Enhancing the Reporting Quality of Meta-Analyses for Trustworthy Decision of Breast Cancer Intervention: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Abstract

Background Meta-analysis of RCTs has been widely employed to evaluate effectiveness of the interventions for breast cancer, but little is known of their reporting validity. Related studies showed that meta-analysis may mislead clinical practice when the reporting is uninformative. The purpose of the study was to assess the reporting quality of meta-analyses of RCTs for breast cancer intervention, and explore potential factors associated with the reporting.Method We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews from inception to November 2019 for published meta-analysis of RCTs for breast cancer intervention. The PRISMA checklist (27-items) was used for the measuring of the reporting quality. The adherence of eligible meta-analyses under each reporting item from PRISMA were evaluated and those with an adherence ≥ 80% were regarded as well reported while less than 30% were poor reported. The proportion of reporting issues were summarized and compared in pre-defined settings measured by rate difference (RD).Result A total of 296 meta-analyses were included. For the 27 reporting items, there were only 6 items were identified as well-reported, while as much as 9 items were poorly reported by these meta-analyses. The reporting issues mainly embodied in the methods and results section. Our further analysis suggested that those published more recently (RD=-0.07, 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.03), complied with reporting guideline (RD=-0.04, 95% CI: -0.07 to -0.02), and pre-specified protocol (RD=-0.09, 95% CI: -0.09 to -0.01) were associated with less reporting issues.Conclusion The reporting of the meta-analyses for breast cancer intervention was uninformative to support the decision-making. Although improvement has seen over times, further efforts are still needed. Some easy-to-implement measures could be considered such as referring to a reporting guideline, develop a protocol in advance to help further researchers to improve the reporting of their meta-analysis.