C Wayant1, L Puljak2, M Bibens3, M Vassar3. 1. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 West 17th Street, Tulsa, OK, 74104, USA. cole.wayant@okstate.edu. 2. Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, 74104, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Given the changing landscape of colorectal cancer, systematic reviews are likely to play a key role in advancing the understanding of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional investigation of the risk of bias and reporting quality of systematic reviews referenced by colon and rectal cancer National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. We used two widely accepted tools: Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: Using ROBIS, only 3 (4.8%) systematic reviews were judged with low risk of bias, 35 (55.6%) systematic reviews were judged with unclear risk of bias, and 25 (39.7%) systematic reviews were judged with high risk of bias. Across all systematic reviews, the individual bias domains at the highest risk of bias were domains 1 (protocol and eligibility criteria) and 2 (methods to identify and select studies). Across all studies, the median adherence to PRISMA was 74.1% (IQR 69.2-80.0%), corresponding to approximately 20 of 27 items. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews cited in NCCN guidelines for colon and rectal cancer are frequently at unclear or high risk of bias and do not report key systematic review items that are important for the critical appraisal of results.
INTRODUCTION: Given the changing landscape of colorectal cancer, systematic reviews are likely to play a key role in advancing the understanding of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional investigation of the risk of bias and reporting quality of systematic reviews referenced by colon and rectal cancer National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. We used two widely accepted tools: Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: Using ROBIS, only 3 (4.8%) systematic reviews were judged with low risk of bias, 35 (55.6%) systematic reviews were judged with unclear risk of bias, and 25 (39.7%) systematic reviews were judged with high risk of bias. Across all systematic reviews, the individual bias domains at the highest risk of bias were domains 1 (protocol and eligibility criteria) and 2 (methods to identify and select studies). Across all studies, the median adherence to PRISMA was 74.1% (IQR 69.2-80.0%), corresponding to approximately 20 of 27 items. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews cited in NCCN guidelines for colon and rectal cancer are frequently at unclear or high risk of bias and do not report key systematic review items that are important for the critical appraisal of results.
Authors: Jared Scott; Benjamin Howard; Philip Sinnett; Michael Schiesel; Jana Baker; Patrick Henderson; Matt Vassar Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Christina E Bailey; Chung-Yuan Hu; Y Nancy You; Brian K Bednarski; Miguel A Rodriguez-Bigas; John M Skibber; Scott B Cantor; George J Chang Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Aimee Kendall Roundtree; Michael A Kallen; Maria A Lopez-Olivo; Barbara Kimmel; Becky Skidmore; Zulma Ortiz; Vanessa Cox; Maria E Suarez-Almazor Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2008-11-14 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Andrew Ross; Justin Rankin; Jason Beaman; Kelly Murray; Philip Sinnett; Ross Riddle; Jordan Haskins; Matt Vassar Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Matthew J Page; Larissa Shamseer; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Margaret Sampson; Andrea C Tricco; Ferrán Catalá-López; Lun Li; Emma K Reid; Rafael Sarkis-Onofre; David Moher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Carole Lunny; Cynthia Ramasubbu; Lorri Puil; Tracy Liu; Savannah Gerrish; Douglas M Salzwedel; Barbara Mintzes; James M Wright Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 3.752