Article type
Abstract
Background:Hyperthyroidism is a common condition that is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, especially because of cardiovascular complications.The question of which treatment should be preferred for the treatment of hyperthyroidism is debatable. There are mainly three kinds of treatment by radioiodine, antithyroid drugs and surgery for hyperthyroidism and they have different adverse effects. There are a large number of meta-analyses (MAs)/systematic reviews (SRs) on this subject, the methodological quality of which has not been evaluated of therapy in ATD and surgery and RAI of hyperthyroidism.
Objectives:This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of and summarise the evidence obtained from MAs/SRs of hyperthyroidism treatments for radioiodine, antithyroid drugs and surgery.
Methods:We searched for the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of science and CBM databases. Two investigators independently assessed all titles and abstracts for inclusion. Methodological quality was assessed using the validated AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool.
Results:Twenty-six systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. According to AMSTAR and scores, average methodological quality was high (Average AMSTAR-score: 8.3), and variability was large (AMSTAR range: 5–11). A total of two articles published in Cochrane were included in this study, Cochrane reviews have better methodological quality than no-Cochrane reviews. Detailed analysis showed that this was due to better study selection and data extraction, inclusion of unpublished studies, and better reporting of study characteristics. Of course, including a meta-analysis is a significant factor to improve quality and evidence for systematic reviews. In this study, 53.8% of MAs the authors did not report conflict of interest, 19.2% not reported harmful effects of treatment. Publication bias was not assessed in 38.5% of MAs, and 19.2% was not reported follow-up time.
Conclusions:Large-scale assessment of methodological quality of hyperthyroidism treatment SRs highlights areas of methodological strengths and weaknesses.
Objectives:This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of and summarise the evidence obtained from MAs/SRs of hyperthyroidism treatments for radioiodine, antithyroid drugs and surgery.
Methods:We searched for the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of science and CBM databases. Two investigators independently assessed all titles and abstracts for inclusion. Methodological quality was assessed using the validated AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool.
Results:Twenty-six systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. According to AMSTAR and scores, average methodological quality was high (Average AMSTAR-score: 8.3), and variability was large (AMSTAR range: 5–11). A total of two articles published in Cochrane were included in this study, Cochrane reviews have better methodological quality than no-Cochrane reviews. Detailed analysis showed that this was due to better study selection and data extraction, inclusion of unpublished studies, and better reporting of study characteristics. Of course, including a meta-analysis is a significant factor to improve quality and evidence for systematic reviews. In this study, 53.8% of MAs the authors did not report conflict of interest, 19.2% not reported harmful effects of treatment. Publication bias was not assessed in 38.5% of MAs, and 19.2% was not reported follow-up time.
Conclusions:Large-scale assessment of methodological quality of hyperthyroidism treatment SRs highlights areas of methodological strengths and weaknesses.