The methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials: A cross-sectional systemic review

Jiajie Yu · Zhengyue Yang · You Zhang · Yufan Cui · Jinlian Tang · Allison Hirst +1 more

5 citations0/0 files storedAsian 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 Clinical practice guidelines implementation Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

Systematic reviews of RCTs have been developed to address end-users' needs and are regarded as the highest level of evidence. Flaws in the design, conduct and analyses of a systematic review can lead to erroneous conclusions and increase the research waste. We undertook a cross-sectional survey to identify the critical areas of weakness in systematic reviews for surgical interventions by AMSTAR 2. We searched PubMed, EMbase and Cochrane Library to summarize systematic reviews of surgical RCTs published in 2017. The information regarding general characteristics and methodological characteristics were gathered. We conducted descriptive analyses of study characteristics of included systematic reviews and explored the difference among varied methodological quality. Totally 141 systematic reviews were identified. We found only four reviews (2.8%) were high quality, 3 (2.1%) were moderate quality, 8 (5.7%) were low quality, and the remaining 126 (89.4%) were of critical low quality. The critical weaknesses were lack of pre-registration or published protocols (29.1%), comprehensive literature search (17.7%), lists of excluded studies and reasons for exclusion (19.1%), description of detailed interventions (8.5%), extraction of funding source from included trials (10.6%), and consideration of the risk of bias of included trials when synthesized (16.3%) and interpret (20.6%) the results. Higher methodological quality was only positively associated with Cochrane systematic review. Although two-thirds of included systematic reviews in the field of surgery were published in journals ranking Q1, the methodological quality is suboptimal and needs to be substantially improved. More efforts of multi-disciplinary teams' collaboration, continual education and training, integrally connection between primary studies and systematic review and contributing surgical research to practice should be imperative.

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 — 5 citations exist upstream.

References

2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both 1995Empirical Evidence of Bias 2016PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews 2014Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis 2017Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews 1991Validation of an index of the quality of review articles 2016Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study

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.