Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study

A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Publication Bias in the Plastic Surgery Literature

BACKGROUND

Publication bias (PB) is the preferential publishing of studies with statistically significant results. PB can skew findings of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), with potential consequences for patient care and health policy. This study aims to determine the extent to which SRs and MAs in the plastic surgery literature evaluate and report PB.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study assessed PB reporting and analysis from plastic surgery studies published between January 1, 2015, and June 19, 2020. Full texts of SRs and MAs were assessed by two reviewers for PB assessment methodology and analysis. Post hoc assessment of studies that did not originally analyze PB was performed using Egger regression, Duval, Tweedie trim-and-fill, and Copas selection models.

RESULTS

There were 549 studies evaluated, of which 531 full texts were included. PB was discussed by 183 studies (34.5%), and formally assessed by 97 studies (18.3%). Among SRs and MAs that formally assessed PB, PB was present in 24 studies (10.7%), not present in 52 (23.1%), and inconclusive in eight (3.6%); 141 studies (62.7%) did not report the results of their PB assessment. Funnel plots were the most common assessment method [ n = 88 (39.1%)], and 60 studies (68.2%) published funnel plots. The post hoc assessment revealed PB in 17 of 20 studies (85.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

PB is inadequately reported and analyzed among studies in the plastic surgery literature. Most studies that assessed PB found PB, as did post hoc analysis of nonreporting studies. Increased assessment and reporting of PB among SRs and MAs would improve the quality of evidence in plastic surgery.

Discriminant canonical analysis as a tool for genotype traceability testing based on turkey meat and carcass traits

The present study aims to develop a statistical tool for turkey breed traceability testing based on meat and carcass quality characteristics. To this end, a comprehensive meta-analysis was performed, collecting data from a total of 75 studies approaching meat and carcass attributes of 37 turkey strains and landraces since the late 1960s. A total of 22 meat and carcass traits were considered variables, grouped in the following clusters: carcass dressing traits, muscle fiber properties, pH, colorimetry, water-capacity traits, texture-related attributes, and nutritional composition of the meat. Once the multicollinearity analysis allowed the deletion of redundant variables, cold carcass weight, slaughter weight, muscle fiber diameter, sex-female, carcass/piece weight, meat redness, ashes, pH24, meat lightness, moisture, fat, and water-holding capacity showed explanatory properties in the discriminating analysis (p < 0.05). In addition, strong positive and negative correlations were found among those variables studied. Carcass traits were positively associated, particularly slaughter weight and cold carcass weight (+0.561). Among meat physical traits, pH showed positive correlations with drip loss (+0.490) and pH24 (+0.327), and water-holding capacity was positively associated with cholesterol (+0.434) and negatively associated with collagen (-0.398). According to nutritional traits, fat and ash showed a strong correlation (+0.595), and both were negatively associated with moisture (-0.375 and -0.498, respectively). Strong negative correlations were found as well between meat protein and fat (-0.460) and between collagen and cholesterol (-0.654). Finally, the Mahalanobis distance suggested a clustering pattern based on meat and carcass characteristics that report information about interbreeding and variety proximity. This study establishes a departure point in the development of a tool for breed traceability guaranteeing aimed at enhancing distinguished, local breed-based turkey meat.

Effect of PRISMA 2009 on reporting quality in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in high-impact dental medicine journals between 1993-2018

INTRODUCTION

The PRISMA guidelines were published in 2009 to address inadequate reporting of key methodological details in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs). This study sought to assess the impact of PRISMA on the quality of reporting in the full text of dental medicine journals.

METHODS

This study assessed the impact of PRISMA (2009) on thirteen methodological details in SRs/MAs published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals between 1993-2009 (n = 211) and 2012-2018 (n = 618). The study further examined the rate of described use of PRISMA in the abstract or full text of included studies published post- PRISMA and the impact of described use of PRISMA on level of reporting. This study also examined potential effects of inclusion of PRISMA in Instructions for Authors, along with study team characteristics.

RESULTS

The number of items reported in SRs/MAs increased following the publication of PRISMA (pre-PRISMA: M = 7.83, SD = 3.267; post-PRISMA: M = 10.55, SD = 1.4). Post-PRISMA, authors rarely mention PRISMA in abstracts (8.9%) and describe the use of PRISMA in the full text in 59.87% of SRs/MAs. The described use of PRISMA within the full text indicates that its intent (guidance for reporting) is not well understood, with over a third of SRs/MAs (35.6%) describing PRISMA as guiding the conduct of the review. However, any described use of PRISMA was associated with improved reporting. Among author team characteristics examined, only author team size had a positive relationship with improved reporting.

CONCLUSION

Following the 2009 publication of PRISMA, the level of reporting of key methodological details improved for systematic reviews/meta-analyses published in the highest-impact dental medicine journals. The positive relationship between reference to PRISMA in the full text and level of reporting provides further evidence of the impact of PRISMA on improving transparent reporting in dental medicine SRs/MAs.

