ArticleBJS open2020
Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of surgical randomized clinical trials.
Article in BJS open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWell designed and conducted systematic reviews are essential to clinical practice. Surgical intervention is more complex than medical intervention when considering special items related to procedures. There has been no cross-sectional study of the reporting quality of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials focused on special items relating to surgical interventions.
methodsA cross-sectional survey of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials published in 2007 and 2017 was undertaken via a PubMed search. Quality of reporting was assessed by the PRISMA checklist, with intervention details containing 27 items. Univariable and multivariable linear regression was used to explore factors in the checklist as indicators of reporting quality.
resultsA total of 204 systematic reviews were identified. The median score for the PRISMA checklist was 22 (i.q.r. 20-24), and systematic reviews published in 2017 had a significantly higher median score than those from 2007 (22 (i.q.r. 21-24) versus 20 (17-22); P < 0·001). Among the 27 items, 15 were reported adequately and three were reported poorly (in less than 50 per cent of reports). The proportion of other items reported ranged from 54·4 to 77·9 per cent. In multivariable analysis, systematic reviews published in 2017 (coefficient 0·59, 95 per cent c.i. 0·50 to 0·69) and Cochrane reviews (coefficient 0·67, 0·55 to 0·81) were associated with better reporting.
conclusionThe quality of reporting of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials has improved in the past 10 years. Some information relating to specific surgical interventions is, however, still reported poorly.
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.