Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The practice of evidence-based surgery depends on high quality systematic reviews being readily available. Previous research has highlighted the lack of high quality research in paediatric surgery although systematic reviews have not been assessed.
Objectives: To determine the quantity, coverage and reporting quality of systematic reviews of paediatric surgical interventions.
Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, DARE, PROSPERO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for any systematic reviews of paediatric surgical interventions published before 2011. The PRISMA checklist was used to assess reporting quality.
Results: Fifteen reviews were identified of which 13 were Cochrane reviews. The median year of publication was 2010 and the earliest was 2001. The most commonly assessed area was the use of surgical treatments for the management of otitis media (four reviews). Reporting quality was mixed (see Figure1). In particular, one-third of included reviews did not declare their funding source or the role that funders played in the conduct of their review. No review utilised the PRISMA flow diagram to illustrate the results of their literature search.
Conclusions: Systematic reviews are unavailable for many areas in paediatric surgery. Surgeons trying to assess the safety and efficacy of an intervention will therefore be required to conduct their own assessments of the primary literature or extrapolate from adult systematic reviews. To reduce the discrepancy between best reporting quality as defined by PRISMA and the Cochrane Collaboration, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the PRISMA statement should be more closely aligned. Already some progress has been made in this regard with the recent upgrade to the Cochrane collaboration’s Review Manager Software, which now includes the ability to create a PRISMA flow diagram.
Objectives: To determine the quantity, coverage and reporting quality of systematic reviews of paediatric surgical interventions.
Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, DARE, PROSPERO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for any systematic reviews of paediatric surgical interventions published before 2011. The PRISMA checklist was used to assess reporting quality.
Results: Fifteen reviews were identified of which 13 were Cochrane reviews. The median year of publication was 2010 and the earliest was 2001. The most commonly assessed area was the use of surgical treatments for the management of otitis media (four reviews). Reporting quality was mixed (see Figure1). In particular, one-third of included reviews did not declare their funding source or the role that funders played in the conduct of their review. No review utilised the PRISMA flow diagram to illustrate the results of their literature search.
Conclusions: Systematic reviews are unavailable for many areas in paediatric surgery. Surgeons trying to assess the safety and efficacy of an intervention will therefore be required to conduct their own assessments of the primary literature or extrapolate from adult systematic reviews. To reduce the discrepancy between best reporting quality as defined by PRISMA and the Cochrane Collaboration, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the PRISMA statement should be more closely aligned. Already some progress has been made in this regard with the recent upgrade to the Cochrane collaboration’s Review Manager Software, which now includes the ability to create a PRISMA flow diagram.
Images
