Cancer Treatment Reviews
Volume 35, Issue 8 , Pages 645-652 , December 2009

Quality of systematic reviews in pediatric oncology – A systematic review

  • Andreas Lundh

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pediatric Oncology, Emma Children’s Hospital/Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • The Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group, Emma Children’s Hospital/Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Address: Department of Pediatric Oncology, Emma Children’s Hospital/Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 20 5667132; fax: +31 20 6917735.
    • ,
  • Sebastiaan L. Knijnenburg

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pediatric Oncology, Emma Children’s Hospital/Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • The Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group, Emma Children’s Hospital/Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • Tel.: +31 20 5667132; fax: +31 20 6917735.
    • ,
  • Anders W. Jørgensen

      Affiliations

    • The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet Department 3343, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
    • Tel.: +45 35 45 7112; fax: +45 35 45 7007.
    • ,
  • Elvira C. van Dalen

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pediatric Oncology, Emma Children’s Hospital/Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • The Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group, Emma Children’s Hospital/Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • Tel.: +31 20 5667132; fax: +31 20 6917735.
    • ,
  • Leontien C.M. Kremer

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pediatric Oncology, Emma Children’s Hospital/Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • The Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group, Emma Children’s Hospital/Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    • Tel.: +31 20 5667132; fax: +31 20 6917735.

Received 16 January 2009 ,Revised 21 August 2009 ,Accepted 21 August 2009.

References 

  1. Magnani C, Pastore G, Coebergh JW, Viscomi S, Spix C, Steliarova-Foucher E. Trends in survival after childhood cancer in Europe, 1978–1997: report from the Automated Childhood Cancer Information System project (ACCIS). Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:1981–2005
  2. (a)Levi F, La Vecchia C, Negri E, Lucchini F. Childhood cancer mortality in Europe, 1955–1995. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:785–809(b)Erratum in: Levi F, La Vecchia C, Negri E, Lucchini F. Childhood cancer mortality in Europe, 1955–1995. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:2289(c)Levi F, La Vecchia C, Negri E, Lucchini F. Childhood cancer mortality in Europe, 1955–1995. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:1727
  3. Gatta G, Capocaccia R, Coleman MP, Ries LA, Berrino F. Childhood cancer survival in Europe and the United States. Cancer. 2002;95:1767–1772
  4. Caldwell PH, Murphy SB, Butow PN, Craig JC. Clinical trials in children. Lancet. 2004;364:803–811
  5. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:485–488
  6. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992;268:240–248
  7. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam Consultation on meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:167–171
  8. Green S, Higgins JPT, Alderson P, Clarke M, Mulrow CD, Oxman AD. Chapter 1: Introduction. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Version 5.0.0 (updated February 2008). The Cochrane Collaboration; 2008. <www.cochrane-handbook.org> [accessed 13.05.09].
  9. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309:597–599
  10. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e78
  11. Jadad AR, McQuay HJ. Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: a systematic qualitative review of their methodology. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:235–243
  12. Choi PT, Halpern SH, Malik N, Jadad AR, Tramèr MR, Walder B. Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:700–709
  13. Moher D, Soeken K, Sampson M, Ben-Porat L, Berman B. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Pediatr. 2002;2:3
  14. Shojania KG, Bero LA. Taking advantage of the explosion of systematic reviews: an efficient MEDLINE search strategy. Eff Clin Pract. 2001;4:157–162
  15. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Singer J, et al. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:91–98
  16. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:1271–1278
  17. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174
  18. McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlations. Psychol Methods. 1996;1:30–46
  19. Riley RD, Burchill SA, Abrams KR, et al. A systematic review and evaluation of the use of tumour markers in paediatric oncology: Ewing’s sarcoma and neuroblastoma. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1–162
  20. Johnson PW, Simnett SJ, Sweetenham JW, Morgan GJ, Stewart LA. Bone marrow and peripheral blood stem cell transplantation for malignancy. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:1–187
  21. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. GRADE Working Group Grading quality of evidence, strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490
  22. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309:1286–1291
  23. Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Homik J, Dorgan M, Ramos-Remus C. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21:476–487
  24. Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ. 2005;331:1064–1065
  25. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;2. Art No.: MR000005. Doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub3.
  26. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias, outcome reporting bias. PLoS One. 2008;3:e3081
  27. van Dalen EC, Kremer LCM. Tips and tricks for understanding and using SR results-no. 4: inclusion of studies into a Cochrane review. Evidence-Based Child Health. 2006;1:1349–1351
  28. Jüni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:115–123
  29. Egger M, Zellweger Z, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 1997;350:326–329
  30. Moher D, Pham B, Lawson ML, Klassen TP. The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1–90
  31. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. The science of reviewing research. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1993;703:125–133
  32. Edwards P, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Roberts I, Wentz R. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat Med. 2002;21:1635–1640
  33. Egger M, Smith GD, Sterne JA. Uses and abuses of meta-analysis. Clin Med. 2001;1:478–484
  34. Moja LP, Telaro E, D’Amico R, Moschetti I, Coe L, Liberati A. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ. 2005;330:1053
  35. Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Bradburn MJ. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. In:  Egger M,  Davey Smith G,  Altman DG editor. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed.. London, UK: BMJ Publication Group; 2001;p. 285–312
  36. Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:697–703
  37. Kremer LCM, van Dalen EC. Tips and tricks for understanding and using SR results-no. 11: P-values and confidence intervals. Evidence-Based Child Health. 2008;3:904–906
  38. The Cochrane Library. Product descriptions. <http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/mrwhome/106568753/ProductDescriptions.html> [accessed 14.01.09].
  39. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, Laupland K, Manns B, Doig C. The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:589–594
  40. Collier A, Heilig L, Schilling L, Williams H, Dellavalle RP. Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous than other systematic reviews in dermatology. Br J Dermatol. 2006;155:1230–1235
  41. Jørgensen AW, Hilden J, Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;333:782
  42. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA. 1998;280:278–280
  43. (a)Jadad AR, Moher M, Browman GP, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. BMJ. 2000;320:537–540(b)Erratum in: Jadad AR, Moher M, Browman GP, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. BMJ. 2000;320:984
  44. Boluyt N, van der Lee JH, Moyer VA, Brand PL, Offringa M. State of the evidence on acute asthma management in children: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Pediatrics. 2007;120:1334–1343
  45. Shea B, Dubé C, Moher D. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews: the QUOROM statement compared to other tools. In:  Egger M,  Smith GD,  Altman DG editor. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Books; 2001;p. 122–139
  46. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1013–1020
  47. Greenland S. Quality scores are useless and potentially misleading. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140:300–301
  48. Yank V, Rennie D, Bero LA. Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2007;335:1202–1205
  49. Deeks JJ. Word limits best explain failings of industry supported meta-analyses. BMJ. 2006;333:1021
  50. 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. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896–1900

PII: S0305-7372(09)00125-X

doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2009.08.010

Cancer Treatment Reviews
Volume 35, Issue 8 , Pages 645-652 , December 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution