No reviews assessed the possibility of publication bias but all but one searched systematically for unpublished studies. The template will be adapted for these reviews and used. Moreover, a checklist of items based on the template will be given to peer reviewers to guide their review assessments prior to publication.
Objectives: To assess the quality of the MS Group reviews, in terms of adherence to the QUOROM checklist. To identify suggestions to improve the quality of the reviews adapting the template to this field.
Methods: We applied the QUOROM checklist with additional items concerning the specificity of the objectives and the readability to the 15 MS Group reviews (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 1).
Results: The weaknesses concerned: search strategy description: 6/15; specification of no language restriction: 4/15; criteria for primary studies quality assessment clearly described: 3/15; validity assessment use described: 6/15; handing of missing data described: 5/15; assessment of publication bias: 0/15. The reviews were very specific: only 3/15 had more than two comparisons; 7/15 included only placebo controlled trials. The reviews used stringent inclusion criteria for methodological quality: only 2/15 included controlled clinical trials (CCTs), 8/15 included only double-blind studies, 2/15 included only studies with adequate allocation concealment; 2/15 included only studies with blinding of outcome assessor and intention-to-treat analysis.
Conclusions: The quality was good for specificity of the objectives and readability. The main weaknesses concerned the quality of reporting. No reviews assessed the possibility of publication bias but all but one searched systematically for unpublished studies. The template will be adapted for these reviews and used. Moreover, a checklist of items based on the template will be given to peer reviewers to guide their review assessments prior to publication.