Quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals

Abstract

Summary Background Reporting of systematic reviews (SRs) using PRISMA increases transparency and reproducibility; adherence in the dermatology literature has not been assessed. Objectives To assess selected, primarily methodological items from the PRISMA reporting guideline among SRs published in dermatology journals. Methods We reviewed SRs published from 2013 to 2017 in the five highest‐impact dermatology journals according to the Science Citation Index. We descriptively assessed reporting of selected PRISMA items, the proportion of PRISMA items fully and partially reported, and whether SRs described using a preregistered protocol. We used univariate and multivariate linear regression to evaluate associations between exposures (year, protocol registration, funding source, type of included study, disease and journal), and outcomes (proportion of PRISMA items fully reported, and fully and partially reported, for each SR). Results We identified 136 SRs. All had more than one inadequately reported PRISMA item. Protocol registration (73%) and risk of bias (38%) were most often unreported. Reporting improved over time in our primary multivariate analysis [fully reported vs. partially and not reported, β = 2·48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·73–4·27] and secondary analysis (fully and partially reported vs. not reported, β = 1·28, 95% CI 0·06–2·50). Only 15% (20 of 136) of SRs stated that their protocols were registered; this was associated with PRISMA adherence to the evaluated PRISMA items in our primary multivariate analysis (β = 10·05, 95% CI 2·89–17·2) and secondary analysis (β = 8·87, 95% CI 3·84–13·9). Conclusions SR reporting in dermatology journals is often inadequate but improving over time; protocol registration is associated with better reporting. What's already known about this topic? No studies to date have examined the adherence of dermatology systematic reviews (SRs) to reporting guidelines, such as PRISMA. In other medical fields, reporting is variable with some improvement in adherence to reporting standards over time. What does this study add? Among SRs published in five dermatology journals from 2013 to 2017, all (n = 136) had at least one inadequately reported PRISMA item, while 93% (127 of 136) had at least one fully nonreported item. Reporting improved over time and SRs that stated use of a preregistered protocol were associated with better reporting. Several items remain commonly underreported in dermatology SRs. Authors, reviewers, journal editors and editorial committees should encourage preregistration of SR protocols and improved SR reporting.

Quality and Reporting Completeness of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Dermatology

“…Deficiencies in the conduct and reporting of SRs have been highlighted in general (Pussegoda et al, 2017) as well as in specific specialties such as pediatric surgery (Cullis et al, 2017) or urology (Xia et al, 2017). A recent analysis of the quality of reporting of SRs according to PRISMA published from 2013 to 2017 in the five highest-impact dermatology journals concluded that reporting was often inadequate but had improved over time (Croitoru et al, 2020). Reporting quality is important, but it is not the same as study quality.…”

Quality of systematic reviews in HIV: The case of clinical outcomes associated with patient medication adherence

“…A third limitation is that our findings apply to this particular research question, and may not be generalizable to other populations, disease areas, or interventions. However, the plethora of publications addressing the low quality of SRs affirms our suspicion that this is a widespread problem 8,37–47 …”

“…We found inconsistent reporting and methodological quality in SRs on the clinical impact of poor ART adherence, despite the availability of numerous reporting guidelines (eg, PRISMA) and quality/RoB assessment tools (eg, AMSTAR 2, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme [CASP], Cochrane's RoB in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions [ROBINS‐I], Newcastle Ottawa Scale, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network [SIGN], and Mixed Methods Appraisal tool [MMAT]) 8,14,36 . Other researchers have reported similar findings in other medical specialties 8,37–47 . The poor quality we observed may explain the lack of reliance on these SRs in the US DHHS HIV treatment guideline 7 .…”

A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why

“…adherence to guidelines) or against expected norms. For example, Croituro et al report on the quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals based on their adherence to the PRISMA statement [83], and Khan et al described the quality of reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials published in high impact cardiovascular journals based on the CONSORT extension for harms [84]. Other methodological studies investigate reporting of certain features of interest that may not be part of formally published checklists or guidelines.…”