Abdelrahman Elshafay1,2, Esraa Salah Omran2,3, Mariam Abdelkhalek2,4, Mohamed Omar El-Badry1,2, Heba Gamal Eisa2,5, Salma Y Fala2,6, Thao Dang2,7, Mohammad A T Ghanem2,8, Maha Elbadawy2,9, Mohamed Tamer Elhady2,10, Nguyen Lam Vuong2,11, Kenji Hirayama12, Nguyen Tien Huy13,14. 1. Faculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt. 2. Online Research Club (http://www.onlineresearchclub.org/). 3. Kasralainy School of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. 4. Microbiology and Immunology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt. 5. Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, Shebin El-Kom, Egypt. 6. Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt. 7. Surgery Department School of Medicine, Tan Tao University, Tan Duc Ecity, Vietnam. 8. Department of Vascular Surgery, Uniklinik Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany. 9. Ministry of Health, Cairo, Egypt. 10. Department of Pediatrics, Zagazig University Hospitals, Faculty of Medicine, Sharkia, Egypt. 11. Department of Medical Statistics and Informatics, Faculty of Public Health, University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. 12. Department of Immunogenetics, Institute of Tropical Medicine (NEKKEN), Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan. 13. Evidence Based Medicine Research Group & Faculty of Applied Sciences, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. 14. Department of Clinical Product Development, Institute of Tropical Medicine (NEKKEN), School of Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan.
Abstract
Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) and/or meta-analyses of in vitro research have an important role in establishing the foundation for clinical studies. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of SRs of in vitro studies using the PRISMA checklist.Method: Four databases were searched including PubMed, Virtual Health Library (VHL), Web of Science (ISI) and Scopus. The search was limited from 2006 to 2016 to include all SRs and/or meta-analyses (MAs) of pure in vitro studies. The evaluation of reporting quality was done using the PRISMA checklist. Results: Out of 7702 search results, 65 SRs were included and evaluated with the PRISMA checklist. Overall, the mean overall quality score of reported items of the PRISMA checklist was 68%. We have noticed an increasing pattern in the numbers of published SRs of in vitro studies over the last 10 years. In contrast, the reporting quality was not significantly improved over the same period (p = .363). There was a positive but not significant correlation between the overall quality score and the journal impact factor of the included studies.Conclusions: The adherence of SRs of in vitro studies to the PRISMA guidelines was poor. Therefore, we believe that using reporting guidelines and journals paying attention to this fact will improve the quality of SRs of in vitro studies.
Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) and/or meta-analyses of in vitro research have an important role in establishing the foundation for clinical studies. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of SRs of in vitro studies using the PRISMA checklist.Method: Four databases were searched including PubMed, Virtual Health Library (VHL), Web of Science (ISI) and Scopus. The search was limited from 2006 to 2016 to include all SRs and/or meta-analyses (MAs) of pure in vitro studies. The evaluation of reporting quality was done using the PRISMA checklist. Results: Out of 7702 search results, 65 SRs were included and evaluated with the PRISMA checklist. Overall, the mean overall quality score of reported items of the PRISMA checklist was 68%. We have noticed an increasing pattern in the numbers of published SRs of in vitro studies over the last 10 years. In contrast, the reporting quality was not significantly improved over the same period (p = .363). There was a positive but not significant correlation between the overall quality score and the journal impact factor of the included studies.Conclusions: The adherence of SRs of in vitro studies to the PRISMA guidelines was poor. Therefore, we believe that using reporting guidelines and journals paying attention to this fact will improve the quality of SRs of in vitro studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
PRISMA; Reporting quality; in vitro; meta-analysis; systematic review