Zur Kurzanzeige

2014-02-07Zeitschriftenartikel DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.060
Methodological quality of systematic reviews on influenza vaccination
dc.contributor.authorRemschmidt, Cornelius
dc.contributor.authorWichmann, Ole
dc.contributor.authorHarder, Thomas
dc.date.accessioned2018-05-07T18:10:46Z
dc.date.available2018-05-07T18:10:46Z
dc.date.created2015-04-01
dc.date.issued2014-02-07none
dc.identifier.otherhttp://edoc.rki.de/oa/articles/resaHE3ukhxY6/PDF/20SxdLKNutPQ.pdf
dc.identifier.urihttp://edoc.rki.de/176904/2041
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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 Detailed analysis showed that this was due to better study selection and data extraction, inclusion of unpublished studies, and better reporting of study characteristics (all p 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.eng
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherRobert Koch-Institut, Infektionsepidemiologie
dc.subjectInfluenza vaccinationeng
dc.subjectSystematic revieweng
dc.subjectMeta-analysiseng
dc.subjectQuality appraisal tooleng
dc.subjectAMSTAReng
dc.subjectMethodological qualityeng
dc.subject.ddc610 Medizin
dc.titleMethodological quality of systematic reviews on influenza vaccination
dc.typeperiodicalPart
dc.identifier.urnurn:nbn:de:0257-10039151
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.01.060
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.25646/1966
local.edoc.container-titleVaccine
local.edoc.container-textRemschmidt, C., Wichmann, O., Harder, T. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on influenza vaccination (2014) Vaccine, 32 (15), pp. 1678-1684.
local.edoc.fp-subtypeArtikel
local.edoc.type-nameZeitschriftenartikel
local.edoc.container-typeperiodical
local.edoc.container-type-nameZeitschrift
local.edoc.container-urlhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X14001121
local.edoc.container-publisher-nameElsevier
local.edoc.container-volume32
local.edoc.container-issue15
local.edoc.container-year2014

Zur Kurzanzeige