Ramirez A, Sanabria A. Prophylactic central neck dissection for well-differentiated thyroid carcinoma: results and methodological assessment of systematic reviews.
JBI Evid Synth 2021;
20:980-1003. [PMID:
34860180 DOI:
10.11124/jbies-21-00022]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/31/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
The aim was to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews evaluating the effectivness of prophylactic central neck dissection plus thyroidectomy to decrease locoregional recurrence in patients with thyroid carcinoma.
INTRODUCTION
Many systematic reviews have been published concerning prophylactic central neck dissection in well-differentiated thyroid carcinoma, finding inconsistent results regarding the risk of locoregional recurrence. Because systematic reviews are considered the best source on which to base clinical decisions, the assessment of methodological quality is important.
INCLUSION CRITERIA
This paper included studies that mentioned that a systematic review was performed in adult patients with confirmed diagnosis of well-differentiated thyroid carcinoma without evidence of nodal metastatic disease who underwent total thyroidectomy. Reviews evaluated prophylactic central neck dissection compared with no neck diessection for decreasing locoregional recurrence.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, LILACS, Web of Science, CNKI, and Google Scholar. PROSPERO was searched for unpublished studies and gray literature. Data regarding the study characteristics, patient types, numbers of patients, and locoregional recurrence by group were extracted. Methodological characteristics, type of statistical analysis and summary estimator, heterogeneity, and publication bias were recorded. The methodological quality was measured using the AMSTAR 2 tool.
RESULTS
The search identified 12 systematic reviews. Only four systematic reviews reported adherence to methodological guidelines. The AMSTAR 2 critical criteria classified all the studies as critically low quality. The pooled risk difference for locoregional recurrence varied among studies from -5% to 0%. Most of the studies were published in high-impact journals.
CONCLUSIONS
The published systematic reviews that assessed prophylactic central neck dissection as an intervention to decrease the rate of locoregional recurrence have a critically low methodological quality. The results and recommendations based on these studies should be used with caution. The evaluation of methodological quality by peer reviewers must be improved.
Collapse