Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement

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.

Evaluation of Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Abstracts for Pediatric Strabismus Therapies

PURPOSE

This study investigates the quality of systematic review abstracts through evaluation of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) abstract guideline adherence, Assessment for Multiple Systematic Reviews Tool (AMSTAR) quality rating, spin, abstract word count, and abstract structure.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the CEV@US database for articles related to pediatric strabismus. Inclusion criteria regarding pediatric strabismus studies were required to be in English, systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses, and patients less than eighteen years of age. From the search records, two investigators independently screened titles and abstracts to locate eligible reviews and extract study characteristics using AMSTAR-2 and pilot-tested Google forms.

RESULTS

Searches retrieved 545 studies, of which 14 were eligible for data extraction. We found one form of spin in 1 abstract (of 14, 7.14%) of our included studies. 11/13 (84.62%) of studies failed to mention risk of bias assessment. There was no significant association between abstract characteristics and quality of the study. We found a significant correlation between AMSTAR-2 rating and PRISMA completion.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, a positive finding was that no spin was found within the abstracts of articles for pediatric strabismus therapies. PRISMA-A adherence was strongly associated with higher quality studies and should be considered for all systematic reviews in ophthalmology. Clinical research of pediatric strabismus is significantly limited in the number of studies present, as evidenced by our data. To improve the quality of abstract reporting, efforts from authors and journals are needed.

Criteria for Smart City Identification: A Systematic Literature Review

The transition towards greater smartness is an emerging trend in the development of modern cities. This transition manifests itself in the widespread adoption of information and communication technologies (ICTs), cloud computing, Internet of Things (IoT), and other technological tools aimed at improving the level of city smartness. Although numerous studies have focused on the smart city (SC) phenomenon, knowledge about empirical criteria that can be used to define a city as “smart” and to measure the degree of a city’s “smartness” remains limited. The present study aims to bridge this knowledge gap by a systematic literature review of recent studies, in which various empirical criteria are used for SC identification. The study helps to identify a total of 48 SC identification metrics, which are further split into three main categories—smart digital technology, living conditions, and environmental (ecological) sustainability. Among these groups of criteria, the “smart digital technology” group of metrics appears to be the most popular, while criteria pertinent to “ecological sustainability” are applied considerably less often. As the study also reveals, only about half of the criteria used by empirical studies for SC identification actually relate to urban residents’ needs, with the rest being general technological measures. Therefore, for a balanced SC assessment, we suggest a ranking system based on the nine most important metrics, which equally represent all the main aspects of the SC phenomenon while placing an emphasis on the improvement of the quality of life of local residents. The proposed system is applied to several major cities across the globe to demonstrate its use and usefulness.

Assessing the compliance of systematic review articles published in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review

Background

Reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is of critical importance in dermatology because of their key role in informing health care decisions.

Objective

To assess the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in leading dermatology journals with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines.

Methods

This review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Included studies were reviews published across 6 years in the top 4 highest-impact-factor dermatology journals of 2017. Records and full texts were screened independently. Data analysis was conducted with univariate multivariable linear regression. The primary outcome was to assess the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement.

Results

A total of 166 studies were included and mean PRISMA compliance across all articles was 73%. Compliance significantly improved over time (β = .016; P = <.001). The worst reported checklist item was item 5 (reporting on protocol existence), with a compliance of 15% of articles.

Conclusion

PRISMA compliance within leading dermatology journals could be improved; however, it is steadily improving.

Compliance With Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Individual Participant Data Statement for Meta-Analyses Published for Stroke Studies

[Figure: see text].

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on cataract therapies

PURPOSE

Spin-the misrepresentation of study findings such that the beneficial effects of an intervention are magnified beyond what the results actually show-is a reporting practice that has been shown to influence perceptions of treatment efficacy and clinical decision making. We evaluated the extent of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews of cataract surgery and its complications. We also evaluated whether particular study attributes were associated with spin.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses relating to cataract treatment. From these search records, screening for eligible studies was done in duplicate. Using a previously developed classification system for spin, we assessed the systematic reviews that met our eligibility criteria for the occurrence of the 9 most severe forms of spin. We performed the evaluation of spin, extracted study characteristics, and appraised the methodological quality of each study using the 16-question AMSTAR-2 scale in duplicate.

RESULTS

Searches retrieved 2,059 studies, of which 110 were eligible for data extraction. We found at least 1 form of spin in 30.0% of included systematic reviews (33/110). Six of the 9 types of spin were identified in our sample, the most common being type 3 in 18.2% (20/110) of abstracts. We found no significant association between spin in abstracts, AMSTAR-2 appraisal, and any of the extracted study characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Spin was evident in approximately one-third of the abstracts of evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cataract surgery and associated complications.

PRISMA 2020 statement: What's new and the importance of reporting guidelines

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, first published in 2009 [1], was developed in an attempt to increase the clarity, transparency, quality and value of these reports [2]. The 27-item checklist and four-phase flow diagram have become the hallmark of academic rigour in the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, having been cited by over 60,000 papers [3]. These are frequently endorsed by journals in their 'Instructions to Authors' [4]. Developments in the methodology and terminology used when conducting systematic reviews [5], alongside the identification of limitations responsible for poor adherence, such as the use of ambiguous wording [6], have warranted an update to the PRISMA statement. The PRISMA 2020 statement, therefore, is intended to reflect this recent evolution in the identification, selection, appraisal and synthesis of research [7]. Here, we present an interpretive analysis of the updated statement, with a view towards encouraging its adoption by both journals and authors in the pursuit of advancing evidence-based medicine.

What are Systematic Reviews?

Systematic reviews are a type of review that uses repeatable analytical methods to collect secondary data and analyse it. Systematic reviews are a type of evidence synthesis which formulate research questions that are broad or narrow in scope, and identify and synthesize data that directly relate to the systematic review question. While some people might associate ‘systematic review’ with 'meta-analysis', there are multiple kinds of review which can be defined as ‘systematic’ which do not involve a meta-analysis. Some systematic reviews critically appraise research studies, and synthesize findings qualitatively or quantitatively. Systematic reviews are often designed to provide an exhaustive summary of current evidence relevant to a research question. For example, systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are an important way of informing evidence-based medicine, and a review of existing studies is often quicker and cheaper than embarking on a new study. While systematic reviews are often applied in the biomedical or healthcare context, they can be used in other areas where an assessment of a precisely defined subject would be helpful. Systematic reviews may examine clinical tests, public health interventions, environmental interventions, social interventions, adverse effects, qualitative evidence syntheses, methodological reviews, policy reviews, and economic evaluations. An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is highly recommended for professionals involved in the delivery of health care, public health and public policy.