From QUOROM to PRISMA: a survey of high-impact medical journals' instructions to authors and a review of systematic reviews in anesthesia literature

Endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration across Scopus-indexed rheumatology journals: a cross-sectional analysis

The purpose of this study was to investigate the instructions for authors of rheumatology journals and analyze their endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration. Sixty rheumatology journals were selected by a research librarian and an investigator through the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. The instructions for authors' subsection of each journal was assessed to determine endorsement of study design-specific reporting guidelines or clinical trial registration. Descriptive statistics were calculated using R (version 4.2.1) and RStudio. Of the 58 journals analyzed, 34 (34/58; 59%) mentioned the EQUATOR Network: an online compendium of best practice reporting guidelines. The most commonly mentioned reporting guidelines were CONSORT with 44 journals (44/58; 75%), and PRISMA with 35 journals (35/58; 60%). The least mentioned guidelines were QUOROM with 56 journals not mentioning the guideline (56/58; 97%), and SRQR with 53 journals not mentioning the guideline (53/57, 93%). Clinical trial registration was required by 38 journals (38/58; 66%) and recommended by 8 journals (8/58; 14%). Our study found that endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration within rheumatology journals was suboptimal with great room for improvement. Endorsement of reporting guidelines have shown to not only mitigate bias, but also improve research methodologies. Therefore, we recommend rheumatology journals broadly expand their endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration to improve the quality of evidence they publish.

STROBE, CONSORT, PRISMA, MOOSE, STARD, SPIRIT, and other guidelines - Overview and application

The purpose of research is to seek answers and new knowledge. When conducted properly and systematically, research adds to humanity's corpus of knowledge and hence to our general advancement. However, this is only possible if reported research is accurate and transparent. Guidelines for all the major types of studies (STROBE, CONSORT, PRISMA, MOOSE, STARD, and SPIRIT) have been developed and refined over the years, and their inception, development, and application are briefly discussed in this paper. Indeed, there are currently over 250 of these guidelines for various types of medical research, and these are published by the EQUATOR network. This paper will also briefly review progress in acceptance and adoption of these guidelines.

Quality of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of resveratrol: A methodological systematic review

Recently, several meta-analyses (MAs) have focused on the health effects of resveratrol. However, the methodological and reporting quality of these MAs has not yet been fully evaluated so far. Therefore, the present study evaluated the quality of these MAs through a methodological systematic review. Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception until May 20, 2022, and PubMed was used to update the search until September 6, 2023. The methodological and reporting quality of the selected MAs was evaluated using AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA 2009. Fifty-one MAs published during 2013-2023 were included. In each review, the number of primary studies ranged from 3 to 37, and the number of participants ranged from 50 to 2114. Among the first-listed primary outcomes, only 23 (45.10%) were "positive." As for the methodological quality, most MAs (44, 86.27%) on resveratrol were rated critically low. Inadequate reporting of the included MAs mainly involved items 2 ("Structured summary"), 5 ("Protocol and registration"), 8 ("Search"), 9 ("Study selection"), 10 ("Data collection process"), 12 ("Risk of bias in individual studies"), and 24 ("Summary of evidence") based on the PRISMA 2009. Additionally, journal's impact factor, number of authors, and funding support were positively associated with the overall methodological quality but were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Future MAs on resveratrol require better design, implementation, and reporting by following the Cochrane Handbook, AMSTAR-2, and PRISMA.

Increased endorsement of TRIPOD and other reporting guidelines by high impact factor journals: survey of instructions to authors

OBJECTIVES

To assess the endorsement of reporting guidelines by high impact factor journals over the period 2017-2022, with a specific focus on the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched the online 'instructions to authors' of high impact factor medical journals in February 2017 and in January 2022 for any reference to reporting guidelines and TRIPOD in particular.

RESULTS

In 2017, 205 out of 337 (61%) journals mentioned any reporting guideline in their instructions to authors and in 2022 this increased to 245 (73%) journals. A reference to TRIPOD was provided by 27 (8%) journals in 2017 and 67 (20%) in 2022. Of those journals mentioning TRIPOD in 2022, 22% provided a link to the TRIPOD website and 60% linked to TRIPOD information on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network website. Twenty-five percent of the journals required adherence to TRIPOD.

CONCLUSION

About three-quarters of high-impact medical journals endorse the use of reporting guidelines and 20% endorse TRIPOD. Transparent reporting is important in enhancing the usefulness of health research and endorsement by journals plays a critical role in this.

Methodological and reporting quality assessment of network meta-analyses in anesthesiology: a systematic review and meta-epidemiological study

PURPOSE

The scientific rigour of the conduct and reporting of anesthesiology network meta-analyses (NMAs) is unknown. This systematic review and meta-epidemiological study assessed the methodological and reporting quality of NMAs in anesthesiology.

METHODS

We searched four databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, for anesthesiology NMAs published from inception to October 2020. We assessed the compliance of NMAs against A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement for Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA), and PRISMA checklists. We measured the compliance across various items in AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA checklists and provided recommendations to improve quality.

RESULTS

Using the AMSTAR-2 rating method, 84% (52/62) of NMAs were rated "critically low." Quantitatively, the median [interquartile range] AMSTAR-2 score was 55 [44-69]%, while the PRISMA score was 70 [61-81]%. Methodological and reporting scores showed a strong correlation (R = 0.78). Anesthesiology NMAs had a higher AMSTAR-2 score and PRISMA score if they were published in higher impact factor journals (P = 0.006 and P = 0.01, respectively) or followed PRISMA-NMA reporting guidelines (P = 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). Network meta-analyses from China had lower scores (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Neither score improved over time (P = 0.69 and P = 0.67, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The current study highlights numerous methodological and reporting deficiencies in anesthesiology NMAs. Although the AMSTAR tool has been used to assess the methodological quality of NMAs, dedicated tools for conducting and assessing the methodological quality of NMAs are urgently required.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42021227997); first submitted 23 January 2021.

WWOM VII: Effectiveness of systemic pharmacotherapeutic interventions in the management of BMS: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of systemic pharmacotherapeutic interventions compared to placebo in burning mouth syndrome (BMS) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on the core outcome domains recommended by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT).

