ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017
Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of reporting quality of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials in neovascular age-related macular degeneration published from April 2014 to May 2018 using prisma statement.International ophthalmology · 2020Pooled it
- Progress in the Synthesis of Evidence in Glaucoma: What We Know and the Gaps that Remain.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- Compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement: an AI-based assessment and longitudinal comparison with 2017 data.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Ethical integrity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: challenges, pitfalls, and best practices in ophthalmology.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025Article
- Assessment of Reporting Quality in Orthodontic Systematic Reviews: An Observational Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Response to: Letter to the Editor, Minimally Invasive versus Open Surgery for Spinal Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Asian spine journal · 2021Article
- Assessing the compliance of systematic review articles published in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review.JAAD international · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews and meta-analyses are becoming increasingly important methods to summarize published research. Studies of ophthalmology may present additional challenges because of their potentially complex study designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on topics in ophthalmology to determine compliance with the PRISMA guidelines. We assessed articles published between 2010 and 2015 in the five major relevant journals with the highest impact factors.
methodsThe MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify systematic reviews published between January 2010 and December 2015 in the following 5 major ophthalmology journals: Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology, and Survey of Ophthalmology. The screening, identification, and scoring of articles were independently performed by two teams, and the results were submitted to statistical analysis to determine medians, ranges, and 95% CIs.
resultsA total of 115 articles were included. The median compliance was 15 out of 27 items (56%), the range was 5-26 (26-96%), and the inter-quartile range was 10 (37%). Compliance was highest in items related to the 'description of rationale' (item 3, 100%) and sequentially lower in 'the general interpretation of results' (item 26, 96%) and 'the inclusion of a structured summary in the abstract' (item 2, 90%). Compliance was poorest in the items 'indication of review protocol and registration' (item 5, 9%), 'specification of risk of biases that may affect the cumulative evidence' (item 15, 24%), and 'description of clear objectives in the introduction' (item 4, 26%).
conclusionThe reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology should be significantly improved. While we recommend the use of the PRISMA criteria as a guideline before journal submission, additional research aimed at identifying potential barriers to compliance may be required to improve compliance with PRISMA guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.