TY - JOUR
T1 - Quality of Conduct and Reporting of Meta-analyses of Surgical Interventions
AU - Adie, Sam
AU - Ma, David
AU - Harris, Ian
AU - Naylor, Justine
AU - Craig, Jonathan
PY - 2015/4
Y1 - 2015/4
N2 - Background: Meta-analyses are useful tools for summarizing surgical evidence as they aim to encompassmultiple sources of information on a particular research question, but they may be prone to methodological and reporting biases. We evaluated the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses of surgical interventions. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review of 150 metaanalyses of randomized trials of surgical interventions published between January 2010 and June 2011. A comprehensive search strategy was executed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Data were independently extracted by 2 authors using the PRISMA statement (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, a standardized quality of reporting guideline) and AMSTAR (a tool for methodological quality). Descriptive statistics were used for individual items, and as a measure of overall compliance, PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were calculated as the sum of adequately reported domains. A median of 8 trials (interquartile range = 8) was included in each meta-analysis. One third of all meta-analyses had an author with a background in epidemiology and/or statistics. Forty-four percent were published in PRISMA-endorsing journals with a median impact factor of 3.5. There was moderate compliance with PRISMA, with an average of 71% of items reported, but poorer compliance with AMSTAR, with 48% of items adequately described, on average. Conclusions: Substantial gaps in the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses within the surgical literature exist, mainly in the specification of aims and/or objectives, the use of preplanned protocols, and the evaluation of potential bias at the review (rather than trial) level. Editorial insistence on using reporting guidelines would improve this situation.
AB - Background: Meta-analyses are useful tools for summarizing surgical evidence as they aim to encompassmultiple sources of information on a particular research question, but they may be prone to methodological and reporting biases. We evaluated the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses of surgical interventions. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review of 150 metaanalyses of randomized trials of surgical interventions published between January 2010 and June 2011. A comprehensive search strategy was executed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Data were independently extracted by 2 authors using the PRISMA statement (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, a standardized quality of reporting guideline) and AMSTAR (a tool for methodological quality). Descriptive statistics were used for individual items, and as a measure of overall compliance, PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were calculated as the sum of adequately reported domains. A median of 8 trials (interquartile range = 8) was included in each meta-analysis. One third of all meta-analyses had an author with a background in epidemiology and/or statistics. Forty-four percent were published in PRISMA-endorsing journals with a median impact factor of 3.5. There was moderate compliance with PRISMA, with an average of 71% of items reported, but poorer compliance with AMSTAR, with 48% of items adequately described, on average. Conclusions: Substantial gaps in the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses within the surgical literature exist, mainly in the specification of aims and/or objectives, the use of preplanned protocols, and the evaluation of potential bias at the review (rather than trial) level. Editorial insistence on using reporting guidelines would improve this situation.
KW - Bias
KW - Clinical epidemiology
KW - Meta-analysis
KW - Quality
KW - Reporting
KW - Surgery
KW - Systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928770650&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000836
DO - 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000836
M3 - Article
VL - 261
SP - 685
EP - 694
JO - Annals of Surgery
JF - Annals of Surgery
SN - 0003-4932
IS - 4
ER -