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
. 2018 Jun 21;13(6):e0198676.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198676. eCollection 2018.

The currency, completeness and quality of systematic reviews of acute management of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: A comprehensive evidence map

Affiliations

The currency, completeness and quality of systematic reviews of acute management of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: A comprehensive evidence map

Anneliese Synnot et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Objective: To appraise the currency, completeness and quality of evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) of acute management of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI).

Methods: We conducted comprehensive searches to March 2016 for published, English-language SRs and RCTs of acute management of moderate to severe TBI. Systematic reviews and RCTs were grouped under 12 broad intervention categories. For each review, we mapped the included and non-included RCTs, noting the reasons why RCTs were omitted. An SR was judged as 'current' when it included the most recently published RCT we found on their topic, and 'complete' when it included every RCT we found that met its inclusion criteria, taking account of when the review was conducted. Quality was assessed using the AMSTAR checklist (trichotomised into low, moderate and high quality).

Findings: We included 85 SRs and 213 RCTs examining the effectiveness of treatments for acute management of moderate to severe TBI. The most frequently reviewed interventions were hypothermia (n = 17, 14.2%), hypertonic saline and/or mannitol (n = 9, 7.5%) and surgery (n = 8, 6.7%). Of the 80 single-intervention SRs, approximately half (n = 44, 55%) were judged as current and two-thirds (n = 52, 65.0%) as complete. When considering only the most recently published review on each intervention (n = 25), currency increased to 72.0% (n = 18). Less than half of the 85 SRs were judged as high quality (n = 38, 44.7%), and nearly 20% were low quality (n = 16, 18.8%). Only 16 (20.0%) of the single-intervention reviews (and none of the five multi-intervention reviews) were judged as current, complete and high-quality. These included reviews of red blood cell transfusion, hypothermia, management guided by intracranial pressure, pharmacological agents (various) and prehospital intubation. Over three-quarters (n = 167, 78.4%) of the 213 RCTs were included in one or more SR. Of the remainder, 17 (8.0%) RCTs post-dated or were out of scope of existing SRs, and 29 (13.6%) were on interventions that have not been assessed in SRs.

Conclusion: A substantial number of SRs in acute management of moderate to severe TBI lack currency, completeness and quality. We have identified both potential evidence gaps and also substantial research waste. Novel review methods, such as Living Systematic Reviews, may ameliorate these shortcomings and enhance utility and reliability of the evidence underpinning clinical care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

We have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: AS, CL and ED are employed by or affiliated with Cochrane Australia, Monash University. Cochrane Australia is part of Cochrane, a not-for-profit organisation and global independent network of researchers, professionals, patients, carers and people interested in health, who publish and promote systematic reviews. The authors of this evidence map did not author any of the included systematic reviews. Neither Cochrane Australia, Cochrane nor the authors stand to gain any financial benefit from the results of this study. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and material.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Currency, completeness, and quality of single-intervention systematic reviews.
Each bubble represents a single-intervention systematic review (n = 80). The ideal scenario is for bubbles to sit in the bottom right corner (denoting high quality and completeness), and be green in colour (denoting currency). Abbreviations: RCT = randomised controlled trial, SR = systematic review.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Institute of Medicine. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011. - PubMed
    1. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Jama. 1994;272(17):1367–71. - PubMed
    1. Kredo T, Bernhardsson S, Machingaidze S, Young T, Louw Q, Ochodo E, et al. Guide to clinical practice guidelines: the current state of play. International journal for quality in health care: journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care. 2016;28(1):122–8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Institute of Medicine. Current Best Practices and Proposed Standards for Development of Trustworthy CPGs: Part 1, Getting Started In: Robin Graham MM, Wolman Dianne Miller, Greenfield Sheldon, and Steinberg Earl, editor. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust Washington DC: Institute of Medicine; 2011. p. 75–108.
    1. Robinson KA, Saldanha IJ, McKoy NA. Development of a framework to identify research gaps from systematic reviews. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2011;64(12):1325–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.009 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types