|
2
|
Jin Y, Sanger N, Shams I, Luo C, Shahid H, Li G, Bhatt M, Zielinski L, Bantoto B, Wang M, Abbade LP, Nwosu I, Leenus A, Mbuagbaw L, Maaz M, Chang Y, Sun G, Levine MA, Adachi JD, Thabane L, Samaan Z. Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update. J Multidiscip Healthc 2018; 11:495-510. [PMID: 30310289 PMCID: PMC6166749 DOI: 10.2147/jmdh.s155103] [Citation(s) in RCA: 73] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). RESULTS Among the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines. CONCLUSION We conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yanling Jin
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada,
| | - Nitika Sanger
- Department of Medical Science, Medical Sciences Graduate Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Ieta Shams
- Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Candice Luo
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Bachelors of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Hamnah Shahid
- Department of Arts and Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Guowei Li
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada,
| | - Meha Bhatt
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada,
| | - Laura Zielinski
- Department of Neuroscience, McMaster Integrative Neuroscience Discovery and Study, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Bianca Bantoto
- Department of Science, Honours Integrated Sciences Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Mei Wang
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada,
| | - Luciana Pf Abbade
- Department of Dermatology and Radiotherapy, Botucatu Medical School, Universidade Estadual Paulista, UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Ikunna Nwosu
- Faculty of Health Sciences, Bachelors of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Alvin Leenus
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada,
| | - Lawrence Mbuagbaw
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada,
| | - Muhammad Maaz
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada,
| | - Yaping Chang
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada,
| | - Guangwen Sun
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada,
| | - Mitchell Ah Levine
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada,
- St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Jonathan D Adachi
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada,
- St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Lehana Thabane
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada,
- St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Zainab Samaan
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada,
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada,
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Holihan JL, Nguyen DH, Flores-Gonzalez JR, Alawadi ZM, Nguyen MT, Ko TC, Kao LS, Liang MK. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and reviews in the management of ventral hernias. J Surg Res 2016; 204:311-318. [PMID: 27565066 DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2016.05.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2016] [Revised: 04/13/2016] [Accepted: 05/03/2016] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The literature supporting ventral hernia management is growing; however, it is unclear whether the quality of work is improving. We hypothesize that the quality of clinical ventral hernia research has improved over the past 2.5 decades. METHODS A review of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was conducted for all ventral hernia studies from January 1, 1980 to May 1, 2015. Relevant abstracts were assigned a level according to the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. Reviews, and meta-analyses were graded using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Checklist and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist. Studies that did not fulfill at least 70% of the elements for the PRISMA (19/27) or CONSORT (26/37) checklists were considered to contain substantial methodological flaws. RESULTS Of 12,431 citations, 1336 met criteria for quality evaluation. Level 1 studies were sparse (n = 104, 7.8%), and most were level 2 or 3 (n = 463, 34.7%) or 4 (n = 769, 57.6%). Of the level 1 studies, 37 (35.6%) were RCTs, 61(58.7%) were reviews and/or meta-analyses, and 6 (5.8%) were consensus statements. Most RCTs and reviews and/or meta-analyses contained substantial methodological flaws (75.7%, 75.8%). Critical areas of weakness in RCTs were explaining losses and exclusions after randomization and/or allocation and reporting determination of sample size. For reviews and/or meta-analyses, areas of weakness were presenting an electronic search strategy and providing an assessment of risk of bias before pooling data. Linear regressions of PRISMA and CONSORT scores demonstrated improvement over time (PRISMA slope 0.95, R(2) = 0.24; CONSORT slope 0.34, R(2) = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS Although the quality of literature guiding ventral hernia management has improved over time, there is room for improvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie L Holihan
- Department of Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas.
| | - Duyen H Nguyen
- Department of Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas
| | | | - Zeinab M Alawadi
- Department of Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mylan T Nguyen
- Department of Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Tien C Ko
- Department of Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Lillian S Kao
- Department of Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Mike K Liang
- Department of Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|