this is for holding javascript data
Sarah Khan edited untitled.tex
almost 9 years ago
Commit id: 76514dd2609725a4db617d9069393e57e4b0dc54
deletions | additions
diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex
index 8f1e33d..ee879bb 100644
--- a/untitled.tex
+++ b/untitled.tex
...
\section{Abstract and Key Words}
\subsection{{\textbf{Aim:}}}
To evaluate This study aimed to the reporting and utilization of methodological quality measures in addressing low quality and risk of bias in major oncology journals.
\subsection{\textbf{Methods:}}
We performed a search of systematic reviews from high impact factor journals in oncology from 2007 to 2015 through PubMed. Covidence was used to screen articles based on the title and abstract. The methodological quality and reporting of risk of bias were evaluated by three rounds of coding from two independent reviewers using the same checklist. Differences in assessment were resolved through group consensus.
\subsection{\textbf{Results:}}
Quality assessment was
studied on examined in 182 articles after exclusion. Quality or risk of bias assessment was assessed in 48\% of articles. More common were tools adapted from
author's custom authors'custom sources (23\%),
other (14\%) others (14\%), and
the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (13\%). Low
Quality quality or
High high risk of bias studies
were found was detected in 40 studies.
From included studies, subgroup Subgroup analysis was conducted in 14\%, meta-regression in 10\%, and sensitivity analysis in 21\%.
Quality and Low quality or risk of bias
was were not reported in 32 studies. Quality measures were articulated in narrative format
(44\%) or (44\%), not at all
(44\%). (44\%), .
\subsection{\textbf{Conclusions:}}
Quality and risk of bias were assessed in only half of systematic reviews, and even when addressed, methods of assessment are more commonly determined by authors rather than following recommended guidelines. This analysis provides further evidence for inconsistent quality measure reporting for clinical findings in oncology manuscripts. Differences between bias assessment and quality reporting could misdirect intervention results in oncology journals.
\subsection{\textbf{Keywords:}}
...