Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?

Autores
Glujovsky, Demian; Sueldo, Carlos E.; Bardach, Ariel Esteban; del Pilar Valanzasca, María; Comandé, Daniel; Ciapponi, Agustín
Año de publicación
2019
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
Purpose: To evaluate if the authors of published systematic reviews (SRs) reported the level of quality of evidence (QoE) in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals and to analyze if they used an appropriate wording to describe it. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study. We searched in PubMed for SRs published in 2017 in the five infertility journals with the highest impact factor. We analyzed the proportion of SRs published in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals that reported the SRs’ QoE, and the proportion of those SRs in which authors used consistent wording to describe QoE and magnitude of effect. Results: The QoE was reported in only 21.4% of the 42 included SRs and in less than 10% of the abstracts. Although we did not find important differences in the report of QoE of those that showed statistically significant differences or not, p value was associated with the wording chosen by the authors. We found inconsistent reporting of the size the effect estimate in 54.8% (23/42) and in the level of QoE in 92.9% (39/42). Whereas the effect size was more consistently expressed in studies with statistically significant findings, QoE was better expressed in those cases in which the p value was over 0.05. Conclusion: We found that in 2017, less than 25% of the authors reported the overall QoE when publishing SRs. Authors focused more on statistical significance as a binary concept than on methodological limitations like study design, imprecision, indirectness, inconsistency, and publication bias. Authors should make efforts to report the QoE and interpret results accordingly.
Fil: Glujovsky, Demian. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: Sueldo, Carlos E.. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: Bardach, Ariel Esteban. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: del Pilar Valanzasca, María. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: Comandé, Daniel. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Materia
MAGNITUDE OF THE EFFECT
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/141910
Acceder
id CONICETDig_dbc39a81b918a9ae7f910656dc5fff15
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/141910
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?Glujovsky, DemianSueldo, Carlos E.Bardach, Ariel Estebandel Pilar Valanzasca, MaríaComandé, DanielCiapponi, AgustínMAGNITUDE OF THE EFFECTQUALITY OF EVIDENCESYSTEMATIC REVIEWShttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3Purpose: To evaluate if the authors of published systematic reviews (SRs) reported the level of quality of evidence (QoE) in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals and to analyze if they used an appropriate wording to describe it. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study. We searched in PubMed for SRs published in 2017 in the five infertility journals with the highest impact factor. We analyzed the proportion of SRs published in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals that reported the SRs’ QoE, and the proportion of those SRs in which authors used consistent wording to describe QoE and magnitude of effect. Results: The QoE was reported in only 21.4% of the 42 included SRs and in less than 10% of the abstracts. Although we did not find important differences in the report of QoE of those that showed statistically significant differences or not, p value was associated with the wording chosen by the authors. We found inconsistent reporting of the size the effect estimate in 54.8% (23/42) and in the level of QoE in 92.9% (39/42). Whereas the effect size was more consistently expressed in studies with statistically significant findings, QoE was better expressed in those cases in which the p value was over 0.05. Conclusion: We found that in 2017, less than 25% of the authors reported the overall QoE when publishing SRs. Authors focused more on statistical significance as a binary concept than on methodological limitations like study design, imprecision, indirectness, inconsistency, and publication bias. Authors should make efforts to report the QoE and interpret results accordingly.Fil: Glujovsky, Demian. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Sueldo, Carlos E.. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Bardach, Ariel Esteban. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: del Pilar Valanzasca, María. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Comandé, Daniel. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaFil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; ArgentinaSpringer/Plenum Publishers2019-12info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/141910Glujovsky, Demian; Sueldo, Carlos E.; Bardach, Ariel Esteban; del Pilar Valanzasca, María; Comandé, Daniel; et al.; Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?; Springer/Plenum Publishers; Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics; 37; 2; 12-2019; 263-2681058-0468CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10815-019-01663-yinfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1007/s10815-019-01663-yinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-10-15T14:42:06Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/141910instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-10-15 14:42:07.251CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?
title Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?
spellingShingle Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?
Glujovsky, Demian
MAGNITUDE OF THE EFFECT
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
title_short Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?
title_full Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?
title_fullStr Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?
title_full_unstemmed Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?
title_sort Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Glujovsky, Demian
Sueldo, Carlos E.
