Article type
Abstract
Background: Assessing the certainty of evidence is a crucial step in systematic reviews (SR), enabling clinicians and health policymakers to evaluate and utilize evidence for healthcare and policy decision-making.
Objective: This study aimed to assess the certainty of evidence evaluation in systematic reviews published in two Brazilian otorhinolaryngology journals.
Methods: A PubMed search was conducted for indexed articles in the Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology (BJORL) and International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology (IAO) using the systematic review filter, with no date or language restrictions. Retrieved articles were screened in Rayyan, and data were assessed and extracted by two authors. Each study was reviewed for reporting adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), conduct of meta-analysis (MA), assessment of risk of bias (RoB), and use of the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE). Descriptive and inferential analyses were conducted using the Jamovi software.
Results: A total of 142 articles were retrieved (94 from BJORL and 48 from IAO), 11 were excluded for were not SR. The accordance with PRISMA was reported in 49.6% of the articles, MA was conducted in 26.7%, RoB was assessed in 37.4%, and GRADE was used 9.9%. It is noted an increasing of the referred tools throughout the years, when analyzing the article published in the last 3 years it was found 84.6% used PRISMA, 38.5 % MA, 55.8% RoB, 15.3% GRADE (Table 1). The conduction of MA was associated with more prevalent reporting of PRISMA and RoB with statistical significancy (p<0.001), but not with GRADE (p: 0.746) (Table 2)
Conclusion: This study found that the assessment of evidence certainty in SRs was performed in the minority of published articles in Brazilian otorhinolaryngology journals. Given the growing interest in SRs, addressing issues that promote higher quality and certainty of evidence is crucial for improving patient healthcare. The authors declare no conflicts of interest, and there was no public involvement in this work.
Objective: This study aimed to assess the certainty of evidence evaluation in systematic reviews published in two Brazilian otorhinolaryngology journals.
Methods: A PubMed search was conducted for indexed articles in the Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology (BJORL) and International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology (IAO) using the systematic review filter, with no date or language restrictions. Retrieved articles were screened in Rayyan, and data were assessed and extracted by two authors. Each study was reviewed for reporting adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), conduct of meta-analysis (MA), assessment of risk of bias (RoB), and use of the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE). Descriptive and inferential analyses were conducted using the Jamovi software.
Results: A total of 142 articles were retrieved (94 from BJORL and 48 from IAO), 11 were excluded for were not SR. The accordance with PRISMA was reported in 49.6% of the articles, MA was conducted in 26.7%, RoB was assessed in 37.4%, and GRADE was used 9.9%. It is noted an increasing of the referred tools throughout the years, when analyzing the article published in the last 3 years it was found 84.6% used PRISMA, 38.5 % MA, 55.8% RoB, 15.3% GRADE (Table 1). The conduction of MA was associated with more prevalent reporting of PRISMA and RoB with statistical significancy (p<0.001), but not with GRADE (p: 0.746) (Table 2)
Conclusion: This study found that the assessment of evidence certainty in SRs was performed in the minority of published articles in Brazilian otorhinolaryngology journals. Given the growing interest in SRs, addressing issues that promote higher quality and certainty of evidence is crucial for improving patient healthcare. The authors declare no conflicts of interest, and there was no public involvement in this work.