Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case studyBMJ 2006; doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38693.516782.7C (Published 16 January 2006) Cite this as: BMJ 2006;:bmj;bmj.38693.516782.7Cv1
The Oxman and Guyatt index of the scientific quality of research reviews was designed to evaluate the internal validity of a review.2 Scoring is based on 9 separate questions for which 3 distinct answers are eligible ("yes", "partially/can’t tell", "no"):
1. Where the search methods used to find evidence stated?
2. Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?
3. Were the criteria for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?
4. Was bias in the selection of studies avoided?
5. Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?
6. Was the validity of all studies referred to in the text assessed using appropriate criteria?
7. Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies reported?
8. Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question the overview addresses?
9. Were the conclusions made by the author(s) supported by the data and/or analysis reported in the overview?
Question 10 summarizes the previous ones and, specifically, asks to rate the scientific quality of the review from 1 (being extensively flawed) to 3 (carrying major flaws) to 5 (carrying minor flaws) to 7 (minimally flawed). The developers of the index specify that if the "partially/can’t tell" answer is used one or more times in questions 2, 4, 6, or 8, a review is likely to have minor flaws at best and is difficult to rule out major flaws (ie a score≤4). If the "no" option is used on question 2, 4, 6 or 8, the review is likely to have major flaws (ie a score≤3).
- Paper Published: 29 May 2003; BMJ 326 doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167
- Paper Published: 06 November 2003; BMJ 327 doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7423.1083
- Education And Debate Published: 21 September 1996; BMJ 313 doi:10.1136/bmj.313.7059.735
- Research Methods & Reporting Published: 21 July 2009; BMJ 339 doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535
- Research Methods & ReportingThe PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaborationPublished: 21 July 2009; BMJ 339 doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700
- Paper Published: 26 February 2000; BMJ 320 doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7234.537
- ResearchRelation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic reviewPublished: 25 June 2014; BMJ 348 doi:10.1136/bmj.g3804
- Chemoprevention of colorectal cancer in individuals with previous colorectal neoplasia: systematic review and network meta-analysisBMJ December 05, 2016, 355 i6188; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6188
- Alpha blockers for treatment of ureteric stones: systematic review and meta-analysisBMJ December 01, 2016, 355 i6112; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6112
- Sex based subgroup differences in randomized controlled trials: empirical evidence from Cochrane meta-analysesBMJ November 24, 2016, 355 i5826; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5826
- Association between prediabetes and risk of cardiovascular disease and all cause mortality: systematic review and meta-analysisBMJ November 23, 2016, 355 i5953; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5953
- Effects of ischaemic conditioning on major clinical outcomes in people undergoing invasive procedures: systematic review and meta-analysisBMJ November 07, 2016, 355 i5599; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5599
- Contrast-induced nephropathy following angiography and cardiac interventions
- Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review
- Prevalence and non-invasive predictors of left main or three-vessel coronary disease: evidence from a collaborative international meta-analysis including 22 740 patients
- Impact of clopidogrel loading dose on clinical outcome in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Registering systematic reviews
- The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration
- Reprint--Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
- Need for Quality Improvement in Renal Systematic Reviews
- Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: When One Study Is Just not Enough
- Overlapping Systematic Reviews of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Comparing Hamstring Autograft with Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autograft: Why Are They Different?
- Adverse Gastrointestinal Effects of Arginine and Related Amino Acids
- The cost-effectiveness of drug-eluting stents: a systematic review
- Low-Dose Aspirin for Stroke Prevention