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

Andrew Ross, Justin Rankin, Jason Beaman, Kelly Murray, Philip Sinnett, Ross Riddle, Jordan Haskins, Matt Vassar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0181927
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume12
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Aug 2017

Fingerprint

narcotics
systematic review
Practice Guidelines
Opioid Analgesics
Meta-Analysis
Guidelines
Publication Bias
Conflict of Interest
Checklist
funding
Databases
Labeling

Cite this

@article{4ca495b67b9c4f0ab1e3762f9fb63be6,
title = "Methodological quality of systematic reviews referenced in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid use disorder",
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.",
author = "Andrew Ross and Justin Rankin and Jason Beaman and Kelly Murray and Philip Sinnett and Ross Riddle and Jordan Haskins and Matt Vassar",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0181927",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
journal = "PLoS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "8",

}

Methodological quality of systematic reviews referenced in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid use disorder. / Ross, Andrew; Rankin, Justin; Beaman, Jason; Murray, Kelly; Sinnett, Philip; Riddle, Ross; Haskins, Jordan; Vassar, Matt.

In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 12, No. 8, e0181927, 01.08.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Methodological quality of systematic reviews referenced in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid use disorder

AU - Ross, Andrew

AU - Rankin, Justin

AU - Beaman, Jason

AU - Murray, Kelly

AU - Sinnett, Philip

AU - Riddle, Ross

AU - Haskins, Jordan

AU - Vassar, Matt

PY - 2017/8/1

Y1 - 2017/8/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026751614&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0181927

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0181927

M3 - Article

C2 - 28771633

AN - SCOPUS:85026751614

VL - 12

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 8

M1 - e0181927

ER -