Literature DB >> 26117439

Reporting and methodological qualities of published surgical meta-analyses.

Han Zhang1, Jun Han1, Ying-Bo Zhu2, Wan-Yee Lau3, Myron E Schwartz4, Guo-Qiang Xie1, Shu-Yang Dai1, Yi-Nan Shen1, Meng-Chao Wu1, Feng Shen1, Tian Yang5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the overall qualities of published surgical meta-analysis and predictive factors for high qualities. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: All meta-analyses pertinent to surgical procedures published in year 2013 were selected from PubMed and EMBASE. The characteristics of the included meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting and methodologic qualities were assessed by the PRISMA (27 items) and AMSTAR (11 items) checklists, respectively. Independent predictive factors associated with these two qualities were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses.
RESULTS: Hundred ninety-seven meta-analyses representing 10 surgical subspecialties were included. The mean PRISMA and AMSTAR adherences (by items) were 22.2 ± 2.4 and 7.8 ± 1.2, respectively, and a positive linear correlation was found between them with an R(2) of 0.793. Those meta-analyses conducted by the first authors having meta-analysis publication previously had significantly higher reporting and methodologic qualities than those who did not (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001). Meanwhile, there were also significant differences in these two qualities between studies published in Q1-ranked and (Q2 + Q3)-ranked journals as rated by the SCImago indicator (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001). On multivariate analyses, region of origin (non-Asia vs. Asia), publishing experience of first authors (ever vs. never), rank of publishing journals (Q1 vs. Q2 + Q3), and preregistration (presence vs. absence) were independently associated with superior reporting and methodologic qualities.
CONCLUSIONS: The reporting and methodologic qualities of current surgical meta-analyses remained suboptimal, and first authors' experience and ranking of publishing journals were independently associated with both qualities. Preregistration might be an effective measure to improve the quality of meta-analyses, which deserves more attention from future study conductors.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  AMSTAR; Meta-analysis; Methodologic quality; PRISMA; Reporting quality; Surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26117439     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  10 in total

1.  Replicate systematic review and meta-analyses on robotic surgery: a quality appraisal and overlap investigation.

Authors:  Jin Ji; Han Zhang; Da Xu; Tianyi Zhang; Depei Kong; Guang'an Xiao; Zhi Cao; Fubo Wang; Xu Gao; Ying-Hao Sun
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-04-10       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management.

Authors:  Jason Wasiak; Zephanie Tyack; Robert Ware; Nicholas Goodwin; Clovis M Faggion
Journal:  Int Wound J       Date:  2016-12-18       Impact factor: 3.315

Review 3.  Credibility and quality of meta-analyses addressing graft choice in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review.

Authors:  Adrian Kurz; Nathan Evaniew; Marco Yeung; Kristian Samuelsson; Devin Peterson; Olufemi R Ayeni
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-08-20       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Is the Best Evidence Good Enough: Quality Assessment and Factor Analysis of Meta-Analyses on Depression.

Authors:  Yingbo Zhu; Lin Fan; Han Zhang; Meijuan Wang; Xinchun Mei; Jiaojiao Hou; Zhongyong Shi; Yu Shuai; Yuan Shen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review.

Authors:  Matthew J Page; David Moher
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2017-12-19

6.  Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses in urological literature.

Authors:  Leilei Xia; Jing Xu; Thomas J Guzzo
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2017-04-19       Impact factor: 2.984

7.  Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis with protocols in Diabetes Mellitus Type II: A systematic review.

Authors:  Daniel Christopher Rainkie; Zeinab Salman Abedini; Nada Nabil Abdelkader
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-16       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Spin within systematic review abstracts on antiplatelet therapies after acute coronary syndrome: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Audrey Wise; Deepika Mannem; Wade Arthur; Ryan Ottwell; Benjamin Greiner; Derek Srouji; Daniel Wildes; Micah Hartwell; Drew N Wright; Jam Khojasteh; Matthew Vassar
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-08-02       Impact factor: 3.006

9.  Methodological quality of meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO: leads for enhancements: a meta-epidemiological study.

Authors:  Victoria Leclercq; Charlotte Beaudart; Sara Ajamieh; Ezio Tirelli; Olivier Bruyère
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 10.  The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Katja Matthias; Olesja Rissling; Dawid Pieper; Johannes Morche; Marc Nocon; Anja Jacobs; Uta Wegewitz; Jaqueline Schirm; Robert C Lorenz
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2020-09-01
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.