CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 107Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchDelphi Technique in Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The methodological quality of robotic surgical meta-analyses needed to be improved: a cross-sectional study

Yan, Peijing, Yao, Liang, Li, Huijuan, Zhang, Min, Xun, Yangqin, Li, Meixuan, Cai, Hui, Lu, Cuncun, Hu, Lidong, Guo, Tiankang, Liu, Rong, Yang, Kehu·2019·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.12.013
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives The aims of the article were to assess the methodological quality of robotic surgical meta-analyses (MAs) using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) and to explore the factors of methodological quality.Study design and setting Robotic surgical MAs published between 2015 and 2018 were identified through a systematical search in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science databases. The methodological quality of eligible MAs was evaluated by AMSTAR-2. Data extraction and the methodological quality of MAs assessment were double checked by four trained reviewers. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess the consistency of quantitative measurements, and the ICC for overall score and score of critical domains were 0.952 and 0.912, respectively. Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify potential factors affecting methodological quality.Results A total of 123 MAs focused on 18 surgical locations were included. The findings showed that, regarding quality, only two (1.6%) of 123 MAs were high, two (1.6%) were moderate, two (1.6%) were low, and the remainder 117 (95.1%) were critical low. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that publishing year and journal rank independently associated with methodological quality of MAs; origin region (P > 0.05), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (P = 0.421), randomized controlled trial enrollment (P = 0.304), and funding support (P = 0.958) did not influence the quality of the MAs. Registration (item 2) and funding reported for individual studies (item 10) showed the poorest adherence in the MAs.Conclusion Our study showed that the previously published robotic surgical MAs lack good scientific quality, especially in those published in Q2- to Q4-rated journals. Potential solutions to improve the quality of future robotic surgical MAs include preregistration and funding reported for individual studies.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.12.013

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 49 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–107 of 107

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Yan, P., Yao, L., Li, H., Zhang, M., Xun, Y., Li, M., Cai, H., Lu, C., Hu, L., Guo, T., Liu, R., & Yang, K.
Affiliations
  • Gansu Provincial Hospital (CN)
  • Hong Kong Baptist University (HK)
  • Lanzhou University (CN)
  • Chinese PLA General Hospital (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Liu, Rong
  • Yang, Kehu
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
109
Pages
20-29
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.12.013
OpenAlex
W2905661211
Cited by
107
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 21
FWCI
13.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lanzhou University Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China (16LZUJBWTD013, 18LZUJBWZX006)
  • Gansu Provincial Hospital, China (17GSSY9-1, Grant no. 18GSSY3-8)
  • Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation Foundation (GSXZYZH2018006)
  • Laboratory Of Intelligent Medical Engineering (GSXZYZH2018001)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
robotic surgery, meta-analysis, methodological quality, AMSTAR 2, reporting quality, research registration, funding disclosure, journal impact factor
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Multivariate Analysis, Robotic Surgical Procedures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review