Study of Meat and Carcass Quality-Related Traits in Turkey Populations through Discriminant Canonical Analysis

The present research aimed to determine the main differences in meat and carcass quality traits among turkey genotypes worldwide and describe the clustering patterns through the use of a discriminant canonical analysis (DCA). To achieve this goal, a comprehensive meta-analysis of 75 documents discussing carcass and meat characteristics in the turkey species was performed. Meat and carcass attributes of nine different turkey populations were collected and grouped in terms of the following clusters: carcass dressing traits, muscle fiber properties, pH, color-related traits, water-retaining characteristics, texture-related traits, and meat chemical composition. The Bayesian ANOVA analysis reported that the majority of variables statistically differed (p < 0.05), and the multicollinearity analysis revealed the absence of redundancy problems among variables (VIF < 5). The DCA reported that cold carcass weight, slaughter weight, sex-male, carcass/piece weight, and the protein and fat composition of meat were the traits explaining variability among different turkey genotypes (Wilks' lambda: 0.488, 0.590, 0.905, 0.906, 0.937, and 0.944, respectively). The combination of traits in the first three dimensions explained 94.93% variability among groups. Mahalanobis distances cladogram-grouped populations following a cluster pattern and suggest its applicability as indicative of a turkey genotype's traceability.

A suggested data structure for transparent and repeatable reporting of bibliographic searching

Academic searching is integral to research activities: (1) searching to retrieve specific information, (2) to expand our knowledge iteratively, (3) and to collate a representative and unbiased selection of the literature. Rigorous searching methods are vital for reliable, repeatable and unbiased searches needed for these second and third forms of searches (exploratory and systematic searching, respectively) that form a core part of evidence syntheses. Despite the broad awareness of the importance of transparency in reporting search activities in evidence syntheses, the importance of searching has been highlighted only recently and has been the explicit focus of reporting guidance (PRISMA-S). Ensuring bibliographic searches are reported in a way that is transparent enough to allow for full repeatability or evaluation is challenging for a number of reasons. Here, we detail these reasons and provide for the first time a standardised data structure for transparent and comprehensive reporting of search histories. This data structure was produced by a group of international experts in informatics and library sciences. We explain how the data structure was produced and describe its components in detail. We also demonstrate its practical applicability in tools designed to support literature review authors and explain how it can help to improve interoperability across tools used to manage literature reviews. We call on the research community and developers of reference and review management tools to embrace the data structure to facilitate adequate reporting of academic searching in an effort to raise the standard of evidence syntheses globally.

Data Mining as a Tool to Infer Chicken Carcass and Meat Cut Quality from Autochthonous Genotypes

The present research aims to develop a carcass quality characterization methodology for minority chicken populations. The clustering patterns described across local chicken genotypes by the meat cuts from the carcass were evaluated via a comprehensive meta-analysis of ninety-one research documents published over the last 20 years. These documents characterized the meat quality of native chicken breeds. After the evaluation of their contents, thirty-nine variables were identified. Variables were sorted into eight clusters as follows; weight-related traits, water-holding capacity, colour-related traits, histological properties, texture-related traits, pH, content of flavour-related nucleotides, and gross nutrients. Multicollinearity analyses (VIF ≤ 5) were run to discard redundancies. Chicken sex, firmness, chewiness, L* meat 72 h post-mortem, a* meat 72 h post-mortem, b* meat 72 h post-mortem, and pH 72 h post-mortem were deemed redundant and discarded from the study. Data-mining chi-squared automatic interaction detection (CHAID)-based algorithms were used to develop a decision-tree-validated tool. Certain variables such as carcass/cut weight, pH, carcass yield, slaughter age, protein, cold weight, and L* meat reported a high explanatory potential. These outcomes act as a reference guide to be followed when designing studies of carcass quality-related traits in local native breeds and market commercialization strategies.

A Path Toward Systemic Equity in Life Cycle Assessment and Decision-Making: Standardizing Sociodemographic Data Practices

Social equity has been a concept of interest for many years, gaining increased focus from energy and environmental communities. The equitable development, collection, and reporting of sociodemographic data (e.g., data related to socioeconomic status, race, and ethnicity) are needed to help meet several of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (i.e., Affordable and Clean Energy; Reduce Inequalities; Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions; and Partnerships for the Goals). Yet, there has not been a consolidation of relevant concepts and application framing in energy and environmental life cycle assessment and decision-making practices. Our study aims to help fill this gap by consolidating existing knowledge on relevant equity applications, providing examples of sociodemographic data needs, and presenting a path toward a more holistic equity administration. In this critique, we present a framework for integrating equity in energy and environmental research and practitioner settings, which we call systemic equity. Systemic equity requires the simultaneous and effective administration of resources (i.e., distributive equity), policies (i.e., procedural equity), and addressing the cultural needs of the systematically marginalized (i.e., recognitional equity). To help provide common language and shared understanding for when equity is ineffectively administered, we present ostensible equity (i.e., when resource and policy needs are met, but cultural needs are inadequately met), aspirational equity (i.e., when policy and cultural needs are met, but resources are inadequate), and exploitational equity (i.e., when resource and cultural needs are met, but policies are inadequate). We close by establishing an adaptive 10-step process for developing standard sociodemographic data practices. The systemic equity framework and 10-step process are translatable to other practitioner and research communities. Nonetheless, energy and environmental scientists, in collaboration with transdisciplinary stakeholders, should administer this framework and process urgently.

Adherence to the PRISMA statement and its association with risk of bias in systematic reviews published in rehabilitation journals: A meta-research study

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses are essential resources for the clinicians. They allow to evaluate the strengths and the weaknesses of the evidence to support clinical decision-making if they are adequately reported. Little is known in the rehabilitation field about the completeness of reporting of SRs and its relationship with the risk of bias (ROB).