METHODS

A systematic literature review of RCTs, concerning systemic pharmacotherapeutic interventions for BMS, published from January 1994 through October 2019, and meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs (n = 734 participants) were included. Of those, nine were eligible for the quantitative assessment due to the availability/homogeneity of data for at least one of the IMMPACT domains. Pain intensity was the only domain reported in all RCTs. Weighted mean changes in pain intensity, based on visual analogue scale (ΔVAS), were reported in three RCTs at 6 ± 2 weeks and only one RCT at 10+ weeks follow-ups. Quantitative assessment, based on ΔVAS, yielded very low evidence for the effectiveness of alpha-lipoic acid and clonazepam, low evidence for effectiveness of trazodone and melatonin, and moderate evidence for herbal compounds.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the RCTs studied, variable levels of evidence exist that suggest that select pharmacological interventions are associated with improved symptoms. However, the underreporting of IMMPACT domains in BMS RCTs restricts the multidimensional assessment of systemic interventions outcomes. Standardized outcome measures need to be applied to future RCTs to improve understanding of intervention outcomes.

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.

Golf and Health, More than 18 Holes—A Bibliometric Analysis

Despite golf’s contribution to health, scientific production related to golf and health has been relatively scarce. This work aims to investigate the state of the art on golf and health and to identify existing gaps and the principal and most notable potential future research trends, contributing to connecting the reality of the facilities dedicated to the practice of this sport and its contribution to raising awareness of the importance of sport in maintaining health. A total of 179 articles were analyzed following the steps for systematic reviews and meta-analysis protocols based on the PRISMA 2020 methodology and QUORUM, and a bibliometric analysis was carried out. Research to date has mainly focused on the benefits of golf in improving health, preventing illness, slowing down aging, or as rehabilitation and on exploring the risks and injuries involved in playing golf. The different ways of promoting participation or changing the image of golf by showing its healthy side are outlined as research trends in the coming years. There is a lack of exploration of the use of technology, the effects of the sport on certain disorders related to psychosocial factors, and further knowledge of the relationships between playing intentions and health. This research provides essential information for researchers who plan to work with golf in the future.

Kinematically Aligned Total Knee Arthroplasty Did Not Show Superior Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: An Updated Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials with at Least 2-Year Follow-up

Kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty (KATKA) was developed to improve the anatomical alignment of knee prostheses, assisting in restoring the native alignment of the knee and promoting physiological kinematics. Early clinical results were encouraging, showing better functional outcomes than with mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (MATKA). However, there have been concerns about implant survival, and follow-up at 10 years or more has not been reported. In addition, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing KATKA with MATKA have reported inconsistent results. The current meta-analysis of RCTs with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up investigated the clinical and radiological differences between KATKA and MATKA. A systematic review of the English language literature resulted in the inclusion of four RCTs. The meta-analysis found no significant difference in any of the following parameters: postoperative range of motion for flexion (mean difference for KATKA - MATKA [MD], 1.7 degrees; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to 4.8 degrees; p = 0.29) and extension (MD, 0.10 degrees; 95% CI, -0.99 to 1.2 degrees; p = 0.86); Oxford Knee Score (MD, 0.10 points; 95% CI, -1.5 to 1.7 points; p = 0.90); Knee Society Score (MD, 1.6 points; 95% CI, -2.8 to 6.0 points; p = 0.49); and Knee Function Score (MD, 1.4 points; 95% CI, -4.9 to 7.8 points; p = 0.66). In addition, there was no significant difference between KATKA and MATKA in the rate of complications requiring reoperation or revision surgery (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.25-4.09; p = 0.99) or in the length of hospital stay (MD, 1.0 days; 95% CI, -0.2 to 2.2 days; p = 0.092). KATKA did not increase the number of patients with poor clinical results due to implant position, particularly for varus placement of the tibial component. In this meta-analysis based on four RCTs with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up, KATKA were only relevant to cruciate retaining TKA and could not be extrapolated to posterior stabilized TKA. Patient-reported outcome measures with KATKA were not superior to those with MATKA.

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.

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).

Clinical Impact of Preoperative Anemia in Patients Undergoing Peripheral Vascular Interventions: A Systematic Review

Introduction: This systematic review aims to summarize the existing evidence relating to preoperative anemia and clinical outcomes in peripheral vascular surgery patients. Methods: The following databases were searched—PubMed, COCHRANE, LILACS, and Science Research—from 1 January 2010 up to 8 May 2020, with the last search performed on 1 January 2021. An additional manual search for potential primary studies was conducted on major journals (e.g., Anesthesiology, the British Journal of Anesthesia and the European Journal of Anaesthesiology) and reference lists of included studies. Google Scholar was also checked for additional eligible studies. Reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles and extracted data from included studies on populations, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes. This review was registered at PROSPERO as CRD 180954. Results: In total, 6 observational studies with a combined total of 87,327 participants were analyzed. Data collected in this review suggest that preoperative anemia, especially when hemoglobin is <10 g/dL, is associated with an increased risk of red blood cell transfusions (OR: 7.5; 95% CI 6.3–8.9, p < 0.0001), limb amputation (OR: 5.2; 95% CI 3.1–8.6, p < 0.0001), and death (p < 0.0031). Conclusions: These data suggest an association between preoperative anemia, blood transfusion requirements, and other adverse clinical outcomes among patients subjected to peripheral vascular interventions. However, further investigations, particularly randomized controlled trials, are warranted to better understand the association between preoperative anemia and patients’ prognosis.

Is there clinical evidence to support autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) for chondral defects in the talus? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to systematically review the literature on clinical outcomes of patients who have undergone autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) for treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus (OCL) and compare the studies' outcomes.

METHODS

Pubmed and Embase were searched in January 2020 for articles concerning OCL surgery. Studies were included if they had a minimum 1-year follow-up and the primary measures were functional outcomes. The meta-analysis compared the Visual Analogic Score (VAS), the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS), and the Foot Function Index (FFI) between baseline and follow-up of 1-2years, and 3-5years. A random effects model was used to evaluate outcome changes.

RESULTS

The search returned 15 studies, with a total of 492 patients. The VAS improved 4.45 and 4.6 points from baseline to the 1-2year and 3-5yearfollow-up, respectively (p<0.001). AOFAS improved 31.59 and 32.47 points from baseline to the 1-2year and 3-5yearfollow-up, respectively (p<0.001). The FFI showed a significant improvement of 30.93 points from baseline to year 3-5 (p<0.001). A total of 6 patients with revision surgeries have been reported within the follow up period. It was not possible to correlate clinical features like lesion size, surgical approach, and bone marrow stimulation technique to the reported outcome.

CONCLUSION

Surgical treatment of OCL via the AMIC procedure provided significant improvement in the functional outcome and pain scores when compared to the pre-operative values. Improvements were observed up to 5years post-operatively.

The effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of persistent regional myofascial head and neck pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Persistent head and neck myofascial pain is among the most frequently reported pain complaints featuring major variability in treatment approaches and perception of improvement. Acupuncture is one of the least invasive complimentary modalities that can optimize conventional treatment. The aim of this review was to determine the evidence for the effectiveness of acupuncture in the management of localized persistent myofascial head and neck pain. Only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) were included. The search was conducted in PubMed, Ovid Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library in addition to manual search. The main outcome measure was the comparison of the mean pain intensity score on VAS between acupuncture and sham-needling/no intervention groups. Safety data and adherence rate were also investigated. Six RCTs were identified with variable risk of bias. All included studies reported reduction in VAS pain intensity scores in the groups receiving acupuncture when compared to sham needling/no intervention. Meta-analysis, using a weighted mean difference as the effect estimate, included only 4 RCTs, revealed a 19.04 point difference in pain intensity between acupuncture and sham-needling/no intervention (95 %CI: -29.13 to -8.95). High levels of safety were demonstrated by the low rates of side effects/withdrawal. Inconsistency in reporting of outcomes was a major limitation. In conclusion, moderate-quality evidence suggests that acupuncture may be an effective and safe method in relieving persistent head and neck myofascial pain. Optimizing study designs and standardizing outcome measures are needed for future RCTs.

Librarians as methodological peer reviewers for systematic reviews: results of an online survey

BACKGROUND

Developing a comprehensive, reproducible literature search is the basis for a high-quality systematic review (SR). Librarians and information professionals, as expert searchers, can improve the quality of systematic review searches, methodology, and reporting. Likewise, journal editors and authors often seek to improve the quality of published SRs and other evidence syntheses through peer review. Health sciences librarians contribute to systematic review production but little is known about their involvement in peer reviewing SR manuscripts.

METHODS

This survey aimed to assess how frequently librarians are asked to peer review systematic review manuscripts and to determine characteristics associated with those invited to review. The survey was distributed to a purposive sample through three health sciences information professional listservs.

RESULTS

There were 291 complete survey responses. Results indicated that 22% (n = 63) of respondents had been asked by journal editors to peer review systematic review or meta-analysis manuscripts. Of the 78% (n = 228) of respondents who had not already been asked, 54% (n = 122) would peer review, and 41% (n = 93) might peer review. Only 4% (n = 9) would not review a manuscript. Respondents had peer reviewed manuscripts for 38 unique journals and believed they were asked because of their professional expertise. Of respondents who had declined to peer review (32%, n = 20), the most common explanation was "not enough time" (60%, n = 12) followed by "lack of expertise" (50%, n = 10).The vast majority of respondents (95%, n = 40) had "rejected or recommended a revision of a manuscript| after peer review. They based their decision on the "search methodology" (57%, n = 36), "search write-up" (46%, n = 29), or "entire article" (54%, n = 34). Those who selected "other" (37%, n = 23) listed a variety of reasons for rejection, including problems or errors in the PRISMA flow diagram; tables of included, excluded, and ongoing studies; data extraction; reporting; and pooling methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being experts in conducting literature searches and supporting SR teams through the review process, few librarians have been asked to review SR manuscripts, or even just search strategies; yet many are willing to provide this service. Editors should involve experienced librarians with peer review and we suggest some strategies to consider.

Behavioural weight management interventions for postnatal women: A systematic review of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials

This systematic review of systematic reviews investigated the effectiveness of lifestyle weight management interventions for postnatal women. We systematically reviewed Medline (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL Plus, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus from 2000 until January 2018, to identify systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of behavioural lifestyle interventions for weight management in postnatal women. Results were summarized both descriptively and statistically using a mega meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled trials included in previous systematic reviews. Nine systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. Overall the reviews concluded that lifestyle interventions involving physical activity and/or dietary changes resulted in a reduction in postnatal weight. Results from the overall mega meta-analysis confirmed this finding with a mean difference of -1.7 kg (95% CI, -2.3 to -1.1). Findings for subgroup analyses gave mean differences of -1.9 kg (95% CI, -2.9 to -1.0) for combined diet and physical activity interventions, -1.6 kg (95% CI, -2.1 to -1.2) for physical activity-only interventions, and -9.3 kg (95% CI, -16.5 to -2.1) for diet-only interventions (one study). Heterogeneity varied from 0% to 68%. Interventions involving lifestyle interventions appeared to be effective in reducing weight in postnatal women, although these findings should be interpreted with some caution due to statistical heterogeneity.

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.

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in emergency medicine based on the PRISMA statement

BACKGROUND

Emergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement.

METHODS

The top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

The included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately. Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence (mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions (mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

There is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting.

A systematic review of the quality of distal radius systematic reviews: Methodology and reporting assessment

Background

Many systematic reviews (SRs) have been published about the various treatments for distal radius fractures (DRF). The heterogeneity of SRs results may come from the misuse of SR methods, and literature overviews have demonstrated that SRs should be considered with caution as they may not always be synonymous with high-quality standards. Our objective is to evaluate the quality of published SRs on the treatment of DRF through these tools.

Methods

The methods utilized in this review were previously published in the PROSPERO database. We considered SRs of surgical and nonsurgical interventions for acute DRF in adults. A comprehensive search strategy was performed in the MEDLINE database (inception to May 2017) and we manually searched the grey literature for non-indexed research. Data were independently extracted by two authors. We assessed SR internal validity and reporting using AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes). Scores were calculated as the sum of reported items. We also extracted article characteristics and provided Spearman’s correlation measurements.

Results

Forty-one articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The mean score for PRISMA was 15.90 (CI 95%, 13.9–17.89) and AMSTAR was 6.48 (CI 95% 5.72–7.23). SRs that considered only RCTs had better AMSTAR [7.56 (2.1) vs. 5.62 (2.3); p = 0.014] and PRISMA scores [18.61 (5.22) vs. 13.93 (6.47), p = 0.027]. The presence of meta-analysis on the SRs altered PRISMA scores [19.17 (4.75) vs. 10.21 (4.51), p = 0.001] and AMSTAR scores [7.68 (1.9) vs. 4.39 (1.66), p = 0.001]. Journal impact factor or declaration of conflict of interest did not change PRISMA and AMSTAR scores. We found substantial inter observer agreement for PRISMA (0.82, 95% CI 0.62–0.94; p = 0.01) and AMSTAR (0.65, 95% CI 0.43–0.81; p = 0.01), and moderate correlation between PRISMA and AMSTAR scores (0.83, 95% CI 0.62–0.92; p = 0.01).

Conclusions

DRF RCT-only SRs have better PRISMA and AMSTAR scores. These tools have substantial inter-observer agreement and moderate inter-tool correlation. We exposed the current research panorama and pointed out some factors that can contribute to improvements on the topic.

