Publicado
Development of the Metareview Assessment of Reporting Quality (MARQ) Checklist
Desarrollo de la Lista de verificación de la Evaluación de los informes de calidad de las Metarevisiones (MARQ)
Palabras clave:
metareview, systematic review, meta-analysis, review (en)Revisiones sistematicas, Metaanálisis, Revisión (es)
Background. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis often come to conflicting conclusions on key issues and have a number of potentially important methodological limitations. A metareview represents one approach to a descriptive investigation of such issues in review literatures; this involves a systematic review of previously published reviews. Metareviews report on the areas that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have covered, investigating the methodological quality of such reviews, comparing methods for reporting results with recommended standards in the field of systematic reviewing and highlighting areas which could benefit from further research.
Objective.The present report was aimed at critically examining the reporting quality of available medical metareviews and encouraging the use of such innovative approach to develop an instrument for assessing metareviews' methodological quality.
Methods. PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched for previous medical metareviews as of February 11th, 2012. References regarding identified reports and annotated bibliographies were used to supplement the search.
Results. Four metareviews meeting the inclusion criteria were identified and descriptively analysed. The first set of standardised metareview reporting guidelines' checklist (metareview assessment of reporting quality - MARQ), using quality checklists developed for primary studies and reviews as models, was introduced to enable transparent and consistent reporting of metareview methodology. An average of 15 (SD = 3) MARQ criteria were met when applied to the four metareviews identified during the systematic search. This indicated a moderate level of reporting quality which should be improved in subsequent applications of the methodology by using the standardised checklist. A high level of inter-rater agreement was found (κ = 0.93).
Conclusion. The standardised set of guidelines outlined in this report should assist future researchers in conducting more transparent and methodologically rigorous metareviews.
Antecedentes. Las revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis a menudo llegan a conclusiones contradictorias sobre cuestiones fundamentales y tienen una serie de limitaciones metodológicas potencialmente importantes. Una metarevisión representa una aproximación a una investigación descriptiva de estos temas en la literatura de revisión, lo que implica una revisión sistemática de las revisiones publicadas anteriormente. Las metarevisiones informan sobre las áreas que las revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis han cubierto, investigando la calidad metodológica de dichos estudios, y comparando los métodos para informar resultados con las normas recomendadas en el campo de las revisiones sistemáticas y poner de relieve áreas que se podrían beneficiar de futuras investigaciones.
Objetivo. Examinar críticamente la calidad de la información disponible de las metarevisiones médicas y fomentar el uso de tal enfoque innovador para desarrollar un instrumento que evalúe la calidad metodológica de las metarevisiones.
Métodos. En las bases de datos PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, y CINAHL se buscaron metarevisiones médicas hasta el 11 de febrero de 2012. Para complementar la búsqueda fueron usadas referencias relativas a los informes identificados y las bibliografías anotadas.
Resultados. Cuatro metarevisiones cumplieron los criterios de inclusión las cuales fueron identificadas y analizadas de forma descriptiva. El primer conjunto de directrices de la lista de verificación estandarizados metareview (Lista de verificación de la Evaluación de los informes de calidad de las Metarevisiones (MARQ)), uso listas de control de calidad desarrollados por los estudios primarios y revisiones como modelos, se introdujo para permitir un registro transparente y coherente de la metodología de las metarevisiones. Un promedio de 15 (SD=3) MARQ criterios se cumplieron cuando se aplicaron a las cuatro metarevisiones identificadas durante la búsqueda sistemática. Esto indica un nivel moderado de calidad de los informes que deben ser mejorados en las aplicaciones posteriores de la metodología utilizando la lista de verificación estandarizada. Se encontró un alto nivel de acuerdo interevaluadores (κ=0,93).
Conclusión. El conjunto estandarizado de directrices que se describen en este informe debería ayudar a los futuros investigadores la realización de metarevisiones más transparentes y rigurosas metodológicamente.
Referencias
Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2006.
Hattie J: Visible Learning. A Synthesis of over 800 Metaanalyses Relating to Achievement. Oxford: Routledge; 2009.
Gendreau P, Goggin C, Smith P. Cumulating Knowledge: How Meta-analysis Can Serve the Needs of Correctional Clinicians and Policymakers. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada; 2000.
Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997, 126:376-380.
West SL, Gartlehner G, Mansfield AJ, Poole C, Tant E, Lenfestey N, Lux LJ, Amoozegar J, Morton SC, Carey TC, Viswanathan M, Lohr KN. Comparative Effectiveness Review Methods: Clinical Heterogeneity. Research Triangle Park: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010.
Deeks J, Higgins J, Altman D. Analysing and presenting results. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6. Edited by Higgins J, Green S.Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2006.
Sharpe D. Of apples and oranges, file drawers and garbage: why validity issues in meta-analysis will not go away. ClinPsychol Rev. 1997, 17:881-901.
Rosenthal R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull 1979, 86:638-641.
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glaziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, De Wet HCW, the STARD Group. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ. 2003, 326:41-44.
Whitting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J: The development of QUADAS. a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodology. 2003, 10:doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25.
Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, Poole C, Schlesselman JJ, Egger M. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007, 10:e297.
Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N, the TREND Group. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND Statement. AJPH. 2004, 94:361-366.
Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT Statement. JAMA. 1996, 276:637-639.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6:e1000097.
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet. 1999, 354:1896-1900.
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB, the MOOSE Group. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000, 283:2008-2012.
Singh JP, Fazel S. Forensic risk assessment: a metareview.Crim Justice Behav. 2010, 37:965-988.
Delgado-Rodriguez M. Systematic reviews of meta-analyses: applications and limitations. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006, 60:90-92.
Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman D. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003, 327:557-560.
Cipriani A, Geddes JR, Furukawa TA, Barbui C. Metareview on short-term effectiveness and safety of antidepressants for depression: an evidence-based approach to inform clinical practice. Can J Psychiatry. 2007, 52:543-534.
Ruddy R, House A. Meta-review of high-quality systematic reviews of interventions in key areas of liaison psychiatry. Br J Psychiatry. 2005, 187:109-120.
Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Triccol AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007, 4:447-455.
Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Guidelines for reading literature reviews. CMAJ. 1988, 138:697-703.
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodology. 2007,7:doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-10.
Becker LA, Oxman AD. Overviews of reviews.In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.0.1. Edited by Higgins J, Green S.Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
STARD Group: STARD news. [http://www.stard-statement.org/].
PRISMA Group. PRISMA endorsers. [http://www.prismastatement.org/endorsers.htm].
Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977, 33:159-174.
Visitas a la página del resumen del artículo
Descargas
Cómo citar
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2012 Revista de la Facultad de Medicina
Esta obra está bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento 3.0 Unported.
-
