Article type
Abstract
Background: A considerable number of systematic reviews or meta-analyses have been published regarding oncology nursing interventions for breast cancer patients. Limitations in the design, implementation, or analysis of a review could introduce bias into the results.
Objective: This review aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews focusing on oncology nursing interventions for breast cancer patients.
Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across six databases, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Latin America and the Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS), PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC), and two grey literature sources (Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses) to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses published from 2009 to 2024. Two reviewers independently screened and selected studies based on eligibility criteria. Descriptive statistics including frequencies, means, and standard deviations were employed to summarize studies characteristics. The methodological quality of the included reviews was evaluated using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool.
Results: Eighteen studies, comprising 11 meta-analyses, met the inclusion criteria. Forty-four percent of the studies solely focused on patients with breast cancer, while 56% of the reviews incorporated samples with various cancer types alongside breast cancer. The publication origin was predominantly Asia (61%), and the majority of studies relied on randomized controlled trials (61%). Conflict of interest (83%) and funding sources (89%) were generally well-reported. Only three studies utilized GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. AMSTAR-2 assessment revealed critical low (n=11) and low (n=5) quality, with major weaknesses identified in protocol registration, search strategies, reporting of exclusion rationale, and funding disclosure within the included studies. Only one study was rated as moderate quality, and one was rated as high quality.
Conclusions: This review underscores the potential for significant bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses informing breast cancer care decisions in oncology nursing. We recommend that researchers adhere to established guidelines such as PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 for conducting robust and transparent reviews. Doing so is fundamental for fostering high-quality scientific production in nursing and ensuring the availability of accurate evidence for clinical practice.
Objective: This review aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews focusing on oncology nursing interventions for breast cancer patients.
Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across six databases, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Latin America and the Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS), PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC), and two grey literature sources (Google Scholar and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses) to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses published from 2009 to 2024. Two reviewers independently screened and selected studies based on eligibility criteria. Descriptive statistics including frequencies, means, and standard deviations were employed to summarize studies characteristics. The methodological quality of the included reviews was evaluated using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool.
Results: Eighteen studies, comprising 11 meta-analyses, met the inclusion criteria. Forty-four percent of the studies solely focused on patients with breast cancer, while 56% of the reviews incorporated samples with various cancer types alongside breast cancer. The publication origin was predominantly Asia (61%), and the majority of studies relied on randomized controlled trials (61%). Conflict of interest (83%) and funding sources (89%) were generally well-reported. Only three studies utilized GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. AMSTAR-2 assessment revealed critical low (n=11) and low (n=5) quality, with major weaknesses identified in protocol registration, search strategies, reporting of exclusion rationale, and funding disclosure within the included studies. Only one study was rated as moderate quality, and one was rated as high quality.
Conclusions: This review underscores the potential for significant bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses informing breast cancer care decisions in oncology nursing. We recommend that researchers adhere to established guidelines such as PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 for conducting robust and transparent reviews. Doing so is fundamental for fostering high-quality scientific production in nursing and ensuring the availability of accurate evidence for clinical practice.