Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2007 May 24:5:10.
doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-5-10.

A review of the methodological features of systematic reviews in maternal medicine

Lumaan Sheikh  1 , Shelley Johnston, Shakila Thangaratinam, Mark D Kilby, Khalid S Khan
Affiliations
Review

A review of the methodological features of systematic reviews in maternal medicine

Lumaan Sheikh et al. BMC Med. .

Abstract

Background: In maternal medicine, research evidence is scattered making it difficult to access information for clinical decision making. Systematic reviews of good methodological quality are essential to provide valid inferences and to produce usable evidence summaries to guide management. This review assesses the methodological features of existing systematic reviews in maternal medicine, comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews in maternal medicine.

Methods: Medline, Embase, Database of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were searched for relevant reviews published between 2001 and 2006. We selected those reviews in which a minimum of two databases were searched and the primary outcome was related to the maternal condition. The selected reviews were assessed for information on framing of question, literature search and methods of review.

Results: Out of 2846 citations, 68 reviews were selected. Among these, 39 (57%) were Cochrane reviews. Most of the reviews (50/68, 74%) evaluated therapeutic interventions. Overall, 54/68 (79%) addressed a focussed question. Although 64/68 (94%) reviews had a detailed search description, only 17/68 (25%) searched without language restriction. 32/68 (47%) attempted to include unpublished data and 11/68 (16%) assessed for the risk of missing studies quantitatively. The reviews had deficiencies in the assessment of validity of studies and exploration for heterogeneity. When compared to Cochrane reviews, other reviews were significantly inferior in specifying questions (OR 20.3, 95% CI 1.1-381.3, p = 0.04), framing focussed questions (OR 30.9, 95% CI 3.7- 256.2, p = 0.001), use of unpublished data (OR 5.6, 95% CI 1.9-16.4, p = 0.002), assessment for heterogeneity (OR 38.1, 95%CI 2.1, 688.2, p = 0.01) and use of meta-analyses (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.3-10.8, p = 0.02).

Conclusion: This study identifies areas which have a strong influence on maternal morbidity and mortality but lack good quality systematic reviews. Overall quality of the existing systematic reviews was variable. Cochrane reviews were of better quality as compared to other reviews. There is a need for good quality systematic reviews to inform practice in maternal medicine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Search strategy and study selection process for review of the methodological features of systematic reviews in maternal medicine.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Clinical topics covered by existing maternal medicine reviews.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Quality of Cochrane and non Cochrane systematic reviews included in the study.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Department of Health: Specialised Services National Definition Set: 4 Specialised services for women's health. . Department of health. 2006. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/PolicyAndGuidance/HealthAndSocialCareTopics/Spec...
    1. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;272:1367–1371. doi: 10.1001/jama.272.17.1367. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D. Meta-analysis: an update. Mt Sinai J Med. 1996;63:216–224. - PubMed
    1. Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. BMJ. 2001;322:98–101. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7278.98. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Clarke M. The QUORUM statement. Lancet. 2000;355:756–757. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)72172-3. - DOI - PubMed