OBJECTIVES

Primary: 1) To evaluate the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SRs) published in rehabilitation journals by evaluating their adherence to the PRISMA 2009 checklist, 2) To investigate the relationship between ROB and completeness of reporting. Secondary: To study the association between completeness of reporting and journals and study characteristics.

METHODS

A random sample of 200 SRs published between 2011 and 2020 in 68 rehabilitation journals was indexed under the "rehabilitation" category in the InCites database. Two independent reviewers evaluated adherence to the PRISMA checklist and assessed ROB using the ROBIS tool. Overall adherence and adherence to each PRISMA item and section were calculated. Regression analyses investigated the association between completeness of reporting, ROB, and other characteristics (impact factor, publication options, publication year, and study protocol registration).

RESULTS

The mean overall PRISMA adherence across the 200 studies considered was 61.4%. Regression analyses show that having a high overall ROB is a significant predictor of lower adherence (B=-7.1%; 95%CI -12.1, -2.0). Studies published in fourth quartile journals displayed a lower overall adherence (B= -7.2%; 95%CI -13.2, -1.3) than those published in first quartile journals; the overall adherence increased (B= 11.9%; 95%CI 5.9, 18.0) if the SR protocol was registered. No association between adherence, publication options, and publication year was found.

CONCLUSION

Reporting completeness in rehabilitation SRs is suboptimal and is associated with ROB, impact factor, and study registration. Authors of SRs should improve adherence to the PRISMA guideline, and journal editors should implement strategies to optimize the completeness of reporting.

Restrictions and their reporting in systematic reviews of effectiveness: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Restrictions in systematic reviews (SRs) can lead to bias and may affect conclusions. Therefore, it is important to report whether and which restrictions were used. This study aims to examine the use of restrictions regarding language, publication period, and study type, as well as the transparency of reporting in SRs of effectiveness.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted with a random sample of 535 SRs of effectiveness indexed in PubMed between 2000 and 2019. The use of restrictions and their reporting were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the total 535 SRs included, four out of every ten (41.3%) lacked information on at least one of the three restrictions considered (language, publication period, or study type). Overall, 14.6% of SRs did not provide information on restrictions regarding publication period, 19.1% regarding study type, and 18.3% regarding language. Of all included SRs, language was restricted in 46.4%, and in more than half of the SRs with restricted language (130/248), it was unclear whether the restriction was applied during either the search or the screening process, or both. The restrictions were justified for publication period in 22.2% of the respective SRs (33/149), study type in 6.5% (28/433), and language in 3.2% (8/248). Differences in reporting were found between countries as well as between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that there is a lack of transparency in reporting on restrictions in SRs. Authors as well as editors and reviewers should be encouraged to improve the reporting and justification of restrictions to increase the transparency of SRs.

A Methodological Quality Evaluation of Meta-Analyses on Nursing Home Research: Overview and Suggestions for Future Directions

(1) Background: The nursing home (NH) research field lacks quality reporting about meta-analyses (MAs), and most gradings of MA evidence are biased on analyzing the effectiveness of independent variables in randomized control trials. (2) Objectives: This study aimed to perform a critical methodological review of MAs in the NH research field. (3) Methods: We searched the articles from four databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) until 15th January 2021. We reviewed a total of 41 published review articles in the NH research field. (4) Results: The studies primarily fell into the following categories: medicine (17/41), nursing (7/41), and psychiatry or psychology (6/41); 36.6% of the reviewed studies did not use any validated MA guidelines. The lowest correctly reported PRISMA 2000 guideline item was protocol and registration (14.6%), and more than 50% of articles did not report risk of bias. Moreover, 78.0% of studies did not describe missing reports of effect size formula. (5) Discussion: NH researchers must follow appropriate and updated guidelines for their MAs in order to provide validated reviews, as well as consider statistical issues such as the complexity of interventions, proper grouping, and scientific effect-size calculations to improve the quality of their study. Future quality review studies should investigate more diverse studies.

Assessing journal author guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: findings from an institutional sample

OBJECTIVES

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) are designed to be rigorous research methodologies that synthesize information and inform practice. An increase in their publication runs parallel to quality concerns and a movement toward standards to improve reporting and methodology. With the goal of informing the guidance librarians provide to SR/MA teams, this study assesses online journal author guidelines from an institutional sample to determine whether these author guidelines address SR/MA methodological quality.

METHODS

A Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate) search identified SRs/MAs published in 2014-2019 by authors affiliated with a single institution. The AMSTAR 2 checklist was used to develop an assessment tool of closed questions specific to measures for SR/MA methodological quality in author guidelines, with questions added about author guidelines in general. Multiple reviewers completed the assessment.

RESULTS

The author guidelines of 141 journals were evaluated. Less than 20% addressed at least one of the assessed measures specific to SR/MA methodological quality. There was wide variation in author guidelines between journals from the same publisher apart from the American Medical Association, which consistently offered in-depth author guidelines. Normalized Eigenfactor and Article Influence Scores did not indicate author guideline breadth.

CONCLUSIONS

Most author guidelines in the institutional sample did not address SR/MA methodological quality. When consulting with teams embarking on SRs/MAs, librarians should not expect author guidelines to provide details about the requirements of the target journals. Librarians should advise teams to follow established SR/MA standards, contact journal staff, and review SRs/MAs previously published in the journal.

