Quality Reporting of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis According to PRISMA 2020 Guidelines: Results from Recently Published Papers in the Korean Journal of Radiology

被引:23
|
作者
Park, Ho Young [1 ,2 ]
Suh, Chong Hyun [1 ,2 ]
Woo, Sungmin [3 ]
Kim, Pyeong Hwa [1 ,2 ]
Kim, Kyung Won [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ulsan, Asan Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Coll Med, 88 Olymp Ro 43 Gil, Seoul 05505, South Korea
[2] Univ Ulsan, Asan Med Ctr, Res Inst Radiol, Coll Med, 88 Olymp Ro 43 Gil, Seoul 05505, South Korea
[3] Mem Sloan Kettering Canc Ctr, Dept Radiol, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10021 USA
关键词
Reporting quality; Systematic review; Meta-analysis; PRISMA; 2020; TRANSCATHETER ARTERIAL CHEMOEMBOLIZATION; DIAGNOSTIC-TEST ACCURACY; PROSTATE-CANCER; HEPATOCELLULAR-CARCINOMA; RADIOFREQUENCY ABLATION; PUBLICATION; PERFORMANCE; GRADE; MRI; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;
D O I
10.3348/kjr.2021.0808
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objective: To evaluate the completeness of the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in a general radiology journal using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four articles (systematic review and meta-analysis, n = 18; systematic review only, n = 6) published between August 2009 and September 2021 in the Korean Journal of Radiology were analyzed. Completeness of the reporting of main texts and abstracts were evaluated using the PRISMA 2020 statement. For each item in the statement, the proportion of studies that met the guidelines' recommendation was calculated and items that were satisfied by fewer than 80% of the studies were identified. The review process was conducted by two independent reviewers. Results: Of the 42 items (including sub-items) in the PRISMA 2020 statement for main text, 24 were satisfied by fewer than 80% of the included articles. The 24 items were grouped into eight domains: 1) assessment of the eligibility of potential articles, 2) assessment of the risk of bias, 3) synthesis of results, 4) additional analysis of study heterogeneity, 5) assessment of non-reporting bias, 6) assessment of the certainty of evidence, 7) provision of limitations of the study, and 8) additional information, such as protocol registration. Of the 12 items in the abstract checklists, eight were incorporated in fewer than 80% of the included publications. Conclusion: Several items included in the PRISMA 2020 checklist were overlooked in systematic review and meta-analysis articles published in the Korean Journal of Radiology. Based on these results, we suggest a double-check list for improving the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors and reviewers should familiarize themselves with the PRISMA 2020 statement and check whether the recommended items are fully satisfied prior to publication.
引用
收藏
页码:355 / 369
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluation of the Endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement on the Quality of Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses
    Panic, Nikola
    Leoncini, Emanuele
    de Belvis, Giulio
    Ricciardi, Walter
    Boccia, Stefania
    PLOS ONE, 2013, 8 (12):
  • [2] Editorial: Review Articles, Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analysis, and the Updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Guidelines
    Parums, Dinah, V
    MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR, 2021, 27
  • [3] PRISMA: an attempt to improve standards for reporting systematic review and meta-analysis
    Boccia, Stefania
    EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOSTATISTICS AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2009, 6 (04) : 352 - 353
  • [4] Prevalence of urinary schistosomiasis in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recently published literature (2016–2020)
    Morteza Shams
    Sasan Khazaei
    Ezatollah Ghasemi
    Naser Nazari
    Erfan Javanmardi
    Hamidreza Majidiani
    Saeed Bahadory
    Davood Anvari
    Mohammad Fatollahzadeh
    Taher Nemati
    Ali Asghari
    Tropical Medicine and Health, 50
  • [5] Adherence to PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines and scope of systematic reviews published in nursing: A cross-sectional analysis
    Torres, Gian
    Ledbetter, Leia
    Cantrell, Sarah
    Alomo, Anna Rita L.
    Blodgett, Thomas J.
    Bongar, Maria Victoria
    Hatoum, Sandy
    Hendren, Steph
    Loa, Ritzmond
    Montana, Sherihan
    Sumile, Earl
    Turner, Kathleen M.
    Relf, Michael V.
    JOURNAL OF NURSING SCHOLARSHIP, 2024, 56 (04) : 531 - 541
  • [6] Prevalence of urinary schistosomiasis in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recently published literature (2016-2020)
    Shams, Morteza
    Khazaei, Sasan
    Ghasemi, Ezatollah
    Nazari, Naser
    Javanmardi, Erfan
    Majidiani, Hamidreza
    Bahadory, Saeed
    Anvari, Davood
    Fatollahzadeh, Mohammad
    Nemati, Taher
    Asghari, Ali
    TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HEALTH, 2022, 50 (01)
  • [7] Positive penicillin allergy testing results: a systematic review and meta-analysis of papers published from 2010 through 2015
    Harandian, Farnoush
    Pham, Donavan
    Ben-Shoshan, Moshe
    POSTGRADUATE MEDICINE, 2016, 128 (06) : 557 - 562
  • [8] The conduct and reporting of mediation analysis in recently published randomized controlled trials: results from a methodological systematic review
    Tat-Thang Vo
    Superchi, Cecilia
    Boutron, Isabelle
    Vansteelandt, Stijn
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2020, 117 : 78 - 88
  • [9] Reporting guidelines in medical artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Kolbinger, Fiona R.
    Veldhuizen, Gregory P.
    Zhu, Jiefu
    Truhn, Daniel
    Kather, Jakob Nikolas
    COMMUNICATIONS MEDICINE, 2024, 4 (01):
  • [10] Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines
    Toews, Lorraine C.
    JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 2017, 105 (03) : 233 - 239