Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Influenza is becoming more and more threatening to the world, and many systematic reviews about preventing and treating influenza are conducted. But the methodological and reporting quality of these systematic reviews (SRs) is unknown.
Objectives: To assess the methodological and reporting qualities of SRs on influenza and compare these qualities of Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) with non-cochrane systematic reviews (NCSRs).
Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of science and the Cochrane Library were searched for SRs on influenza using 'systematic reviews', 'meta-analysis', 'influenza’, 'flu’ in 2011 February. We assessed the methodology quality with OQAQ and AMSTAR, and the reporting quality using PRISMA. The result of 'yes' for AMSTAR or PRISMA was scored '1’, and other conditions was marked '0’. The total scores of AMSTAR and PRISMA for each SR were calculated. For OQAQ, 1, 3, 5 or 7 was marked for each SR if there were extensive, major, minor or minimal flaws. The data was expressed with mean±SD and T-test was used to test the differences of the qualities between CSRs and NCSRs by SPSS17.0.
Results: In total, 28SRs (15CSRs and 13NCRs) were identified. The methodological quality score of all SRs using OQAQ and AMSTAR were 4.21±0.99 and 7.86±1.67, respectively. The reporting quality score of all SRs using PRISMA was 20.18±4.09. Compared with NCSRs, CSRs showed better qualities in reporting by PRISMA (MD5.67, 95% CI3.14 to 8.20) and in methodology by OQAQ (MD1.25, 95% CI0.67 to 1.83) and AMSTAR (MD1.23, 95% CI0.01 to 2.45).
Conclusions: The reporting and methodological qualities of SRs on influenza were not very low, but they need to be improved. The methodological and reporting qualities of CSRs were better than those of NCSRs; therefore, the PRISMA and AMSTAR/OQAQ should be recommended for NCSRs especially.
Objectives: To assess the methodological and reporting qualities of SRs on influenza and compare these qualities of Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) with non-cochrane systematic reviews (NCSRs).
Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of science and the Cochrane Library were searched for SRs on influenza using 'systematic reviews', 'meta-analysis', 'influenza’, 'flu’ in 2011 February. We assessed the methodology quality with OQAQ and AMSTAR, and the reporting quality using PRISMA. The result of 'yes' for AMSTAR or PRISMA was scored '1’, and other conditions was marked '0’. The total scores of AMSTAR and PRISMA for each SR were calculated. For OQAQ, 1, 3, 5 or 7 was marked for each SR if there were extensive, major, minor or minimal flaws. The data was expressed with mean±SD and T-test was used to test the differences of the qualities between CSRs and NCSRs by SPSS17.0.
Results: In total, 28SRs (15CSRs and 13NCRs) were identified. The methodological quality score of all SRs using OQAQ and AMSTAR were 4.21±0.99 and 7.86±1.67, respectively. The reporting quality score of all SRs using PRISMA was 20.18±4.09. Compared with NCSRs, CSRs showed better qualities in reporting by PRISMA (MD5.67, 95% CI3.14 to 8.20) and in methodology by OQAQ (MD1.25, 95% CI0.67 to 1.83) and AMSTAR (MD1.23, 95% CI0.01 to 2.45).
Conclusions: The reporting and methodological qualities of SRs on influenza were not very low, but they need to be improved. The methodological and reporting qualities of CSRs were better than those of NCSRs; therefore, the PRISMA and AMSTAR/OQAQ should be recommended for NCSRs especially.