Association of Study Quality with Completeness of Reporting: Have Completeness of Reporting and Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Major Radiology Journals Changed Since Publication of the PRISMA Statement?

Abstract

To evaluate whether completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals has changed since publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement; a secondary objective is to evaluate whether completeness of reporting (ie, PRISMA) is associated with study quality (ie, Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews [AMSTAR]). Materials and Methods: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in major radiology journals between January 2007 and December 2011 were identified by searching MEDLINE with the modified Montori method. Studies were reviewed independently by two investigators and assessed for adherence to the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. The average results were analyzed to assess for change in mean score before and after PRISMA publication and to assess results over time; a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to assess for any association between PRISMA and AMSTAR results. Results: Included were 130 studies from 11 journals. Average PRISMA and AMSTAR results were 21.8 of 27 and 7.2 of 11, respectively. The average result was higher after publication of PRISMA, and PRISMA-reported items were 22.6 of 27 after publication of PRISMA versus 20.9 of 27 before publication of PRISMA; AM-STAR results were 7.7 of 11 after publication of PRISMA versus 6.7 of 11 before publication of PRISMA. There was a strong positive correlation (r = 0.86) between the PRISMA and AMSTAR results. There was high variability between journals. Radiology had the highest PRISMA reported items (24.7 of 27), and American Journal of Neuroradiology had the lowest (19.6 of 27). Two major areas for improvement include study protocol registration and assessment of risk of bias across studies (ie, publication bias). Conclusion: In major radiology journal studies, there was modest improvement in completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, assessed by PRISMA, which was strongly associated with higher study quality, assessed by AMSTAR.

Reporting of imaging diagnostic accuracy studies with focus on MRI subgroup: Adherence to STARD 2015

“…Imaging research often evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of an imaging test in detecting a target condition or disease (eg, accuracy of MRI for detection or staging of prostate cancer) . Published diagnostic accuracy studies are often not completely reported, which hinders a reader's ability to evaluate risk of bias, to determine the generalizability of the study findings, and limits reproducibility .…”

The effects of the PRISMA statement to improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of nursing interventions for patients with heart failure

“…The compliance of included SRs/MAs with almost all PRISMA items was better than before. Other analyses also demonstrated similar findings: Tunis, McInnes, Hanna, and Esmail () concluded that completeness of reporting of SRs and MAs was modest improved in major radiology journal studies after publication of the PRISMA statement. The endorsement of PRISMA resulted in increase of both reporting and methodological quality (Panic, Leoncini, Belvis, Ricciardi, & Boccia, ).…”

Principles in the Evaluation of Systematic Reviews

“…All of these sources, as well as a list of the organizations and journals that endorse PRISMA, are publicly available from http://www.prisma-statement.org. Since the availability of PRISMA, studies of the literature in various health care specialties have suggested an improvement in the quality of reporting and methodologies of systematic reviews published in biomedical journals …”