Journal List > J Korean Acad Nurs > v.43(6) > 1002959

TOOLS
Kim and Kim: A Quality Assessment of Meta-Analyses of Nursing in South Korea
Original Article

Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing 2013; 43(6): 736-745.

Published online: 31 December 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2013.43.6.736

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

Jung-Hee Kim, Ae-Kyung Kim

Department of Nursing, College of Medicine, Dankook University, Cheonan, Korea.

Address reprint requests to: Kim, Jung-Hee. Department of Nursing, College of Medicine, Dankook University, San#29 Anseo-dong, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan 330-714, Korea. Tel: +82-10-9017-3240, Fax: +82-41-559-7902, jhee90@dankook.ac.kr

Received 25 June 2013       Accepted 25 October 2013

© 2013 Korean Society of Nursing Science

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

Figures and Tables

Figure 1
Literature searches and results.
jkan-43-736-g001
Table 1
Quality of Studies according to Study Characteristics (N=42)
jkan-43-736-i001

KCI=Korea Citation Index.

Table 2
Methodological Quality of Meta-analysis of Nursing Research in Korea (N=42)
jkan-43-736-i002

AMSTAR=Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews.

Table 3
Correlation between the Publication Year and Quality of Studies (N=42)
jkan-43-736-i003

Notes

This work was supported by a Korea Research Foundation Grant funded by the Korean Government (MOEHRD, Basic Research Promotion Fund) (2012R1A1B5000460).

Appendix

APPENDIX

jkan-43-736-a001

References

1. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, UK: Wiley;2009.
2. Braga LH, Pemberton J, Demaria J, Lorenzo AJ. Methodological concerns and quality appraisal of contemporary systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric urology. J Urol. 2011; 186(1):266–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.044.
3. Brown SJ. Evidence-based nursing: The research-practice connection. 3rd ed. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning;2013.
4. Conn VS, Rantz MJ. Research methods: Managing primary study quality in meta-analyses. Res Nurs Health. 2003; 26(4):322–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nur.10092.
5. Craig JV, Smyth RL. The evidence-based practice manual for nurses. 2nd ed. Edinburgh, UK: Churchill Livingstone;2007.
6. De Vito C, Manzoli L, Marzuillo C, Anastasi D, Boccia A, Villari P. A systematic review evaluating the potential for bias and the methodological quality of meta-analyses in vaccinology. Vaccine. 2007; 25(52):8794–8806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.10.034.
7. Dijkman BG, Abouali JA, Kooistra BW, Conter HJ, Poolman RW, Kulkarni AV, et al. Twenty years of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: Has quality kept up with quantity? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92(1):48–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.i.00251.
8. Egger M, Smith GD. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ. 1998; 316(7124):61–66.
9. Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG. Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London, UK: BMJ Books;2001.
10. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. 2011. 03. Retrieved December 1, 2011. from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
11. Kim SY, Park JE, Seo HJ, Lee YJ, Jang BH, Son HJ, et al. NECA's guidance for undertaking systematic reviews and meta-analyses for intervention. Seoul: National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency;2011.
12. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 135(11):982–989.
13. Leandro G. Meta-analysis in medical research: The handbook for the understanding and practice of meta-analysis. Malden, MA: BMJ Books;2005.
14. Lee J. Meta-analysis. J Korean Endocr Soc. 2008; 23(6):361–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.3803/jkes.2008.23.6.361.
15. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(10):e1–e34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006.
16. Lim SM, Shin ES, Lee SH, Seo KH, Jung YM, Jang JE. Tools for assessing quality and risk of bias by levels of evidence. J Korean Med Assoc. 2011; 54(4):419–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2011.54.4.419.
17. MacDonald SL, Canfield SE, Fesperman SF, Dahm P. Assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2008. J Urol. 2010; 184(2):648–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.127.
18. Melchiors AC, Correr CJ, Venson R, Pontarolo R. An analysis of quality of systematic reviews on pharmacist health interventions. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012; 34(1):32–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-011-9592-0.
19. 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(9193):1896–1900.
20. Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA, Athanasiou AE. Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011; 14(3):116–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2011.01522.x.
21. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7:10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10.
22. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(10):1013–1020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009.
23. Shin C, Han C, Pae CU, Patkar AA. Tools for quality evaluation of clinical research reports. Korean J Psychopharmacol. 2011; 22(2):67–72.
24. Simes RJ. Confronting publication bias: A cohort design for meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1987; 6(1):11–29.
25. Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ. Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2000; 4(10):1–115.
26. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000; 283(15):2008–2012.
27. Suebnukarn S, Ngamboonsirisingh S, Rattanabanlang A. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in endodontics. J Endod. 2010; 36(4):602–608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.019.
28. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. New York, NY: Wiley;2000.
TOOLS
Similar articles