A Reporting Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Sports Physical Therapy: A Review of Reviews

This review of reviews aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of sports physical therapy using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. This review of reviews included a literature search; in total, 2047 studies published between January 2015 and December 2020 in the top three journals related to sports physical therapy were screened. Among the 125 identified articles, 47 studies on sports physical therapy were included in the analysis (2 systematic reviews and 45 meta-analyses). There were several problems areas, including a lack of reporting for key components of the structured summary (10/47, 21.3%), protocol and registration (18/47, 38.3%), risk of bias in individual studies (28/47, 59.6%), risk of bias across studies (24/47, 51.1%), effect size and variance calculations (5/47, 10.6%), additional analyses (25/47, 53.2%), and funding (10/47, 21.3%). The quality of the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies on sports physical therapy was low to moderate. For better evidence-based practice in sports physical therapy, both authors and readers should examine assumptions in more detail, and report valid and adequate results. The PRISMA guideline should be used more extensively to improve reporting practices in sports physical therapy.

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017

To gain insight into changes of scholarly journals' recommendations, we conducted a systematic review of studies that analysed journals' Instructions to Authors (ItAs). We summarised results of 153 studies, and meta-analysed how often ItAs addressed: 1) authorship, 2) conflicts of interest, 3) data sharing, 4) ethics approval, 5) funding disclosure, and 6) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. For each topic we found large between-study heterogeneity. Here, we show six factors that explained most of that heterogeneity: 1) time (addressing of topics generally increased over time), 2) country (large differences found between countries), 3) database indexation (large differences found between databases), 4) impact factor (topics were more often addressed in highest than in lowest impact factor journals), 5) discipline (topics were more often addressed in Health Sciences than in other disciplines), and 6) sub-discipline (topics were more often addressed in general than in sub-disciplinary journals).

Robotic and robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery: A meta-analysis of short-term and long-term results

The usage of robotic surgery in rectal cancer (RC) is increasing, but there is an ongoing debate as to whether it provides any benefit. This study conducted a meta-analysis of rectal cancer surgery for short-term and long-term outcome by Robotic and robotic-assisted surgery (RS) vs laparoscopic surgery (LS).Pubmed, Embase, Ovid, CNKI, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched. Studies clearly documenting a comparison of short-term and long-term effect between RS and LS for RC were selected. Lymph node harvested, operation time, hospital stay, circumferential resection margins（CRM), complications, 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year DFS parameters were evaluated. All data were performed by Review Manager 5.3 software. Nine studies were collected that included 1436 cases in total, 716 (49.86%) in the RS group, 720(50.14%) in the LS group. Compared with LS, RS was associated with longer operation time (MD 35.19, 95%CI [7.57, 62.81]; P = 0.01), but similar hospital stay (MD -0.43, 95%CI [-0.87,0.01]; P = 0.05).Lymph node harvested, CRM, complications, 3-year DFS, 5-year DFS had no significance difference between RS and LS groups（MD -0.67，95%CI[-1.53，0.19]；P = 0.13；MD 0.86，95%CI[0.54,1.37]；P = 0.52；MD 0.97，95%CI [0.73,1.29]；P = 0.86；MD 0.94，95%CI[0.60,1.48]；P = 0.79；MD 0.88，95%CI[0.52,1.47]；P = 0.61 respectively）.RS is feasible and safe for RC. It has an advantage in short -term outcome and a similar effect in long-term outcome compared with LS.

Systematic review search methods evaluated using the Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews tool

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the methodological and reporting characteristics of search methods of systematic reviews (SRs) using the Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist and the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool.

METHODS

A sample of 505 SRs published in 2016 was taken from KSR Evidence, a database of SRs, and analyzed to assess compliance with Information sources and Search of the PRISMA checklist. Domain 2 (D2) (Identification and Selection of Studies) of the ROBIS tool was used to judge the risk of bias in search methods.

RESULTS

Regarding Information sources and Search of PRISMA, twenty percent of SRs which claimed to be PRISMA-compliant in their methods, were compliant; twenty-four percent of SRs published in journals that require PRISMA reporting were compliant; nineteen percent in total were found to be compliant. Twenty-eight percent of SRs were judged to be at a low risk of bias in D2 and so searched widely with an effective strategy and, finally, ten percent were both compliant with the reporting of Information sources and with Search of PRISMA and were judged to be at a low risk of bias in D2.

CONCLUSIONS

Ninety percent of SRs are failing to report search methods adequately and to conduct comprehensive searches using a wide range of resources. Editors of journals and peer reviewers need to ensure that they understand the requirements of PRISMA and that compliance is adhered to. Additionally, the comprehensiveness of search methods for SRs needs to be given more critical consideration.

Reporting Guidelines for Community-Based Participatory Research Did Not Improve the Reporting Quality of Published Studies: A Systematic Review of Studies on Smoking Cessation

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of a 2010 community-based participatory research (CBPR) reporting guideline on the quality of reporting a CBPR on smoking cessation. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases and included articles published up to December 2019 (PROSPERO: CRD42019111668). We assessed reporting quality using the 13-item checklist. Of the 80 articles identified, 42 (53%) were published after 2010. The overall reporting quality before and after 2010 was poor and did not differ significantly (mean difference: 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.21 to 1.53). The total reporting scores of the studies did not differ significantly according to the effect size of the intervention (beta coefficient: −2.86, 95% CI: −5.77 to 0.04). This study demonstrates the need to improve the quality of reporting CBPRs. We recommend that journal editors endorse the CBPR reporting guideline to encourage its use by more researchers.

Mapping the characteristics of meta-analyses of pharmacy services: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Suboptimal meta-analyses with misleading conclusions are frequently published in the health areas, and they can compromise decision making in clinical practice.

