Evaluation of methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in veterinary journals with amstar

Abstract

The complete and transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses increases the quality of such studies. Although there are different tools to examine methodological quality, little research has been conducted on the quality of these studies in animal health. The objective of this study was to evaluate the complete reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in veterinary journals with "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR). The journal's impact factor, the number of authors, the number of studies included, and the research period were extracted as article characteristics. Total quality scores were calculated according to the AMSTAR tool, and scores were compared using the aspects of the articles. This study assessed 207 systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in 130 veterinary journals. AMSTAR quality scores were higher for meta-analyses with fewer than five authors compared to studies with five or more authors (P=0.009). Our findings indicate that about half of all studies (51.2%) were of moderate quality regarding methodology and reporting. According to the evaluation with AMSTAR, 64.6% of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were of high quality. In conclusion, the reporting quality of the studies was good, but generally, there was insufficient information on assessing publication bias.