-
Prevalence and methodological quality of systematic reviews in Korean medical journals
-
Seong Jung Kim, Mi Ah Han, Jae Hung Jung, Eu Chang Hwang, Hae Ran Kim, Sang Eun Yoon, Seo-Hee Kim, Pius Kim, So-Yeong Kim
-
Epidemiol Health. 2023;45:e2023017. Published online February 6, 2023
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4178/epih.e2023017
-
-
6,575
View
-
122
Download
-
2
Web of Science
-
2
Crossref
-
 Abstract
Summary
 PDF Supplementary Material
-
Abstract
This study aimed to assess and evaluate the prevalence and methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published in major Korean medical journals (KMJs). The top 15 journals with the highest Korean Medical Citation Index, published between 2018 to 2021, were selected. We assessed the methodological quality of SRs using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). In total, 126 SRs were included, with an average of 32 SRs being reported annually. The overall prevalence of SRs in KMJs was 2.8%, with an increase from 2.6% in 2018 to 3.4% in 2021. Overall, the methodological quality of SRs was low (9.5% low, 90.5% critically low). More than 80% of the studies adhered to critical domain items such as a comprehensive literature search and risk of bias assessment, but for items such as protocol registration and listing excluded studies and the justification for exclusion, the adherence rate was less than 15%. While the number of SRs in KMJs steadily increased, the overall confidence in the methodological quality was low to critically low. Therefore, in order to provide the best evidence for decision-making in clinical and public health areas, editors, reviewers, and authors need to pay more attention to improving the quality of SRs.
-
Summary
Korean summary
한국의학저널에서 체계적 문헌고찰의 수는 꾸준히 증가했지만 방법론적 품질은 전반적으로 낮았다. 임상 및 공중 보건 분야에서 의사 결정을 위한 최상의 근거를 제공하기 위해 편집자, 심사자 및 저자는 체계적 문헌고찰의 품질을 개선하는 데 더 많은 관심을 기울여야 할 것이다.
Key Message
While the number of systematic reviews in Korean medical journals steadily increased, the overall confidence of methodological quality was low to critically low. Therefore, in order to provide the best evidence for decision-making in clinical and public health areas, editors, reviewers, and authors need to pay more attention to improving the quality of systematic reviews.
-
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by  - A methodological framework for rigorous systematic reviews: Tailoring comprehensive analyses to clinicians and healthcare professionals
Stefano Mancin, Marco Sguanci, Giuliano Anastasi, Lea Godino, Alessio Lo Cascio, Emanuela Morenghi, Michela Piredda, Maria Grazia De Marinis
Methods.2024; 225: 38. CrossRef - The status quo of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals in Korea: a study focused on protocol registration and GRADE use
Mi Ah Han, Seong Jung Kim, Eu Chang Hwang, Jae Hung Jung
Epidemiology and Health.2022; 44: e2022108. CrossRef
|
KSE
