IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0181927.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodological quality of systematic reviews referenced in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid use disorder

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Ross
  • Justin Rankin
  • Jason Beaman
  • Kelly Murray
  • Philip Sinnett
  • Ross Riddle
  • Jordan Haskins
  • Matt Vassar

Abstract

Introduction: With efforts to combat opioid use disorder, there is an increased interest in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for opioid use disorder treatments. No literature exists examining the quality of systematic reviews used in opioid use disorder CPGs. This study aims to describe the methodological quality and reporting clarity of systematic reviews (SRs) used to create CPGs for opioid use disorder. Methods: From June to July 2016 guideline clearinghouses and medical literature databases were searched for relevant CPGs used in the treatment of opioid use disorder. Included CPGs must have been recognized by a national organization. SRs from the reference section of each CPG was scored by using AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews) tool and PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) checklist. Results: Seventeen CPGs from 2006–2016 were included in the review. From these, 57 unique SRs were extracted. SRS comprised 0.28% to 17.92% of all references found in the CPGs. All SRs obtained moderate or high methodological quality score on the AMSTAR tool. All reviews met at least 70% of PRISMA criteria. In PRISMA, underperforming areas included accurate title labeling, protocol registration, and risk of bias. Underperforming areas in AMSTAR included conflicts of interest, funding, and publication bias. A positive correlation was found between AMSTAR and PRISMA scores (r = .79). Conclusion: Although the SRs in the CPGs were of good quality, there are still areas for improvement. Systematic reviewers should consult PRISMA and AMSTAR when conducting and reporting reviews. It is important for CPG developers to consider methodological quality as a factor when developing CPG recommendations, recognizing that the quality of systematic reviews underpinning guidelines does not necessarily correspond to the quality of the guideline itself.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Ross & Justin Rankin & Jason Beaman & Kelly Murray & Philip Sinnett & Ross Riddle & Jordan Haskins & Matt Vassar, 2017. "Methodological quality of systematic reviews referenced in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid use disorder," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0181927
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181927
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181927
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181927&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0181927?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Campsall & Kate Colizza & Sharon Straus & Henry T Stelfox, 2016. "Financial Relationships between Organizations That Produce Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Biomedical Industry: A Cross-Sectional Study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, May.
    2. Ivor Popovich & Bethany Windsor & Vanessa Jordan & Marian Showell & Bev Shea & Cynthia M Farquhar, 2012. "Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews in Subfertility: A Comparison of Two Different Approaches," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-9, December.
    3. Alessandro Liberati & Douglas G Altman & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Cynthia Mulrow & Peter C Gøtzsche & John P A Ioannidis & Mike Clarke & P J Devereaux & Jos Kleijnen & David Moher, 2009. "The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-28, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Danlu Liu & Jiaxin Jin & Jinhui Tian & Kehu Yang, 2015. "Quality Assessment and Factor Analysis of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Endoscopic Ultrasound Diagnosis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, April.
    2. Tripathy, Prajukta & Jena, Pabitra Kumar & Mishra, Bikash Ranjan, 2024. "Systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis of energy efficiency," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    3. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    4. Ludoviko Zirimenya & Fatima Mahmud-Ajeigbe & Ruth McQuillan & You Li, 2020. "A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between urogenital schistosomiasis and HIV/AIDS infection," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-13, June.
    5. Trang Nguyen & Sara Holton & Thach Tran & Jane Fisher, 2019. "Informal mental health interventions for people with severe mental illness in low and lower middle-income countries: A systematic review of effectiveness," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 65(3), pages 194-206, May.
    6. Natalya Ivanova & Ekaterina Zolotova, 2023. "Landolt Indicator Values in Modern Research: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-22, June.
    7. Su Keng Tan & Wai Keung Leung & Alexander Tin Hong Tang & Roger A Zwahlen, 2017. "Effects of mandibular setback with or without maxillary advancement osteotomies on pharyngeal airways: An overview of systematic reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, October.
    8. Vecchio, Riccardo & Caso, Gerarda & Cembalo, Luigi & Borrello, Massimiliano, 2020. "Is respondents’ inattention in online surveys a major issue for research?," Economia agro-alimentare / Food Economy, Italian Society of Agri-food Economics/Società Italiana di Economia Agro-Alimentare (SIEA), vol. 22(01), March.
    9. Alessandro Concari & Gerjo Kok & Pim Martens, 2020. "A Systematic Literature Review of Concepts and Factors Related to Pro-Environmental Consumer Behaviour in Relation to Waste Management Through an Interdisciplinary Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-50, May.
    10. Damiano Pizzol & Mike Trott & Igor Grabovac & Mario Antunes & Anna Claudia Colangelo & Simona Ippoliti & Cristian Petre Ilie & Anne Carrie & Nicola Veronese & Lee Smith, 2021. "Laparoscopy in Low-Income Countries: 10-Year Experience and Systematic Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-11, May.
    11. Yehuda Weizman & Oren Tirosh & Jeanie Beh & Franz Konstantin Fuss & Sonja Pedell, 2021. "Gait Assessment Using Wearable Sensor-Based Devices in People Living with Dementia: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-14, December.
    12. Alessandro Margherita & Emanuele Banchi & Alfredo Biffi & Gianluca di Castri & Rocco Morelli, 2022. "Beyond Total Cost Management (TCM) to Systemic Value Management (SVM): Transformational Trends and a Research Manifesto for an Evolving Discipline," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-16, October.
    13. Stefano D’Angelo & Angelo Cavallo & Antonio Ghezzi & Francesco Di Lorenzo, 2024. "Understanding corporate entrepreneurship in the digital age: a review and research agenda," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 18(12), pages 3719-3774, December.
    14. Fabio Magnacca & Riccardo Giannetti, 2024. "Management accounting and new product development: a systematic literature review and future research directions," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 28(2), pages 651-685, June.
    15. Jacob Elnaggar & Fern Tsien & Lucio Miele & Chindo Hicks & Clayton Yates & Melisa Davis, 2019. "An Integrative Genomics Approach for Associating Genetic Susceptibility with the Tumor Immune Microenvironment in Triple Negative Breast Cancer," Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research, Biomedical Research Network+, LLC, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, February.
    16. Michael Masaracchio & William J Hanney & Xinliang Liu & Morey Kolber & Kaitlin Kirker, 2017. "Timing of rehabilitation on length of stay and cost in patients with hip or knee joint arthroplasty: A systematic review with meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-22, June.
    17. Evans, Rhiannon & White, James & Turley, Ruth & Slater, Thomas & Morgan, Helen & Strange, Heather & Scourfield, Jonathan, 2017. "Comparison of suicidal ideation, suicide attempt and suicide in children and young people in care and non-care populations: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 122-129.
    18. Yi Ouyang & Ping-Chao Lee & Ling-Mei Ko, 2022. "A Systematic Review of the Development of Sport Policy Research (2000–2020)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-22, December.
    19. Juliane Piasseschi de Bernardin Gonçalves & Giancarlo Lucchetti & Paulo Rossi Menezes & Homero Vallada, 2017. "Complementary religious and spiritual interventions in physical health and quality of life: A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-21, October.
    20. Milou van Heuckelum & Cornelia H M van den Ende & Anne E J Houterman & Charlotte P M Heemskerk & Sandra van Dulmen & Bart J F van den Bemt, 2017. "The effect of electronic monitoring feedback on medication adherence and clinical outcomes: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0181927. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.