• Users Online: 370
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Browse Articles Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 192

Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence of hypertension in renal patients in Iran: Methodological issues on reporting


1 Department of Rehabilitation and Sports Medicine, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
2 Department of Infectious Diseases, School of Medicine, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

Date of Submission24-Sep-2019
Date of Acceptance26-Sep-2019
Date of Web Publication11-Dec-2020

Correspondence Address:
Mohammad Bagher Shamsi
School of Allied Medical Sciences, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Dowlatabad Street, Kermanshah
Iran
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_350_19

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Mirzaei M, Vaziri S, Shamsi MB. Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence of hypertension in renal patients in Iran: Methodological issues on reporting. Int J Prev Med 2020;11:192

How to cite this URL:
Mirzaei M, Vaziri S, Shamsi MB. Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence of hypertension in renal patients in Iran: Methodological issues on reporting. Int J Prev Med [serial online] 2020 [cited 2021 Mar 5];11:192. Available from: https://www.ijpvmjournal.net/text.asp?2020/11/1/192/303219



To Editor,

We read with great interest the review article “Prevalence of Hypertension in Renal Diseases in Iran: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis” by Motedayen et al., published in Int J Prev Med 2019.[1]

Although the reviewers have presented the process of systematic search via Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, there is a slight concordance between reported details and the PRISMA guidelines.

  1. The reviewers have not provided details of the information on systematic search of the literature including full search strategy or combining of terms strategy. More detailed information for at least one database, as well as Boolean operations should be provided, to ensure that it could be repeated
  2. The flowchart of systematic review should be presented at the results section. In this review, the flowchart for the search strategy process, the number of studies screened/include studies are presented in methods[2]
  3. Reviewers mentioned they used STROBE to assess methodological quality of studies. STROBE assesses the quality of reporting and is not meant to appraise the methodological quality of a study. Reviewers should consider appraising the articles with other validated measures appropriate. There is inadequate explanation about results of the quality assessment. The quality assessment of included studies in this review only provided data on used checklist and the document does not provide sufficient information about the quality assessment scores. This information should be reported to assess whether the quality of included studies were sufficient. The strength of the conclusions drawn in the systematic reviews depends on the included studies that meet a minimum standard of quality[3]
  4. In quality evaluation section, reviewers mentioned the prevalence of osteoporosis, while in text and aims of study they addressed the prevalence of hypertension
  5. As a systematic review study, arrange of the figures and tables of the study does not meet the standards of the journal which has been mentioned in guide for authors and arrange of the figures of this study has some errors. For example, the reviewers mentioned that the confidence interval for each study based on the random effects model is presented in Diagram 1. Mentioned diagram are not directly relative to the results of random effects model
  6. To assess the publication bias in the meta-analyses of prevalence studies, the use of funnel plots is not applicable, because the mentioned estimate discovered unpublished negative studies in clinical trials.[2]


Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Motedayen M, Sarokhani D, Ghiasi B, Khatony A, Dehkordi AH. Prevalence of hypertension in renal diseases in Iran: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Prev Med 2019;10:124.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
2.
Shamsi M, Arab-Zozani M, Mirzaei M. Methodological issue on reporting of systematic review of diagnostic accuracy of rapid ultrasound in shock. Bull Emerg and Trauma 2019;7:337-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D. PRISMA group. Methods of systematic reviews and meta-analysis preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1006-12.  Back to cited text no. 3
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed138    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded13    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]