Daniel Riado Minguez1, Martin Kowalski, Marta Vallve Odena, Daniel Longin Pontzen, Antonia Jelicic Kadic, Milka Jeric, Svjetlana Dosenovic, Dora Jakus, Marija Vrdoljak, Tina Poklepovic Pericic, Damir Sapunar, Livia Puljak. 1. From the *Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain; †Laboratory for Pain Research, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia; ‡Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; §Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universität Greifswald, Studiendekanat Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany; ‖Department of Pediatrics, University Hospital Split, Split, Croatia; ¶Department of Dermatovenerology, General Hospital Zadar, Zadar, Croatia; #Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Split, Split, Croatia; **Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia; ††Department for Development, Research and Health Technology Assessment, Agency for Quality and Accreditation in Health Care and Social Welfare, Zagreb, Croatia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are important for making clinical recommendations and guidelines. We analyzed methodological and reporting quality of pain-related SRs published in the top-ranking anesthesiology journals. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study. SRs published from 2005 to 2015 in the first quartile journals within the Journal Citation Reports category Anesthesiology were analyzed based on the Journal Citation Reports impact factor for year 2014. Each SR was assessed by 2 independent authors using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) tools. Total score (median and interquartile range, IQR) on checklists, temporal trends in total score, correlation in total scores between the 2 checklists, and variability of those results between journals were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 446 SRs were included. Median total score of AMSTAR was 6/11 (IQR: 4-7) and of PRISMA 18.5/27 (IQR: 15-22). High compliance (reported in over 90% SRs) was found in only 1 of 11 AMSTAR and 5 of 27 PRISMA items. Low compliance was found for the majority of AMSTAR and PRISMA individual items. Linear regression indicated that there was no improvement in the methodological and reporting quality of SRs before and after the publication of the 2 checklists (AMSTAR: F(1,8) = 0.22; P = .65, PRISMA: F(1,7) = 0.22; P = .47). Total scores of AMSTAR and PRISMA had positive association (R = 0.71; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Endorsement of PRISMA in instructions for authors was not a guarantee of compliance. Methodological and reporting quality of pain-related SRs should be improved using relevant checklists. This can be remedied by a joint effort of authors, editors, and peer reviewers.
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are important for making clinical recommendations and guidelines. We analyzed methodological and reporting quality of pain-related SRs published in the top-ranking anesthesiology journals. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study. SRs published from 2005 to 2015 in the first quartile journals within the Journal Citation Reports category Anesthesiology were analyzed based on the Journal Citation Reports impact factor for year 2014. Each SR was assessed by 2 independent authors using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) tools. Total score (median and interquartile range, IQR) on checklists, temporal trends in total score, correlation in total scores between the 2 checklists, and variability of those results between journals were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 446 SRs were included. Median total score of AMSTAR was 6/11 (IQR: 4-7) and of PRISMA 18.5/27 (IQR: 15-22). High compliance (reported in over 90% SRs) was found in only 1 of 11 AMSTAR and 5 of 27 PRISMA items. Low compliance was found for the majority of AMSTAR and PRISMA individual items. Linear regression indicated that there was no improvement in the methodological and reporting quality of SRs before and after the publication of the 2 checklists (AMSTAR: F(1,8) = 0.22; P = .65, PRISMA: F(1,7) = 0.22; P = .47). Total scores of AMSTAR and PRISMA had positive association (R = 0.71; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Endorsement of PRISMA in instructions for authors was not a guarantee of compliance. Methodological and reporting quality of pain-related SRs should be improved using relevant checklists. This can be remedied by a joint effort of authors, editors, and peer reviewers.
Authors: Laxmaiah Manchikanti; Vidyasagar Pampati; Satya P Sanapati; Mahendra R Sanapati; Alan D Kaye; Joshua A Hirsch Journal: Curr Pain Headache Rep Date: 2020-01-30
Authors: Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Daeria O Lawson; Livia Puljak; David B Allison; Lehana Thabane Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 4.615