RT Journal Article
T1 Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions.
A1 Gomez-Garcia, Francisco
A1 Ruano, Juan
A1 Aguilar-Luque, Macarena
A1 Alcalde-Mellado, Patricia
A1 Gay-Mimbrera, Jesus
A1 Hernandez-Romero, Jose Luis
A1 Sanz-Cabanillas, Juan Luis
A1 Maestre-Lopez, Beatriz
A1 Gonzalez-Padilla, Marcelino
A1 Carmona-Fernandez, Pedro J
A1 Garcia-Nieto, Antonio Velez
A1 Isla-Tejera, Beatriz
K1 AMSTAR
K1 Abstract readability
K1 Decision trees
K1 Methodological quality
K1 PRISMA for abstracts
K1 Psoriasis
K1 Quality of reporting
K1 Systematic review
AB Article summaries' information and structure may influence researchers/clinicians' decisions to conduct deeper full-text analyses. Specifically, abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA) should provide structured summaries for quick assessment. This study explored a method for determining the methodological quality and bias risk of full-text reviews using abstract information alone. Systematic literature searches for SRs and/or MA about psoriasis were undertaken on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database. For each review, quality, abstract-reporting completeness, full-text methodological quality, and bias risk were evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A), Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and ROBIS tools, respectively. Article-, author-, and journal-derived metadata were systematically extracted from eligible studies using a piloted template, and explanatory variables concerning abstract-reporting quality were assessed using univariate and multivariate-regression models. Two classification models concerning SRs' methodological quality and bias risk were developed based on per-item and total PRISMA-A scores and decision-tree algorithms. This work was supported, in part, by project ICI1400136 (JR). No funding was received from any pharmaceutical company. This study analysed 139 SRs on psoriasis interventions. On average, they featured 56.7% of PRISMA-A items. The mean total PRISMA-A score was significantly higher for high-methodological-quality SRs than for moderate- and low-methodological-quality reviews. SRs with low-bias risk showed higher total PRISMA-A values than reviews with high-bias risk. In the final model, only 'authors per review > 6' (OR: 1.098; 95%CI: 1.012-1.194), 'academic source of funding' (OR: 3.630; 95%CI: 1.788-7.542), and 'PRISMA-endorsed journal' (OR: 4.370; 95%CI: 1.785-10.98) predicted PRISMA-A variability. Reviews with a total PRISMA-A score  6' (OR: 1.098; 95%CI: 1.012-1.194), 'academic source of funding' (OR: 3.630; 95%CI: 1.788-7.542), and 'PRISMA-endorsed journal' (OR: 4.370; 95%CI: 1.785-10.98) predicted PRISMA-A variability. Reviews with a total PRISMA-A score  The methodological quality and bias risk of SRs may be determined by abstract's quality and completeness analyses. Our proposal aimed to facilitate synthesis of evidence evaluation by clinical professionals lacking methodological skills. External validation is necessary.
PB BioMed Central
YR 2017
FD 2017-12-13
LK http://hdl.handle.net/10668/11957
UL http://hdl.handle.net/10668/11957
LA en
NO Gómez-García F, Ruano J, Aguilar-Luque M, Alcalde-Mellado P, Gay-Mimbrera J, Hernández-Romero JL, et al. Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Dec 29;17(1):180
DS RISalud
RD Apr 8, 2025