• Patricia Llópez-Espinós, Antonio Palazón-Bru, Concepción Beneyto-Ripoll, Ana María Martínez-Díaz, Vicente Francisco Gil-Guillén, and María de Los Ángeles Carbonell-Torregrosa.
• Emergency Services, General University Hospital of Elda, Elda, Spain.
• Curr Med Res Opin. 2020 Jun 1; 36 (6): 929-939.

AbstractObjective: Clinical guidelines for the treatment of septic shock are based on the studies with the best scientific evidence, which are meta-analyses of clinical trials. However, these meta-analyses may have methodological limitations that prevent their conclusions from being extrapolated to routine clinical practice. Therefore, the objective of this study is to determine the quality of these meta-analyses through a systematic review.Methods: In this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE, Scopus and EMBASE from inception to May 2019. We selected meta-analyses from clinical trials that determined the effectiveness of an intervention in reducing the incidence of mortality in patients with septic shock. All items were extracted from the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ), which collects information from both systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Results: A total of 34 studies were included. Most elements of the OQAQ were conducted satisfactorily, although 35.3% of meta-analyses did not use a quality assessment of the studies included in other analyses. In 52.9% of meta-analyses, the quality of the studies was high or very high.Conclusions: The methods used to obtain the results should be taken into account when recommending an intervention to treat septic shock if the evidence comes from a meta-analysis of the analyzed characteristics.

13 keywords...

hide…