Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-03-2020 | Back Pain | Review Article

Journal impact factor is associated with PRISMA endorsement, but not with the methodological quality of low back pain systematic reviews: a methodological review

Authors: Dafne Port Nascimento, Gabrielle Zoldan Gonzalez, Amanda Costa Araujo, Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 3/2020

Abstract

Purpose

To analyze the association of impact factor of the journals publishing low back pain systematic reviews with whether these journals endorsed the PRISMA recommendations and the reviews methodological quality.

Methods

We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database on January 2018 for all low back pain systematic reviews, published between 2015 and 2017. Our primary outcomes were PRISMA recommendations endorsement by the journal and 2017 journal impact factor. We assessed systematic review methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) and reported descriptive statistics. A multivariate linear regression model was built. We assessed 66 systematic reviews published in 42 journals. Thirty-seven journals had an impact factor (mean 4.0, SD 4.8). 55% journals endorsed the PRISMA recommendations. The methodological quality of 75.8% systematic reviews was critically low. Journals with higher impact factor were associated with journals endorsing the PRISMA recommendations (ß 3.7; 95% CI 1.2, 6.3), but were not associated with the reviews’ methodological quality (ß − 0.3; 95% CI − 4.8, 4.3).

Limitations

Our findings may not be generalized to other study populations and interventions such as medical devices, surgery and medication.

Conclusions

Three out of every four published low back pain systematic reviews had critically low methodological quality. Journals with higher impact factor were associated with journals endorsing the PRISMA recommendations. Clinicians must know how to critically appraise reviews. Journals’ editorial policies should include the assessment of study methodological quality and reporting in the review process of an article.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Available only for authorised users

Herbert R, Jamtvedt G, Mead J, Hagen KB (2011) Practical evidence-based physiotherapy, 2nd edn. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford

Oliveira IS, Costa LOP, Garcia AN, Miyamoto GC, Cabral CMN, Costa L (2018) Can demographic and anthropometric characteristics predict clinical improvement in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain? Braz J Phys Ther 22(4):328–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjpt.2018.06.005 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8(5):336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 CrossRefPubMed

Costa LO, Lin CW, Grossi DB, Mancini MC, Swisher AK, Cook C, Vaughn D, Elkins MR, Sheikh U, Moore A, Jull G, Craik RL, Maher CG, Guirro RR, Marques AP, Harms M, Brooks D, Simoneau GG, Strupstad JH (2012) Clinical trial registration in physiotherapy journals: recommendations from the International Society of Physiotherapy Journal Editors. J Physiother 58(4):211–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1836-9553(12)70122-4 CrossRefPubMed

PRISMA Endorsers (2010) Available from: http://www.prisma-statement.org/Endorsement/PRISMAEndorsers.aspx. Accessed 28 Sept 2018

Callaway E (2016) Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric. Nature 535(7611):210–211. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20224 CrossRefPubMed

Chung VCH, Wu XY, Feng Y, Ho RST, Wong SYS, Threapleton D (2017) Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for depression: a cross-sectional study. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci 27(6):619–627. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045796017000208 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Cullis PS, Gudlaugsdottir K, Andrews J (2017) A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery. PLoS ONE 12(4):e0175213. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175213 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gomez-Garcia F, Ruano J, Aguilar-Luque M, Gay-Mimbrera J, Maestre-Lopez B, Sanz-Cabanillas JL et al (2017) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on psoriasis: role of funding sources, conflict of interest and bibliometric indices as predictors of methodological quality. Br J Dermatol 176(6):1633–1644. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.15380 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Sharma S, Oremus M (2018) PRISMA and AMSTAR show systematic reviews on health literacy and cancer screening are of good quality. J Clin Epidemiol 99:123–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.03.012 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Wu X, Sun H, Zhou X, Wang J, Li J (2018) Quality assessment of systematic reviews on total hip or knee arthroplasty using mod-AMSTAR. BMC Med Res Methodol 18(1):30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0488-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

GBD (2016) Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 390(10100):1211–1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32154-2 CrossRef

13.

