Quality of conduct and reporting of meta-analyses of surgical interventions

Annals of Surgery

Volumn 261, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 685-694

  Adie, Sam ^a,b   Ma, David ^a   Harris, Ian A ^a,b   Naylor, Justine M ^a,b   Craig, Jonathan C ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b INGHAM INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED MEDICAL RESEARCH   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d CHILDREN S HOSPITAL AT WESTMEAD   (Australia)

Author keywords

Bias; Clinical epidemiology; Meta analysis; Quality; Reporting; Surgery; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DENTAL SURGERY; EYE SURGERY; GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY; GYNECOLOGIC SURGERY; HEAD AND NECK SURGERY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; NEUROSURGERY; OBSTETRIC OPERATION; ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY; PLASTIC SURGERY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY; SURGERY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; THORAX SURGERY; UROLOGY; VASCULAR SURGERY; EVALUATION STUDY; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PROCEDURES; SAMPLE SIZE; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA CURATION; EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; SAMPLE SIZE; SPECIALTIES, SURGICAL; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, OPERATIVE;

EID: 84928770650     PISSN: 00034932     EISSN: 15281140     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000836     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Shea B, Dube C, Moher D. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews: the QUOROM statement compared to other tools. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, ed. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context. 2nd ed. London, UK: BMJ Books; 2003:122.
2. Felson DT. Bias inmeta-analytic research. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:885-892.
3. Bhandari M, Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, et al. Doubling the impact: publication of systematic review articles in orthopaedic journals. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A:1012-1016.
4. Egger M, Smith G, O'Rourke K. Introduction: Rationale, potentials, and promise of systematic reviews. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, ed. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context. 2nd ed. London, UK: BMJ Books; 2003:23.
5. Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV, et al. Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A:15-24.
6. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care. 2005;9:R575-R582.
7. Hemels MEH, Vicente C, Sadri H, et al. Quality assessment of meta-analyses of RCTs of pharmacotherapy inmajor depressive disorder. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20:477-484.
8. Hind D, Booth A. Do health technology assessments comply with QUOROM diagram guidance? An empirical study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:49.
9. Moher D, Dulberg CS, Wells GA. Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 1994;272:122-124.
10. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess themethodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.
11. Mills N, Donovan JL, Smith M, et al. Perceptions of equipoise are crucial to trial participation: a qualitative study of men in the ProtecT study. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24:272-282.
12. Taylor KM, Margolese RG, Soskolne CL. Physicians' reasons for not entering eligible patients in a randomized clinical trial of surgery for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1984;310:1363-1367.
13. Jarman AF, Wray NP, Wenner DM, et al. Trials and tribulations: the professional development of surgical trialists. Am J Surg. 2012;204:339.e335-346.e335.
14. McCulloch P, Taylor I, SasakoM, et al. Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ. 2002;324:1448-1451.
15. Cook JA, Ramsaya CR, Fayersb P. Statistical evaluation of learning curve effects in surgical trials. Clin Trials. 2004;1:421-427.
16. Ergina PL, Cook JA, Blazeby JM, et al. Challenges in evaluating surgical innovation. Lancet. 2009;374:1097-1104.
17. Howes N, Chagla L, Thorpe M. Surgical practice is evidence based. Br J Surg. 1997;84:1220-1223.
18. Sackett DL, Ellis J, Mulligan I, et al. Inpatient general medicine is evidence based. The Lancet. 1995;346:407-410.
19. Moher D, Soeken K, Sampson M, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Pediatr. 2002;2:3.
20. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:982-989.
21. Biondi-Zoccai GGL, LotrionteM,Abbate A, et al.CompliancewithQUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ. 2006;332:202-209.
22. TaoKM, Li XQ, Zhou QH, et al. FromQUOROMto PRISMA: a survey of highimpact medical journals' instructions to authors and a review of systematic reviews in anesthesia literature. PLoS One. 2011;6:e27611.
23. Tabachnik B, Fidell L. Using Multivariate Statistics. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2001:123.
24. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
25. Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, et al. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995;123:A12-A13.
26. Juni P,Witschi A, Bloch R, et al. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282:1054-1060.
27. Hopewell S, McDonald S, Clarke M, et al. Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:MR000010.
28. Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP, et al. What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:964-972.
29. Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, et al. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:224-233.
30. Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA. 2002;287:2831-2834.
31. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158: 200-207.
32. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012; 1:2.
33. Furukawa TA, Watanabe N, Omori IM, et al. Association between unreported outcomes and effect size estimates in Cochrane meta-analyses. JAMA. 2007;297:468-470.
34. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365.
35. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One. 2008;3:e3081.
36. Sterne JA, EggerM. Funnel plots for detecting bias inmeta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:1046-1055.
37. Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, et al. Few systematic reviews exist documenting the extent of bias: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61: 422-434.
38. Jones AP, Remmington T, Williamson PR, et al. High prevalence but low impact of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:741-742.
39. Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:429-438.
40. Als-Nielsen B, ChenW,Gluud C, et al.Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA. 2003;290:921-928.
41. Bero L, Oostvogel F, Bacchetti P, et al. Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug-drug comparisons: why some statins appear more efficacious than others. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e184.
42. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, et al. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2003;326:1167-1170.
43. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e78.
44. Turner L, Galipeau J, Garritty C, et al. An evaluation of epidemiological and reporting characteristics of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) systematic reviews (SRs). PLoS One. 2013;8:e53536.
45. Ma B, Guo J, Qi G, et al. Epidemiology, quality and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine interventions published in Chinese journals. PLoS One. 2011;6: e20185.
46. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA. 1998;280:278-280.
47. Jorgensen AW, Hilden J, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ. 2006;333:782.
48. Berman NG, Parker RA.Meta-analysis: neither quick nor easy. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2002;2:10.
49. Mills E, Wu P, Gagnier J, et al. An analysis of general medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT found that reporting was not enforced consistently. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:662-667.