skip to main content
Language:
Search Limited to: Search Limited to: Resource type Show Results with: Show Results with: Search type Index

How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study

BMC medical research methodology, 2020-04, Vol.20 (1), p.96-96, Article 96 [Peer Reviewed Journal]

COPYRIGHT 2020 BioMed Central Ltd. ;2020. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. ;The Author(s) 2020 ;ISSN: 1471-2288 ;EISSN: 1471-2288 ;DOI: 10.1186/s12874-020-00975-3 ;PMID: 32336279

Full text available

  • Title:
    How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study
  • Author: Borges Migliavaca, Celina ; Stein, Cinara ; Colpani, Verônica ; Barker, Timothy Hugh ; Munn, Zachary ; Falavigna, Maicon
  • Subjects: Analysis ; Bias ; Epidemiology ; Estimates ; Medical research ; Meta-analysis ; Meta-epidemiological study ; Methodological quality ; Methods ; Prevalence ; Prevalence studies (Epidemiology) ; Quality standards ; Systematic review
  • Is Part Of: BMC medical research methodology, 2020-04, Vol.20 (1), p.96-96, Article 96
  • Description: There is a notable lack of methodological and reporting guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data. This information void has the potential to result in reviews that are inconsistent and inadequate to inform healthcare policy and decision making. The aim of this meta-epidemiological study is to describe the methodology of recently published prevalence systematic reviews. We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from February 2017 to February 2018 for systematic reviews of prevalence studies. We included systematic reviews assessing the prevalence of any clinical condition using patients as the unit of measurement and we summarized data related to reporting and methodology of the reviews. A total of 235 systematic reviews of prevalence were analyzed. The median number of authors was 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7), the median number of databases searched was 4 (3-6) and the median number of studies included in each review was 24 (IQR 15-41.5). Search strategies were presented for 68% of reviews. Forty five percent of reviews received external funding, and 24% did not provide funding information. Twenty three percent of included reviews had published or registered the systematic review protocol. Reporting guidelines were used in 72% of reviews. The quality of included studies was assessed in 80% of reviews. Nine reviews assessed the overall quality of evidence (4 using GRADE). Meta-analysis was conducted in 65% of reviews; 1% used Bayesian methods. Random effect meta-analysis was used in 94% of reviews; among them, 75% did not report the variance estimator used. Among the reviews with meta-analysis, 70% did not report how data was transformed; 59% percent conducted subgroup analysis, 38% conducted meta-regression and 2% estimated prediction interval; I was estimated in 95% of analysis. Publication bias was examined in 48%. The most common software used was STATA (55%). Our results indicate that there are significant inconsistencies regarding how these reviews are conducted. Many of these differences arose in the assessment of methodological quality and the formal synthesis of comparable data. This variability indicates the need for clearer reporting standards and consensus on methodological guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data.
  • Publisher: England: BioMed Central Ltd
  • Language: English
  • Identifier: ISSN: 1471-2288
    EISSN: 1471-2288
    DOI: 10.1186/s12874-020-00975-3
    PMID: 32336279
  • Source: GFMER Free Medical Journals
    PubMed Central
    Springer Nature OA/Free Journals
    ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
    ProQuest Central
    DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
Back to results list
INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY (84-028) 37 755 057 Feedback
19 Nguyen Huu Tho St. Dist.7, HCM thuvien@tdtu.edu.vn

Copyright © 2017 INSPIRE LIBRARY - TON DUC THANG UNIVERSITY

Searching Remote Databases, Please Wait