AIM OF THE REVIEW

This systematic review aimed to map the characteristics of published meta-analyses of pharmacy services and their association with the study conclusions.

METHOD

We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) to identify published meta-analyses of pharmacy services up to January 2019. Components of meta-analyses were extracted (i.e. studies' metadata; methods used in the systematic review; description of the statistical model used for the meta-analysis; main results; conflict of interest and funding source). The methodological quality was evaluated using the R-AMSTAR tool.

RESULTS

A total of 85 meta-analyses were included, with 2016 as the median publication year. Overall, the methodological quality of meta-analyses of pharmacy services was considered suboptimal. Only one-third of authors registered a protocol; complete search strategy and raw data were provided by 55.3% and 9.4% of studies, respectively. Evidence strength (GRADE) was evaluated in only 19.2% of studies. PRISMA and Cochrane recommendations were stated to be followed in 60% and 27.4% of articles, respectively. Around half of studies performed sensitivity analysis, however, the prediction interval was presented by only one meta-analysis. Studies that favoured the pharmacists' interventions poorly discussed the methodological quality and heterogeneity of primary trials.

CONCLUSION

Poor conduction and reporting were observed in meta-analyses of pharmacy services, especially in those that favoured the pharmacist's interventions. Reproducibility and transparency should be rigorously ensured by journal editors and peer-reviewers.

A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews of nursing published in the Cochrane Library and paper-based journals

OBJECTIVE

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was released as a standard of reporting systematic reviewers (SRs). However, not all SRs adhere completely to this standard. This study aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of SRs published in the Cochrane Library and paper-based journals.

METHODS

The SRs which evaluate the effectiveness of nursing interventions in 2016 were identified via PubMed. The reporting quality of selected articles was evaluated using the PRISMA checklist. For comparison, we divided these articles into Cochrane review (CR) and non-Cochrane review (NCR). Based on the satisfaction of the applicable criteria, each article is assigned an accumulated score and a total percentage score.

RESULTS

Overall, 41.7% articles were concentrated in 19.0 to 22.5 points which represent the moderate quality, 22% articles were high quality. There were still 36.5% articles with low quality. The mean PRISMA score was 20.54 ± 2.367 for CRs, and 18.81 ± 2.536 for NCRs. Although no significant difference was exit between overall CR and NCR scores, there were differences between items 1, 5, 8, 16, 23. Analysis indicated that CR was significantly associated with the overall PRISMA score.

CONCLUSION

Compliance of CR and NCR with PRISMA checklist exhibited different strengths and weaknesses. Our study underscores that nursing researchers should pay more attention to comprehensive reporting of SRs in nursing to follow the PRISMA statement.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING AND/OR HEALTH POLICY

Nursing researchers who participate in SRs should follow the latest Cochrane Handbook to prepare such study. Meanwhile, the PRISMA statement should be followed strictly to report SRs, so as to improve the quality of SRs.

Reporting sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials published in nursing journals: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Prior sample size calculation is essential to ensure that a randomized controlled trial (RCT) has enough power to detect any statistical differences between two groups while not over-recruiting participants. However, the compliance among RCTs published in nursing field is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the reporting of sample size methodology and parameters used in RCTs published in nursing journals.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional database search of all RCTs published in nursing journals was conducted.

SETTING

116 journals in the category of nursing.

PARTICIPANTS

Not applicable.

METHODS

A database search was conducted to identify all RCTs published in nursing journals from January 2016 to December 2016. Two-arm RCTs were reviewed to see if sample size estimation was mentioned in the text and if the parameters were sufficient for the estimation. For RCTs with effect size, sample sizes were recomputed and compared with the reported size.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-three RCTs were included in this study, and 143 (64.1%) studies mentioned how they obtained their sample sizes. Among these 143 studies, 132 (92.3%), 133 (93.0%), 33 (23.1%), and 84 (58.7%) specified their levels of significance (α), powers, tails of the test, and effect size related information, respectively. Only 22 (15.4%) provided all the necessary parameters to compute their sample sizes. Out of the 84 RCTs with effect size information, 49 (58.3%) had a relative difference of less than 25%.

DISCUSSION

Around 36% of the RCTs published in nursing journals did not report how they reached their sample sizes. For those that had reported, only 15% provided all the necessary parameters to re-compute their sizes. It is concluded that the methodology and parameters used for sample size determination are inadequately reported in RCTs published in nursing journals.

A systematic review of the relationships among psychosocial factors and coping in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus contributes to poor health outcomes including mortality, yet there is a gap in the literature when seeking to understand the influence of psychosocial factors on coping in this population. The paper presents a systematic review of quantitative studies that examined relationships among psychosocial determinants and coping in adults with type 2 diabetes. This review is the second layer of knowledge discovery for the concept, “Taking on a life-altering change is a rhythmical journey of experiencing ups and downs on the way to acceptance.” The life-altering change was determined to be a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, the journey is the ups and downs of coping with the diagnosis as people work toward acceptance of type 2 diabetes. The review includes a synthesis of findings from 22 quantitative studies of psychosocial factors and coping in adults with type 2 diabetes. Anxiety, depression, stress, and diabetes distress were identified as key influential psychosocial factors. Increased social support was inversely related to emotional distress and coping styles were related to social well-being, psychological health, and physical health outcomes. The positive coping style of problem-focused coping was linked to improved psychological and physical health. Emotional responses to diagnosis were related to depression and anxiety. Negative coping styles of resignation, protest, or isolation were higher in women and linked to poorer quality of life, while avoidance was linked to increased diabetes-related distress and depressive symptoms.

Meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting when they mention PRISMA

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of the explicit mention of PRISMA, a statement designed to help authors report meta-analyses (MAs), on the reporting completeness of MAs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Two investigators evaluated a random sample of 206 MAs indexed in PsycINFO in 2016; 100 explicitly mentioned PRISMA and 106 did not. Two authors independently evaluated the 27 PRISMA items and extracted factors that could potentially be associated with reporting completeness. The data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Among our 206 MAs, perfect adherence to PRISMA was found in less than 4%, of which 87% explicitly followed PRISMA. The following items were encountered significantly more frequently in MAs that explicitly mentioned PRISMA than in those that did not: summary, protocol, information sources, search strategy, study characteristics, results of individual studies, funding, study selection, risk of bias in individual studies, and bias across studies. The journal's impact factor, endorsement of PRISMA by the journal, number of authors, country of author, open access, and design of the included studies were significantly and positively associated with the explicit mention of PRISMA.

CONCLUSIONS

Even if far from optimal, the explicit mention of PRISMA has a positive influence on the reporting completeness of MAs from PsycINFO.

Reporting quality of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at improving vaccination coverage: compliance with PRISMA guidelines

Systematic reviews have become increasingly important for informing clinical practice and policy; however, little is known about the reporting characteristics and quality of SRs of interventions to improve immunization coverage in different settings. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at improving vaccination coverage using the recommended Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline.PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched to identify SRs of interventions to improve immunization coverage, indexed up to May 2016. Two authors independently screened the search output, assessed study eligibility, and extracted data from eligible SRs using a 27-item data collection form derived from PRISMA. Discrepancies in reviews assessments were resolved by discussion and consensus.A total of 57 reviews were included in this study with a mean percentage of applicable PRISMA items that were met across all studies of 66% (range 19-100%) and median compliance of 70%. 39 out of the 57 reviews were published after the release of the PRISMA statement in 2009. Highest compliance was observed in items related to the "description of rational", "description of eligibility criteria", "synthesis of results" and "provision of a general interpretation of the results" (items #3, #6, #14 and #26, respectively). Compliance was poorest in the items "describing summary of evidence" (item 24, 19%), "describing indication of review protocol and registration" (item 5, 26%) and "describing results of risk of bias across studies (item 22, 33%).The overall reporting quality of systematic reviews of interventions to improve vaccination coverage requires significant improvement. There remains a need for additional research targeted at addressing potential barriers to compliance and strategies to improve compliance with PRISMA guideline.

Systematic review versus structured critical analysis

Objective: This analysis discusses common problems with systematic reviews (SRs) and presents a novel solution, the structured critical analysis (SCA) that can be incorporated into a SR or used as an alternative literature review design.Methods: A cross-sectional survey of current SRs related to interdisciplinary restorative dentistry was obtained by evaluating 100 current SRs for their self-reported methodological quality and its effect on scientific validity.Results: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses protocol (PRISMA) was used in 99/100 SRs, but only 8/100 reported a low risk of bias. High statistical heterogeneity precluding meta-analysis was found in 44/100 SRs. Only 94 paragraphs/100 SRs provided critical analysis.Discussion: Significant problems were found with current SRs that can compromise their reliability as the premier level of evidence for clinical science research. The reader must be aware of these deficiencies to correctly interpret the SR and cannot rely on the format alone.

Perception of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement of authors publishing reviews in nursing journals: a cross-sectional online survey

OBJECTIVE

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement has been developed as a guideline for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Despite the prevalent use of the PRISMA statement in medicine and nursing, no studies have examined authors' perception of it. The purpose of this study is to explore the perception of the PRISMA statement of authors who published reviews, meta-analyses, or both in nursing journals.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional descriptive study.

METHODS

An online survey was conducted among authors who published reviews, meta-analyses, or both in nursing journals between 2011 and 2017. The selected authors' email addresses were extracted from the PUBMED database. A questionnaire-with a 10-point Likert scale (1-not important at all to 10-very important)-was developed to elicit their responses regarding their perception of not only the PRISMA statement as a whole, but also the individual items therein.

RESULTS

Invitations were sent to 1960 valid email addresses identified, with 230 responses (response rate: 11.7%) and 181 completed responses (completion rate: 9.2%). The average perceived importance of the PRISMA statement was 8.66 (SD=1.35), while the perceived importance for the individual items ranged from 7.74 to 9.32. Six items were rated significantly higher than the average rating, whereas one item was rated significantly lower.

CONCLUSION

Most respondents perceived the PRISMA statement as important. Items related to information sources, selection, search-flow presentation, summary of findings, limitations and interpretation were deemed more important while the registration was deemed less so.

A cross-sectional bibliometric study showed suboptimal journal endorsement rates of STROBE and its extensions

OBJECTIVES

The STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement provides guidance on reporting observational studies. Many extensions have been created for specialized methods or fields. We determined endorsement prevalence and typology by journals in extension-related fields.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A published protocol defined search strategies to identify journals publishing observational studies (2007-2017) across seven fields relating to STROBE extensions. We extracted text regarding STROBE, seven STROBE extensions, reporting guidelines Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and transparent reporting documents/groups: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) networks. Relationships between endorsing STROBE, endorsing other guidelines, and journal impact factor were tested using chi square and Mann-Whitney tests.

