Assessment for risk of bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of hepatology

Gaeun Kim, Youn Zoo Cho, Soon Koo Baik

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A systematic review (SR) provides the best and most objective analysis of the existing evidence in a particular field. SRs and derived conclusions are essential for evidence-based strategies in medicine and evidence-based guidelines in clinical practice. The popularity of SRs has also increased markedly in the field of hepatology. However, although SRs are considered to provide a higher level of evidence with greater confidence than original articles, there have been no reports on the quality of SRs and meta-analyses (MAs) in the field of hepatology. Therefore, we performed a quality assessment of 225 SRs and MAs that were recently published in the field of hepatology (January 2011 to September 2014) using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Using AMSTAR, we revealed both a shortage of assessments of the scientific quality of individual studies and a publication bias in many SRs and MAs. This review addresses the concern that SRs and MAs need to be conducted in a stricter and more objective manner to minimize bias and random errors. Thus, SRs and MAs should be supported by a multidisciplinary approach that includes clinical experts, methodologists, and statisticians.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)701-706
Number of pages6
JournalGut and liver
Volume9
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Nov

Fingerprint

Gastroenterology
Meta-Analysis
Publication Bias
Evidence-Based Medicine
Guidelines

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Hepatology
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

@article{e6a5ae9082ec4e78848bbfe85f13585f,
title = "Assessment for risk of bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of hepatology",
abstract = "A systematic review (SR) provides the best and most objective analysis of the existing evidence in a particular field. SRs and derived conclusions are essential for evidence-based strategies in medicine and evidence-based guidelines in clinical practice. The popularity of SRs has also increased markedly in the field of hepatology. However, although SRs are considered to provide a higher level of evidence with greater confidence than original articles, there have been no reports on the quality of SRs and meta-analyses (MAs) in the field of hepatology. Therefore, we performed a quality assessment of 225 SRs and MAs that were recently published in the field of hepatology (January 2011 to September 2014) using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Using AMSTAR, we revealed both a shortage of assessments of the scientific quality of individual studies and a publication bias in many SRs and MAs. This review addresses the concern that SRs and MAs need to be conducted in a stricter and more objective manner to minimize bias and random errors. Thus, SRs and MAs should be supported by a multidisciplinary approach that includes clinical experts, methodologists, and statisticians.",
author = "Gaeun Kim and Cho, {Youn Zoo} and Baik, {Soon Koo}",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
doi = "10.5009/gnl14451",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "701--706",
journal = "Gut and Liver",
issn = "1976-2283",
publisher = "Joe Bok Chung",
number = "6",

}

Assessment for risk of bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of hepatology. / Kim, Gaeun; Cho, Youn Zoo; Baik, Soon Koo.

In: Gut and liver, Vol. 9, No. 6, 11.2015, p. 701-706.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment for risk of bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of hepatology

AU - Kim, Gaeun

AU - Cho, Youn Zoo

AU - Baik, Soon Koo

PY - 2015/11

Y1 - 2015/11

N2 - A systematic review (SR) provides the best and most objective analysis of the existing evidence in a particular field. SRs and derived conclusions are essential for evidence-based strategies in medicine and evidence-based guidelines in clinical practice. The popularity of SRs has also increased markedly in the field of hepatology. However, although SRs are considered to provide a higher level of evidence with greater confidence than original articles, there have been no reports on the quality of SRs and meta-analyses (MAs) in the field of hepatology. Therefore, we performed a quality assessment of 225 SRs and MAs that were recently published in the field of hepatology (January 2011 to September 2014) using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Using AMSTAR, we revealed both a shortage of assessments of the scientific quality of individual studies and a publication bias in many SRs and MAs. This review addresses the concern that SRs and MAs need to be conducted in a stricter and more objective manner to minimize bias and random errors. Thus, SRs and MAs should be supported by a multidisciplinary approach that includes clinical experts, methodologists, and statisticians.

AB - A systematic review (SR) provides the best and most objective analysis of the existing evidence in a particular field. SRs and derived conclusions are essential for evidence-based strategies in medicine and evidence-based guidelines in clinical practice. The popularity of SRs has also increased markedly in the field of hepatology. However, although SRs are considered to provide a higher level of evidence with greater confidence than original articles, there have been no reports on the quality of SRs and meta-analyses (MAs) in the field of hepatology. Therefore, we performed a quality assessment of 225 SRs and MAs that were recently published in the field of hepatology (January 2011 to September 2014) using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Using AMSTAR, we revealed both a shortage of assessments of the scientific quality of individual studies and a publication bias in many SRs and MAs. This review addresses the concern that SRs and MAs need to be conducted in a stricter and more objective manner to minimize bias and random errors. Thus, SRs and MAs should be supported by a multidisciplinary approach that includes clinical experts, methodologists, and statisticians.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84946713407&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84946713407&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5009/gnl14451

DO - 10.5009/gnl14451

M3 - Review article

C2 - 26503570

AN - SCOPUS:84946713407

VL - 9

SP - 701

EP - 706

JO - Gut and Liver

JF - Gut and Liver

SN - 1976-2283

IS - 6

ER -