Completeness of reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vascular surgery

Objective: Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses are essential in informing clinical guidelines and decision-making. Complete reporting of SRs through compliance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines promotes transparency, reproducibility, and consistency across the literature. The purpose of this meta-epidemiological study is to assess the completeness of reporting of SRs in the vascular surgery literature. Methods: MEDLINE and Embase were used to search through four major vascular surgery journals and four high impact general medical journals for SRs published between 2018 and October 2022 evaluating clinical treatments for any pathology treated by a vascular surgeon. Data screening and extraction were conducted in duplicate. The reporting completeness of each included SR was measured with reference to the 27-item PRISMA checklist, and methodological quality was evaluated using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tool. Parametric tests were used to evaluate for associations between PRISMA score and study funding, protocol registration, publication in a higher impact factor journal, and AMSTAR 2 score. The protocol is available online: 10.17605/OSF.IO/VBC5N. Results: Of 1653 articles captured in the initial search, 162 SRs were included in the final analysis. All SRs had more than one incomplete PRISMA item. The mean PRISMA score was 21.2/27 (standard deviation: 2.9, 78.5% compliance), and the mean AMSTAR 2 score was 11.7/16 (standard deviation: 1.9, 73%). SRs that had a prospectively registered protocol had a higher PRISMA score (22.9 vs 20.6, P < .001) as did those that were published in higher impact factor journals (23.3 vs 21.0, P = .017). There was a large positive correlation between an SR's PRISMA and AMSTAR 2 scores (Pearson r = 0.655, 95% confidence interval: 0.55-0.74). There were no associations between the PRISMA score and publication year (P = .067) or funding status (P = .076). Conclusions: Overall, the reporting of SRs and meta-analyses in vascular surgery is less than ideal, with several key items being consistently under-reported. Prospective registration and methodological quality as measured by AMSTAR 2 scores are positively associated with improved reporting. Authors, reviewers, and journal editors should consider these findings moving forward to encourage completeness of SR reporting. Raising awareness surrounding the value of complete reporting of SRs can aid in enhancing the quality of evidence, and journals should consider these findings in methods used to promote SR reporting.