Longitudinal analysis of reporting and quality of systematic reviews in high-impact surgical journals

Stephen J. Chapman · Thomas M Drake · William Stephen Bolton · Aneel A Bhangu

25 citations0/0 files storedBritish journal of surgery

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Academic Writing and Publishing Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

Abstract Background The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement aims to optimize the reporting of systematic reviews. The performance of the PRISMA Statement in improving the reporting and quality of surgical systematic reviews remains unclear. Methods Systematic reviews published in five high-impact surgical journals between 2007 and 2015 were identified from online archives. Manuscripts blinded to journal, publication year and authorship were assessed according to 27 reporting criteria described by the PRISMA Statement and scored using a validated quality appraisal tool (AMSTAR, Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Comparisons were made between studies published before (2007–2009) and after (2011–2015) its introduction. The relationship between reporting and study quality was measured using Spearman's rank test. Results Of 281 eligible manuscripts, 80 were published before the PRISMA Statement and 201 afterwards. Most manuscripts (208) included a meta-analysis, with the remainder comprising a systematic review only. There was no meaningful change in median compliance with the PRISMA Statement (19 (i.q.r. 16–21) of 27 items before versus 19 (17–22) of 27 after introduction of PRISMA) despite achieving statistical significance (P = 0·042). Better reporting compliance was associated with higher methodological quality (rs = 0·70, P < 0·001). Conclusion The PRISMA Statement has had minimal impact on the reporting of surgical systematic reviews. Better compliance was associated with higher-quality methodology.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

References

2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration 2000Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting 2009The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration 2015Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation 1999Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement 2009AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews 2013Evaluation of the Endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement on the Quality of Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses 2016Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study

Cited by

2021Umbrella reviews: A new tool to synthesize scientific evidence in surgery 2017Quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in pediatric surgery 2017Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.