Characteristics, Trends, and Quality of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in General Radiology between 2007 and 2015

Publication date: Available online 28 March 2017
Source:Academic Radiology
Author(s): Ju Yong Park, Kyung Hee Lee, You Jin Ku, Soon Gu Cho, Yeo Ju Kim, Ha Young Lee, Jun Ho Kim
Rationale and ObjectivesTo evaluate the trends, characteristics, and quality of systematic review and meta-analysis in general radiology journals.Materials and MethodsWe performed a PubMed search to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses that had been carried out in the field of radiology between 2007 and 2015. The following data were extracted: journal, impact factor, type of research, year of publication, radiological subspecialty, imaging modalities used, number of authors, affiliated department of the first and corresponding authors, presence of a radiologist and a statistician among the authors, discordance between the first and corresponding authors, funding, country of first author, methodological quality, methods used for quality assessment, and statistics.ResultsUltimately, we included 210 articles from nine general radiology journals. The European Journal of Radiology was the most common journal represented (47 of 210; 22.4%). Meta-analyses (n = 177; 84.3%) were published about five times more than systematic reviews without meta-analysis (n = 33; 15.7%). Radiology of the gastrointestinal tract was the most commonly represented subspecialty (n = 49, 23.3%). The first authors were most frequently located in China (n = 64; 30.3%). In terms of modality, magnetic resonance imaging was used most often (n = 59; 28.1%). The number of authors tended to progressively increase over time, and the ratio of discordance between the first and corresponding authors also increased significantly, as did the proportion of research that has received funding from an external source. The mean AMSTAR assessment score improved over time (5.87/11 in 2007–2009, 7.11/11 in 2010–2012, and 7.49/11 in 2013–2015). In this regard, the journal Radiology had the highest score (7.59/11).ConclusionsThe quantity and quality of radiological meta-analyses have significantly increased over the past 9 years; however, specific weak areas remain, providing the opportunity for quality improvement.



http://ift.tt/2nsDilH