Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guides completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SR) & meta-analysis (MA). The completeness of reporting in major radiology journals is unknown. Additionally, the association of completeness of reporting with study quality [measured by the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool] has also not been evaluated.
Objectives: The purpose of our study is to determine whether the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews & meta-analysis in major radiology journals has changed since publication of the PRISMA statement. A secondary objective is to evaluate whether completeness of reporting (PRISMA) is associated with study quality (AMSTAR).
Methods: SR & MA published in high impact radiology journals were identified by searching Medline using the modified Montori method. Studies were reviewed independently by two investigators and assessed for adherence to the AMSTAR & PRISMA checklists. The average results were analysed to assess for change pre and post PRISMA publication, and to evaluate for any association between PRISMA and AMSTAR results.
Results: 130 studies from 11 journals were included. Average PRISMA and AMSTAR results were 21.8 (out of 27) and 7.2 (out of 11) respectively. The average result was higher post publication of PRISMA; with PRISMA reported items of 22.6 vs. 20.9 and AMSTAR result of 7.7 vs. 6.7. Strong positive correlation (r = 0.86) between the PRISMA and AMSTAR results was present. There was high variability between journals. Radiology had the highest PRISMA reported items of 24.7, and AJNR had the lowest at 19.6. Two major areas for improvement include study protocol registration and assessment of risk of bias across studies (publication bias).
Conclusions: There has been modest improvement in completeness of reporting of SR and MA in major radiology journals. Improved completeness of reporting (PRISMA) was strongly associated with higher study quality (AMSTAR).
Objectives: The purpose of our study is to determine whether the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews & meta-analysis in major radiology journals has changed since publication of the PRISMA statement. A secondary objective is to evaluate whether completeness of reporting (PRISMA) is associated with study quality (AMSTAR).
Methods: SR & MA published in high impact radiology journals were identified by searching Medline using the modified Montori method. Studies were reviewed independently by two investigators and assessed for adherence to the AMSTAR & PRISMA checklists. The average results were analysed to assess for change pre and post PRISMA publication, and to evaluate for any association between PRISMA and AMSTAR results.
Results: 130 studies from 11 journals were included. Average PRISMA and AMSTAR results were 21.8 (out of 27) and 7.2 (out of 11) respectively. The average result was higher post publication of PRISMA; with PRISMA reported items of 22.6 vs. 20.9 and AMSTAR result of 7.7 vs. 6.7. Strong positive correlation (r = 0.86) between the PRISMA and AMSTAR results was present. There was high variability between journals. Radiology had the highest PRISMA reported items of 24.7, and AJNR had the lowest at 19.6. Two major areas for improvement include study protocol registration and assessment of risk of bias across studies (publication bias).
Conclusions: There has been modest improvement in completeness of reporting of SR and MA in major radiology journals. Improved completeness of reporting (PRISMA) was strongly associated with higher study quality (AMSTAR).
