Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2013.43.6.736

A Quality Assessment of Meta-Analyses of Nursing in South Korea  

Kim, Jung-Hee (Department of Nursing, College of Medicine, Dankook University)
Kim, Ae-Kyung (Department of Nursing, College of Medicine, Dankook University)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing / v.43, no.6, 2013 , pp. 736-745 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of the study was to assess the quality of meta-analyses on nursing published in South Korea. Methods: Relevant meta-analyses were identified through searches of the National Assembly Library, KISS (Korean Studies Information Service System), and the DBpia and RISS4U databases from 1990 to May 2013. Quality assessments were conducted using AMSTAR, a validated tool for assessing the quality of systematic reviews. Results: Forty-two meta-analyses were included in this study. Twenty-nine published between 1990 and 2010, and 13, between 2011 and May 2013. Two high quality studies and 11 moderate quality studies were published in the latter period. The mean score for the reviews was 5.61 (range 3-10); 11 studies were rated as low quality, 29 as moderate quality, and two as high quality. Conclusion: Although an improvement in the quality of meta-analyses conducted by nursing researchers in South Korea was observed across the study period, the study results indicate a need to use of more rigorous research methods when conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses.
Keywords
Meta-analysis; Nursing;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, UK: Wiley.
2 Braga, L. H., Pemberton, J., Demaria, J., & Lorenzo, A. J. (2011). Methodological concerns and quality appraisal of contemporary systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric urology. The Journal of Urology, 186(1), 266-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.044   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Song, F., Eastwood, A. J., Gilbody, S., Duley, L., & Sutton, A. J. (2000). Publication and related biases. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England), 4(10), 1-115.
4 Stroup, D. F., Berlin, J. A., Morton, S. C., Olkin, I., Williamson, G. D., Rennie, D., et al. (2000). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 283(15), 2008-2012.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Suebnukarn, S., Ngamboonsirisingh, S., & Rattanabanlang, A. (2010). A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in endodontics. Journal of Endodontics, 36(4), 602-608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.019   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Sutton, A. J., Abrams, K. R., Jones, D. R., Sheldon, T. A., & Song, F. (2000). Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. New York, NY: Wiley.
7 Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), e1-e34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Lim, S. M., Shin, E. S., Lee, S. H., Seo, K. H., Jung, Y. M., & Jang, J. E. (2011). Tools for assessing quality and risk of bias by levels of evidence. Journal of the Korean Medical Association, 54(4), 419-429. http://dx.doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2011.54.4.419   DOI   ScienceOn
9 MacDonald, S. L., Canfield, S. E., Fesperman, S. F., & Dahm, P. (2010). Assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2008. The Journal of Urology, 184(2), 648-653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.127   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Melchiors, A. C., Correr, C. J., Venson, R., & Pontarolo, R. (2012). An analysis of quality of systematic reviews on pharmacist health interventions. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 34(1), 32-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-011-9592-0   DOI
11 Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999). Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet, 354(9193), 1896-1900.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Papageorgiou, S. N., Papadopoulos, M. A., & Athanasiou, A. E. (2011). Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research, 14(3), 116-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2011.01522.x   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Shea, B. J., Grimshaw, J. M., Wells, G. A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., et al. (2007). Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7, 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10   DOI
14 Shea, B. J., Hamel, C., Wells, G. A., Bouter, L. M., Kristjansson, E., Grimshaw, J., et al. (2009). AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62(10), 1013-1020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Shin, C., Han, C., Pae, C. U., & Patkar, A. A. (2011). Tools for quality evaluation of clinical research reports. Korean Journal of Psychopharmacology, 22(2), 67-72.
16 Brown, S. J. (2013). Evidence-based nursing: The research-practice connection (3rd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
17 Conn, V. S., & Rantz, M. J. (2003). Research methods: Managing primary study quality in meta-analyses. Research in Nursing & Health, 26(4), 322-333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nur.10092   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Craig, J. V., & Smyth, R. L. (2007). The evidence-based practice manual for nurses (2nd ed.). Edinburgh, UK: Churchill Livingstone.
19 De Vito, C., Manzoli, L., Marzuillo, C., Anastasi, D., Boccia, A., & Villari, P. (2007). A systematic review evaluating the potential for bias and the methodological quality of meta-analyses in vaccinology. Vaccine, 25(52), 8794-8806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.10.034   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Dijkman, B. G., Abouali, J. A., Kooistra, B. W., Conter, H. J., Poolman, R. W., Kulkarni, A. V., et al. (2010). Twenty years of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: Has quality kept up with quantity? The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 92(1), 48-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.i.00251   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (1998). Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 316(7124), 61-66.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Altman, D. G. (2001). Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context (2nd ed.). London, UK: BMJ Books.
23 Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2011, March). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. Retrieved December 1, 2011, from www.cochrane-handbook.org
24 Kim, S. Y., Park, J. E., Seo, H. J., Lee, Y. J., Jang, B. H., Son, H. J., et al. (2011). NECA's guidance for undertaking systematic reviews and meta-analyses for intervention. Seoul: National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency.
25 Kjaergard, L. L., Villumsen, J., & Gluud, C. (2001). Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Annals of Internal Medicine, 135(11), 982-989.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Leandro, G. (2005). Meta-analysis in medical research: The handbook for the understanding and practice of meta-analysis. Malden, MA: BMJ Books.
27 Lee, J. (2008). Meta-analysis. Journal of Korean Endocrine Society, 23(6), 361-378. http://dx.doi.org/10.3803/jkes.2008.23.6.361   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Simes, R. J. (1987). Confronting publication bias: A cohort design for metaanalysis. Statistics in Medicine, 6(1), 11-29.   DOI   ScienceOn