Methodological and reporting quality assessment of meta-analyses investigating surgical procedures published in English in 2014_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

XIAO Yi , REN Yanshun , WANG Xianghui ,  XIANG Hongjun

General Hospital of Lanzhou Military Command, Lanzhou, 730050, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

XIANG Hongjun, Email: qingquan_luo@foxmail.com

Keywords：

Meta-analysis; Surgical procedures; Reporting quality; Methodological quality; PRISMA; AMSTAR

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201702070

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

ObjectivesTo assess the methodological and reporting quality of surgical meta-analyses published in English in 2014.MethodsAll meta-analyses investigating surgical procedures published in 2014 were selected from PubMed and EMbase. The characteristics of these meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting and methodological quality were assessed by the PRISMA and AMSTAR, respectively. Independent predictive factors associated with these two qualities were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses.ResultsA total of 197 meta-analyses covering 10 surgical subspecialties were included. The mean PRISMA and AMSTAR score (by items) were 22.2±2.4 and 7.8±1.2, respectively, and a positive linear correlation was found between them with a R² of 0.754. Those meta-analyses conducted by the first authors who had previously published meta-analysis was significantly higher in reporting and methodological quality than those who had not (P<0.001). Meanwhile, there were also significant differences in these reporting (P<0.001) and methodological (P<0.001) quality between studies published in Q1 ranked journals and (Q2+Q3) ranked jounals. On multivariate analyses, region of origin (non-Asiavs. Asia), publishing experience of first authors (ever vs. never), rank of publishing journals (Q1 vs. Q2+Q3), and preregistration (presence vs. absence) were associated with better reporting and methodologic quality, independently.ConclusionThe reporting and methodological quality of current surgical meta-analyses remained suboptimal, and first authors' experience and ranking of publishing journals were independently associated with both qualities. Preregistration may be an effective measure to improve the quality of meta-analysis, which deserves more attention from future meta-analysis reviewers.

Citation： XIAO Yi, REN Yanshun, WANG Xianghui, XIANG Hongjun. Methodological and reporting quality assessment of meta-analyses investigating surgical procedures published in English in 2014. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2018, 18(2): 216-224. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201702070 Copy

1.	Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JP, et al. How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users' guides to the medical literature. JAMA, 2014, 312(2): 171-179.
2.	Berlin JA, Golub RM. Meta-analysis as evidence: building a better pyramid. JAMA, 2014, 312 (6): 603-605.
3.	Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, et al. Users' guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA, 1995, 274 (22): 1800-1804.
4.	Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med, 1997, 126(5): 376-380.
5.	Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, et al. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med, 1987, 316(8): 450-455.
6.	Uthman OA, Okwundu CI, Wiysonge CS, et al. Citation classics in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: who wrote the top 100 most cited articles. PLoS One, 2013, 8(10): e78517.
7.	Siontis KC, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JP. Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ, 2013, 347: f4501.
8.	Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ, 1997, 156(10): 1411-1416.
9.	Bailar JC 3rd. The promise and problems of meta-analysis. N Engl J Med, 1997, 337(8): 559-561.
10.	Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet, 1999, 354(9193): 1896-1900.
11.	Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med, 2009, 151(4): W65-94.
12.	Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2700.
13.	Juni P, Egger M. PRISMAtic reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet, 2009, 374(9697): 1221-1223.
14.	Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62(10): 1013-1020.
15.	Chafen JJ, Newberry SJ, Riedl MA, et al. Diagnosing and managing common food allergies: a systematic review. JAMA, 2010, 303(18): 1848-1856.
16.	Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One, 2007, 2(12): e1350.
17.	Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7: 10.
18.	Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses. Lancet, 1998, 352(9128): 609-613.
19.	McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, et al. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses. Lancet, 2000, 356(9237): 1228-1231.
20.	Braga LH, Pemberton J, Demaria J, et al. Methodological concerns and quality appraisal of contemporary systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric urology. J Urol, 2011, 186(1): 266-271.
21.	Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care, 2005, 9(5): R575-582.
22.	Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, et al. 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. Radiology, 2013, 269(2): 413-426.
23.	Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, et al. Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal. Ann Surg, 2005, 241(3): 450-459.
24.	Sauerland S, Seiler CM. Role of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in evidence-based medicine. World J Surg, 2005, 29(5): 582-587.
25.	Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA, 1998, 280(3): 278-280.
26.	Shojania KG, Bero LA. Taking advantage of the explosion of systematic reviews: an efficient MEDLINE search strategy. Effect Clin Pract, 2001, 4(4): 157-162.
27.	Anello C, Fleiss JL. Exploratory or analytic meta-analysis: should we distinguish between them. J Clin Epidemiol, 1995, 48(1): 109-116.
28.	SCImago. SJR- SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Avaliable at: http://www.scimagojr.com.
29.	Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, et al. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet, 2011, 377(9760): 108-109.
30.	Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med, 2001, 135(11): 982-989.

1. Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JP, et al. How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users' guides to the medical literature. JAMA, 2014, 312(2): 171-179.
2. Berlin JA, Golub RM. Meta-analysis as evidence: building a better pyramid. JAMA, 2014, 312 (6): 603-605.
3. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, et al. Users' guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA, 1995, 274 (22): 1800-1804.
4. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med, 1997, 126(5): 376-380.
5. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, et al. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med, 1987, 316(8): 450-455.
6. Uthman OA, Okwundu CI, Wiysonge CS, et al. Citation classics in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: who wrote the top 100 most cited articles. PLoS One, 2013, 8(10): e78517.
7. Siontis KC, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JP. Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ, 2013, 347: f4501.
8. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ, 1997, 156(10): 1411-1416.
9. Bailar JC 3rd. The promise and problems of meta-analysis. N Engl J Med, 1997, 337(8): 559-561.
10. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet, 1999, 354(9193): 1896-1900.
11. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med, 2009, 151(4): W65-94.
12. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 2009, 339: b2700.
13. Juni P, Egger M. PRISMAtic reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet, 2009, 374(9697): 1221-1223.
14. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62(10): 1013-1020.
15. Chafen JJ, Newberry SJ, Riedl MA, et al. Diagnosing and managing common food allergies: a systematic review. JAMA, 2010, 303(18): 1848-1856.
16. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One, 2007, 2(12): e1350.
17. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2007, 7: 10.
18. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses. Lancet, 1998, 352(9128): 609-613.
19. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, et al. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses. Lancet, 2000, 356(9237): 1228-1231.
20. Braga LH, Pemberton J, Demaria J, et al. Methodological concerns and quality appraisal of contemporary systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric urology. J Urol, 2011, 186(1): 266-271.
21. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care, 2005, 9(5): R575-582.
22. Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, et al. 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. Radiology, 2013, 269(2): 413-426.
23. Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, et al. Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal. Ann Surg, 2005, 241(3): 450-459.
24. Sauerland S, Seiler CM. Role of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in evidence-based medicine. World J Surg, 2005, 29(5): 582-587.
25. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA, 1998, 280(3): 278-280.
26. Shojania KG, Bero LA. Taking advantage of the explosion of systematic reviews: an efficient MEDLINE search strategy. Effect Clin Pract, 2001, 4(4): 157-162.
27. Anello C, Fleiss JL. Exploratory or analytic meta-analysis: should we distinguish between them. J Clin Epidemiol, 1995, 48(1): 109-116.
28. SCImago. SJR- SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Avaliable at: http://www.scimagojr.com.
29. Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, et al. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet, 2011, 377(9760): 108-109.
30. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med, 2001, 135(11): 982-989.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Methodological and reporting quality assessment of meta-analyses investigating surgical procedures published in English in 2014

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content