RESULTS

Of 257 unique journals, 12 (5%) required STROBE on submission, 22 (9%) suggested use, 12 (5%) recommended a "relevant guideline," 72 (28%) mentioned it indirectly (via editorial policies or International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations), and 139 (54%) did not mention STROBE. The relevant extension was required by 2 (<1%) journals; 4 (1%) suggested use. STROBE endorsement was not associated with journal impact indices but was with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses endorsements.

CONCLUSION

Reporting guideline endorsement rates are low; information is vague and scattered. Unambiguous language is needed to improve adherence to reporting guidelines and increase the quality of reporting.

Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies

BACKGROUND

Systematic literature searching is recognised as a critical component of the systematic review process. It involves a systematic search for studies and aims for a transparent report of study identification, leaving readers clear about what was done to identify studies, and how the findings of the review are situated in the relevant evidence. Information specialists and review teams appear to work from a shared and tacit model of the literature search process. How this tacit model has developed and evolved is unclear, and it has not been explicitly examined before. The purpose of this review is to determine if a shared model of the literature searching process can be detected across systematic review guidance documents and, if so, how this process is reported in the guidance and supported by published studies.

METHOD

A literature review. Two types of literature were reviewed: guidance and published studies. Nine guidance documents were identified, including: The Cochrane and Campbell Handbooks. Published studies were identified through 'pearl growing', citation chasing, a search of PubMed using the systematic review methods filter, and the authors' topic knowledge. The relevant sections within each guidance document were then read and re-read, with the aim of determining key methodological stages. Methodological stages were identified and defined. This data was reviewed to identify agreements and areas of unique guidance between guidance documents. Consensus across multiple guidance documents was used to inform selection of 'key stages' in the process of literature searching.

RESULTS

Eight key stages were determined relating specifically to literature searching in systematic reviews. They were: who should literature search, aims and purpose of literature searching, preparation, the search strategy, searching databases, supplementary searching, managing references and reporting the search process.

CONCLUSIONS

Eight key stages to the process of literature searching in systematic reviews were identified. These key stages are consistently reported in the nine guidance documents, suggesting consensus on the key stages of literature searching, and therefore the process of literature searching as a whole, in systematic reviews. Further research to determine the suitability of using the same process of literature searching for all types of systematic review is indicated.

Quality of Author Guidelines in Nursing Journals

Purpose

The aims of this study were to (a) describe the information provided in author guidelines in nursing journals, (b) assess the completeness of this information, and (c) identify the extent and types of reporting guidelines used in nursing journals.

Design

Content analysis of author guidelines for 245 nursing journals included in the Directory of Nursing Journals maintained at the International Academy of Nursing Editors website.

Methods

Using Research Electronic Data Capture, data on 19 criteria for completeness were extracted from published author guidelines. Additional details about journal requirements, such as allowed length of manuscripts and format for the abstract, were also recorded. Reliability was established by simultaneous review of 25 journals (10%) by the research assistant and a senior member of the research team.

Findings

Author guidelines were easily accessible at journal websites or through links to download the information. A majority (73.5%) had completeness scores of 75% or higher; six journals had guidelines that were 100% complete. Half of the journals used the American Psychological Association reference style, and 26.3% used the American Medical Association style. Less than one fourth had stated requirements to use reporting guidelines such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA).

Conclusions

Author guidelines for nursing journals are generally complete and informative. Although specific reporting guidelines such as CONSORT and PRISMA improve the accuracy and completeness of manuscripts on various types of studies, most nursing journals do not indicate use of these for manuscript preparation. Editors who want to improve their author guidelines should use the 19 criteria for completeness as a gauge for updating and revision.

Clinical Relevance

Nurses rely on the published literature to inform their practice and ensure that it is based on evidence. Guidelines for publishing in the scholarly literature assist clinicians and scholars to ensure that published articles are complete, current, concise, and accurate.

Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate how often reproducible research practices, which allow others to recreate the findings of studies, given the original data, are used in systematic reviews (SRs) of biomedical research.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We evaluated a random sample of SRs indexed in MEDLINE during February 2014, which focused on a therapeutic intervention and reported at least one meta-analysis. Data on reproducible research practices in each SR were extracted using a 26-item form by one author, with a 20% random sample extracted in duplicate. We explored whether the use of reproducible research practices was associated with an SR being a Cochrane review, as well as with the reported use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.

RESULTS

We evaluated 110 SRs of therapeutic interventions, 78 (71%) of which were non-Cochrane SRs. Across the SRs, there were 2,139 meta-analytic effects (including subgroup meta-analytic effects and sensitivity analyses), 1,551 (73%) of which were reported in sufficient detail to recreate them. Systematic reviewers reported the data needed to recreate all meta-analytic effects in 72 (65%) SRs only. This percentage was higher in Cochrane than in non-Cochrane SRs (30/32 [94%] vs. 42/78 [54%]; risk ratio 1.74, 95% confidence interval 1.39-2.18). Systematic reviewers who reported imputing, algebraically manipulating, or obtaining some data from the study author/sponsor infrequently stated which specific data were handled in this way. Only 33 (30%) SRs mentioned access to data sets and statistical code used to perform analyses.

CONCLUSION

Reproducible research practices are underused in SRs of biomedical interventions. Adoption of such practices facilitates identification of errors and allows the SR data to be reanalyzed.

Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement

Background

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are becoming increasingly important methods to summarize published research. Studies of ophthalmology may present additional challenges because of their potentially complex study designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on topics in ophthalmology to determine compliance with the PRISMA guidelines. We assessed articles published between 2010 and 2015 in the five major relevant journals with the highest impact factors.

Methods

The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify systematic reviews published between January 2010 and December 2015 in the following 5 major ophthalmology journals: Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology, and Survey of Ophthalmology. The screening, identification, and scoring of articles were independently performed by two teams, and the results were submitted to statistical analysis to determine medians, ranges, and 95% CIs.

Results

A total of 115 articles were included. The median compliance was 15 out of 27 items (56%), the range was 5–26 (26–96%), and the inter-quartile range was 10 (37%). Compliance was highest in items related to the ‘description of rationale’ (item 3, 100%) and sequentially lower in ‘the general interpretation of results’ (item 26, 96%) and ‘the inclusion of a structured summary in the abstract’ (item 2, 90%). Compliance was poorest in the items ‘indication of review protocol and registration’ (item 5, 9%), ‘specification of risk of biases that may affect the cumulative evidence’ (item 15, 24%), and ‘description of clear objectives in the introduction’ (item 4, 26%).

Conclusion

The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology should be significantly improved. While we recommend the use of the PRISMA criteria as a guideline before journal submission, additional research aimed at identifying potential barriers to compliance may be required to improve compliance with PRISMA guidelines.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-017-0450-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The PRISMA Statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve transparency of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses. Seven extensions to the PRISMA Statement have been published to address the reporting of different types or aspects of SRs, and another eight are in development. We performed a scoping review to map the research that has been conducted to evaluate the uptake and impact of the PRISMA Statement and extensions. We also synthesised studies evaluating how well SRs published after the PRISMA Statement was disseminated adhere to its recommendations.

METHODS

We searched for meta-research studies indexed in MEDLINE® from inception to 31 July 2017, which investigated some component of the PRISMA Statement or extensions (e.g. SR adherence to PRISMA, journal endorsement of PRISMA). One author screened all records and classified the types of evidence available in the studies. We pooled data on SR adherence to individual PRISMA items across all SRs in the included studies and across SRs published after 2009 (the year PRISMA was disseminated).

RESULTS

We included 100 meta-research studies. The most common type of evidence available was data on SR adherence to the PRISMA Statement, which has been evaluated in 57 studies that have assessed 6487 SRs. The pooled results of these studies suggest that reporting of many items in the PRISMA Statement is suboptimal, even in the 2382 SRs published after 2009 (where nine items were adhered to by fewer than 67% of SRs). Few meta-research studies have evaluated the adherence of SRs to the PRISMA extensions or strategies to increase adherence to the PRISMA Statement and extensions.

CONCLUSIONS

Many studies have evaluated how well SRs adhere to the PRISMA Statement, and the pooled result of these suggest that reporting of many items is suboptimal. An update of the PRISMA Statement, along with a toolkit of strategies to help journals endorse and implement the updated guideline, may improve the transparency of SRs.

Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

An up-to-date systematic review is important for researchers to decide whether to embark on new research or continue supporting ongoing studies. The aim of this study is to examine the time taken between the last search, submission, acceptance and publication dates of systematic reviews published in nursing journals.

METHODS

Nursing journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports were first identified. Thereafter, systematic reviews published in these journals in 2014 were extracted from three databases. The quality of the systematic reviews were evaluated by the AMSTAR. The last search, submission, acceptance, online publication, full publication dates and other characteristics of the systematic reviews were recorded. The time taken between the five dates was then computed. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the time differences; non-parametric statistics were used to examine the association between the time taken from the last search and full publication alongside other potential factors, including the funding support, submission during holiday periods, number of records retrieved from database, inclusion of meta-analysis, and quality of the review.

RESULTS

A total of 107 nursing journals were included in this study, from which 1070 articles were identified through the database search. After screening for eligibility, 202 systematic reviews were included in the analysis. The quality of these reviews was low with the median score of 3 out of 11. A total of 172 (85.1%), 72 (35.6%), 153 (75.7%) and 149 (73.8%) systematic reviews provided their last search, submission, acceptance and online published dates respectively. The median numbers of days taken from the last search to acceptance and to full publication were, respectively, 393 (IQR: 212-609) and 669 (427-915) whereas that from submission to full publication was 365 (243-486). Moreover, the median number of days from the last search to submission and from submission to online publication were 167.5 (53.5-427) and 153 (92-212), respectively. No significant association were revealed between the time lag and those potential factors.

CONCLUSION

The median time from the last search to acceptance for systematic reviews published in nursing journals was 393 days. Readers for systematic reviews are advised to check the time taken from the last search date of the reviews in order to ensure that up-to-date evidence is consulted for effective clinical decision-making.

Recent Research Trends in Meta-analysis

The use of meta-analysis (MA), which is placed on top of the evidence hierarchy, in studies has been increasing exponentially. MA has three effect size families. Using the category of effect size families, this paper introduces the important points in the MA process and highlights the recent research trends in this field, such as network MA, meta-analytic structural equation modeling, and diagnostic test accuracy MA. Several reporting standards were established for primary studies and MA. The critical assessment reviews demonstrated that the current quality of nursing MA reporting was low. The problematic areas of the current nursing MA include study search, study selection, risk of bias, publication bias, and additional analysis based on quality assessment. Directions for future research are also presented in this paper.