FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2990599092> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2990599092 endingPage "8" @default.
• W2990599092 startingPage "1" @default.
• W2990599092 abstract "Using the AMSTAR tool, this study evaluated the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) that assessed the efficacy of bariatric surgery in diabetic patients. We aimed to identify studies that can be used as clinical references.Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, and Wanfang Data were systematically searched from inception to December 31, 2017. Two reviewers independently selected SRs and extracted data. Disagreements were solved by discussions or through consultation with a third reviewer. Reviewers extracted data (characteristics of included SRs, e.g., publication year, language, and number of authors) into the predefined tables in the Microsoft Excel 2013 sheet. Data were visualized using the forest plot in RevMan 5.3 software.A total of 64 SRs were included. The average AMSTAR score was 7.4 ± 1.7. AMSTAR scores of 7 (n = 21, 32.8%) and 8 (n = 14, 28.1%) were most common. The AMSTAR scores of SRs published before 2016 (n = 46, 71.9%) were compared with SRs published after 2016 (n = 18, 28.1%), and no significant differences were observed (MD = -0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.65-0.07, P = 0.07). For SRs published in Chinese (n = 17, 26.6%) compared to those published in English (n = 47, 73.4%), the AMSTAR scores significantly differed (MD = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.55, 0.97), P = 0.59). For SRs published in China (n = 33, 51.6%) compared to those published outside of China (n = 31, 48.4%), significant differences in the AMSTAR scores were observed (MD = 1.10, 95% CI (0.29, 1.91), P = 0.008). For SRs with an author number ≤ 6 (n = 31, 48.4%) compared to SRs with authors ≥ 6 (n = 33, 51.6%), no significant differences were observed (MD = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.22, 0.50), P = 0.41). For high-quality SRs published after 2016 (n = 11, 17.2%) compared to other SRs (n = 53, 82.8%), statistically significant differences were noted (MD = 1.75, 95% CI (1.01, 2.49), P < 0.00001).The number of SRs assessing the efficacy of bariatric surgery in diabetic patients is increasing by year, but only a small number meet the criteria to support guideline recommendations. Study protocols not being registered, grey literature not retrieved, incorporation of grey literature as exclusion criteria, and failure to evaluate publication bias and report a conflict of interest were the main causes of low AMSTAR scores." @default.
• W2990599092 created "2019-12-05" @default.
• W2990599092 creator A5001717372 @default.
• W2990599092 creator A5008318052 @default.
• W2990599092 creator A5024179443 @default.
• W2990599092 creator A5028578817 @default.
• W2990599092 creator A5029437844 @default.
• W2990599092 creator A5043818935 @default.
• W2990599092 creator A5056484501 @default.
• W2990599092 creator A5057571052 @default.
• W2990599092 creator A5064739259 @default.
• W2990599092 creator A5080684297 @default.
• W2990599092 creator A5086091633 @default.
• W2990599092 date "2019-11-21" @default.
• W2990599092 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2990599092 title "Quality Assessment of Systematic Review of the Bariatric Surgery for Diabetes Mellitus" @default.
• W2990599092 cites W1539622455 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W1587282430 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W1768648036 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W1898915641 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W1914180563 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W1968982867 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W1971230081 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W1973512499 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W1975045713 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W1984511285 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W1999689242 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2005246478 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2009631314 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2029046331 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2056293259 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2068698835 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2091289879 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2093587125 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2095623039 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2100249335 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2109346853 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2114549073 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2119790985 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2122274466 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2124200900 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2157197482 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2158569927 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2169376575 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2317372497 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2743445171 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2790503825 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W2916751378 @default.
• W2990599092 cites W4213044032 @default.
• W2990599092 doi "https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9541638" @default.
• W2990599092 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/6906849" @default.
• W2990599092 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31871951" @default.
• W2990599092 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2990599092 type Work @default.
• W2990599092 sameAs 2990599092 @default.
• W2990599092 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2990599092 countsByYear W29905990922020 @default.
• W2990599092 countsByYear W29905990922021 @default.
• W2990599092 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2990599092 hasAuthorship W2990599092A5001717372 @default.
• W2990599092 hasAuthorship W2990599092A5008318052 @default.
• W2990599092 hasAuthorship W2990599092A5024179443 @default.
• W2990599092 hasAuthorship W2990599092A5028578817 @default.
• W2990599092 hasAuthorship W2990599092A5029437844 @default.
• W2990599092 hasAuthorship W2990599092A5043818935 @default.
• W2990599092 hasAuthorship W2990599092A5056484501 @default.
• W2990599092 hasAuthorship W2990599092A5057571052 @default.
• W2990599092 hasAuthorship W2990599092A5064739259 @default.
• W2990599092 hasAuthorship W2990599092A5080684297 @default.
• W2990599092 hasAuthorship W2990599092A5086091633 @default.
• W2990599092 hasBestOaLocation W29905990921 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConcept C189708586 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConcept C2776478404 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConcept C3019730874 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConcept C3020774429 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConcept C44249647 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConceptScore W2990599092C111919701 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConceptScore W2990599092C126322002 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConceptScore W2990599092C141071460 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConceptScore W2990599092C17744445 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConceptScore W2990599092C189708586 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConceptScore W2990599092C199539241 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConceptScore W2990599092C2776478404 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConceptScore W2990599092C2779473830 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConceptScore W2990599092C3019730874 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConceptScore W2990599092C3020774429 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConceptScore W2990599092C41008148 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConceptScore W2990599092C44249647 @default.
• W2990599092 hasConceptScore W2990599092C71924100 @default.

• next