Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts Published in Leading Neurosurgical Journals: A Research on Research Study

Tom J. O’Donohoe · Rana Dhillon · Tahnee L. Bridson · Jin Tee

38 citations0/0 files storedNeurosurgery

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 Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Systematic review (SR) abstracts are frequently relied upon to guide clinical decision-making. However, there is mounting evidence that the quality of abstract reporting in the medical literature is suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: To appraise SR abstract reporting quality in neurosurgical journals and identify factors associated with improved reporting. METHODS: This study systematically surveyed SR abstracts published in 8 leading neurosurgical journals between 8 April 2007 and 21 August 2017. Abstracts were identified through a search of the MEDLINE database and their reporting quality was determined in duplicate using a tool derived from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) statement. All SR abstracts that provided comparison between treatment strategies were eligible for inclusion. Descriptive statistics were utilized to identify factors associated with improved reporting. RESULTS: A total of 257 abstracts were included in the analysis, with a mean of 22.8 (±25.3) included studies. The overall quality of reporting in included abstracts was suboptimal, with a mean score of 53.05% (±11.18). Reporting scores were higher among abstracts published after the release of the PRISMA-A guidelines (M = 56.52; 21.74-73.91) compared with those published beforehand (M = 47.83; 8.70-69.57; U = 4346.00, z = -4.61, P < .001). Similarly, both word count (r = 0.338, P < .001) and journal impact factor (r = 0.199, P = .001) were associated with an improved reporting score. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the overall reporting quality of abstracts in leading neurosurgical journals requires improvement. Strengths include the large number abstracts assessed, and its weaknesses include the fact that only neurosurgery-specific journals were surveyed. We recommend that attention be turned toward strengthening abstract submission and peer-review processes.

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 — 38 citations exist upstream.

References

2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials 2014The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses 2009The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration 2011GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence 2010Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?2013PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts 2008CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and Elaboration 2003Impact factor: a valid measure of journal quality?

Cited by

2020Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in operative dentistry: An assessment using the PRISMA for Abstracts guidelines 2021Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to the treatment of proximal humeral fractures 2020Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: Cross-Sectional Analysis 2021Do not make clinical decisions based on abstracts of healthcare research: A systematic review

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.