Quality assessment of systematic literature on uterine fibroids: a systematic review

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background A systematic literature review (SLR) is a research methodology that examines data and findings of other authors relative to specified research questions (RQ), collects multiple research studies, and summarises them to answer a research question using rigorous methods. Many SLRs have been published on uterine fibroids (UFs) in the last two decades but there is a dearth of knowledge on assessment of the quality to determine the reliability of results. Methods This study employed the SLR method to identify available SLRs published on UFs. Dybå and Dingsøyr quality standards and dichotomous grading scales were employed to determine the quality of primary studies. On February 3rd, 2022, an auto search was conducted twice over Citeseer, EBSCO, ACM, Springer Link, IEE Computer society digital library, and Scopus using 17 search strings. Two teams independently screened papers and compared notes with the inclusion/exclusion criteria. 11 criterial were adapted to evaluate the quality of the SLR’s. Results 33 SLRs were subjected to data extraction after inclusion/exclusion criteria. Answers to our primary research question was positive as the aims and contexts of the SLRs are generally clear and the methodologies employed are all inclusive. The research outputs of the primary studies are valid and justifiable as their research statements were clear and findings unambiguous. Although some studies failed some quality criteria, answers to all RQs were affirmative as the percentage scores of the studies on each of the quality conditions is favourably high. Conclusions The auto search may be incomplete because some qualified SLRs may have been missed as the choice of search strings was limited and may have omitted terminologies. Notwithstanding, with average quality scores of 83% in reporting, 81.2% in rigour, and 79% in credibility, this study concludes that majority of the meta-analysis published so far on UF are valid and reliable.

This publication has 54 references indexed in Scilit: