IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i2p1644-d1037863.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature

Author

Listed:
  • Giuseppe La Torre

    (Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Remigio Bova

    (Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Rosario Andrea Cocchiara

    (Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Cristina Sestili

    (Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Anna Tagliaferri

    (Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Simona Maggiacomo

    (Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Camilla Foschi

    (Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • William Zomparelli

    (Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Maria Vittoria Manai

    (Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • David Shaholli

    (Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Vanessa India Barletta

    (Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Luca Moretti

    (Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Francesca Vezza

    (Department of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy)

  • Alice Mannocci

    (Faculty of Economics, Universitas Mercatorum, 00185 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in occupational medicine journals from 2014 to 2021. Methods: Papers edited between 2014 and 2021 in the 14 open access journals with the highest impact were assessed for their quality. Studies were included if they were systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and if they were published in English. Results: The study included 335 studies. Among these, 149 were meta-analyses and 186 were systematic reviews. The values of the AMSTAR-2 score range between three and fourteen with a mean value of 9.85 (SD = 2.37). The factors that significantly and directly associate to a higher AMSTAR-2 score were impact factor ( p = 0.003), number of consulted research databases ( p = 0.011), declaration of PRISMA statement ( p = 0.003), year of publication ( p < 0.001) and performing a meta-analysis ( p < 0.001).The R² values from the multivariate analysis showed that the AMSTAR-2 score could be predicted by the inclusion of these parameters by up to 23%. Conclusions: This study suggests a quality assessment methodology that could help readers in a fast identification of good systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Future studies should analyze more journals without applying language restrictions and consider a wider range of years of publication in order to give a more robust evidence for results.

