Review Articles/Meta AnalysesQuality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in pediatric surgery☆
Section snippets
Literature search
MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched using key words “systematic review” or “meta-analysis” and “pediatric” or “pediatric”. We also searched the table of contents of three major pediatric surgery journals, namely Journal of Pediatric Surgery, European Journal of Pediatric Surgery and Pediatric Surgery International. The reference listings of relevant studies were also hand searched. A study had to be identified as either a systematic review or meta-analysis to be included for the
Characteristics of included studies
The original literature search retrieved 1281 articles. After removing duplicates, 857 titles were screened and 181 full-text articles were reviewed for eligibility. One hundred and twenty six articles were included for final analysis, which comprised 72 systematic reviews and 54 systematic reviews with accompanying meta-analysis (Fig. 1). These studies were published during the 20 year period covering 1995–2014. The list of studies included and excluded at the stage of full paper review is
Discussion
Despite the influence of an increasing number of systematic reviews informing clinical practice, aiding guideline developers and research agendas the quantity of systematic reviews in the specialty field of pediatric surgery remains low compared to many other specialties. The MEDLINE database indexed over 2500 systematic reviews in 2007 of which 20% were included in Cochrane reviews [8]. In Neonatology for example there were 61 Cochrane reviews available [12]. We were only able to identify 126
References (16)
- et al.
Methodological quality of systematic reviews published in the urological literature over a 15-year time period (1998 to 2012)
J Urol
(2015) - et al.
AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews
J Clin Epidemiol
(2009) - et al.
The role of prospective randomized clinical trials in pediatric surgery: state of the art?
J Pediatr Surg
(2001) - et al.
Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality
J Clin Epidemiol
(2014) The Oxford levels of evidence
- et al.
Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews: The QUOROM statement compared to other tools
- et al.
Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews
BMC Med Res Methodol
(2007) - et al.
Methodological concerns and quality appraisal of contemporary systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric urology
J Urol
(2011)
Cited by (13)
Ovarian-sparing surgery for ovarian tumors in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis
2023, European Journal of Surgical OncologyThe methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials: A cross-sectional systemic review
2022, Asian Journal of SurgeryCitation Excerpt :A guidance recommended to consider and describe interventions in systematic review has been published in 2017, pertaining to enhancing the usability and reproducibility.36 Our finding is consistent with others empirical studies in diverse disciplines that addressed low quality and major flaws are very common.13–20 Meanwhile, we provided detailed information on each item instead of overall score, which has helped review authors, surgeons, and clinicians identify critical weaknesses and suggest some ways to improve the process.
A systematic survey showed important limitations in the methods for assessing drug safety among systematic reviews
2020, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyCitation Excerpt :The extent to which systematic reviews and meta-analyses are useful for informing drug safety largely depends on how well the studies are designed, conducted, analyzed, and reported [1,5]. A number of previously published surveys [6–19] have applied A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews or other scales to investigate the methodological quality of systematic reviews in various fields of clinical medicine and shown that methodological quality was often inconsistent. Four studies [20–23] examined methodological details about adverse effects among systematic reviews.
Assessing the methodological and reporting quality of clinical systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric urology: can practices on contemporary highest levels of evidence be built?
2020, Journal of Pediatric UrologyCitation Excerpt :Although the least commonly included PRISMA parameter in this study, the presence of review registration also significantly correlated with higher PRISMA scores (P < 0.0001). Salim et al. [23] attempting to evaluate all paediatric general surgical literature (n = 44) using the AMSTAR tool also highlighted publication bias as a poorly addressed criteria, with 80% of studies failing to do so adequately, with literature searched being the most commonly scored item. To the study authors' knowledge, neither AMSTAR-2 nor PRISMA has been formally validated, and there are no studies demonstrating that these scores have a significant correlation with bias or treatment effect.
Scientific impact and bibliometric contextualisation of Paediatrics compared to other specialities
2020, Anales de PediatriaSystematic reviews and meta-analytic techniques
2018, Seminars in Pediatric SurgeryCitation Excerpt :These temptations have led many authors to publish hastily created reviews that fail to meet the appropriate level of scientific rigour. Indeed, evaluations of the quality of systematic review reporting in the field of pediatric surgery have generally not been favourable.26,27 Thus, despite their traditional position at the top rung of the pyramid of evidence, many reviews amount to bad science and should be treated with suspicion – the term ‘systematic review’ is not necessarily equivalent to trustworthy.