Quality of meta-analyses in major leading orthopedics journals: A systematic review

被引:13
作者
Zhi, X. [1 ]
Zhang, Z. [1 ]
Cui, J. [2 ]
Zhai, X. [2 ]
Chen, X. [2 ]
Su, J. [2 ]
机构
[1] Second Mil Med Univ, Changhai Hosp, Grad Management Unit, Changhai Rd, Shanghai 200433, Peoples R China
[2] Second Mil Med Univ, Changhai Hosp, Dept Orthoped, Changhai Rd, Shanghai 200433, Peoples R China
关键词
Meta-Analysis; Methodological quality; Orthopedics; PRISMA; AMSTAR; REPORTING CHARACTERISTICS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; CHALLENGES;
D O I
10.1016/j.otsr.2017.08.009
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Meta-Analyses are the basis of professional and healthcare agencies recommendations and have a growing importance. Quality of meta-analyses has been investigated in some medical fields but to our best knowledge this issue remains under investigated in orthopedics. Therefore, we performed a systematic analysis to: 1) after the introduction of PRISMA statement as a comprehensive guideline and the use of the AMSTAR tool as the standard for sufficient review methodology, has the quality of MAs improved because of that? 2) have some general characteristics influenced the quality of MAs (country, funding source, number of authors)? Material and Methods: We systematically searched the meta-analyses in the top four journals with the impact factor (2015) as following: JBJS, Osteoarthritis Cartilage Arthroscopy and Clin Orthop Relat Res from 2005 to 2008 and from 2012 to 2015. Likewise from 2012-2015, we also analyzed the meta-analyses from OTSR. Characteristics were extracted based on the PRISMA statement and the AMSTAR tool. Country, number of authors, funding source were also extracted. Results: A total of 154 meta-analyses were included in the present study. Score with PRISMA statement and the AMSTAR checklist were 20.86 +/- 3.04 out of a maximum of 27 and 7.86 +/- 1.55 out of a maximum of 11. The best journal was OTSR according to the PRISMA (23.06 +/- 1.92) and AMSTAR (9.13 +/- 0.87) scores. And the worst journal was Clin Orthop Relat Res according to the PRISMA score (19.4 +/- 2.70) and JBJS according to the AMSTAR score (6.78 +/- 1.65). Twelve items showed significant difference in the PRISMA statement, and five items in the AMSTAR checklist. Integral score of PRISMA statement and AMSTAR checklist has a significant difference between 2005-2008 and 2012-2015. The MAs reported from U.S. (56, 36.4%) were more than any other region in the world. And the MAs published by Asia/Oceania increased remarkably between these two period times [from (4, 10.8%) to (45, 38.5%)]. Conclusion: This study showed that methodological reporting quality of meta-analyses in the major orthopedics journals has improved after the publication of the PRISMA statement. Level of evidence: Level III. (C) 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1141 / 1146
页数:6
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]   Quality of Conduct and Reporting of Meta-analyses of Surgical Interventions [J].
Adie, Sam ;
Ma, David ;
Harris, Ian A. ;
Naylor, Justine M. ;
Craig, Jonathan C. .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2015, 261 (04) :685-694
[2]   Meta-analysis : Some clinical and statistical contributions in several medical disciplines [J].
Bartolucci, Alfred A. .
YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2007, 48 (02) :157-163
[3]   Understanding and evaluating meta-analysis [J].
Dawson, Deborah V. ;
Pihlstrom, Bruce L. ;
Blanchette, Derek R. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, 2016, 147 (04) :264-270
[4]   Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor [J].
Faggion, Clovis Mariano, Jr. .
BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2015, 15
[5]   Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression [J].
Higgins, JPT ;
Thompson, SG .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2004, 23 (11) :1663-1682
[6]   Methodological quality of meta-analyses on treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional study using the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool [J].
Ho, Robin S. T. ;
Wu, Xinyin ;
Yuan, Jinqiu ;
Liu, Siya ;
Lai, Xin ;
Wong, Samuel Y. S. ;
Chung, Vincent C. H. .
NPJ PRIMARY CARE RESPIRATORY MEDICINE, 2015, 25
[7]   The PRISMA statement extension for systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analysis: PRISMA-NMA [J].
Hutton, Brian ;
Catala-Lopez, Ferran ;
Moher, David .
MEDICINA CLINICA, 2016, 147 (06) :262-266
[8]  
Liberati A
[9]   Quality of meta-analyses in major leading gastroenterology and hepatology journals: A systematic review [J].
Liu, Pengfei ;
Qiu, Yuanyu ;
Qian, Yuting ;
Chen, Xiao ;
Wang, Yiran ;
Cui, Jin ;
Zhai, Xiao .
JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2017, 32 (01) :39-44
[10]   Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits [J].
Mahood, Quenby ;
Van Eerd, Dwayne ;
Irvin, Emma .
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2014, 5 (03) :221-234