• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.13 no.10
• /
• pp.549-559
• /
• 2015

This study aimed to find the problems of evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine and seek the future development direction by evaluating the quality of oriental medicine related systematic review(SR) studies using AMSTAR tool. The 26 SR studies related to oriental medicine were searched from the database of DBPIA, OASIS, and KISS, and they were evaluated on the basis of AMSTAR. The average of AMSTAR for the quality assessment of SR studies was 6.0 point, and the 26 studies included 2 high quality studies (7.7 %), 21 normal quality studies (80.8 %), and 3 low quality studies (11.5 %). The quality of studies was not correlated with the publication years. The quality of oriental medicine related SR studies need to be improved steadily. Furthermore, continued efforts to promote the evidence-based practice in the field of Oriental Medicine will help to establish foundation for the convergence approach in the healthcare sector.

• The Journal of Churna Manual Medicine for Spine and Nerves
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.9-21
• /
• 2023

Objectives This study amied to assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews(SRs) in the Journal of Chuna Manual Medicine for Spine & Nerves (JCMM). Methods SRs in JCMM from January 2000 to June 2023 were selected using the Research Information Sharing Service(RISS) and JCMM homepage. Two independent researchers reviewed SRs and evaluated their reporting quality using AMSTAR 2. Results A total of 51 SRs were included for assessment. The evaluation revealed 21 studies as having critically low quality, and 30 as having low quality the reporting of items in the studies ranged from a maximum of 81.2% to a minimum of 56.3%. On average, SRs reported 11.1 out of the total 16 items for AMSTAR 2 reporting quality. Conclusions To improve the quality of SRs published in JCMM, it is recommended to conduct SRs based on AMSTAR 2 and adhere to PRISMA 2020 guidelines.

• The Journal of Pediatrics of Korean Medicine
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.26-36
• /
• 2020

Objectives The purpose of this study is to assess the reporting quality and methodological quality of systematic reviews from the Journal of Pediatrics of Korean Medicine. Methods Systematic reviews were selected from the Journal of Pediatrics of Korean Medicine (JPKM) by utilizing Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System (OASIS) and JPKM homepage. Two independent researchers assessed the reporting quality through Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline checklist, and assessed the methodological quality of systematic review through Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool checklist. Results Four systematic reviews were finally selected for the assessment. When assessed by PRISMA, three literatures were little insufficient, and one literature was sufficient. When assessed by AMSTAR 2, three literatures were moderate quality, and one literature was critically low quality. Also, all of the reviews had no information about 'Protocol and registration', 'publication bias', and 'conflicts of interest'. Conclusions Systematic review is important for Journal of Pediatrics of Korean Medicine and Korean Medicine Society. Efforts are needed to improve the reporting and methodological quality of the systematic reviews through PRISMA and AMSTAR 2.

• Journal of the Korea Convergence Society
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.161-165
• /
• 2020

Although research using meta-analysis is increasing in the field of rehabilitation science, not all meta-analytical papers are of the same quality. In particular, although meta-analysis is a research method with the highest level of evidence, it may be possible to derive distorted conclusions or alternatives by simply integrating representative values without considering heterogeneity among individual studies. This study analyzed the current status of meta-analysis papers on the subject of language arbitration published in Korea from January 2010 to June 2019, and used A Measurement Tool to Assess the Methodological Quality of Systematic Review (AMSTAR). As a result of evaluating the methodological quality of the final five papers, the average of 7.4 points out of 11 points was found above average. In order to raise the qualitative level of Meta-analysis in speech-language pathology in the future, it is necessary to include verification of publication bias and specification of conflicts of interest.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.22 no.8
• /
• pp.660-670
• /
• 2022

This study was analyzed by applying AMSTAR-2, a methodological quality evaluation tool, to evaluate the quality of domestic meta-analysis papers on rehabilitation interventions for stroke patients. The purpose of this study is to provide guidelines for qualitative improvement of evidence-based practice and meta-analysis research by analyzing the qualitative level of the analyzed research. The literature search was conducted using the Research Information Sharing Service, Korean Medical database, and Korean studies Information Service System. Two authors searched, extracted, and reviewed literature using the keywords 'stroke' and 'meta-analysis'. As a result of the AMSTAR-2 quality evaluation of the final 18 studies, 3 studies (16.67%) were 'Moderate', 8 studies (44.44%) were 'Low', and 7 studies (38.89%) were 'Critically Low'. In future research, scientific and objective data selection and extraction process should be performed. It is expected that interest and efforts to improve the quality of meta-analysis research will continue by referring to the contents analyzed in this study as a way to improve the quality of literature.

• The Journal of Korean Obstetrics and Gynecology
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.108-123
• /
• 2021

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the systematic reviews in the Journal of Korean obstetrics and gynecology. Methods: Systematic reviews in the Journal of Korean obstetrics and gynecology were selected from January 1987 to February 2021, by searching Koreanstudies Information Service System (KISS) and the search system of the Society of Korean medicine obstetrics and gynecology. The methodological and reporting quality was assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tool and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Results: Total of 19 systematic reviews were finally included for this study. The levels of methodological quality were low in 63.2% and very low in 36.8%. As a result of evaluating the reporting quality, 22 to 15 (average 18.6) items out of 27 items (81.5 to 55.6%) were reported. Conclusions: The results of a systematic review are helpful in giving a high level of evidence. In order to improve the quality of systematic reviews published in the Journal of Korean Obstetrics and Gynecology, it is necessary to perform and report according to the the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR 2.

• Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society
• /
• v.17 no.10
• /
• pp.158-167
• /
• 2016

This study was conducted to evaluate the quality of meta-analysis of social work in South Korea using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review (AMSTAR). Electronic databases including the Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS), DBpia, and RISS4U were searched for 'meta-analysis', 'social work', and 'social welfare' from 2000 to December 2015, and 42 meta-analysis studies were included. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and ANOVA. The mean score for AMSTAR evaluation was $4.766{\pm}1.66$, while 19 studies (45.2%) were classified at the low-quality level, and 22 (52.4%) were at the moderate-quality level. The scores of quality assessment were analyzed by publication year, participants, number of studies included, number of DB, reporting study quality, extraction diagram and topics. The findings indicated that the following changes should be implemented to improve the quality and reliability of meta-analysis results in social work research: 1) common reporting guidelines should be provided for the social work field, 2) quality analyses of each study should be conducted to achieve a high level of evidence of effectiveness of social work interventions, 3) the characteristics of the included studies should be provided, and 4) a consensus and procedure based on at least two independent data extractors should be reported.

• Journal of Society of Preventive Korean Medicine
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.67-76
• /
• 2019

Objectives : The publication of systematic reviews (SRs) has increased significantly over the years, and systematic reviews are considered to have the strongest evidence as they are at the top of the hierarchy of evidence pyramid. In this study, a thorough assessment of all SRs published in Journal of Society of Preventive Korean Medicine (JSPKM) was performed to evaluate their reporting quality and methodological quality to better improve the quality of SRs in JSPKM. Methods : JSPKM website was searched to include all SRs published in JSPKM from 1997 to 2018. Two independent researchers assessed the SRs using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR, formerly known as Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) tool checklist for methodological quality assessment, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline checklist for reporting quality assessment. Results : Out of 618 published articles published in JSPKM from 1997 to 2018, only 3 SRs were identified as SRs. For AMSTAR methodological quality scoring, the average score of 3 SRs was 3.0 out of 11 which is low quality level. For PRISMA reporting quality items, the 3 SRs reported 17.3 items on average out of 27 items. The 3 identified SRs did not provide information on protocol or registration which is included in both AMSTAR assessment tool and PRISMA guideline. Conclusions : Improvements on reporting quality and methodological quality of SRs using relevant tools or guidelines are needed to assure the quality of SRs published in JSPKM so that their conclusions will be more transparent and reliable for decision-making in healthcare and the best clinical practice.

• Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing
• /
• v.44 no.5
• /
• pp.459-470
• /
• 2014

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of meta-analysis regarding exercise using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) as well as to compare effect size according to outcomes. Methods: Electronic databases including the Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS), the National Assembly Library and the DBpia, HAKJISAand RISS4U for the dates 1990 to January 2014 were searched for 'meta-analysis' and 'exercise' in the fields of medical, nursing, physical therapy and physical exercise in Korea. AMSTAR was scored for quality assessment of the 33 articles included in the study. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA and ${\chi}^2$-test. Results: The mean score for AMSTAR evaluations was 4.18 (SD=1.78) and about 67% were classified at the low-quality level and 30% at the moderate-quality level. The scores of quality were statistically different by field of research, number of participants, number of databases, financial support and approval by IRB. The effect size that presented in individual studies were different by type of exercise in the applied intervention. Conclusion: This critical appraisal of meta-analysis published in various field that focused on exercise indicates that a guideline such as the PRISMA checklist should be strongly recommended for optimum reporting of meta-analysis across research fields.

• The Journal of Korean Medicine
• /
• v.43 no.2
• /
• pp.75-91
• /
• 2022

Objectives: The purpose of this overview was to summarize the evidence regarding the effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) for sleep disorders through systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs). Methods: An overview of systematic review was conducted according to the study protocol (reviewregistry1320). A comprehensive literature search was performed using three databases (Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science) and three Korean databases (KoreaMed, KMbase, and ScienceON). Final studies were selected by three authors according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data needed for analysis were extracted by a pre-planned extraction framework. Methodological quality of systematic review was assessed using the 'Assessment of multiple systematic reviews 2 (AMSTAR2)'. Results: Fourteen SRs and MAs were included, of which eleven SRs were performed MAs. Twelve studies studied insomnia among sleep disorders, and the rest are nightmares and sleep disturbances with PTSD. Ten studies reported the effect of CBT on sleep disorders measured by insomnia severity index (ISI) and sleep onset latency (SOL), and all reported a significant improvement effect. Eight studies reported the effect of CBT on sleep disorders measured by wake time after sleep onset (WASO), and seven studies reported a significant improvement effect. The methodological quality of the studies evaluated with AMSTAR 2 was mainly low or very low because of omission of protocol registration and excluded study list. Conclusions: Practical guidelines and studies show that CBT is effective for sleep disorders, but access to CBT needs to be improved.