The assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research: a systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundOver the last decade there have been a number of guidelines published, aimed at improving the quality of reporting in published studies and reviews. In systematic reviews this may be measured by their compliance with the PRISMA statement. This review aims to evaluate the quality of reporting in published meta-analyses of diagnostic tests, using the PRISMA statement and establish whether there has been a measurable improvement over time.MethodsEight databases were searched for reviews published prior to 31st December 2008. Studies were selected if they evaluated a diagnostic test, measured performance, searched two or more databases, stated the search terms and inclusion criteria, and used a statistical method to summarise a test's performance. Data were extracted on the review characteristics and items of the PRISMA statement. To measure the change in the quality of reporting over time, PRISMA items for two periods of equal duration were compared.ResultsCompliance with the PRISMA statement was generally poor: none of the reviews completely adhered to all 27 checklist items. Of the 236 meta-analyses included following selection: only 2(1%) reported the study protocol; 59(25%) reported the searches used; 76(32%) reported the results of a risk of bias assessment; and 82(35%) reported the abstract as a structured summary. Only 11 studies were published before 2000. Thus, the impact of QUOROM on the quality of reporting was not evaluated. However, the periods 2001-2004 and 2005-2008 (covering 93% of studies) were compared using relative risks (RR). There was an increase in the proportion of reviews reporting on five PRISMA items: eligibility criteria (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00 - 1.27); risk of bias across studies (methods) (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.34 - 2.44); study selection results (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.05 - 2.09); results of individual studies (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09 - 1.72); risk of bias across studies (results) (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.20 - 2.25).ConclusionAlthough there has been an improvement in the quality of meta-analyses in diagnostic research, there are still many deficiencies in the reporting which future reviewers need to address if readers are to trust the validity of the reported findings.

Are Our Publications Failing the Inspection?

“…similar results were found by Willis and Quigley, 19 wherein they showed an increase in the score, with special improvement in the reports of eligibility criteria, risk of bias, and study selection results.…”

“…this correlates with previous reports in other specialties. [18][19][20] Considering that our study is among the first in surgery, more research is required to determine the factors associated with these results.…”

“…7-12 similar results have been described in the review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, 13,14 which led to the development of the Quality of Reporting of meta-analysis statement in 1999, which was updated in 2009 as the Preferred Reporting items for systematic Reviews and meta-analyses (PRisma) statement. 15,16 although many studies have evaluated the quality of reporting in meta-analyses, [17][18][19] to our knowledge, this is the first that focuses on rectal cancer surgery.…”

Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews

“…There is ample literature assessing the quality of systematic reviews across many disciplines [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16], and a common theme that has emerged from a number of these studies has been the need for improving the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Many studies have advocated for and described various roles that librarians and information professionals could play on a review team [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26].…”

La declaración PRISMA: un paso adelante en la mejora de las publicaciones de la Revista Española de Salud Pública

“…La adopción de PRISMA por las revistas con instruccio nes claras y explícitas acerca de lo que se espera por parte de los autores de revisio nes sistemáticas es un asunto esencial. Estudios recientes ponen claramente de manifiesto que todavía queda mucho por hacer al respecto 10,11 . Además, el modo cómo las revistas evalúan un determinado tipo de investigación influye en el estatus o consideración que ese particular tipo de investigación merece entre la comunidad científica.…”