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.2011.03.044ArticlePubMed
• 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.10092ArticlePubMed
• 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.2007.10.034ArticlePubMed
• 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.00251ArticlePubMed
• 8. Egger M, Smith GD. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ. 1998;316(7124):61–66.ArticlePubMedPMC
• 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.ArticlePubMed
• 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.2009.06.006ArticlePubMed
• 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.2010.03.127ArticlePubMed
• 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/s11096-011-9592-0ArticlePubMedPDF
• 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.xArticlePubMed
• 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/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
• 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.2008.10.009ArticlePubMed
• 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.ArticlePubMed
• 25. Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ. Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(10):1–115.ArticlePMCPDF
• 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.ArticlePubMed
• 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.2009.12.019ArticlePubMed
• 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