Jung-Hee Kim; Ae-Kyung Kim

doi:10.4040/jkan.2013.43.6.736

Articles

Page Path: HOME > J Korean Acad Nurs > Volume 43(6); 2013 > Article

Original Article
A Quality Assessment of Meta-Analyses of Nursing in South Korea: Jung-Hee Kim, Ae-Kyung Kim; Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing 2013;43(6):736-745.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2013.43.6.736
Published online: December 31, 2013

Department of Nursing, College of Medicine, Dankook University, Cheonan, Korea.

Address reprint requests to: Kim, Jung-Hee. Department of Nursing, College of Medicine, Dankook University, San#29 Anseo-dong, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan 330-714, Korea. Tel: +82-10-9017-3240, Fax: +82-41-559-7902, jhee90@dankook.ac.kr

• Received: June 25, 2013 • Accepted: October 25, 2013

114 Views
0 Download
9 Crossref
5 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
NOTES
REFERENCES
Appendix

Abstract

Purpose
The purpose of the study was to assess the quality of meta-analyses on nursing published in South Korea.
Methods
Relevant meta-analyses were identified through searches of the National Assembly Library, KISS (Korean Studies Information Service System), and the DBpia and RISS4U databases from 1990 to May 2013. Quality assessments were conducted using AMSTAR, a validated tool for assessing the quality of systematic reviews.
Results
Forty-two meta-analyses were included in this study. Twenty-nine published between 1990 and 2010, and 13, between 2011 and May 2013. Two high quality studies and 11 moderate quality studies were published in the latter period. The mean score for the reviews was 5.61 (range 3-10); 11 studies were rated as low quality, 29 as moderate quality, and two as high quality.
Conclusion
Although an improvement in the quality of meta-analyses conducted by nursing researchers in South Korea was observed across the study period, the study results indicate a need to use of more rigorous research methods when conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses.
Keywords: Meta-analysis; Nursing

This work was supported by a Korea Research Foundation Grant funded by the Korean Government (MOEHRD, Basic Research Promotion Fund) (2012R1A1B5000460).

REFERENCES

1. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, UK: Wiley; 2009.
2. Braga LH, Pemberton J, Demaria J, Lorenzo AJ. Methodological concerns and quality appraisal of contemporary systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric urology. J Urol. 2011;186(1):266–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.044Article PubMed
3. Brown SJ. Evidence-based nursing: The research-practice connection. 3rd ed. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2013.
4. Conn VS, Rantz MJ. Research methods: Managing primary study quality in meta-analyses. Res Nurs Health. 2003;26(4):322–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nur.10092Article PubMed
5. Craig JV, Smyth RL. The evidence-based practice manual for nurses. 2nd ed. Edinburgh, UK: Churchill Livingstone; 2007.
6. De Vito C, Manzoli L, Marzuillo C, Anastasi D, Boccia A, Villari P. A systematic review evaluating the potential for bias and the methodological quality of meta-analyses in vaccinology. Vaccine. 2007;25(52):8794–8806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.10.034Article PubMed
7. Dijkman BG, Abouali JA, Kooistra BW, Conter HJ, Poolman RW, Kulkarni AV, et al. Twenty years of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: Has quality kept up with quantity? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(1):48–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.i.00251Article PubMed
8. Egger M, Smith GD. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ. 1998;316(7124):61–66.Article PubMed PMC
9. Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG. Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London, UK: BMJ Books; 2001.
10. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. 2011;03;Retrieved December 1, 2011. from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
11. Kim SY, Park JE, Seo HJ, Lee YJ, Jang BH, Son HJ, et al. NECA's guidance for undertaking systematic reviews and meta-analyses for intervention. Seoul: National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency; 2011.
12. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(11):982–989.Article PubMed
13. Leandro G. Meta-analysis in medical research: The handbook for the understanding and practice of meta-analysis. Malden, MA: BMJ Books; 2005.
14. Lee J. Meta-analysis. J Korean Endocr Soc. 2008;23(6):361–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.3803/jkes.2008.23.6.361Article
15. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–e34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006Article PubMed
16. Lim SM, Shin ES, Lee SH, Seo KH, Jung YM, Jang JE. Tools for assessing quality and risk of bias by levels of evidence. J Korean Med Assoc. 2011;54(4):419–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2011.54.4.419Article
17. MacDonald SL, Canfield SE, Fesperman SF, Dahm P. Assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2008. J Urol. 2010;184(2):648–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.127Article PubMed
18. Melchiors AC, Correr CJ, Venson R, Pontarolo R. An analysis of quality of systematic reviews on pharmacist health interventions. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34(1):32–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-011-9592-0Article PubMed PDF
19. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354(9193):1896–1900.PubMed
20. Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA, Athanasiou AE. Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011;14(3):116–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2011.01522.xArticle PubMed
21. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10Article PubMed PMC PDF
22. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1013–1020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009Article PubMed
23. Shin C, Han C, Pae CU, Patkar AA. Tools for quality evaluation of clinical research reports. Korean J Psychopharmacol. 2011;22(2):67–72.
24. Simes RJ. Confronting publication bias: A cohort design for meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1987;6(1):11–29.Article PubMed
25. Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ. Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(10):1–115.Article PMC PDF
26. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–2012.Article PubMed
27. Suebnukarn S, Ngamboonsirisingh S, Rattanabanlang A. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in endodontics. J Endod. 2010;36(4):602–608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.019Article PubMed
28. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. New York, NY: Wiley; 2000.

