Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34495378›Full record

SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2021

Quality appraisal of systematic reviews on methods of labour induction: a systematic review.

Ryan Chow, Allen Li, Nicole Wu, Morgan Martin, Jocelyn M Wessels, Warren G Foster

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ryan ChowFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1850-7155
Allen LiFaculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada.
Nicole WuFaculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Morgan MartinFaculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Jocelyn M WesselsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Warren G FosterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada. Fosterw@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5762-7371

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeInduction of labour has become more common over the last decade, together with an increase in the number of systematic reviews of the subject. However, with multiple systematic reviews it is necessary to evaluate the methodological rigor to ensure the reliability of conclusions and recommendations for clinical practice. Therefore, the aim of this study was to appraise the quality of systematic reviews that examined the efficacy and/or safety of labour induction methods.

methodsAn electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2020 was conducted. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) by two independent reviewers, in duplicate.

resultsThe search identified 387 publications, of which 48 studies (13%) met the a priori inclusion criteria. No significant relationships were found between study quality and number of citations, journal impact factor, or publication year.

conclusionMethodological quality for systematic reviews on the induction of labour were ranked as moderate with no significant changes in quality over the past 2 decades. Publication characteristics are not significantly associated with methodological quality, indicating that healthcare professionals should critically appraise studies before applying them to practice.

Indexed as

Labor, InducedSystematic Reviews as TopicFemaleHumansPregnancyAMSTARCochrane reviewsMethodological rigorPRISMA

Identifiers

PMID34495378

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.