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

Abstract

BackgroundThere 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsWe 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).ConclusionsEven 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.

Explanation of trial sequential analysis: using a post-hoc analysis of meta-analyses published in Korean Journal of Anesthesiology

“…We identified 11 [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] papers in our initial search, however, four of them were excluded [6][7][8][9] because they were statistical rounds, while seven were clinical meta-analyses. However, one of them [10] did not have sufficient information to perform TSA and was therefore excluded, leaving six papers for the final analysis [11][12][13][14][15][16] (Fig.…”