Requirements for trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines in critical care journals: a meta-epidemiological study of journals' instructions for authors

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to investigate the policies of critical care journals with regard to guideline adoption and clinical trial registration to understand the extent to which journals use these mechanisms to improve reporting practices.

METHODS

The current study's sample comprised 37 critical care journals cataloged in the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2015 Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar Metrics h5-index critical care subcategory. A web-based data abstraction was performed to identify which journals required, recommended, or made no mention of 17 different reporting guidelines. We also extracted whether journals required or recommended trial registration. Authors were blinded to one another's ratings until completion of the data validation. Cross tabulations and descriptive statistics were calculated by using STATA 13.

RESULTS

Of the 37 critical care journals, 15 (15/37, 40.5%) did not mention a single guideline within their instructions for authors, whereas the remaining 22 (22/37, 59.5%) mentioned one or more guidelines. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses statement and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research were not mentioned by any journals, whereas the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (26/37, 70.3%) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement (17/37, 45.9%) were mentioned most often. Of the 37 critical care journals, 21 (21/37, 56.8%) did not mention trial or review registration, but the remaining 16 (16/37, 43.2%) mentioned at least one of the two. Trial registration through ClinicalTrials.gov was mentioned by six (6/37, 16.2%) journals, whereas the WHO registry was mentioned by five (5/37, 13.5%). Sixteen (16/37, 43.2%) journals mentioned trial registration through a registry platform.

CONCLUSION

Nearly half of the journals in our sample did not mention a reporting guideline, and only a small percentage of journals required the registration of clinical trials as a condition for publication. Implementing these two mechanisms may limit bias, and their adoption should be considered by journal editors in critical care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000024081.

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 flow diagram in systematic review and/or meta-analysis

Systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses generally provide the best evidence for medical research. Authors are recommended to use flow diagrams to present the review process, allowing for better understanding among readers. However, no studies as of yet have assessed the quality of flow diagrams in systematic review/meta-analyses. Our study aims to evaluate the quality of systematic review/meta-analyses over a period of ten years, by assessing the quality of the flow diagrams, and the correlation to the methodological quality. Two hundred articles of "systematic review" and/or "meta-analysis" from January 2004 to August 2015 were randomly retrieved in Pubmed to be assessed for the flow diagram and methodological qualities. The flow diagrams were evaluated using a 16-grade scale corresponding to the four stages of PRISMA flow diagram. It composes four parts: Identification, Screening, Eligibility and Inclusion. Of the 200 articles screened, 154 articles were included and were assessed with AMSTAR checklist. Among them, 78 articles (50.6%) had the flow diagram. Over ten years, the proportion of papers with flow diagram available had been increasing significantly with regression coefficient beta = 5.649 (p = 0.002). However, the improvement in quality of the flow diagram increased slightly but not significantly (regression coefficient beta = 0.177, p = 0.133). Our analysis showed high variation in the proportion of articles that reported flow diagram components. The lowest proportions were 1% for reporting methods of duplicates removal in screening phase, followed by 6% for manual search in identification phase, 22% for number of studies for each specific/subgroup analysis, 27% for number of articles retrieved from each database, and 31% for number of studies included in qualitative analysis. The flow diagram quality was correlated with the methodological quality with the Pearson's coefficient r = 0.32 (p = 0.0039). Therefore, this review suggests that the reporting quality of flow diagram is less satisfactory, hence not maximizing the potential benefit of the flow diagrams. A guideline with standardized flow diagram is recommended to improve the quality of systematic reviews, and to enable better reader comprehension of the review process.

The methodological quality of systematic reviews indexed in the MEDLINE database

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyse the methodology quality of the literature search protocols of systematic reviews and to assess the relevance of the search filter that applies PubMed for retrieving this type of publication of the MEDLINE database.

Design/methodology/approach

For the selection of the document type, a literature search about nutritional and metabolic diseases was carried out in MEDLINE and the PubMed filter was used for retrieving “Systematic Reviews”, selecting “Nutritional and Metabolic Diseases” from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) database as Major Topic to determine the area of knowledge. Data analysis was carried out using “External Logistic Biplot”, a novel multivariate statistical technique in the field of medical documentation.

Findings

The results highlight the large variability of the methodology used in the literature search protocols of the systematic reviews analysed and confirm the low precision of the filter used by PubMed for the recovery of systematic reviews.

Originality/value

The Logistic Biplot used in this research allows an optimal categorization of the different documentary typologies and classifies the documents by their methodological quality, demonstrating its usefulness for the future development of the bibliometric analysis.

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.

Associations of Self-Presentation on Facebook with Mental Health and Personality Variables: A Systematic Review

Many investigations of the associations of self-presentation on Facebook with mental health and personality variables exist, but their findings have not yet been synthetized. We therefore carried out a narrative synthesis of 21 observational studies (combined N = 7,573) obtained from a systematic search of four academic databases. Significant self-presentation associations were yielded for self-esteem, perceived social support, social anxiety, well-being, depression, bipolar/mania, stress, self-consciousness, and insecure attachment. Significant associations were also yielded for all of the big five personality variables and narcissism. The clearest trends-based on the number of times significant associations were yielded across included studies-were as follows: (1) inauthentic self-presentation was consistently associated with low self-esteem and elevated levels of social anxiety; (2) inauthentic self-presentation was consistently more likely to occur in people high in neuroticism and narcissism; and (3) authentic/positive self-presentation was consistently associated with increased levels of self-esteem and perceived social support. The assessment of online self-presentation may offer clinicians important insights into how clients are functioning in relation to various domains of mental health and personality. For example, clients who present inauthentic versions of themselves on Facebook could be experiencing social anxiety or have maladaptive personality traits such as neuroticism and narcissism, all of which could be targeted in intervention.

Alcohol consumption and gastric cancer risk: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies

We performed this meta-analysis to explore the precise quantification relationship between alcohol consumption and gastric cancer and to provide evidence for preventing gastric cancer. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for articles published up to December 2016, and identified 23 cohort studies that included a total population of 5,886,792 subjects. We derived meta-analytic estimates using random-effects models, taking into account correlations between estimates. We also investigated the dose–response relationship between gastric cancer risk and alcohol consumption. We found that alcohol consumption increased gastric cancer risk, where the summary risk ratio was 1.17 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00–1.34; I² = 79.6%, p < 0.05. The dose–response analysis showed that every 10 g/d increment in alcohol consumption was associated with 7% increased gastric cancer risk (95% CI 1.02–1.12; I² = 28.9%, p = 0.002). This meta-analysis provides evidence that alcohol consumption is an important risk factor of the incidence of gastric cancer.

