Quality Assessment of Systematic Review of the Bariatric Surgery for Diabetes Mellitus
Joint Authors
Mu, Yi-Ming
Chen, Yaolong
Wang, Jie
Chen, Kang
Wang, Haibing
An, Ping
Jin, Xinye
Wang, Jinjing
Li, Xueqiong
Mao, Wenfeng
Zhou, Qi
Source
Issue
Vol. 2019, Issue 2019 (31 Dec. 2019), pp.1-8, 8 p.
Publisher
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Publication Date
2019-11-21
Country of Publication
Egypt
No. of Pages
8
Main Subjects
Abstract EN
Objective.
Using the AMSTAR tool, this study evaluated the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) that assessed the efficacy of bariatric surgery in diabetic patients.
We aimed to identify studies that can be used as clinical references.
Methods.
Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, and Wanfang Data were systematically searched from inception to December 31, 2017.
Two reviewers independently selected SRs and extracted data.
Disagreements were solved by discussions or through consultation with a third reviewer.
Reviewers extracted data (characteristics of included SRs, e.g., publication year, language, and number of authors) into the predefined tables in the Microsoft Excel 2013 sheet.
Data were visualized using the forest plot in RevMan 5.3 software.
Results.
A total of 64 SRs were included.
The average AMSTAR score was 7.4±1.7.
AMSTAR scores of 7 (n=21, 32.8%) and 8 (n=14, 28.1%) were most common.
The AMSTAR scores of SRs published before 2016 (n=46, 71.9%) were compared with SRs published after 2016 (n=18, 28.1%), and no significant differences were observed (MD=−0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.65-0.07, P=0.07).
For SRs published in Chinese (n=17, 26.6%) compared to those published in English (n=47, 73.4%), the AMSTAR scores significantly differed (MD=0.21, 95% CI (-0.55, 0.97), P=0.59).
For SRs published in China (n=33, 51.6%) compared to those published outside of China (n=31, 48.4%), significant differences in the AMSTAR scores were observed (MD=1.10, 95% CI (0.29, 1.91), P=0.008).
For SRs with an author number≤6 (n=31, 48.4%) compared to SRs with authors≥6 (n=33, 51.6%), no significant differences were observed (MD=−0.36, 95% CI (-1.22, 0.50), P=0.41).
For high-quality SRs published after 2016 (n=11, 17.2%) compared to other SRs (n=53, 82.8%), statistically significant differences were noted (MD=1.75, 95% CI (1.01, 2.49), P<0.00001).
Conclusions.
The number of SRs assessing the efficacy of bariatric surgery in diabetic patients is increasing by year, but only a small number meet the criteria to support guideline recommendations.
Study protocols not being registered, grey literature not retrieved, incorporation of grey literature as exclusion criteria, and failure to evaluate publication bias and report a conflict of interest were the main causes of low AMSTAR scores.
American Psychological Association (APA)
Jin, Xinye& Wang, Jinjing& Li, Xueqiong& An, Ping& Wang, Haibing& Mao, Wenfeng…[et al.]. 2019. Quality Assessment of Systematic Review of the Bariatric Surgery for Diabetes Mellitus. Journal of Diabetes Research،Vol. 2019, no. 2019, pp.1-8.
https://search.emarefa.net/detail/BIM-1173431
Modern Language Association (MLA)
Jin, Xinye…[et al.]. Quality Assessment of Systematic Review of the Bariatric Surgery for Diabetes Mellitus. Journal of Diabetes Research No. 2019 (2019), pp.1-8.
https://search.emarefa.net/detail/BIM-1173431
American Medical Association (AMA)
Jin, Xinye& Wang, Jinjing& Li, Xueqiong& An, Ping& Wang, Haibing& Mao, Wenfeng…[et al.]. Quality Assessment of Systematic Review of the Bariatric Surgery for Diabetes Mellitus. Journal of Diabetes Research. 2019. Vol. 2019, no. 2019, pp.1-8.
https://search.emarefa.net/detail/BIM-1173431
Data Type
Journal Articles
Language
English
Notes
Includes bibliographical references
Record ID
BIM-1173431