Appendix

APPENDIX

Figure 1

Literature searches and results.

Table 1

Quality of Studies according to Study Characteristics (N=42)

KCI=Korea Citation Index.

Table 2

Methodological Quality of Meta-analysis of Nursing Research in Korea (N=42)

AMSTAR=Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews.

Table 3

Correlation between the Publication Year and Quality of Studies (N=42)

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on extended reality-based pediatric nursing simulation program development
Eun Joo Kim, Ji Young Lim, Geun Myun Kim
Child Health Nursing Research.2023; 29(1): 24. CrossRef
Methodological Quality Assessment of Meta-Analyses in the Field of Korean Occupational Therapy Using the Korean Journal of Occupational Therapy
Yoo-Im Choi, Se-Yun Kim
Journal of Korean Society of Occupational Therapy.2020; 28(3): 71. CrossRef
Methodological Qualitative Evaluation of Meta-analysis Studies in Sport Management
Sanghyun Park, Minseok Kwag
The Korean Journal of Physical Education.2018; 57(1): 247. CrossRef
Recent Research Trends in Meta-analysis
In-Soo Shin
Asian Nursing Research.2017; 11(2): 79. CrossRef
Trends in Evidence-based Nursing Research in South Korea
Seang Ryu, Sun Weon Yun, Yun Sook Kim
Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration.2017; 23(4): 385. CrossRef
A Quality Assessment of Systematic Review of Oriental Medicine in South Korea
Yun-Young Kim, Hye Sun Hyun
Journal of Digital Convergence.2015; 13(10): 549. CrossRef
The Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on the Effectiveness of Non-pharmacological Cancer Pain Management
Youngshin Song, Minhye Oh, Seyeon Park, Myouyun Park, Kyoungok Kim, Ukyoung Lee, Myonghwa Park
Pain Management Nursing.2015; 16(5): 781. CrossRef
Effects of Nursing Interventions for Fall Prevention in Hospitalized Patients: A Meta-analysis
Yoon Lee Kim, Seok Hee Jeong
Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing.2015; 45(4): 469. CrossRef
Review of Meta-analysis Research on Exercise in South Korea
Youngshin Song, Moonhee Gang, Sun-Ae Kim, In-Soo Shin
Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing.2014; 44(5): 459. CrossRef

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format: