However, given that reviews indexed on MEDLINE are hypothetically likely to be of higher quality than those not indexed, and given that we still identified substantial inconsistency, variability and potentially inappropriate practices in this sample, we doubt that a broader search will have altered our main conclusions significantly. Regarding the timeframe limitation, we decided to include only reviews recently published because older reviews may not reflect the current practice.
This meta-epidemiological review found that among this sample of published systematic reviews of prevalence, there are considerable discrepancies in terms of conduct, reporting, risk of bias assessment and data synthesis. This variability is understandable given the limited amount of guidance in this field, the lack of a reporting standard and a widely accepted risk of bias or critical appraisal tool.
Our findings are a call to action to the evidence synthesis community to develop guidance and reporting standards urgently for these types of systematic reviews. All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.
Google Scholar. The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Int J Health Policy Manag. Article Google Scholar. Systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence.
In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's. Manual: The Joanna Briggs Institute; The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.
An observational study found large methodological heterogeneity in systematic reviews addressing prevalence and cumulative incidence. J Clin Epidemiol. Available in March The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology STROBE statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.
Ann Intern Med. The synthesis of prevalence and incidence data. Pearson a, editor. Epub ahead of print 10 September Meta-analysis of survey data: application to health services research. Health Serv Outcome Res Methodol. Meta-analysis of prevalence. J Epidemiol Community Health. Jablensky A. Schizophrenia: the epidemiological horizon. In: Hirsch S, Weinberger D, editors. Oxford: Black-well Science; Chapter Google Scholar.
Meta-analyses of the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia: conceptual and methodological issues. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data. Int J Evid Based Healthc. Seriously misleading results using inverse of Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation in meta-analysis of single proportions. Res Syn Meth.
Undue reliance on I 2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead. Basics of meta-analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Res Synth Methods. Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis. BMJ Open. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients.
An international educational training course for conducting systematic reviews in health care: the Joanna Briggs Institute's comprehensive systematic review training program. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. Download references. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar. MF conceived the study. All authors discussed the concepts of this manuscript and interpreted the data.
All authors made substantial revisions and read and approved the final manuscript. Correspondence to Celina Borges Migliavaca. Zachary Munn is a member of the editorial board of this journal. The authors have no other competing interests to declare. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.
If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Reprints and Permissions.
Borges Migliavaca, C. How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study. Download citation. Received : 12 December Accepted : 12 April Published : 26 April Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:.
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative. Skip to main content. Search all BMC articles Search. Download PDF. Research article Open Access Published: 26 April How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? Abstract Background There is a notable lack of methodological and reporting guidance for systematic reviews of prevalence data.
Results A total of systematic reviews of prevalence were analyzed. Conclusions Our results indicate that there are significant inconsistencies regarding how these reviews are conducted. Background The proportion of a population currently suffering from a disease or particular condition of interest prevalence is an important [ 1 ] metric that allows researchers to assess disease burden, that is, who among the population is experiencing a certain disease, at a very specific point in time, typically measured using a cross-sectional study design [ 2 ].
Number of systematic reviews of prevalence indexed in PubMed between and Full size image. Study selection and eligibility criteria The selection of studies was conducted in two phases by two independent reviewers. Data abstraction Using a standard and piloted form, one author extracted relevant data from each review and another author independently checked all data. Data analysis Results are presented using descriptive statistics.
Results Our search resulted in articles. Flowchart of study selection. Discussion This meta-epidemiological study identified systematic reviews addressing a question related to the prevalence of any clinical condition.
Limitations of our study In this study, we have collated and interrogated the largest dataset of systematic reviews of prevalence currently available. Conclusions This meta-epidemiological review found that among this sample of published systematic reviews of prevalence, there are considerable discrepancies in terms of conduct, reporting, risk of bias assessment and data synthesis. Availability of data and materials All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.
References 1. Google Scholar 2. Google Scholar 3. Article Google Scholar 4. Article Google Scholar 5. Google Scholar 6. Article Google Scholar 7. Article Google Scholar 8. Google Scholar 9.
Article Google Scholar Google Scholar Chapter Google Scholar Article Google Scholar Download references. Acknowledgements Not applicable. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
View author publications. Ethics declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests Zachary Munn is a member of the editorial board of this journal. Supplementary information. Additional file 1.
Reference list of included articles. Additional file 2. List of excluded articles, with reasons for exclusion. Additional file 3. Complete data extraction table. Additional file 4. Results will be presented descriptively, and the main characteristics of identified methodologies will be summarized into tabular form. Complete results will be presented at the Colloquium.
Conclusions: With this systematic review, we expect to provide useful information about how the quality of evidence for prevalence studies may be assessed in order to inform policy makers for healthcare decision-making better. Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: It is of critical importance for public health and healthcare consumers because of its impact on health system policies and priority-setting definition. Top menu Cochrane. Methodologies for critical appraisal of prevalence studies: a systematic review.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews ; 9 Suppl 1. Tags: Poster. Authors About.
0コメント