Bardach, Ariel Esteban
del Pilar Valanzasca, María
Comandé, Daniel
Ciapponi, Agustín
author Glujovsky, Demian
author_facet Glujovsky, Demian
Sueldo, Carlos E.
Bardach, Ariel Esteban
del Pilar Valanzasca, María
Comandé, Daniel
Ciapponi, Agustín
author_role author
author2 Sueldo, Carlos E.
Bardach, Ariel Esteban
del Pilar Valanzasca, María
Comandé, Daniel
Ciapponi, Agustín
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv MAGNITUDE OF THE EFFECT
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
topic MAGNITUDE OF THE EFFECT
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3.3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/3
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv Purpose: To evaluate if the authors of published systematic reviews (SRs) reported the level of quality of evidence (QoE) in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals and to analyze if they used an appropriate wording to describe it. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study. We searched in PubMed for SRs published in 2017 in the five infertility journals with the highest impact factor. We analyzed the proportion of SRs published in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals that reported the SRs’ QoE, and the proportion of those SRs in which authors used consistent wording to describe QoE and magnitude of effect. Results: The QoE was reported in only 21.4% of the 42 included SRs and in less than 10% of the abstracts. Although we did not find important differences in the report of QoE of those that showed statistically significant differences or not, p value was associated with the wording chosen by the authors. We found inconsistent reporting of the size the effect estimate in 54.8% (23/42) and in the level of QoE in 92.9% (39/42). Whereas the effect size was more consistently expressed in studies with statistically significant findings, QoE was better expressed in those cases in which the p value was over 0.05. Conclusion: We found that in 2017, less than 25% of the authors reported the overall QoE when publishing SRs. Authors focused more on statistical significance as a binary concept than on methodological limitations like study design, imprecision, indirectness, inconsistency, and publication bias. Authors should make efforts to report the QoE and interpret results accordingly.
Fil: Glujovsky, Demian. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: Sueldo, Carlos E.. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: Bardach, Ariel Esteban. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: del Pilar Valanzasca, María. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: Comandé, Daniel. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
Fil: Ciapponi, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria. Centro de Investigaciones en Epidemiología y Salud Pública; Argentina. Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria; Argentina
description Purpose: To evaluate if the authors of published systematic reviews (SRs) reported the level of quality of evidence (QoE) in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals and to analyze if they used an appropriate wording to describe it. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study. We searched in PubMed for SRs published in 2017 in the five infertility journals with the highest impact factor. We analyzed the proportion of SRs published in the top 5 impact factor infertility journals that reported the SRs’ QoE, and the proportion of those SRs in which authors used consistent wording to describe QoE and magnitude of effect. Results: The QoE was reported in only 21.4% of the 42 included SRs and in less than 10% of the abstracts. Although we did not find important differences in the report of QoE of those that showed statistically significant differences or not, p value was associated with the wording chosen by the authors. We found inconsistent reporting of the size the effect estimate in 54.8% (23/42) and in the level of QoE in 92.9% (39/42). Whereas the effect size was more consistently expressed in studies with statistically significant findings, QoE was better expressed in those cases in which the p value was over 0.05. Conclusion: We found that in 2017, less than 25% of the authors reported the overall QoE when publishing SRs. Authors focused more on statistical significance as a binary concept than on methodological limitations like study design, imprecision, indirectness, inconsistency, and publication bias. Authors should make efforts to report the QoE and interpret results accordingly.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-12
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/141910
Glujovsky, Demian; Sueldo, Carlos E.; Bardach, Ariel Esteban; del Pilar Valanzasca, María; Comandé, Daniel; et al.; Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?; Springer/Plenum Publishers; Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics; 37; 2; 12-2019; 263-268
1058-0468
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/141910
identifier_str_mv Glujovsky, Demian; Sueldo, Carlos E.; Bardach, Ariel Esteban; del Pilar Valanzasca, María; Comandé, Daniel; et al.; Quality of evidence matters: is it well reported and interpreted in infertility journals?; Springer/Plenum Publishers; Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics; 37; 2; 12-2019; 263-268
1058-0468
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10815-019-01663-y
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1007/s10815-019-01663-y
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer/Plenum Publishers
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer/Plenum Publishers
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1846082921543237632
score 13.22299

Publicaciones similares