Quality appraisal of systematic reviews on methods of labour induction: a systematic review.

Chow, Ryan; Li, Allen; Wu, Nicole; Martin, Morgan; Wessels, Jocelyn M; Foster, Warren G

PURPOSE Induction of labour has become more common over the last decade, together with an increase in the number of systematic reviews of the subject. However, with multiple systematic reviews it is necessary to evaluate the methodological rigor to ensure the reliability of conclusions and recommendations for clinical practice. Therefore, the aim of this study was to appraise the quality of systematic reviews that examined the efficacy and/or safety of labour induction methods. METHODS An electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2020 was conducted. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) by two independent reviewers, in duplicate. RESULTS The search identified 387 publications, of which 48 studies (13%) met the a priori inclusion criteria. No significant relationships were found between study quality and number of citations, journal impact factor, or publication year. CONCLUSION Methodological quality for systematic reviews on the induction of labour were ranked as moderate with no significant changes in quality over the past 2 decades. Publication characteristics are not significantly associated with methodological quality, indicating that healthcare professionals should critically appraise studies before applying them to practice.