Rigor, Transparency, and Reporting Social Science Research: Why Guidelines Don't Have to Kill Your Story

Dissemination of research is the most challenging aspect of building the evidence base. Despite peer-review, evidence suggests that a substantial proportion of papers leave out details that are necessary to judge bias, consider replication, or initiate meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Reporting guidelines were created to ensure minimally adequate reporting of research and have become increasingly popular since the 1990s. There are over 200 guidelines for authors to assist in reporting a range of study methodologies. Although guidelines are freely available, they are underutilized and there is criticism regarding assumptions about methodologies targeted by guidelines. As journal editors lean into endorsements, social work authors may benefit from considering guidelines appropriate for their work. This paper explores pros and cons of guideline use by authors and journals and presents some suggestions for the field of social work, including assessment of whether profession-specific reporting guidelines are needed, and cautions regarding limitations.

Guidance in author instructions of hematology and oncology journals: A cross sectional and longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

The debate about the value of biomedical publications led to recommendations for improving reporting quality. It is unclear to what extent these recommendations have been endorsed by journals. We analyzed whether specific recommendations were included in author instructions, which journal characteristics were associated with their endorsement, how endorsement of the domains changed and whether endorsement was associated with change of impact factor between 2010 and 2015.

METHODS

We considered two study samples consisting of "Hematology" and "Oncology" journals of the Journal Citation Report 2008 and 2014, respectively. We extracted information regarding endorsement of the (1) recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, of (2) reporting guidelines, (3) requirement for trial registration and (4) disclosure of conflicts of interest. Data extraction was done by reading the author instructions before conducting a text search with keywords. We calculated a global generalized linear mixed effects model for endorsement of each of the four domains followed by separate multivariable logistic regression models and a longitudinal analysis. We defined endorsement as the author instructions saying that they approve the use of the recommendations.

RESULTS

In 2015, the ICMJE recommendations were mentioned in author instructions of 156 journals (67.5%). CONSORT was referred to by 77 journals (33.3%); MOOSE, PRISMA, STARD and STROBE were referred to by less than 15% of journals. There were 99 journals (42.9%) that recommended or required trial registration, 211 (91.3%) required authors to disclose conflicts of interest. Journal impact factor, journal start year and geographical region were positively associated with endorsement of any of the four domains. The overall endorsement of all domains increased between 2010 and 2015. The endorsement of any domain in 2010 seemed to be associated with an increased impact factor in 2014.

CONCLUSION

Hematology and oncology journals endorse major recommendations to various degrees. Endorsement is increasing slowly over time and might be positively associated with the journals' impact factor.

Reporting and methodologic evaluation of meta-analyses published in the anesthesia literature according to AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists: a preliminary study

BACKGROUND

There have been few recent reports on the methodological quality of meta-analysis, despite the enormous number of studies using meta-analytic techniques in the field of anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of meta-analyses and systematic reviews according to the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in the anesthesia literature.

METHODS

A search was conducted to identify all meta-analyses ever been published in the British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA), Anaesthesia, and Korean Journal of Anesthesiology (KJA) between Jan. 01, 2004 and Nov. 31, 2016. We aimed to apply the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists to all published meta-analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 121 meta-analyses in the anesthesia literature from January 2004 through the end of November 2016 (BJA; 75, Anaesthesia; 43, KJA; 3). The number of studies published and percentage of 'Yes' responses for meta-analysis articles published after the year 2010 was significantly increased compared to that of studies published before the year 2009 (P = 0.014 for Anaesthesia). In the anesthesia literature as a whole, participation of statisticians as authors statistically improved average scores of PRISMA items (P = 0.004) especially in the BJA (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Even though there is little variability in the reporting and methodology of meta-analysis in the anesthesia literature, significant quality improvement in the reporting was observed in the Anaesthesia by applying the PRISMA checklist. Participation of a statistician as an author improved the reporting quality of the meta-analysis.

Assessing abstracts of Iranian systematic reviews and metaanalysis indexed in WOS and Scopus using PRISMA

Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis have significant advantages over conventional reviews in that all available data should be presented. This study aimed to evaluate Iranian systematic reviews and meta-analysis abstracts indexed in WOS and Scopus during 2003-2012 based on PRISMA checklist.

Methods: This is an analytical study. We evaluated 46 article abstracts indexed in WOS, 89 article abstracts indexed in Scopus and 158 article abstracts indexed in WOS and Scopus both (overlapped group). The quality of the abstracts was evaluated according to the PRISMA checklist for abstracts. Some indicators including distribution per year, total citation, average citations per year, average citations per documents and average citations per year in each article were determined through searching the WOS and Scopus Databases’ analytical section. Then, the correlations between the abstract's PRISMA scores, average citations per year, and publication year were calculated.

Results: The abstract’s quality is not desirable as far as the PRISMA criteria are concerned. In other words, none of the articles’ abstracts is in line with the PRISMA items. The average of scores of the current study was 5.9 while the maximum score was 12. The PRISMA criteria showed the highest compliance with "Objectives" (98.6%), the second highest with "Synthesis of result" (85%) and "Title" (80.2%) and the lowest compliance with "Registration" (2%). There was a positive correlation between the compliance of PRISMA score and the average citations per year while there was a negative correlation between PRISMA score and the publication year.

Conclusion: It seems that the suggested criteria for reporting Iranian systematic reviews and meta-analysis are not considered adequately by the writers and even scientific journal editors.

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

OBJECTIVE

Systematic reviews (SRs) often poorly report key information, thereby diminishing their usefulness. Previous studies evaluated published SRs and determined that they failed to meet explicit criteria or characteristics. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was recommended as a reporting guideline for SR and meta-analysis (MA), but previous studies showed that adherence to the statement was not high for SRs published in different medical fields. Thus, the aims of this study are twofold: (1) to investigate the number of nursing journals that have required or recommended the use of the PRISMA statement for reporting SR, and (2) to examine the adherence of SRs and/or meta-analyses to the PRISMA statement published in nursing journals.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Nursing journals listed in the ISI journal citation report were divided into 2 groups based on the recommendation of PRISMA statement in their 'Instruction for Authors'. SRs and meta-analyses published in 2014 were searched in 3 databases. 37 SRs and meta-analyses were randomly selected in each group. The adherence of each item to the PRISMA was examined and summarised using descriptive statistics. The quality of the SRs was assessed by Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews. The differences between the 2 groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

Out of 107 nursing journals, 30 (28.0%) recommended or required authors to follow the PRISMA statement when they submit SRs or meta-analyses. The median rates of adherence to the PRISMA statement for reviews published in journals with and without PRISMA endorsement were 64.9% (IQR: 17.6-92.3%) and 73.0% (IQR: 59.5-94.6%), respectively. No significant difference was observed in any of the items between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The median adherence of SRs and meta-analyses in nursing journals to PRISMA is low at 64.9% and 73.0%, respectively. Nonetheless, the adherence level of nursing journals to the PRISMA statement does not significantly vary whether they endorse or recommend such a guideline.

Evaluation of the Quality of Reporting of Observational Studies in Otorhinolaryngology - Based on the STROBE Statement

Background

Observational studies are the most frequently published studies in literature. When randomized controlled trials cannot be conducted because of ethical or practical considerations, an observational study design is the first choice. The STROBE Statement (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) was developed to provide guidance on how to adequately report observational studies.

Objectives

The objectives were 1) to evaluate the quality of reporting of observational studies of otorhinolaryngologic literature using the STROBE Statement checklist, 2) to compare the quality of reporting of observational studies in the top 5 Ear, Nose, Throat (ENT) journals versus the top 5 general medical journals and 3) to formulate recommendations to improve adequate reporting of observational research in otorhinolaryngologic literature.

Methods

The top 5 general medical journals and top 5 otorhinolaryngologic journals were selected based on their ISI Web of Knowledge impact factors. On August 3^rd, 2015, we performed a PubMed search using different filters to retrieve observational articles from these journals. Studies were selected from 2010 to 2014 for the general medical journals and from 2015 for the ENT journals. We assessed all STROBE items to examine how many items were reported adequately for each journal type.

Results

The articles in the top 5 general medical journals (n = 11) reported a mean of 69.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 65.8%–72.7%; median 70.6%), whereas the top 5 ENT journals (n = 29) reported a mean of 51.4% (95% CI: 47.7%–55.0%; median 50.0%). The two journal types reported STROBE items significantly different (p < .001).

Conclusion

Quality of reporting of observational studies in otorhinolaryngologic articles can considerably enhance. The quality of reporting was better in general medical journals compared to ENT journals. To improve the quality of reporting of observational studies, we recommend authors and editors to endorse and actively implement the STROBE Statement.

Quality of meta-analyses in major leading gastroenterology and hepatology journals: A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To appraise the current reporting methodological quality of meta-analyses in five leading gastroenterology and hepatology journals, and to identify the variables associated with the reporting quality.

METHODS

We systematically searched the literature of meta-analyses in Gastroenterology, Gut, Hepatology, Journal of Hepatology (J HEPATOL) and American Journal of Gastroenterology (AM J GASTROENTEROL) from 2006 to 2008 and from 2012 to 2014. Characteristics were extracted based on the PRISMA statement and the AMSTAR tool. Country, number of patients, funding source were also revealed and descriptively reported.

RESULTS

A total of 127 meta-analyses were enrolled in this study and were compared among journals, study years, and other characters. Compliances with the PRISMA statement and the AMSTAR checklist were 20.8 ± 4.2 out of a maximum of 27 and 7.6 ± 2.4 out of a maximum of 11, respectively. Some domains were poorly reported including describing a protocol and/or registration (item 5, 0.0%), describing methods, and giving results of additional analyses (item 16, 45.7% and item 23, 48.0%) for PRISMA and duplicating study selection and data extraction (item 2, 53.5%), and providing a list of included and excluded studies (item 5, 14.2%) for AMSTAR. Publication in recent years showed a significantly better methodological quality than those published in previous years.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that methodological reporting quality of MAs in the major gastroenterology and hepatology journals has improved in recent years after the publication of the developed PRISMA statement, and it can be further improved.

Do emergency medicine journals promote trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines? A survey of "Instructions for Authors"

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of two publication practices, reporting guidelines requirements and clinical trial registration requirements, by analyzing the “Instructions for Authors” of emergency medicine journals.

Methods

We performed a web-based data abstraction from the “Instructions for Authors” of the 27 Emergency Medicine journals catalogued in the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2014 Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar Metrics h5-index to identify whether each journal required, recommended, or made no mention of the following reporting guidelines: EQUATOR Network, ICMJE, ARRIVE, CARE, CONSORT, STARD, TRIPOD, CHEERS, MOOSE, STROBE, COREQ, SRQR, SQUIRE, PRISMA-P, SPIRIT, PRISMA, and QUOROM. We also extracted whether journals required or recommended trial registration. Authors were blinded to one another’s ratings until completion of the data validation. Cross-tabulations and descriptive statistics were calculated using IBM SPSS 22.

Results

Of the 27 emergency medicine journals, 11 (11/27, 40.7%) did not mention a single guideline within their “Instructions for Authors,” while the remaining 16 (16/27, 59.3%) mentioned one or more guidelines. The QUOROM statement and SRQR were not mentioned by any journals whereas the ICMJE guidelines (18/27, 66.7%) and CONSORT statement (15/27, 55.6%) were mentioned most often. Of the 27 emergency medicine journals, 15 (15/27, 55.6%) did not mention trial or review registration, while the remaining 12 (12/27, 44.4%) at least mentioned one of the two. Trial registration through ClinicalTrials.gov was mentioned by seven (7/27, 25.9%) journals while the WHO registry was mentioned by four (4/27, 14.8%). Twelve (12/27, 44.4%) journals mentioned trial registration through any registry platform.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of two publication practices, reporting guidelines requirements and clinical trial registration requirements, by analyzing the “Instructions for Authors” of emergency medicine journals. In this study, there was not a single reporting guideline mentioned in more than half of the journals. This undermines efforts of other journals to improve the completeness and transparency of research reporting.

Conclusions

Reporting guidelines are infrequently required or recommended by emergency medicine journals. Furthermore, few require clinical trial registration. These two mechanisms may limit bias and should be considered for adoption by journal editors in emergency medicine.

Trial registration

UMIN000022486

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13049-016-0331-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Is manipulative therapy clinically necessary for relief of neck pain? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and critically assess the effificacy of Eastern and Western manipulative therapies for the treatment of neck pain in adults.

