The Association between Methodological Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews Produced by the Guide to Community Preventive Services and the Recommendations and Findings Issued by the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, 2000-2010 Open Access

Oguntebi, Grace (2012)

Permanent URL: https://etd.library.emory.edu/concern/etds/d504rk48s?locale=en
Published

Abstract

Background: An increasing demand for evidence-based healthcare is placing new
emphasis on the methodological quality of systematic reviews. The Guide to Community
Preventive Services (the Community Guide) was developed to conduct systematic
reviews evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions. Each intervention is
issued a finding from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (Task Force),
based on the strength of the evidence obtained in the review. These findings and
recommendations are increasingly being implemented in public health policies and
programs.
Objective: To determine the association between methodological reporting quality in
Community Guide systematic reviews and the corresponding Task Force finding. We
also sought to evaluate the effect that three covariates (publication year, topic area, or
the type of intervention considered in the review) have on the methodological reporting
quality.
Methods: Community Guide systematic reviews were selected from five topic areas,
and from each review that satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria, data were
extracted on descriptive information, quality of the included studies, methodological
reporting quality (based on five selected methodological characteristics), and the Task
Force finding. Associations between the methodological reporting quality and the Task
Force finding, and the effects of the three covariates on the methodological reporting
quality, were evaluated using logistic regression modeling techniques.
Results: In the 72 systematic reviews included, the average number of methodological
characteristics addressed was 1.72 out of a possible 5. A Task Force finding of strong
evidence vs. insufficient evidence was significantly associated with increased
methodological reporting score (OR=2.31) and increased study quality score (OR=2.24).
Significant associations of similar magnitude were also observed for the comparison of
sufficient vs. insufficient evidence. Reporting of the individual methodological
characteristics was significantly different at varying values of the three covariates
evaluated.
Conclusions: All findings are of importance in public health, whether a
recommendation with strong evidence supports an intervention's effectiveness, or a
finding of insufficient evidence suggests areas for future research. For any finding,
thorough and transparent methodological reporting contributes to the validity of the
systematic review, increasing its usefulness to public health policy-makers and
professionals.

Table of Contents

Section .............................................................................. Page

Chapter I: Literature Review .................................................... 1

Chapter II: Manuscript ........................................................... 11

Abstract .............................................................................. 12
Introduction ......................................................................... 13
Methods .............................................................................. 16
Results ................................................................................ 21
Discussion ............................................................................ 27
References ........................................................................... 33
Tables ................................................................................. 38
Figures ................................................................................ 47

Chapter III: Public Health Implications ....................................... 53

About this Master's Thesis

Rights statement
  • Permission granted by the author to include this thesis or dissertation in this repository. All rights reserved by the author. Please contact the author for information regarding the reproduction and use of this thesis or dissertation.
School
Department
Subfield / Discipline
Degree
Submission
Language
  • English
Research field
Keyword
Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor
Committee Members
Partnering Agencies
Last modified