A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery

Abstract

ObjectiveOur objective was to evaluate quality of conduct and reporting of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery. We also aimed to identify characteristics predictive of review quality.BackgroundSystematic reviews summarise evidence by combining sources, but are potentially prone to bias. To counter this, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was published to aid in reporting. Similarly, the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) measurement tool was designed to appraise methodology. The paediatric surgical literature has seen an increasing number of reviews over the past decade, but quality has not been evaluated.MethodsAdhering to PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review with a priori design to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventions in paediatric surgery. From 01/2010 to 06/2016, we searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Web of Science, Google Scholar, reference lists and journals. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. We assessed conduct and reporting using AMSTAR and PRISMA. Scores were calculated as the sum of reported items. We also extracted author, journal and article characteristics, and used them in exploratory analysis to determine which variables predict quality.Results112 articles fulfilled eligibility criteria (53 systematic reviews; 59 meta-analyses). Overall, 68% AMSTAR and 56.8% PRISMA items were reported adequately. Poorest scores were identified with regards a priori design, inclusion of structured summaries, including the grey literature, citing excluded articles and evaluating bias. 13 reviews were pre-registered and 6 in PRISMA-endorsing journals. The following predicted quality in univariate analysis:, word count, Cochrane review, journal h-index, impact factor, journal endorses PRISMA, PRISMA adherence suggested in author guidance, article mentions PRISMA, review includes comparison of interventions and review registration. The latter three variables were significant in multivariate regression.ConclusionsThere are gaps in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in paediatric surgery. More endorsement by journals of the PRISMA guideline may improve review quality, and the dissemination of reliable evidence to paediatric clinicians.

Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses of Nursing Interventions in Patients With Alzheimer's Disease: General Implications of the Findings

“…But the quality of the reporting and methodology have been suboptimal. What is more, eligible articles of superior quality need to contain the (Cullis et al, 2017;Shi et al, 2014;Wasiak et al, 2016) have evaluated compliance with the PRISMA statement and AMSTAR tool in other medical disciplines. An assessment of the leading gastroenterology and hepatology journals from 2006 to 2008 and from 2012 to 2014 showed the mean PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were 20.800 and 7.600, respectively (Liu et al, 2016).…”

Canvas Framework for Performing Systematic Reviews Analysis

“…According to Swartz (2011) a collateral effect of the PRISMA statement is the improvement of the transparency and the scientific merit of a systematic review or meta-analysis. This approach has been recommended by several journals particularly in the area of health sciences, in which can be found several studies that adopt this guideline (Rivero, Nuñez, Pires, and Bueno, 2015;Welch, Petticrew, Petkovic, Moher, Waters, and White, 2016;Cullis, Gudlaugsdottir, and Andrews, 2017).…”

Critical appraisal of methodological quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis in Paediatric Dentistry journals

“…A maximum score of one could be assigned to each item and a SR could obtain a score of between 0 and 11. Inadequate or absent reporting of any item in the SR was scored as zero . Where there was missing or unclear data, the authors of the SR were contacted for clarification.…”