METHODS

A search of PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, etc. from their inception date to January 2014 with Chinese, Japanese, and Korean databases. Two reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with negative control or blank control, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Meta-analysis and levels of evidence were performed by Revman5.1 and Grades of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

Nineteen clinical trials with adequate randomization were included in this review, 11 of them had a low risk of bias. The primary outcome for short-term pain had no significant differences, however, the secondary outcome, only the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score of intermediate-term [n=916, pooled mean differences (MD) =-0.29, P=0.02], the Neck Disability Index (NDI) score of short-term (n=1,145, pooled MD=-2.10, P<0.01), and intermediate-term (n=987, pooled MD=-1.45, P=0.01) were signifificantly reduced with moderate quality evidence. However, it supported the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) of the Visual Analogue Scale and NPRS pain score to be 13 mm, while NDI was 3.5 points. The meta-analysis only suggested a trend in favor of manipulative therapy rather than clinical signifificance.

CONCLUSIONS

The results do not support the existing evidences for the clinical value of Eastern or Western manipulative therapy for neck pain of short-term follow-up according to MCIDs. The limitations of our review related to blinding, allocation concealment and small sample size.

Surveys on Reporting Guideline Usage in Dental Journals

The objectives of this study were 1) to find out if and how authors and peer reviewers for dental journals are encouraged to use reporting guidelines (RGs); 2) to identify factors related to RG endorsement; and 3) to assess the knowledge, opinions, and future plans of dental journal editors in chief (EICs) on RGs. A total of 109 peer-reviewed and original research-oriented dental journals that were indexed in the MEDLINE and/or SCIE database in 2015 were included. The "instructions to authors" and "instructions to reviewers" of these journals were identified and retrieved from journals' official websites. Any mention of RGs or other related policies were sought and extracted. In addition, an anonymous survey of the EICs of the included journals was conducted with a validated questionnaire. All 109 journals provided "instructions to authors," among which 55 (50.5%) mentioned RGs. Only the CONSORT (45.0%), PRISMA (13.8%), and STROBE (12.8%) guidelines were mentioned by >10% of the included journals. Statistical analyses suggest that RGs were more frequently mentioned by SCIE-indexed journals (P < 0.001), higher-impact journals (P = 0.002), and journals that endorsed the ICMJE recommendations (P < 0.001). "Instructions to reviewers" were available online for only 9 journals (8.3%), 3 of which mentioned RGs. For the EIC survey, the response rate was 32.1% (35 of 109). Twenty-six editors (74.3%) stated that they knew what RGs were before receiving our questionnaire. Twenty-four editors (68.6%) believed that RGs should be adopted by all refereed dental journals where appropriate. RGs are important tools for enhancing research reporting and reducing avoidable research waste, but currently they are not widely endorsed by dental journals. Joint efforts by all stakeholders to further promote RG usage in dentistry are needed.

Risk-reduction surgery in pediatric surgical oncology: A perspective

OBJECTIVE

A small percentage of pediatric solid cancers arise as a result of clearly identified inherited predisposition syndromes and nongenetic lesions. Evidence supports preemptive surgery for children with genetic [multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 (MEN2), familial adenomatous polyposis syndrome (FAP), hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC), and hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) and nongenetic [thyroglossal duct cysts (TGDC), congenital pulmonary airway malformations (CPAM), alimentary tract duplication cysts (ATDC), and congenital choledochal cysts (CCC)] developmental anomalies. Our aim was to explore the utility of risk reduction surgery to treat and prevent cancer in children.

METHODS

A systematic review of the available peer-reviewed literature on PubMed was performed using a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) search strategy, where possible. Search items included "risk reduction surgery", "hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome", "multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2", "familial adenomatous polyposis", "hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer", "hereditary diffuse gastric cancer", "thyroglossal duct cysts", congenital pulmonary airway malformations", "alimentary tract duplication cysts", "malignant transformation", and "guidelines".

RESULTS

We identified 67 articles that met the inclusion criteria describing the indications for prophylactic surgery in surgical oncology. For the genetic predisposition syndromes, 7 studies were related to professional endorsed guidelines, 7 were related to surgery for MEN2, 11 were related to colectomy for FAP, 6 were related to colectomy for HNPCC, and 12 related to gastrectomy for HDGC. Articles for the nongenetic lesions included 5 for techniques related to TGDC resection, 9 for surgery for CPAMs, and 10 for resection of ATDCs. Guidelines and strategies varied significantly especially related to the extent and timing of surgical intervention; the exception was for the timing of thyroidectomy in children with MEN2.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence supporting prophylactic surgery in the management of pediatric cancer predisposition syndromes and nongenetic lesions is best delineated for thyroidectomy to prevent medullary thyroid cancer in children with MEN2 (Strength of Recommendation Grade B/C). Despite the lack of pediatric specific evidence-based recommendations regarding the appropriate extent and timing for risk-reduction surgery for FAP, HNPCC, HDGC and nongenetic anomalies, our review represents an opportunity towards understanding the postgenomic development of these lesions and provides current indications and techniques for preemptive cancer prevention surgery in children.

Guidelines for reporting health economic research

Health economic evaluations potentially provide valuable information to clinicians, health care administrators, and policy makers regarding the financial implications of decisions about the care of patients. The highest quality research should be used to inform decisions that have direct impact on the access to care and the outcome of treatment. However, economic analyses are often complex and use research methods which are relatively unfamiliar to clinicians. Furthermore, health economic data have substantial national, regional, and institutional variability, which can limit the external validity of the results of a study. Therefore, minimum guidelines that aim to standardise the quality and transparency of reporting health economic research have been developed, and instruments are available to assist in the assessment of its quality and the interpretation of results.

The purpose of this editorial is to discuss the principal types of health economic studies, to review the most common instruments for judging the quality of these studies and to describe current reporting guidelines. Recommendations for the submission of these types of studies to The Bone & Joint Journal are provided.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:147–51.

Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Otorhinolaryngologic Articles Based on the PRISMA Statement

Background

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) provide the highest possible level of evidence. However, poor conduct or reporting of SRs and MAs may reduce their utility. The PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) was developed to help authors report their SRs and MAs adequately.

Objectives

Our objectives were to (1) evaluate the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs and their abstracts in otorhinolaryngologic literature using the PRISMA and PRISMA for Abstracts checklists, respectively, (2) compare the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs published in Ear Nose Throat (ENT) journals to the quality of SRs and MAs published in the ‘gold standard’ Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and (3) formulate recommendations to improve reporting of SRs and MAs in ENT journals.

Methods

On September 3, 2014, we searched the Pubmed database using a combination of filters to retrieve SRs and MAs on otorhinolaryngologic topics published in 2012 and 2013 in the top 5 ENT journals (ISI Web of Knowledge 2013) or CDSR and relevant articles were selected. We assessed how many, and which, PRISMA (for Abstracts) items were reported adequately per journal type.

