Reporting and methodologic evaluation of meta-analyses published in the anesthesia literature according to AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists: a preliminary study

BackgroundThere have been few recent reports on the methodological quality of meta-analysis, despite the enormous number of studies using meta-analytic techniques in the field of anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of meta-analyses and systematic reviews according to th...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jae Hoon Oh, Woo Jong Shin, Suin Park, Jae Soon Chung
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Korean Society of Anesthesiologists 2017-08-01
Series:Korean Journal of Anesthesiology
Subjects:
Online Access:http://ekja.org/upload/pdf/kjae-70-446.pdf
id doaj-09a5251f19814de1b4e598f5d65def32
record_format Article
spelling doaj-09a5251f19814de1b4e598f5d65def322020-11-25T03:53:06ZengKorean Society of AnesthesiologistsKorean Journal of Anesthesiology2005-64192005-75632017-08-0170444645510.4097/kjae.2017.70.4.4468327Reporting and methodologic evaluation of meta-analyses published in the anesthesia literature according to AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists: a preliminary studyJae Hoon Oh0Woo Jong Shin1Suin Park2Jae Soon Chung3Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.BackgroundThere have been few recent reports on the methodological quality of meta-analysis, despite the enormous number of studies using meta-analytic techniques in the field of anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of meta-analyses and systematic reviews according to the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in the anesthesia literature.MethodsA search was conducted to identify all meta-analyses ever been published in the British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA), Anaesthesia, and Korean Journal of Anesthesiology (KJA) between Jan. 01, 2004 and Nov. 31, 2016. We aimed to apply the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists to all published meta-analyses.ResultsWe identified 121 meta-analyses in the anesthesia literature from January 2004 through the end of November 2016 (BJA; 75, Anaesthesia; 43, KJA; 3). The number of studies published and percentage of ‘Yes’ responses for meta-analysis articles published after the year 2010 was significantly increased compared to that of studies published before the year 2009 (P = 0.014 for Anaesthesia). In the anesthesia literature as a whole, participation of statisticians as authors statistically improved average scores of PRISMA items (P = 0.004) especially in the BJA (P = 0.003).ConclusionsEven though there is little variability in the reporting and methodology of meta-analysis in the anesthesia literature, significant quality improvement in the reporting was observed in the Anaesthesia by applying the PRISMA checklist. Participation of a statistician as an author improved the reporting quality of the meta-analysis.http://ekja.org/upload/pdf/kjae-70-446.pdfanesthetic literaturemeta-analysisqualitysystematic review
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jae Hoon Oh
Woo Jong Shin
Suin Park
Jae Soon Chung
spellingShingle Jae Hoon Oh
Woo Jong Shin
Suin Park
Jae Soon Chung
Reporting and methodologic evaluation of meta-analyses published in the anesthesia literature according to AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists: a preliminary study
Korean Journal of Anesthesiology
anesthetic literature
meta-analysis
quality
systematic review
author_facet Jae Hoon Oh
Woo Jong Shin
Suin Park
Jae Soon Chung
author_sort Jae Hoon Oh
title Reporting and methodologic evaluation of meta-analyses published in the anesthesia literature according to AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists: a preliminary study
title_short Reporting and methodologic evaluation of meta-analyses published in the anesthesia literature according to AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists: a preliminary study
title_full Reporting and methodologic evaluation of meta-analyses published in the anesthesia literature according to AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists: a preliminary study
title_fullStr Reporting and methodologic evaluation of meta-analyses published in the anesthesia literature according to AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists: a preliminary study
title_full_unstemmed Reporting and methodologic evaluation of meta-analyses published in the anesthesia literature according to AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists: a preliminary study
title_sort reporting and methodologic evaluation of meta-analyses published in the anesthesia literature according to amstar and prisma checklists: a preliminary study
publisher Korean Society of Anesthesiologists
series Korean Journal of Anesthesiology
issn 2005-6419
2005-7563
publishDate 2017-08-01
description BackgroundThere have been few recent reports on the methodological quality of meta-analysis, despite the enormous number of studies using meta-analytic techniques in the field of anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of meta-analyses and systematic reviews according to the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in the anesthesia literature.MethodsA search was conducted to identify all meta-analyses ever been published in the British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA), Anaesthesia, and Korean Journal of Anesthesiology (KJA) between Jan. 01, 2004 and Nov. 31, 2016. We aimed to apply the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists to all published meta-analyses.ResultsWe identified 121 meta-analyses in the anesthesia literature from January 2004 through the end of November 2016 (BJA; 75, Anaesthesia; 43, KJA; 3). The number of studies published and percentage of ‘Yes’ responses for meta-analysis articles published after the year 2010 was significantly increased compared to that of studies published before the year 2009 (P = 0.014 for Anaesthesia). In the anesthesia literature as a whole, participation of statisticians as authors statistically improved average scores of PRISMA items (P = 0.004) especially in the BJA (P = 0.003).ConclusionsEven though there is little variability in the reporting and methodology of meta-analysis in the anesthesia literature, significant quality improvement in the reporting was observed in the Anaesthesia by applying the PRISMA checklist. Participation of a statistician as an author improved the reporting quality of the meta-analysis.
topic anesthetic literature
meta-analysis
quality
systematic review
url http://ekja.org/upload/pdf/kjae-70-446.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT jaehoonoh reportingandmethodologicevaluationofmetaanalysespublishedintheanesthesialiteratureaccordingtoamstarandprismachecklistsapreliminarystudy
AT woojongshin reportingandmethodologicevaluationofmetaanalysespublishedintheanesthesialiteratureaccordingtoamstarandprismachecklistsapreliminarystudy
AT suinpark reportingandmethodologicevaluationofmetaanalysespublishedintheanesthesialiteratureaccordingtoamstarandprismachecklistsapreliminarystudy
AT jaesoonchung reportingandmethodologicevaluationofmetaanalysespublishedintheanesthesialiteratureaccordingtoamstarandprismachecklistsapreliminarystudy
_version_ 1724479913102147584