Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of surgical randomized clinical trials

Abstract

Background: Well designed and conducted systematic reviews are essential to clinical practice. Surgical intervention is more complex than medical intervention when considering special items related to procedures. There has been no cross-sectional study of the reporting quality of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials focused on special items relating to surgical interventions. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials published in 2007 and 2017 was undertaken via a PubMed search. Quality of reporting was assessed by the PRISMA checklist, with intervention details containing 27 items. Univariable and multivariable linear regression was used to explore factors in the checklist as indicators of reporting quality.Results: A total of 204 systematic reviews were identified. The median score for the PRISMA checklist was 22 (i.q.r. 20-24), and systematic reviews published in 2017 had a significantly higher median score than those from 2007 (22 (i.q.r. 21-24) versus 20 (17-22); P < 0⋅001). Among the 27 items, 15 were reported adequately and three were reported poorly (in less than 50 per cent of reports). The proportion of other items reported ranged from 54⋅4 to 77⋅9 per cent. In multivariable analysis, systematic reviews published in 2017 (coefficient 0⋅59, 95 per cent c.i. 0⋅50 to 0⋅69) and Cochrane reviews (coefficient 0⋅67, 0⋅55 to 0⋅81) were associated with better reporting.Conclusion: The quality of reporting of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials has improved in the past 10 years. Some information relating to specific surgical interventions is, however, still reported poorly.

The Value of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Surgery

“…These include aspects such as learning curves, between-surgeon heterogeneity, challenges with blinding, and evaluation of emergency inter-ventions. Perhaps for this reason, uptake of EBM in surgical specialties has typically lagged behind other areas of medicine, and even now it is widely accepted that the quality of both clinical trials and systematic reviews in surgery is variable at best [3][4][5]. This review has discussed the key components and benefits of systematic reviews, focussing specifically on the challenges faced by researchers in surgical disciplines.…”