Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36595047›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2023

Harms reporting by systematic reviews for functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a cross-sectional analysis.

Garrett Jones, Christian Hemmerich, Brayden Rucker, Audrey Wise, Micah Kee, Austin Johnson, Lacy Brame, Tom Hamilton, Matt Vassar

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

9 authors.

Garrett JonesOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W 17th St, Tulsa, OK, 74107, USA. garrett.ajones11@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3772-4518
Christian HemmerichOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W 17th St, Tulsa, OK, 74107, USA.
Brayden RuckerOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W 17th St, Tulsa, OK, 74107, USA.
Audrey WiseOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W 17th St, Tulsa, OK, 74107, USA.
Micah KeeOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W 17th St, Tulsa, OK, 74107, USA.
Austin JohnsonDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.
Lacy BrameDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Tom HamiltonDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Matt VassarOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W 17th St, Tulsa, OK, 74107, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the completeness of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) pertaining to functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS).

methodsUsing a cross-sectional study design, we performed a comprehensive search using MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases for SRs regarding FESS on May 15th, 2022. Returns were screened and data were extracted in a masked, duplicate manner. Following established methodology, we extracted general study characteristics, harms items, and overall methodological quality for each SR in our sample. Corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated for SR dyads. For data analysis, using Stata 16.1 we performed a bivariate analysis between variables.

resultsFifty-five SR's were included in our sample after excluding 375 studies that did not meet our inclusion criteria. Of the included SRs, 19 (19/55, 34.5%) did not report harms and 39 (39/55, 70.9%) reported half of the harms items or fewer. Our study found that 23 (23/55, 41.8%) of SRs demonstrated a method of harms data collection, 26 (26/55, 47.3%) of SRs had patients available for harms analysis in their results, and 25 (25/55, 45.5%) of SRs had a balanced discussion of harms and benefits of FESS. Fifty-two SRs were appraised as "critically low" quality using AMSTAR-2. A significant association was found between completeness of harms reporting (Mahady) and whether harms were listed as a primary outcome. No other associations were statistically significant. Two SR dyads had CCAs between 20% and 50% overlap and were compared for unique and shared harms.

conclusionsOur study demonstrates gaps in harms reporting regarding FESS in SRs. We recommend future studies implement guidelines such as the STROCCS guidelines or the harms extension of the PRISMA guidelines to improve harms reporting. Accurate harms reporting may advance patient safety and promote a more objective risk-benefit analysis for physicians and patients.

Indexed as

Research DesignResearch ReportCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicAdverse eventsComplicationsFunctional endoscopic sinus surgeryHarmsRhinologySystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID36595047

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.