Quality of systematic reviews supporting the 2017 ACC/AHA and 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines for the management of hypertension

Methodological quality of systematic reviews of the local management of anogenital warts: a systematic review using AMSTAR II, ROBIS and PRISMA

INTRODUCTION

Anogenital warts (AGWs) are among the most common STDs. Many therapy options are available but are not codified. Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are helpful to elaborate recommendations on the management of AGWs. The objective of our study was to assess the quality and consistency of SRs for the local management of AGWs using three international tools.

METHODS

Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to 10 January 2022 for this SR. The intervention of interest was any local treatment of AGWs. There was no restriction on language and population. The methodological quality, reporting quality and risk of bias (ROB) of the included SRs for the local treatments of AGWs were assessed independently by two investigators with A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews version II (AMSTAR II), Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA).

RESULTS

Twenty-two SRs/MAs met all inclusion criteria. According to the results of the AMSTAR II, nine included reviews were rated critically as being of low quality, and only five were of high quality. Based on the ROBIS tool, only nine SRs/MAs had a low ROB. The domain-assessed 'study eligibility criteria' were mostly rated at a low ROB, unlike the other domains. With PRISMA, the reporting checklist was relatively complete for ten SRs/MAs, but some reporting weaknesses remained in the topics of the abstract, protocol and registration, ROB and funding.

DISCUSSION

Several therapy options are available for the local management of AGWs and are widely studied. However, due to the many ROB and low quality of these SRs/MAs, only a few of them have the sufficient methodological quality to support guidelines.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021265175.

Quality of reporting among systematic reviews underpinning the ESC/ACC guidelines on ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study was to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the systematic reviews (SRs) supporting the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommendations for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (SCD). As a secondary objective, we sought to determine: (1) the proportion of Cochrane SRs were cited; and (2) whether Cochrane SRs scored higher on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) appraisals.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We searched for CPGs published by the ESC and the ACC from 2010 to 2020. We selected the CPGs for ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of SCD. The reference sections were searched for SRs. Two independent investigators evaluated eligible SR using the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR-2 assessment tool.

RESULTS

Two CPGs for ventricular arrhythmia and SCD were included in this study. Fifty-five SRs were included in our analysis. Across all SRs, the mean PRISMA score was 0.70. The lowest scoring PRISMA item related to the presence of a pre-published protocol (item 5, score 0.17). Overall, 40% of included SRs were found to have 'critically low' AMSTAR-2 ratings. One of the lowest scoring items for AMSTAR-2 was reporting of sources of funding (item 10). The 4 Cochrane SRs that were included scored higher on both assessment tools than non-Cochrane studies, specifically in PRISMA overall completion (88.7% vs 69.7%).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests the methodological and reporting quality of SRs used within ESC and ACC CPGs is insufficient, as demonstrated by the lack of adherence to both AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA checklists. Given the importance of CPGs on clinical decision making, and ultimately patient care, the methodological rigour and quality reporting within SRs used in CPGs should be held to the highest standard within the field of cardiology.