Longitudinal analysis of reporting and quality of systematic reviews in high-impact surgical journals

British Journal of Surgery

Volumn 104, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 198-204

  Chapman, S J ^a   Drake, T M ^c   Bolton, W S ^a   Barnard, J ^b   Bhangu, A ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; PUBLICATION; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SURGERY; TRENDS;

HUMANS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SPECIALTIES, SURGICAL;

EID: 85007301800     PISSN: 00071323     EISSN: 13652168     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10423     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluation healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 339: b2700.
2. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999; 354: 1896–1900.
3. Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, Esmail K. Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? Radiology 2013; 269: 413–426.
4. Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One 2013; 8: e83138.
5. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med 2016; 13: e1002028.
6. Adie S, Ma D, Harris I, Naylor JM, Craig JC. Quality of conduct and reporting of meta-analyses of surgical interventions. Ann Surg 2015; 261: 685–694.
7. Gagnier JJ, Kellam PJ. Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95: e771–e777.
8. Tan WK, Wigley J, Shantikumar S. The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vascular surgery needs improvement: a systematic review. Int J Surg 2014; 12: 1262–1265.
9. Lee SY, Sagoo H, Whitehurst K, Wellstead G, Fowler AJ, Agha RA et al. Compliance of systematic reviews in plastic surgery with the PRISMA Statement. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2016; 18: 101–105.
10. Klimo P Jr, Thompson CJ, Ragel BT, Boop FA. Methodology and reporting of meta-analyses in the neurosurgical literature. J Neurosurg 2014; 120: 796–810.
11. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. JAMA 2000; 19: 2008–2012.
12. The Cochrane Collaboration. Unit One: Background to Systematic Reviews. https://ph.cochrane.org/sites/ph.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Unit_One.pdf [accessed 28 July 2016].
13. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 1013–1020.
14. Smith TA, Kulatilake P, Brown LJ, Wigley J, Hameed W, Shantikumar S. Do surgery journals insist on reporting by CONSORT and PRISMA? A follow-up survey of ‘instructions to authors’;. Ann Med Surg 2015; 4: 17–21.
15. Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, Yazdi F, Turner L, Thielman J et al. Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ 2014; 348: g3804.
16. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M et al.; PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015; 349: g7647.
17. NHS National Institute for Health Research. PROSPERO – International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero [accessed 15 November 2015].
18. Horton R. Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet 1996; 347: 984–985.