Logo of Robert Koch InstituteLogo of Robert Koch Institute
Publication Server of Robert Koch Instituteedoc
de|en
View Item 
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • View Item
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
All of edoc-ServerCommunity & CollectionTitleAuthorSubjectThis CollectionTitleAuthorSubject
PublishLoginRegisterHelp
StatisticsView Usage Statistics
All of edoc-ServerCommunity & CollectionTitleAuthorSubjectThis CollectionTitleAuthorSubject
PublishLoginRegisterHelp
StatisticsView Usage Statistics
View Item 
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • View Item
  • edoc-Server Home
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • Artikel in Fachzeitschriften
  • View Item
2014-02-07Zeitschriftenartikel DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.060
Methodological quality of systematic reviews on influenza vaccination
Remschmidt, Cornelius
Wichmann, Ole
Harder, Thomas
Background: There is a growing body of evidence on the risks and benefits of influenza vaccination in various target groups. Systematic reviews are of particular importance for policy decisions. However, their methodological quality can vary considerably. Objectives: To investigate the methodological quality of systematic reviews on influenza vaccination (efficacy, effectiveness, safety) and to identify influencing factors. Methods: A systematic literature search on systematic reviews on influenza vaccination was performed, using MEDLINE, EMBASE and three additional databases (1990–2013). Review characteristics were extracted and the methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool. U-test, Kruskal–Wallis test, chi-square test, and multivariable linear regression analysis were used to assess the influence of review characteristics on AMSTAR-score. Results: Fourty-six systematic reviews fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Average methodological quality was high (median AMSTAR-score: 8), but variability was large (AMSTAR range: 0–11). Quality did not differ significantly according to vaccination target group. Cochrane reviews had higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews (p = 0.001). Detailed analysis showed that this was due to better study selection and data extraction, inclusion of unpublished studies, and better reporting of study characteristics (all p < 0.05). In the adjusted analysis, no other factor, including industry sponsorship or journal impact factor had an influence on AMSTAR score. Conclusions: Systematic reviews on influenza vaccination showed large differences regarding their methodological quality. Reviews conducted by the Cochrane collaboration were of higher quality than others. When using systematic reviews to guide the development of vaccination recommendations, the methodological quality of a review in addition to its content should be considered.
Files in this item
Thumbnail
20SxdLKNutPQ.pdf — Adobe PDF — 913.9 Kb
MD5: d8698bf01b95cb7319aa33518b3ea812
Cite
BibTeX
EndNote
RIS
No license information
Details
Terms of Use Imprint Policy Data Privacy Statement Contact

The Robert Koch Institute is a Federal Institute

within the portfolio of the Federal Ministry of Health

© Robert Koch Institute

All rights reserved unless explicitly granted.

 
DOI
10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.060
Permanent URL
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.060
HTML
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.060">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.060</a>