+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement?



Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement?



Radiology 269(2): 413-426



To evaluate whether completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals has changed since publication of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement; a secondary objective is to evaluate whether completeness of reporting (ie, PRISMA) is associated with study quality (ie, Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews [AMSTAR]). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in major radiology journals between January 2007 and December 2011 were identified by searching MEDLINE with the modified Montori method. Studies were reviewed independently by two investigators and assessed for adherence to the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. The average results were analyzed to assess for change in mean score before and after PRISMA publication and to assess results over time; a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to assess for any association between PRISMA and AMSTAR results. Included were 130 studies from 11 journals. Average PRISMA and AMSTAR results were 21.8 of 27 and 7.2 of 11, respectively. The average result was higher after publication of PRISMA, and PRISMA-reported items were 22.6 of 27 after publication of PRISMA versus 20.9 of 27 before publication of PRISMA; AMSTAR results were 7.7 of 11 after publication of PRISMA versus 6.7 of 11 before publication of PRISMA. There was a strong positive correlation (r = 0.86) between the PRISMA and AMSTAR results. There was high variability between journals. Radiology had the highest PRISMA reported items (24.7 of 27), and American Journal of Neuroradiology had the lowest (19.6 of 27). Two major areas for improvement include study protocol registration and assessment of risk of bias across studies (ie, publication bias). In major radiology journal studies, there was modest improvement in completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, assessed by PRISMA, which was strongly associated with higher study quality, assessed by AMSTAR. http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13130273/-/DC1.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 051687803

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23824992

DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13130273


Related references

Is quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in high impact radiology journals associated with citation rates?. Plos One 10(3): E0119892, 2016

Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Otorhinolaryngologic Articles Based on the PRISMA Statement. Plos One 10(8): E0136540, 2016

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and publication bias. Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery 39(2): 91-92, 2011

Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. Plos One 8(12): E83138, 2014

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses). Rofo 183(12): 1106-1110, 2012

Reporting completeness and transparency of meta-analyses of depression screening tool accuracy: A comparison of meta-analyses published before and after the PRISMA statement. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 87(): 57-69, 2016

Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Based on the PRISMA-DTA Reporting Guideline. Clinical Chemistry 2018, 2018

Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study. Bmj Open 7(2): E013905-E013905, 2017

Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines. Journal of the Medical Library Association 105(3): 233-239, 2018

The EQUATOR Network and the PRISMA Statement for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PhysioTherapy 95(4): 237-240, 2010

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62(10): 1006-1012, 2009

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Plos Medicine 6(7): E1000097-E1000097, 2009

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery 8(5): 336-341, 2010

Reprint--preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Physical Therapy 89(9): 873-880, 2009

Exploring reporting quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses on nursing interventions in patients with Alzheimer's disease before and after PRISMA introduction. Bmc Medical Research Methodology 18(1): 154, 2018