Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: Results of the metaquality study cross sectional study

Lorenzo P. Moja, Elena Telaro, Roberto D'Amico, Ivan Moschetti, Laura Coe, Alessandro Liberati

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Objectives: To describe how the methodological quality of primary studies is assessed in systematic reviews and whether the quality assessment is taken into account in the interpretation of results. Data sources: Cochrane systematic reviews and systematic reviews in paper based journals. Study selection 965 systematic reviews (809 Cochrane reviews and 156 paper based reviews) published between 1995 and 2002. Data synthesis: The methodological quality of primary studies was assessed in 854 of the 965 systematic reviews (88.5%). This occurred more often in Cochrane reviews than in paper based reviews (93.9% v 60.3%, P <0.0001). Overall, only 496 (51.4%) used the quality assessment in the analysis and interpretation of the results or in their discussion, with no significant differences between Cochrane reviews and paper based reviews (52% v 49%, P = 0.58). The tools and methods used for quality assessment varied widely. Conclusions: Cochrane reviews fared better than systematic reviews published in paper based journals in terms of assessment of methodological quality of primary studies, although they both largely failed to take it into account in the interpretation of results. Methods for assessment of methodological quality by systematic reviews are still in their infancy and there is substantial room for improvement.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1053-1055
Number of pages3
JournalBritish Medical Journal
Volume330
Issue number7499
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 7 2005

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: Results of the metaquality study cross sectional study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this