Quality of Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Surgical Randomized Clinical Trials

Overview

Journal BJS Open

Publisher Oxford University Press

Specialty General Surgery

Date 2020 Feb 29

PMID 32109006

Authors

J Yu

W Chen

P Wu

Y Li

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Well designed and conducted systematic reviews are essential to clinical practice. Surgical intervention is more complex than medical intervention when considering special items related to procedures. There has been no cross-sectional study of the reporting quality of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials focused on special items relating to surgical interventions.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials published in 2007 and 2017 was undertaken via a PubMed search. Quality of reporting was assessed by the PRISMA checklist, with intervention details containing 27 items. Univariable and multivariable linear regression was used to explore factors in the checklist as indicators of reporting quality.

Results: A total of 204 systematic reviews were identified. The median score for the PRISMA checklist was 22 (i.q.r. 20-24), and systematic reviews published in 2017 had a significantly higher median score than those from 2007 (22 (i.q.r. 21-24) versus 20 (17-22); P < 0·001). Among the 27 items, 15 were reported adequately and three were reported poorly (in less than 50 per cent of reports). The proportion of other items reported ranged from 54·4 to 77·9 per cent. In multivariable analysis, systematic reviews published in 2017 (coefficient 0·59, 95 per cent c.i. 0·50 to 0·69) and Cochrane reviews (coefficient 0·67, 0·55 to 0·81) were associated with better reporting.

Conclusion: The quality of reporting of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials has improved in the past 10 years. Some information relating to specific surgical interventions is, however, still reported poorly.

References

Sun X, Zhou X, Yu Y, Liu H . Exploring reporting quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses on nursing interventions in patients with Alzheimer's disease before and after PRISMA introduction. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018; 18(1):154. PMC: 6267794. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0622-7. View

Hoffmann T, Oxman A, Ioannidis J, Moher D, Lasserson T, Tovey D . Enhancing the usability of systematic reviews by improving the consideration and description of interventions. BMJ. 2017; 358:j2998. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j2998. View

Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell D, Chaimani A, Schmid C, Cameron C . The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015; 162(11):777-84. DOI: 10.7326/M14-2385. View

Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, Cook D, Doig C . Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal. Ann Surg. 2005; 241(3):450-9. PMC: 1356983. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000154258.30305.df. View

Naunheim M, Walcott B, Nahed B, Simpson A, Agarwalla P, Coumans J . The quality of randomized controlled trial reporting in spine literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 36(16):1326-30. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f2aef0. View

Guise J, Butler M, Chang C, Viswanathan M, Pigott T, Tugwell P . AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 6: PRISMA-CI extension statement and checklist. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017; 90:43-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.016. View

Smith T, Kulatilake P, Brown L, Wigley J, Hameed W, Shantikumar S . Do surgery journals insist on reporting by CONSORT and PRISMA? A follow-up survey of 'instructions to authors'. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2015; 4(1):17-21. PMC: 4323756. DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2014.12.003. View

Cain M, Zhang Z, Yuan K . Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, influence and estimation. Behav Res Methods. 2016; 49(5):1716-1735. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-016-0814-1. View

Yu J, Li X, Li Y, Sun X . Quality of reporting in surgical randomized clinical trials. Br J Surg. 2016; 104(3):296-303. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10331. View

10.

Wang X, Chen Y, Yang N, Deng W, Wang Q, Li N . Methodology and reporting quality of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015; 15:74. PMC: 4579604. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-015-0069-z. View

11.

Gabler N, Duan N, Liao D, Elmore J, Ganiats T, Kravitz R . Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: is the literature up to the challenge?. Trials. 2009; 10:43. PMC: 2706823. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-10-43. View

12.

Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco A, Sampson M, Altman D . Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007; 4(3):e78. PMC: 1831728. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078. View

13.

Welch V, Petticrew M, Tugwell P, Moher D, ONeill J, Waters E . PRISMA-Equity 2012 extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity. PLoS Med. 2012; 9(10):e1001333. PMC: 3484052. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001333. View

14.

Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche P, Ioannidis J . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009; 339:b2700. PMC: 2714672. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2700. View

15.

Cook D, Sackett D, Spitzer W . 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):167-71. DOI: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00172-m. View

16.

Bala M, Akl E, Sun X, Bassler D, Mertz D, Mejza F . Randomized trials published in higher vs. lower impact journals differ in design, conduct, and analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66(3):286-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.10.005. View

17.

McInnes M, Moher D, Thombs B, McGrath T, Bossuyt P, Clifford T . Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement. JAMA. 2018; 319(4):388-396. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.19163. View

18.

Papageorgiou S, Papadopoulos M, Athanasiou A . Reporting characteristics of meta-analyses in orthodontics: methodological assessment and statistical recommendations. Eur J Orthod. 2013; 36(1):74-85. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjt008. View

19.

Boutron I, Ravaud P, Nizard R . The design and assessment of prospective randomised, controlled trials in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007; 89(7):858-63. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B7.19440. View

20.

Moher D, Cook D, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup D . 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):1896-900. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5. View