The Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on the Effectiveness of Non-pharmacological Cancer Pain Management

Abstract

This study used the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) to determine how the quality of methodologies in systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) impacts the effectiveness of nonpharmacological cancer pain management. The authors searched 11 electronic databases for published and unpublished studies (in English and Korean) on SRs and MAs relating to “cancer” and “pain management” that were released prior to May 7, 2014. The findings from 17 SRs and MAs were scored for quality using AMSTAR and coded by management type and value of effect size. Only one article was deemed high quality; five were considered to be of low quality. The mean score was 5.47 (SD = 2.03), indicating moderate quality. Among the items we tested via AMSTAR, zero studies stated whether they have a conflict of interest in their covered studies, but every study established the research question and inclusion criteria before constructing the review. Rigorous assessment of nonpharmacological cancer pain management using AMSTAR might contribute to healthcare providers making more informed clinical decisions when it comes to handling pain. Based on the finding, researchers should abide by reporting guidelines for SRs and MAs to ensure that research is more rigorously synthesized.