Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: High-quality systematic reviews (SRs) or Meta-analyses (MAs) of RCTs are the sources of the best evidence for diabetic nephropathy (DN). Currently, there is an increasing number of SRs/MAs of DN. This study provides the first examination of methodological quality of those SRs/MAs with AMSTAR.
Objectives: To examine methodological quality of SRs/MAs of interventions on DN.
Methods: Two independent reviewers systematically searched the eight databases, The searches were implemented in September 2012. According to the inclusion and exclusion standard, included SRs /MAs of interventions on DN, and independently extracted data by two reviewers. The AMSTAR was applied to assess methodological quality. Analyses were performed by Excel, SPSS17.0 and Meta Analyst soft.
Results: 891 records were identified and a total of 64 SRs/MAs were included.The first SR was published in 1996. 68.8% (44 studies) were published for 2009 and beyond. More than half (57.8%, 37 studies) were written by clinicians and most of studies (84.4%, 54 studies) were reported in CSCD or SCI journals. Funding sources were reported for 23.4% (15 studies). According to the AMSTAR checklist, the score range of the quality was 1.5–9, the average score was 6.16 ± 1.68 (Table 1). Figure 1 showed that there didn’t have been any improvement in total score after the AMSTAR publishing. The quality of CSCD theses, SCI theses and 3 authors were better than Non-CSCD, Non-SCI and 1–2 authors. But the difference in total score to those stratified factors were not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
Conclusions: The methodological quality of SRs or MAs of interventions on DN had some problems and needs to be improved. We sincerely hope that analysts will take this as a warning and produce high-quality SRs or MAs in future.
Objectives: To examine methodological quality of SRs/MAs of interventions on DN.
Methods: Two independent reviewers systematically searched the eight databases, The searches were implemented in September 2012. According to the inclusion and exclusion standard, included SRs /MAs of interventions on DN, and independently extracted data by two reviewers. The AMSTAR was applied to assess methodological quality. Analyses were performed by Excel, SPSS17.0 and Meta Analyst soft.
Results: 891 records were identified and a total of 64 SRs/MAs were included.The first SR was published in 1996. 68.8% (44 studies) were published for 2009 and beyond. More than half (57.8%, 37 studies) were written by clinicians and most of studies (84.4%, 54 studies) were reported in CSCD or SCI journals. Funding sources were reported for 23.4% (15 studies). According to the AMSTAR checklist, the score range of the quality was 1.5–9, the average score was 6.16 ± 1.68 (Table 1). Figure 1 showed that there didn’t have been any improvement in total score after the AMSTAR publishing. The quality of CSCD theses, SCI theses and 3 authors were better than Non-CSCD, Non-SCI and 1–2 authors. But the difference in total score to those stratified factors were not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
Conclusions: The methodological quality of SRs or MAs of interventions on DN had some problems and needs to be improved. We sincerely hope that analysts will take this as a warning and produce high-quality SRs or MAs in future.