TY - JOUR
T1 - Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology--a systematic review
AU - Lundh, Andreas
AU - Knijnenburg, Sebastiaan L
AU - Jørgensen, Anders W
AU - van Dalen, Elvira C
AU - Kremer, Leontien C M
N1 - Keywords: Bias (Epidemiology); Bibliometrics; Child; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Journalism, Medical; Medical Oncology; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Pediatrics; Research Design; Review Literature as Topic
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
N2 - BACKGROUND: To ensure evidence-based decision making in pediatric oncology systematic reviews are necessary. The objective of our study was to evaluate the methodological quality of all currently existing systematic reviews in pediatric oncology. METHODS: We identified eligible systematic reviews through a systematic search of the literature. Data on clinical and methodological characteristics of the included systematic reviews were extracted. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed using the overview quality assessment questionnaire, a validated 10-item quality assessment tool. We compared the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in regular journals with that of Cochrane systematic reviews. RESULTS: We included 117 systematic reviews, 99 systematic reviews published in regular journals and 18 Cochrane systematic reviews. The average methodological quality of systematic reviews was low for all ten items, but the quality of Cochrane systematic reviews was significantly higher than systematic reviews published in regular journals. On a 1-7 scale, the median overall quality score for all systematic reviews was 2 (range 1-7), with a score of 1 (range 1-7) for systematic reviews in regular journals compared to 6 (range 3-7) in Cochrane systematic reviews (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Most systematic reviews in the field of pediatric oncology seem to have serious methodological flaws leading to a high risk of bias. While Cochrane systematic reviews were of higher methodological quality than systematic reviews in regular journals, some of them also had methodological problems. Therefore, the methodology of each individual systematic review should be scrutinized before accepting its results.
AB - BACKGROUND: To ensure evidence-based decision making in pediatric oncology systematic reviews are necessary. The objective of our study was to evaluate the methodological quality of all currently existing systematic reviews in pediatric oncology. METHODS: We identified eligible systematic reviews through a systematic search of the literature. Data on clinical and methodological characteristics of the included systematic reviews were extracted. The methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed using the overview quality assessment questionnaire, a validated 10-item quality assessment tool. We compared the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in regular journals with that of Cochrane systematic reviews. RESULTS: We included 117 systematic reviews, 99 systematic reviews published in regular journals and 18 Cochrane systematic reviews. The average methodological quality of systematic reviews was low for all ten items, but the quality of Cochrane systematic reviews was significantly higher than systematic reviews published in regular journals. On a 1-7 scale, the median overall quality score for all systematic reviews was 2 (range 1-7), with a score of 1 (range 1-7) for systematic reviews in regular journals compared to 6 (range 3-7) in Cochrane systematic reviews (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Most systematic reviews in the field of pediatric oncology seem to have serious methodological flaws leading to a high risk of bias. While Cochrane systematic reviews were of higher methodological quality than systematic reviews in regular journals, some of them also had methodological problems. Therefore, the methodology of each individual systematic review should be scrutinized before accepting its results.
U2 - 10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.08.010
DO - 10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.08.010
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 19836897
SN - 0305-7372
VL - 35
SP - 645
EP - 652
JO - Cancer Treatment Reviews
JF - Cancer Treatment Reviews
IS - 8
ER -