Display options
Cite
Wang Z, Brito JP, Tsapas A, et al. Systematic reviews with language restrictions and no author contact have lower overall credibility: a methodology study. Clin Epidemiol. 2015;7:243-7doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S78879.
Wang, Z., Brito, J. P., Tsapas, A., Griebeler, M. L., Alahdab, F., & Murad, M. H. (2015). Systematic reviews with language restrictions and no author contact have lower overall credibility: a methodology study. Clinical epidemiology, 7243-7. https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S78879
Wang, Zhen, et al. "Systematic reviews with language restrictions and no author contact have lower overall credibility: a methodology study." Clinical epidemiology vol. 7 (2015): 243-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S78879
Wang Z, Brito JP, Tsapas A, Griebeler ML, Alahdab F, Murad MH. Systematic reviews with language restrictions and no author contact have lower overall credibility: a methodology study. Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Mar 31;7:243-7. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S78879. eCollection 2015. PMID: 25878512; PMCID: PMC4386783.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Mar 31;7:243-7. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S78879. eCollection 2015.

Systematic reviews with language restrictions and no author contact have lower overall credibility: a methodology study.

Clinical epidemiology

Zhen Wang, Juan P Brito, Apostolos Tsapas, Marcio L Griebeler, Fares Alahdab, Mohammad Hassan Murad

Affiliations

  1. Robert D and Patricia E Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA ; Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA ; Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  2. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism, and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  3. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
  4. Robert D and Patricia E Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA ; Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
  5. Robert D and Patricia E Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA ; Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA ; Division of Preventive, Occupational and Aerospace Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

PMID: 25878512 PMCID: PMC4386783 DOI: 10.2147/CLEP.S78879

Abstract

BACKGROUND: High-quality systematic reviews (SRs) require rigorous approaches to identify, appraise, select, and synthesize research evidence relevant to a specific question. In this study, we evaluated the association between two steps in the conduct of an SR - restricting the search to English, and author contact for missing data - and the overall credibility of a SR.

METHODS: All SRs cited by the Endocrine Society's Clinical Practice Guidelines published from October 2006 through January 2012 were included. The main outcome was the overall A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) score, as a surrogate of SR credibility. Nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis tests and multivariable linear regression models were used to investigate the association between language restriction, author contact for missing data, and the overall AMSTAR score.

RESULTS: In all, 69 SRs were included in the analysis. Only 31 SRs (45%) reported searching non-English literature, with an average AMSTAR score of 7.90 (standard deviation [SD] =1.64). SRs that reported language restriction received significantly lower AMSTAR scores (mean =5.25, SD =2.32) (P<0.001). Only 30 SRs (43%) reported contacting authors for missing data, and these received, on average, 2.59 more AMSTAR points (SD =1.95) than those who did not (P<0.001). In multivariable analyses, AMSTAR score was significantly correlated with language restriction (beta =-1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.62, -0.01, P=0.05) and author contact for missing data (beta =2.16, 95% CI: 0.91, 3.41, P=0.001). However, after adjusting for compliance with reporting guidelines, language restriction was no longer significantly associated with the AMSTAR score.

CONCLUSION: Fewer than half of the SRs conducted to support the clinical practice guidelines we examined reported contacting study authors or searched non-English literature. SRs that did not conduct these two steps had lower quality scores, suggesting the importance of these two steps for overall SR credibility.

Keywords: evidence-based medicine; quality of evidence; research design; validity

References

  1. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1997 Apr;11(2):215-25 - PubMed
  2. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Aug;58(8):769-76 - PubMed
  3. Mt Sinai J Med. 1996 May-Sep;63(3-4):216-24 - PubMed
  4. Eur Psychiatry. 2004 Jun;19(4):230-2 - PubMed
  5. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 Sep;53(9):964-72 - PubMed
  6. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Feb;62(2):138-42 - PubMed
  7. Int J Epidemiol. 2002 Feb;31(1):115-23 - PubMed
  8. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Feb 15;7:10 - PubMed
  9. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(11):1271-8 - PubMed
  10. Can J Anaesth. 1997 Apr;44(4):405-9 - PubMed
  11. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1013-20 - PubMed
  12. CMAJ. 2004 Nov 23;171(11):1369-73 - PubMed
  13. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Jun;66(6):633-8 - PubMed
  14. Control Clin Trials. 1998 Apr;19(2):159-66 - PubMed
  15. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Nov;64(11):1166-7 - PubMed
  16. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(1):1-76 - PubMed
  17. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995 Jan;48(1):159-63 - PubMed
  18. J Nurs Educ. 1997 Feb;36(2):87-90 - PubMed
  19. Lancet. 1997 Aug 2;350(9074):326-9 - PubMed
  20. PLoS One. 2007 Dec 26;2(12):e1350 - PubMed
  21. JAMA. 2014 Jul;312(2):171-9 - PubMed
  22. Ann Intern Med. 1994 Apr 15;120(8):667-76 - PubMed

Publication Types