Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Apr 6;12(4):e0175213.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175213. eCollection 2017.

A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery

Paul Stephen Cullis  1   2 , Katrin Gudlaugsdottir  1 , James Andrews  1   2
Affiliations

A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery

Paul Stephen Cullis et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.
Fig 2
Fig 2. star chart illustrating AMSTAR scores achieved for systematic reviews, meta-analyses and their cumulative total, as percentage of adequately reported items.
Fig 3
Fig 3. star chart illustrating PRISMA scores achieved for systematic reviews, meta-analyses and their cumulative total, as percentage of adequately reported items.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Moher D. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264 - PubMed
    1. 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. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009;62(10):1013–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, Boers M, Andersson N, Ortiz Z, et al. External Validation of a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS ONE. 2007;2(12). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Macrae D. Conducting clinical trials in pediatrics. Critical Care Medicine. 2009;37(S). - PubMed
    1. Snoek KG, Capolupo I, van Rosmalen J, Hout Lde J, Vijfhuize S, Greenough A, et al. Conventional mechanical ventilation versus high-frequency oscillatory ventilation for congenital diaphragmatic hernia: a randomized clinical trial (the VICI-trial). Annals of Surgery. 2016;263(5):867–874. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001533 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types