loading page

Quality Appraisal of Systematic Reviews on the Efficacy and Safety of Labour Induction Methods: Systematic Review.
  • +3
  • Ryan Chow,
  • Allen Li,
  • Nicole Wu,
  • Morgan Martin,
  • Jocelyn Wessels,
  • Warren Foster
Ryan Chow
McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences
Author Profile
Nicole Wu
McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences
Author Profile
Morgan Martin
McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences
Author Profile
Jocelyn Wessels
McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences
Author Profile
Warren Foster
McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences
Author Profile

Abstract

Background: The induction of labour has been increasing over the last decade. It is most often indicated when the safety of the baby or mother may be compromised. Objectives: This study aims to assess the quality of systematic reviews that examined the efficacy and/or safety of various methods of induction of labour. Search Strategy: An electronic database search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. The search strategy can be found in the online supplement. Selection Criteria: Systematic reviews that examined various methods of induction of labour. Inclusion and exclusion criteria can be found in the main text. Data Collection and Analysis: Study characteristics such as journal and impact factor, year of publication, source of funding, citation rate, etc. were retrieved. Quality assessment was conducted using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Main Results: There were no significant relationships between mean AMSTAR score and number of citations (p=0.0875, r=0.25; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.50), journal impact factor (p=0.2959, r=-0.15; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.14), or publication year (p=0.5827, r=0.08; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.36). Cochrane studies on average scored higher than non-Cochrane studies (p=0.01). No significant differences were detected between the AMSTAR scores of government and non-government funded studies (p=0.34). Conclusions: Better adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and for peer reviewers to appraise new systematic reviews with methodological assessment tools would enhance confidence in review conclusions.