Results

We identified large differences in the reporting of individual items between the two journal types with room for improvement. In general, SRs and MAs published in ENT journals (n = 31) reported a median of 54.4% of the PRISMA items adequately, whereas the 49 articles published in the CDSR reported a median of 100.0 adequately (difference statistically significant, p < 0.001). For abstracts, medians of 41.7% for ENT journals and 75.0% for the CDSR were found (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The reporting of SRs and MAs in ENT journals leaves room for improvement and would benefit if the PRISMA Statement were endorsed by these journals.

Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors

Background

Previous research looking at published systematic reviews has shown that their search strategies are often suboptimal and that librarian involvement, though recommended, is low. Confidence in the results, however, is limited due to poor reporting of search strategies the published articles.

Objectives

To more accurately measure the use of recommended search methods in systematic reviews, the levels of librarian involvement, and whether librarian involvement predicts the use of recommended methods.

Methods

A survey was sent to all authors of English-language systematic reviews indexed in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from January 2012 through January 2014. The survey asked about their use of search methods recommended by the Institute of Medicine, Cochrane Collaboration, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and if and how a librarian was involved in the systematic review. Rates of use of recommended methods and librarian involvement were summarized. The impact of librarian involvement on use of recommended methods was examined using a multivariate logistic regression.

Results

1560 authors completed the survey. Use of recommended search methods ranged widely from 98% for use of keywords to 9% for registration in PROSPERO and were generally higher than in previous studies. 51% of studies involved a librarian, but only 64% acknowledge their assistance. Librarian involvement was significantly associated with the use of 65% of recommended search methods after controlling for other potential predictors. Odds ratios ranged from 1.36 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.75) for including multiple languages to 3.07 (95% CI 2.06 to 4.58) for using controlled vocabulary.

Conclusions

Use of recommended search strategies is higher than previously reported, but many methods are still under-utilized. Librarian involvement predicts the use of most methods, but their involvement is under-reported within the published article.

Quality of conduct and reporting of meta-analyses of surgical interventions

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses are useful tools for summarizing surgical evidence as they aim to encompass multiple sources of information on a particular research question, but they may be prone to methodological and reporting biases. We evaluated the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses of surgical interventions.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We performed a systematic review of 150 meta-analyses of randomized trials of surgical interventions published between January 2010 and June 2011. A comprehensive search strategy was executed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Data were independently extracted by 2 authors using the PRISMA statement (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, a standardized quality of reporting guideline) and AMSTAR (a tool for methodological quality). Descriptive statistics were used for individual items, and as a measure of overall compliance, PRISMA and AMSTAR scores were calculated as the sum of adequately reported domains. A median of 8 trials (interquartile range = 8) was included in each meta-analysis. One third of all meta-analyses had an author with a background in epidemiology and/or statistics. Forty-four percent were published in PRISMA-endorsing journals with a median impact factor of 3.5. There was moderate compliance with PRISMA, with an average of 71% of items reported, but poorer compliance with AMSTAR, with 48% of items adequately described, on average.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial gaps in the conduct and reporting of meta-analyses within the surgical literature exist, mainly in the specification of aims and/or objectives, the use of preplanned protocols, and the evaluation of potential bias at the review (rather than trial) level. Editorial insistence on using reporting guidelines would improve this situation.

A Framework for Enhancing the Value of Research for Dissemination and Implementation

A comprehensive guide that identifies critical evaluation and reporting elements necessary to move research into practice is needed. We propose a framework that highlights the domains required to enhance the value of dissemination and implementation research for end users. We emphasize the importance of transparent reporting on the planning phase of research in addition to delivery, evaluation, and long-term outcomes. We highlight key topics for which well-established reporting and assessment tools are underused (e.g., cost of intervention, implementation strategy, adoption) and where such tools are inadequate or lacking (e.g., context, sustainability, evolution) within the context of existing reporting guidelines. Consistent evaluation of and reporting on these issues with standardized approaches would enhance the value of research for practitioners and decision-makers.

Reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture

BACKGROUND

The QUOROM and PRISMA statements were published in 1999 and 2009, respectively, to improve the consistency of reporting systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of clinical trials. However, not all SRs/MAs adhere completely to these important standards. In particular, it is not clear how well SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies adhere to reporting standards and which reporting criteria are generally ignored in these analyses.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate reporting quality in SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies.

METHODS

We performed a literature search for studies published prior to 2014 using the following public archives: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) database, the Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), the Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database (CSJD), and the Wanfang database. Data were extracted into pre-prepared Excel data-extraction forms. Reporting quality was assessed based on the PRISMA checklist (27 items).

RESULTS

Of 476 appropriate SRs/MAs identified in our search, 203, 227, and 46 were published in Chinese journals, international journals, and the Cochrane Database, respectively. In 476 SRs/MAs, only 3 reported the information completely. By contrast, approximately 4.93% (1/203), 8.81% (2/227) and 0.00% (0/46) SRs/Mas reported less than 10 items in Chinese journals, international journals and CDSR, respectively. In general, the least frequently reported items (reported≤50%) in SRs/MAs were "protocol and registration", "risk of bias across studies", and "additional analyses" in both methods and results sections.

CONCLUSIONS

SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies have not comprehensively reported information recommended in the PRISMA statement. Our study underscores that, in addition to focusing on careful study design and performance, attention should be paid to comprehensive reporting standards in SRs/MAs on acupuncture studies.

Blinded by PRISMA: are systematic reviewers focusing on PRISMA and ignoring other guidelines?

BACKGROUND

PRISMA guidelines have been developed to improve the reporting of systematic reviews (SRs). Other reporting guidelines and techniques to assess methodological quality of SRs have been developed. We aimed to assess the frequency of the use of reporting and other guidelines in SRs to assess whether PRISMA is being used inappropriately as a substitute for other relevant guidelines.

METHODS

Web of Knowledge was searched to identify articles citing the PRISMA guidelines over a 12-month period. The use of reporting guidelines (including PRISMA and MOOSE) and tools for assessing methodological quality (including QUADAS) was assessed. Factors associated with appropriate use of guidelines including review type, field of publication and involvement of a methodologist were investigated.

RESULTS

Over the 12-month period, 701 SRs were identified. MOOSE guidelines were cited in just 17% of epidemiologic reviews; QUADAS or QUADAS-2 was referred to in just 40% of diagnostic SRs. In the multivariable analysis, medical field of publication and methodologist involvement (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.37, 2.83) were significant predictors of appropriate use of guidelines. Inclusion of a meta-analysis resulted in 73% higher odds of appropriate usage of systematic review guidelines (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.22, 2.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Usage of SR reporting guidelines and tools for assessment of methodological quality other than PRISMA may be under-utilized with negative implications both for the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews.