Predictors of Higher Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Nutrition and Cancer Prevention

Dawid Storman, Magdalena Koperny, Joanna Zając, Maciej Polak, Paulina Weglarz, Justyna Bochenek-Cibor, Mateusz J. Swierz, Wojciech Staskiewicz, Magdalena Gorecka, Anna Skuza, Adam A. Wach, Klaudia Kaluzinska and Małgorzata M. Bała
Additional contact information
Dawid Storman: Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Department of Hygiene and Dietetics, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-034 Krakow, Poland
Magdalena Koperny: Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Department of Epidemiology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-034 Krakow, Poland
Joanna Zając: Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Department of Hygiene and Dietetics, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-034 Krakow, Poland
Maciej Polak: Department of Epidemiology and Population Studies, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-034 Krakow, Poland
Paulina Weglarz: Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Department of Hygiene and Dietetics, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-034 Krakow, Poland
Justyna Bochenek-Cibor: Department of Radiation Oncology, St Lukas Hospital, 33-100 Tarnów, Poland
Mateusz J. Swierz: Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Department of Hygiene and Dietetics, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-034 Krakow, Poland
Wojciech Staskiewicz: Students’ Scientific Research Group of Systematic Reviews, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-034 Krakow, Poland
Magdalena Gorecka: Students’ Scientific Research Group of Systematic Reviews, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-034 Krakow, Poland
Anna Skuza: Students’ Scientific Research Group of Systematic Reviews, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-034 Krakow, Poland
Adam A. Wach: Students’ Scientific Research Group of Systematic Reviews, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-034 Krakow, Poland
Klaudia Kaluzinska: Students’ Scientific Research Group of Systematic Reviews, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-034 Krakow, Poland
Małgorzata M. Bała: Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Department of Hygiene and Dietetics, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-034 Krakow, Poland

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 1, 1-14

Abstract: Systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are considered a reliable source of information in healthcare. We aimed to explore the association of several characteristics of SR/MAs addressing nutrition in cancer prevention and their quality/risk of bias (using assessments from AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools). The analysis included 101 SR/MAs identified in a systematic survey. Associations of each specified characteristic (e.g., information about the protocol, publication year, reported use of GRADE, or other methods for assessing overall certainty of evidence) with the number of AMSTAR-2 not met (‘No’ responses) and the number of ROBIS items met (‘Probably Yes’ or “Yes’ responses) were examined. Poisson regression was used to identify predictors of the number of ‘No’ answers (indicating lower quality) for all AMSTAR-2 items and the number of ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably Yes’ answers (indicating higher quality/lower concern for bias) for all ROBIS items. Logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with at least one domain assessed as ‘low concern for bias’ in the ROBIS tool. In multivariable analysis, SR/MAs not reporting use of any quality/risk of bias assessment instrument for primary studies were associated with a higher number of ‘No’ answers for all AMSTAR-2 items (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.45), and a lower number of ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably Yes’ answers for all ROBIS items (IRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66–0.87). Providing information about the protocol and search for unpublished studies was associated with a lower number of ‘No’ answers (IRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56–0.97 and IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59–0.95, respectively) and a higher number of ‘Yes’ or ‘Probably Yes’ answers (IRR 1.43, 95% CI 1.17–1.74 and IRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07–1.52, respectively). Not using at least one quality/risk of bias assessment tool for primary studies within an SR/MA was associated with lower odds that a study would be assessed as ‘low concern for bias’ in at least one ROBIS domain (odds ratio 0.061, 95% CI 0.007–0.527). Adherence to methodological standards in the development of SR/MAs was associated with a higher overall quality of SR/MAs addressing nutrition for cancer prevention.

Keywords: AMSTAR-2; ROBIS; quality; systematic review; meta-analysis; nutrition; cancer prevention (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/1/506/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/1/506/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:1:p:506-:d:716821

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().