Completeness of reporting for systematic reviews of point-of-care ultrasound: a meta-research study

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.

Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (DTA) of Radiological Articles Based on the PRISMA-DTA Reporting Guideline

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the completeness of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in radiology using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) and PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts guidelines between articles published before and those published after the issuance of the guideline and identify areas that have been poorly reported.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed were searched for systematic reviews on DTA with or without meta-analyses published in general radiology journals between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020. The identified articles were assessed for completeness of reporting according to the PRISMA-DTA. Subgroup analyses were performed for association of completeness of reporting with multiple cofactors.

RESULTS

The search identified 183 reviews from 12 journals. The mean numbers (standard deviation) of reported PRISMA-DTA and PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts items in the full texts and abstracts were 18.45 (2.02) and 5.66 (1.28), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that compared to the corresponding reference groups, a higher mean number of reported PRISMA-DTA items was associated with publication during July 2018-December 2020 [(17.82 (2.01) vs 18.89 (1.91); p = 0.034), citation of the PRISMA-DTA [17.62 (1.86) vs 20.27 (2.02); p < 0.001], and inclusion of supplementary materials [17.64 (2) vs 19.09 (1.8); p < 0.001] on multiple-linear regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

Completeness of reporting with respect to the PRISMA-DTA and PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts has improved modestly since the publication of the PRISMA-DTA guideline; however, increasing awareness of the specific weakness provides the chance for completeness improvement.