Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36050611›Full record

ReviewSurgical endoscopy2023

A systematic evaluation of methodological and reporting quality of meta-analysis published in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Huifang Xia, Shicheng Peng, Shu Huang, Jiao Jiang, Xinyi Zeng, Han Zhang, Xinxin Pu, Kang Zou, Yingqin Lü, Huan Xu and 3 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Huifang Xia *Department of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Street Taiping No.25, Region Jiangyang, Luzhou, 646099, Sichuan Province, China.
Shicheng Peng *Department of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Street Taiping No.25, Region Jiangyang, Luzhou, 646099, Sichuan Province, China.
Shu Huang *Department of Gastroenterology, The People's Hospital of Lianshui, Huaian, China.
Jiao JiangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Street Taiping No.25, Region Jiangyang, Luzhou, 646099, Sichuan Province, China.
Xinyi ZengDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Street Taiping No.25, Region Jiangyang, Luzhou, 646099, Sichuan Province, China.
Han ZhangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Street Taiping No.25, Region Jiangyang, Luzhou, 646099, Sichuan Province, China.
Xinxin PuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Street Taiping No.25, Region Jiangyang, Luzhou, 646099, Sichuan Province, China.
Kang ZouDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Street Taiping No.25, Region Jiangyang, Luzhou, 646099, Sichuan Province, China.
Yingqin LüDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Street Taiping No.25, Region Jiangyang, Luzhou, 646099, Sichuan Province, China.
Huan XuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Street Taiping No.25, Region Jiangyang, Luzhou, 646099, Sichuan Province, China.
Yan PengDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Street Taiping No.25, Region Jiangyang, Luzhou, 646099, Sichuan Province, China.
Muhan LüDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Street Taiping No.25, Region Jiangyang, Luzhou, 646099, Sichuan Province, China.
Xiaowei TangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Street Taiping No.25, Region Jiangyang, Luzhou, 646099, Sichuan Province, China. solitude5834@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6064-0526

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of published meta-analyses (MAs) in four major gastrointestinal endoscopic journals, and identify the predicted factors for high quality.

methodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed to identify MAs from 1, January, 2016 to 31, December, 2020 in four major gastrointestinal endoscopic journals (including Digestive Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Surgical Endoscopy, and Endoscopy). We collected the characteristics of MAs after filtering unqualified articles, and assessed methodological and reporting qualities for eligible articles by AMSTAR tool and PRISMA checklist, respectively. Logistic regression was used for identifying predictive factors for high quality.

resultsA total of 289 MAs were identified after screening by predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The scores (mean ± SD) of AMSTAR and PRISMA were 7.73 ± 1.11 and 22.90 ± 1.85, respectively. In PRISMA checklist, some items had less than 50% complete adherence, including item 2 (structured summary), items 5 (protocol and registration), items 12 and 19 (risk of bias in studies), item 27 (funding support). Item 1 (a priori design), item 4 (gray literature research), item 5 (list of included and excluded) were inferior to 50% adherence in AMSTAR tool. We found the predictive factors for high quality through logistic regression analysis: a priori design and funding support were associated with methodological quality. Protocol and registration influenced the methodological and reporting quality closely.

conclusionIn general, qualities on the methodology and the reporting of MAs published in the gastrointestinal endoscopic journals are good, but both of which still potentially need further improvement.

Indexed as

Endoscopy, GastrointestinalPublicationsChecklistHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicAMSTARGastrointestinal endoscopyMeta-analysisPRISMAQuality

Identifiers

PMID36050611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.