Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management

Abstract

The methodological and reporting quality of burn-specific systematic reviews has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews in burn care management. Computerised searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and The Cochrane Library through to February 2016 for systematic reviews relevant to burn care using medical subject and free-text terms such as 'burn', 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching five discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted and evaluated methodological quality using the 11-item A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and reporting quality using the 27-item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Characteristics of systematic reviews associated with methodological and reporting quality were identified. Descriptive statistics and linear regression identified features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 60 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Six of the 11 AMSTAR items reporting on 'a priori' design, duplicate study selection, grey literature, included/excluded studies, publication bias and conflict of interest were reported in less than 50% of the systematic reviews. Of the 27 items listed for PRISMA, 13 items reporting on introduction, methods, results and the discussion were addressed in less than 50% of systematic reviews. Multivariable analyses showed that systematic reviews associated with higher methodological or reporting quality incorporated a meta-analysis (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·3; 95% CI: 3·8, 8·7) were published in the Cochrane library (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2·9; 95% CI: 1·6, 4·2; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·1; 95% CI: 3·1, 9·2) and included a randomised control trial (AMSTAR regression coefficient 1·4; 95%CI: 0·4, 2·4; PRISMA regression coefficient 3·4; 95% CI: 0·9, 5·8). The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in burn care requires further improvement with stricter adherence by authors to the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on psoriasis: role of funding sources, conflict of interest and bibliometric indices as predictors of methodological quality

“…Some studies have found that author affiliation to the Cochrane Collaboration is a predictor of the methodological quality of SRs and MAs . Although this subgroup of reviews achieved the highest AMSTAR scores in our study, we did not observe Cochrane affiliation as a quality predictor.…”

“…3 Some studies have found that author affiliation to the Cochrane Collaboration is a predictor of the methodological quality of SRs and MAs. [51][52][53] Although this subgroup of reviews achieved the highest AMSTAR scores in our study, we did not observe Cochrane affiliation as a quality predictor. This may be due to the fact that most of these studies performed a linear regression using the total AMSTAR score as a predicting variable.…”

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).…”

The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review

“…Reporting guidelines are in place for systematic reviews in the form of the PRISMA statement [ 19 , 20 ] to promote adherence to good practice, but again, uptake of compliance with guidance from systematic review authors is varied [ 7 ] and often poor. Wasiak and colleagues [ 21 ] report that, from a review of 60 systematic reviews in burn care management, 13 of the 27 PRISMA checklist items were addressed in less than 50% of cases. Whilst journals may stipulate to authors that the PRISMA checklist is followed when submitting systematic reviews for publication, peer reviewers and journal editors may be unlikely to find the time to monitor or regulate authors adherence to these guidelines, in addition to reviewing the scientific and reporting quality of the draft manuscript.…”