J Korean Acad Nurs.  2014 Oct;44(5):459-470. 10.4040/jkan.2014.44.5.459.

Review of Meta-analysis Research on Exercise in South Korea

• Song Y
• Gang M
• Kim SA
• Shin IS

• KMID: 2129536
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2014.44.5.459

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of meta-analysis regarding exercise using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) as well as to compare effect size according to outcomes.
METHODS
Electronic databases including the Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS), the National Assembly Library and the DBpia, HAKJISAand RISS4U for the dates 1990 to January 2014 were searched for 'meta-analysis' and 'exercise' in the fields of medical, nursing, physical therapy and physical exercise in Korea. AMSTAR was scored for quality assessment of the 33 articles included in the study. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA and chi2-test.
RESULTS
The mean score for AMSTAR evaluations was 4.18 (SD=1.78) and about 67% were classified at the low-quality level and 30% at the moderate-quality level. The scores of quality were statistically different by field of research, number of participants, number of databases, financial support and approval by IRB. The effect size that presented in individual studies were different by type of exercise in the applied intervention.
CONCLUSION
This critical appraisal of meta-analysis published in various field that focused on exercise indicates that a guideline such as the PRISMA checklist should be strongly recommended for optimum reporting of meta-analysis across research fields.

Keyword

Exercise; Meta-analysis

MeSH Terms

Databases, Factual
*Exercise
Humans
Publishing/*standards
Republic of Korea
Research

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Literature search strategy. RISS=Research information sharing service; KISS=Korean studies information service system; DBpia=Databasepia.

Reference

1. Yoo JY, Oh EG. Level of beliefs, knowledge and performance for evidence-based practice among nurses experienced in preceptor role. J Korean Acad Nurs Adm. 2012; 18(2):202–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2012.18.2.202.

2. Shin IS, Park EY. Review of the meta-analysis research in special education and related field. Korean J Phys Mult Disabil. 2011; 54(4):157–176.

3. Kim JH, Kim AK. A quality assessment of meta-analyses of nursing in South Korea. J Korean Acad Nurs. 2013; 43(6):736–745. http://dx.doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2013.43.6.736.

4. Jang DH, Shin IS. Historical development of meta-analysis as an educational research methodology. J Curric Eval. 2011; 14(3):309–332.

5. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999; 354(9193):1896–1900.

6. Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, Cook DJ, Doig C. Evaluating metaanalyses in the general surgical literature: A critical appraisal. Ann Surg. 2005; 241(3):450–459.

7. MacDonald SL, Canfield SE, Fesperman SF, Dahm P. Assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature from 1998 to 2008. J Urol. 2010; 184(2):648–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.127.

8. Dijkman BG, Abouali JA, Kooistra BW, Conter HJ, Poolman RW, Kulkarni AV, et al. Twenty years of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: Has quality kept up with quantity? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010; 92(1):48–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.i.00251.

9. De Vito C, Manzoli L, Marzuillo C, Anastasi D, Boccia A, Villari P. A systematic review evaluating the potential for bias and the methodological quality of meta-analyses in vaccinology. Vaccine. 2007; 25(52):8794–8806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2007.10.034.

10. Melchiors AC, Correr CJ, Venson R, Pontarolo R. An analysis of quality of systematic reviews on pharmacist health interventions. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012; 34(1):32–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11096-011-9592-0.

11. Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA, Athanasiou AE. Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011; 14(3):116–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2011.01522.x.

12. Suebnukarn S, Ngamboonsirisingh S, Rattanabanlang A. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in endodontics. J Endod. 2010; 36(4):602–608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.019.

13. Kim YK. A review of the meta-analysis in major academic journal of business management in Korea. Korea J Bus Adm. 2010; 23(4):1833–1858.

14. Suh MO. The review of meta-analysis and research methodology proposed. Korean J Educ Res. 2011; 49(2):1–23.

15. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the potsdam consultation on meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995; 48(1):167–171.

16. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000; 283(15):2008–2012.

17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(10):1006–1012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005.

18. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Singer J, Goldsmith CH, Hutchison BG, Milner RA, et al. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991; 44(1):91–98.

19. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7:10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10.

20. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(10):1013–1020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009.

21. Kim SY, Park JE, Seo HJ, Lee YJ, Jang BH, Son HJ, et al. NECA's guidance for undertaking systematic reviews and meta-analyses for intervention. Seoul: National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency;2011.

22. Matjasko JL, Vivolo-Kantor AM, Massetti GM, Holland KM, Holt MK, Cruz JD. A systematic meta-review of evaluations of youth violence prevention programs: Common and divergent findings from 25 years of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Aggress Violent Behav. 2012; 17(6):540–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.006.

23. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;1988.

24. Burda BU, Norris SL, Holmer HK, Ogden LA, Smith ME. Quality varies across clinical practice guidelines for mammography screening in women aged 40-49 years as assessed by AGREE and AMSTAR instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(9):968–976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.12.005.

25. Lee MH, Baek SS. A meta-analysis of optimal exercise time and frequence for fat loss in overweight elementary school students. Korean J Elem Phys Educ. 2012; 18(2):199–210.

26. Ho SS, Dhaliwal SS, Hills AP, Pal S. The effect of 12 weeks of aerobic, resistance or combination exercise training on cardiovascular risk factors in the overweight and obese in a randomized trial. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12:704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-704.

27. Davidson LE, Hudson R, Kilpatrick K, Kuk JL, McMillan K, Janiszewski PM, et al. Effects of exercise modality on insulin resistance and functional limitation in older adults: A randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169(2):122–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2008.558.

28. Chung C, Lee S, Hwang SW, Park EH. Systematic review of exercise effects on health outcomes in women with breast cancer. Asian Nurs Res. 2013; 7(3):149–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2013.07.005.

29. Sung KS, Yoon YM, Kim EJ. Meta-analysis of the effects of obesity management program for children. Child Health Nurs Res. 2013; 19(4):262–269. http://dx.doi.org/10.4094/chnr.2013.19.4.262.

30. McCartney K, Rosenthal R. Effect size, practical importance, and social policy for children. Child Dev. 2000; 71(1):173–180.