ArticleBMC emergency medicine2019
Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in emergency medicine based on the PRISMA statement.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 6 of them syntheses 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Methodological and reporting quality assessment of network meta-analyses in anesthesiology: a systematic review and meta-epidemiological study.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2023Pooled it
- A meta-evaluation of the quality of reporting and execution in ecological meta-analyses.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Quality Reporting of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis According to PRISMA 2020 Guidelines: Results from Recently Published Papers in theKorean journal of radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Aberrant Epigenomic Modulation of Glucocorticoid Receptor Gene (NR3C1) in Early Life Stress and Major Depressive Disorder Correlation: Systematic Review and Quantitative Evidence Synthesis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Pooled it
- Preferred reporting items for concept analysis in nursing: a systematic review.Journal of research in nursing : JRN · 2026Article
- Reporting Quality of Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials on Knee and Ankle Injury Prevention Programs in Football Players Using PRISMA 2020.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Family medicine journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration: a cross-sectional analysis.BJGP open · 2024Article
- Assessment of Reporting Quality in Orthodontic Systematic Reviews: An Observational Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- A cross-sectional analysis of reporting guideline and clinical trial registration policies in nephrology journals.Journal of nephrology · 2024Article
- Exploring transparent reporting and data availability in systematic reviews to identify subgroup evidence: imaging for suspected hepatocellular carcinoma in the non-cirrhotic liver.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
- Evaluating guideline and registration policies among neurology journals: a cross-sectional analysis.BMC neurology · 2024Article
- Librarians and information specialists as methodological peer-reviewers: a case-study of the International Journal of Health Governance.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- Quality of systematic reviews in African emergency medicine: a cross-sectional methodological study.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2023Article
- Are reporting guidelines used in infectious diseases publications? An analysis of more than 1,000 articles.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2023Article
- Development of a Guideline to Enhance the Reporting of Concept Mapping Research: Study Protocol.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- A Qualitative Assessment of Studies Evaluating the Classification Accuracy of Personnel Using START in Disaster Triage: A Scoping Review.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement.
methodsThe top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement.
resultsThe included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately. Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence (mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions (mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001).
conclusionThere is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting.
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.