Warning: fopen(/home/virtual/epih/journal/upload/ip_log/ip_log_2025-04.txt): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 95 Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 96
1Department of Internal Medicine, Chosun University College of Medicine, Gwangju, Korea
2Department of Preventive Medicine, Chosun University College of Medicine, Gwangju, Korea
3Department of Urology, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea
4Center of Evidence Based Medicine, Institute of Convergence Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea
5Department of Urology, Chonnam National University Medical School, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea
6Department of Nursing, Chosun University College of Medicine, Gwangju, Korea
7Department of Public Health, Graduate School, Chosun University, Gwangju, Korea
8Department of Neurosurgery, Chosun University College of Medicine, Gwangju, Korea
© 2023, Korean Society of Epidemiology
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare for this study.
FUNDING
This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), funded by the Ministry of Education (2021R1I1A3041301) and the Ministry of Science and ICT (NRF-2022R1A5A2030454).
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conceptualization: Kim SJ, Han MA, Jung JH, Hwang EC. Data curation: Kim SJ, Han MA. Formal analysis: Han MA. Funding acquisition: Han MA. Methodology: Kim SJ, Han MA, Jung JH, Hwang EC. Project administration: Kim SJ, Han MA, Jung JH, Hwang EC, Kim HR, Yoon SE, Kim SH, Kim P, Kim SY. Visualization: Kim SJ, Han MA. Writing – original draft: Kim SJ, Han MA. Writing – review & editing: Kim SJ, Han MA, Jung JH, Hwang EC, Kim HR, Yoon SE, Kim SH, Kim P, Kim SY.
Publication year | Total | Systematic review | Other types of reviews | Primary studies | Others |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | 1,164 | 30 (2.6) | 115 (9.9) | 882 (75.8) | 137 (11.8) |
2019 | 1,211 | 29 (2.4) | 126 (10.4) | 877 (72.4) | 179 (14.8) |
2020 | 1,262 | 37 (2.9) | 129 (10.2) | 901 (71.4) | 195 (15.5) |
20211 | 889 | 30 (3.4) | 124 (13.9) | 628 (70.6) | 107 (12.0) |
Total | 4,526 | 126 (2.8) | 494 (10.9) | 3,288 (72.6) | 618 (13.7) |
Items | n (%) |
---|---|
A1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? | 125 (99.2) |
A2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?1 | 18 (14.3) |
A3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? | 57 (45.2) |
A4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?1 | 118 (93.7) |
A5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? | 89 (70.6) |
A6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? | 92 (73.0) |
A7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?1 | 17 (13.5) |
A8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? | 121 (96.0) |
A9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the RoB in individual studies that were included in the review?1 | 101 (80.2) |
A10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? | 5 (4.0) |
A11. If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?1,2 | 81 (85.3) |
A12. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis?2 | 41 (42.7) |
A13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?1 | 55 (43.7) |
A14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? | 85 (67.5) |
A15. If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors conduct an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review?1,2 | 73 (76.0) |
A16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? | 114 (90.5) |
Overall confidence | n (%) |
---|---|
Low confidence | 12 (9.5) |
Critically low confidence | 114 (90.5) |
Publication year | Total | Systematic review | Other types of reviews | Primary studies | Others |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | 1,164 | 30 (2.6) | 115 (9.9) | 882 (75.8) | 137 (11.8) |
2019 | 1,211 | 29 (2.4) | 126 (10.4) | 877 (72.4) | 179 (14.8) |
2020 | 1,262 | 37 (2.9) | 129 (10.2) | 901 (71.4) | 195 (15.5) |
2021 |
889 | 30 (3.4) | 124 (13.9) | 628 (70.6) | 107 (12.0) |
Total | 4,526 | 126 (2.8) | 494 (10.9) | 3,288 (72.6) | 618 (13.7) |
Characteristics | n (%) |
---|---|
Publication year | |
2018 | 30 (23.8) |
2019 | 29 (23.0) |
2020 | 37 (29.4) |
2021 | 30 (23.8) |
No. of authors | |
2-3 | 29 (23.0) |
4-6 | 61 (48.4) |
≥7 | 36 (28.6) |
No. of affiliations | |
1-2 | 54 (42.9) |
3-4 | 31 (24.6) |
≥5 | 41 (32.5) |
International collaborative authorship | |
Korea only | 69 (54.8) |
Other countries only | 50 (39.7) |
Korea and other countries | 7 (5.6) |
Language of publication | |
English | 102 (81.0) |
Korean | 24 (19.1) |
Type of question | |
Intervention | 76 (60.3) |
Prognosis | 16 (12.7) |
Diagnosis | 15 (11.9) |
Prevalence | 7 (5.6) |
Others | 12 (9.5) |
Type of included studies | |
Observational studies only | 52 (41.3) |
Randomized controlled trials only | 45 (35.7) |
Both | 29 (23.0) |
Total no. of primary studies included | |
≤10 | 34 (27.0) |
11-20 | 42 (33.3) |
≥21 | 50 (39.7) |
Total no. of participants included | |
≤1,000 | 38 (30.2) |
1,001-5,000 | 42 (33.3) |
≥5,000 | 38 (30.2) |
Not reported | 8 (6.4) |
Type of intervention/exposure | |
Therapeutic clinical intervention | 71 (56.4) |
Diagnostic test | 16 (12.7 |
Biological status | 13 (10.3) |
Others | 26 (20.6) |
Type of outcome | |
Morbidity | 51 (40.5) |
Biophysical status | 18 (14.3) |
Symptoms | 20 (15.9) |
Mortality | 10 (7.9) |
Others | 27 (21.4) |
Meta-analysis | |
No | 30 (23.8) |
Yes | 96 (76.2) |
Items | n (%) |
---|---|
A1. Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO? | 125 (99.2) |
A2. Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? |
18 (14.3) |
A3. Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? | 57 (45.2) |
A4. Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? |
118 (93.7) |
A5. Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? | 89 (70.6) |
A6. Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? | 92 (73.0) |
A7. Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? |
17 (13.5) |
A8. Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? | 121 (96.0) |
A9. Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the RoB in individual studies that were included in the review? |
101 (80.2) |
A10. Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? | 5 (4.0) |
A11. If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? |
81 (85.3) |
A12. If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? |
41 (42.7) |
A13. Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review? |
55 (43.7) |
A14. Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? | 85 (67.5) |
A15. If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors conduct an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? |
73 (76.0) |
A16. Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? | 114 (90.5) |
Overall confidence | n (%) |
---|---|
Low confidence | 12 (9.5) |
Critically low confidence | 114 (90.5) |
Values are presented as number (%). Including up to October 2021.
AMSTAR 2, A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2; PICO, population, intervention, comparator, outcome; ROB, risk of bias. AMSTAR 2 critical domains. Did not apply to all studies, and the denominator was different (n=96).
AMSTAR 2, A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2.