Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=28384296
&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215
A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews
and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery
#MMPMID28384296
Cullis PS
; Gudlaugsdottir K
; Andrews J
PLoS One
2017[]; 12
(4
): e0175213
PMID28384296
show ga
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate quality of conduct and reporting of
published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery. We also
aimed to identify characteristics predictive of review quality. BACKGROUND:
Systematic reviews summarise evidence by combining sources, but are potentially
prone to bias. To counter this, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was published to aid in reporting. Similarly,
the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)
measurement tool was designed to appraise methodology. The paediatric surgical
literature has seen an increasing number of reviews over the past decade, but
quality has not been evaluated. METHODS: Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we
performed a systematic review with a priori design to identify systematic reviews
and meta-analyses of interventions in paediatric surgery. From 01/2010 to
06/2016, we searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Centre for Reviews and
Dissemination, Web of Science, Google Scholar, reference lists and journals. Two
reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. We assessed conduct
and reporting using AMSTAR and PRISMA. Scores were calculated as the sum of
reported items. We also extracted author, journal and article characteristics,
and used them in exploratory analysis to determine which variables predict
quality. RESULTS: 112 articles fulfilled eligibility criteria (53 systematic
reviews; 59 meta-analyses). Overall, 68% AMSTAR and 56.8% PRISMA items were
reported adequately. Poorest scores were identified with regards a priori design,
inclusion of structured summaries, including the grey literature, citing excluded
articles and evaluating bias. 13 reviews were pre-registered and 6 in
PRISMA-endorsing journals. The following predicted quality in univariate
analysis:, word count, Cochrane review, journal h-index, impact factor, journal
endorses PRISMA, PRISMA adherence suggested in author guidance, article mentions
PRISMA, review includes comparison of interventions and review registration. The
latter three variables were significant in multivariate regression. CONCLUSIONS:
There are gaps in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in paediatric
surgery. More endorsement by journals of the PRISMA guideline may improve review
quality, and the dissemination of reliable evidence to paediatric clinicians.
free
free
free