Suggested Citation

  • Giuseppe La Torre & Remigio Bova & Rosario Andrea Cocchiara & Cristina Sestili & Anna Tagliaferri & Simona Maggiacomo & Camilla Foschi & William Zomparelli & Maria Vittoria Manai & David Shaholli & Va, 2023. "What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-12, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:2:p:1644-:d:1037863
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/2/1644/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/2/1644/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nikola Panic & Emanuele Leoncini & Giulio de Belvis & Walter Ricciardi & Stefania Boccia, 2013. "Evaluation of the Endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement on the Quality of Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-7, December.
    2. David Moher & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Andrea C Tricco & Margaret Sampson & Douglas G Altman, 2007. "Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-9, March.
    3. Elaine M Beller & Paul P Glasziou & Douglas G Altman & Sally Hopewell & Hilda Bastian & Iain Chalmers & Peter C Gøtzsche & Toby Lasserson & David Tovey & for the PRISMA for Abstracts Group, 2013. "PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-8, April.
    4. Vivian Welch & Mark Petticrew & Jennifer Petkovic & David Moher & Elizabeth Waters & Howard White & Peter Tugwell & the PRISMA-Equity Bellagio group, 2016. "Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 287-324, June.
    5. Des Jarlais, D.C. & Lyles, C. & Crepaz, N., 2004. "Improving the Reporting Quality of Nonrandomized Evaluations of Behavioral and Public Health Interventions: The TREND Statement," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 94(3), pages 361-366.
    6. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    7. Iman Tahamtan & Askar Safipour Afshar & Khadijeh Ahamdzadeh, 2016. "Factors affecting number of citations: a comprehensive review of the literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1195-1225, June.
    8. Alessandro Liberati & Douglas G Altman & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Cynthia Mulrow & Peter C Gøtzsche & John P A Ioannidis & Mike Clarke & P J Devereaux & Jos Kleijnen & David Moher, 2009. "The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-28, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthew J Page & Joanne E McKenzie & Patrick M Bossuyt & Isabelle Boutron & Tammy C Hoffmann & Cynthia D Mulrow & Larissa Shamseer & Jennifer M Tetzlaff & Elie A Akl & Sue E Brennan & Roger Chou & Jul, 2021. "The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Jeroen P M Peters & Lotty Hooft & Wilko Grolman & Inge Stegeman, 2015. "Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Otorhinolaryngologic Articles Based on the PRISMA Statement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-11, August.
    3. João Carlos Belloti & Aldo Okamura & Jordana Scheeren & Flávio Faloppa & Vinícius Ynoe de Moraes, 2019. "A systematic review of the quality of distal radius systematic reviews: Methodology and reporting assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    4. Daisuke Kato & Yuki Kataoka & Erfen Gustiawan Suwangto & Makoto Kaneko & Hideki Wakabayashi & Daisuke Son & Ichiro Kawachi, 2020. "Reporting Guidelines for Community-Based Participatory Research Did Not Improve the Reporting Quality of Published Studies: A Systematic Review of Studies on Smoking Cessation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-9, May.
    5. Ramya Ramamoorthi & Daniel Gahreman & Timothy Skinner & Simon Moss, 2019. "The effect of yoga practice on glycemic control and other health parameters in the prediabetic state: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-21, October.
    6. Lucy Turner & James Galipeau & Chantelle Garritty & Eric Manheimer & L Susan Wieland & Fatemeh Yazdi & David Moher, 2013. "An Evaluation of Epidemiological and Reporting Characteristics of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Systematic Reviews (SRs)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.
    7. Xiaoqin Wang & Vivian Welch & Meixuan Li & Liang Yao & Julia Littell & Huijuan Li & Nan Yang & Jianjian Wang & Larissa Shamseer & Yaolong Chen & Kehu Yang & Jeremy M. Grimshaw, 2021. "The methodological and reporting characteristics of Campbell reviews: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), March.
    8. Danlu Liu & Jiaxin Jin & Jinhui Tian & Kehu Yang, 2015. "Quality Assessment and Factor Analysis of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Endoscopic Ultrasound Diagnosis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, April.
    9. Sathyanarayanan Doraiswamy & Anupama Jithesh & Sonia Chaabane & Amit Abraham & Karima Chaabna & Sohaila Cheema, 2020. "Perinatal Mental Illness in the Middle East and North Africa Region—A Systematic Overview," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-20, July.
    10. Abeer Elshater & Hisham Abusaada, 2022. "Developing Process for Selecting Research Techniques in Urban Planning and Urban Design with a PRISMA-Compliant Review," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, October.
    11. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    12. Alessandro Concari & Gerjo Kok & Pim Martens, 2020. "A Systematic Literature Review of Concepts and Factors Related to Pro-Environmental Consumer Behaviour in Relation to Waste Management Through an Interdisciplinary Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-50, May.
    13. Nikolaos Pandis & Padhraig S Fleming & Helen Worthington & Kerry Dwan & Georgia Salanti, 2015. "Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    14. Frank Peinemann & Ulrich Grouven & Nicolaus Kröger & Carmen Bartel & Max H Pittler & Stefan Lange, 2011. "First-Line Matched Related Donor Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Compared to Immunosuppressive Therapy in Acquired Severe Aplastic Anemia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-16, April.
    15. Jonathan Kingsley & Aisling Bailey & Nooshin Torabi & Pauline Zardo & Suzanne Mavoa & Tonia Gray & Danielle Tracey & Philip Pettitt & Nicholas Zajac & Emily Foenander, 2019. "A Systematic Review Protocol Investigating Community Gardening Impact Measures," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-12, September.
    16. Natalia Stanulewicz & Emily Knox & Melanie Narayanasamy & Noureen Shivji & Kamlesh Khunti & Holly Blake, 2019. "Effectiveness of Lifestyle Health Promotion Interventions for Nurses: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-36, December.
    17. S. Rajsic & H. Gothe & H. H. Borba & G. Sroczynski & J. Vujicic & T. Toell & Uwe Siebert, 2019. "Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 107-134, February.
    18. Sibonokuhle Ndlovu, 2023. "Preparedness and Response to COVID-19 Disruptions and Learning Challenges for Students with Disabilities in South Africa: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-17, January.
    19. Abbas Mardani & Dalia Streimikiene & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Fausto Cavallaro & Mehrbakhsh Nilashi & Ahmad Jusoh & Habib Zare, 2017. "Application of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to Solve Environmental Sustainability Problems: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-65, October.
    20. Luísa Bandeira Lopes & João Albernaz Neves & João Botelho & Vanessa Machado & José João Mendes, 2021. "Regenerative Endodontic Procedures: An Umbrella Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-17, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:2:p:1644-:d:1037863. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.