TY - JOUR
T1 - A Methodological Quality Evaluation of Meta-Analyses on Nursing Home Research
T2 - Overview and Suggestions for Future Directions
AU - Shin, In Soo
AU - Shin, Juh Hyun
AU - Jang, Dong Eun
AU - Lee, Jiyeon
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
PY - 2022/1/1
Y1 - 2022/1/1
N2 - (1) Background: The nursing home (NH) research field lacks quality reporting about meta-analyses (MAs), and most gradings of MA evidence are biased on analyzing the effectiveness of independent variables in randomized control trials. (2) Objectives: This study aimed to perform a critical methodological review of MAs in the NH research field. (3) Methods: We searched the articles from four databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) until 15th January 2021. We reviewed a total of 41 published review articles in the NH research field. (4) Results: The studies primarily fell into the following categories: medicine (17/41), nursing (7/41), and psychiatry or psychology (6/41); 36.6% of the reviewed studies did not use any validated MA guidelines. The lowest correctly reported PRISMA 2000 guideline item was protocol and registration (14.6%), and more than 50% of articles did not report risk of bias. Moreover, 78.0% of studies did not describe missing reports of effect size formula. (5) Discussion: NH researchers must follow appropriate and updated guidelines for their MAs in order to provide validated reviews, as well as consider statistical issues such as the complexity of interventions, proper grouping, and scientific effect-size calculations to improve the quality of their study. Future quality review studies should investigate more diverse studies.
AB - (1) Background: The nursing home (NH) research field lacks quality reporting about meta-analyses (MAs), and most gradings of MA evidence are biased on analyzing the effectiveness of independent variables in randomized control trials. (2) Objectives: This study aimed to perform a critical methodological review of MAs in the NH research field. (3) Methods: We searched the articles from four databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) until 15th January 2021. We reviewed a total of 41 published review articles in the NH research field. (4) Results: The studies primarily fell into the following categories: medicine (17/41), nursing (7/41), and psychiatry or psychology (6/41); 36.6% of the reviewed studies did not use any validated MA guidelines. The lowest correctly reported PRISMA 2000 guideline item was protocol and registration (14.6%), and more than 50% of articles did not report risk of bias. Moreover, 78.0% of studies did not describe missing reports of effect size formula. (5) Discussion: NH researchers must follow appropriate and updated guidelines for their MAs in order to provide validated reviews, as well as consider statistical issues such as the complexity of interventions, proper grouping, and scientific effect-size calculations to improve the quality of their study. Future quality review studies should investigate more diverse studies.
KW - Evidence practiced nursing
KW - Meta-analysis
KW - Nursing homes
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122071390&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/ijerph19010505
DO - 10.3390/ijerph19010505
M3 - Review article
C2 - 35010765
AN - SCOPUS:85122071390
SN - 1661-7827
VL - 19
JO - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
JF - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
IS - 1
M1 - 505
ER -