Ferreira G, Costa LM, Stein A, Hartvigsen J, Buchbinder R, Maher CG (2018) Tackling low back pain in Brazil: a wake-up call. Braz J Phys Ther. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjpt.2018.10.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Buchbinder R, van Tulder M, Oberg B, Costa LM, Woolf A, Schoene M et al (2018) Low back pain: a call for action. Viewp Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30488-4 CrossRef

15.

Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S et al (2018) What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Series. Low back pain 1. Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30480-X CrossRefPubMed

16.

Foster NE, Anema JR, Cherkin D, Chou R, Cohen SP, Gross DP et al (2018) Prevention and treatment of low back pain: evidence, challenges, and promising directions Series Low back pain 2. Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30489-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Asavasopon S (2018) Chronification of low back pain: getting to the spine of the problem. Braz J Phys Ther 22(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjpt.2017.11.001 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J et al (2017) AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 358:j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J et al (2009) AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 62(10):1013–1020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

PEDro. Intervention codes from the Physiotherapy evidence database (PEDro) 2019. Available from: https://www.pedro.org.au/wp-content/uploads/PEDro_codes.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2018

22.

Chiarotto A, Deyo RA, Terwee CB, Boers M, Buchbinder R, Corbin TP et al (2015) Core outcome domains for clinical trials in non-specific low back pain. Eur Spine J 24(6):1127–1142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3892-3 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Oliveira CB, Elkins MR, Lemes IR, de Oliveira Silva D, Briani RV, Monteiro HL et al (2018) A low proportion of systematic reviews in physical therapy are registered: a survey of 150 published systematic reviews. Braz J Phys Ther. 22(3):177–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjpt.2017.09.009 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Riado Minguez D, Kowalski M, Vallve Odena M, Longin Pontzen D, Jelicic Kadic A, Jeric M et al (2017) Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews published in the highest ranking journals in the field of pain. Anesth Analg 125(4):1348–1354. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002227 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Fleming PS, Seehra J, Polychronopoulou A, Fedorowicz Z, Pandis N (2013) A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Angle Orthod 83(1):158–163. https://doi.org/10.2319/032612-251.1 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Nascimento DP, Costa LOP, Gonzalez GZ, Maher CG, Moseley AM (2019) Abstracts of low back pain trials are poorly reported, contain spin of information and are inconsistent with the full text: an overview study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2019.03.024 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Nascimento DP, Gonzalez GZ, Araujo AC, Moseley AM, Maher CG, Costa LOP (2019) Eight out of every ten abstracts of low back pain systematic reviews presented spin and inconsistencies with the full text: an analysis of 66 systematic reviews. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 23:1–34. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2020.8962 CrossRef

28.

Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG (2007) Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 4(3):e78. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC et al (2016) Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: a Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS Med 13(5):e1002028. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Almeida MO, Yamato TP, Parreira P, Costa LOP, Kamper S, Saragiotto BT (2019) Overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain: a cross-sectional analysis using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool. Braz J Phys Ther. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjpt.2019.04.004 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Costa LO, Moseley AM, Sherrington C, Maher CG, Herbert RD, Elkins MR (2010) Core journals that publish clinical trials of physical therapy interventions. Phys Ther 90(11):1631–1640. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20090419 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Journal impact factor is associated with PRISMA endorsement, but not with the methodological quality of low back pain systematic reviews: a methodological review
Authors: Dafne Port Nascimento
Gabrielle Zoldan Gonzalez
Amanda Costa Araujo
Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa
Publication date: 01-03-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Back Pain
Back Pain
Back Pain
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06206-8

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Journal impact factor is associated with PRISMA endorsement, but not with the methodological quality of low back pain systematic reviews: a methodological review

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Limitations

Conclusions

Graphic abstract

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Limitations

Conclusions

Graphic abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

Inflammatory mediators and the risk of falls among older women with acute low back pain: data from Back Complaints in the Elders (BACE)—Brazil

Baseline musculoskeletal pain and impaired sleep related to school pressure influence the development of musculoskeletal pain in N = 107 adolescents in a 5-year longitudinal study

Multiple injections for low back pain: What’s the future?

The standing and sitting sagittal spinopelvic alignment of Chinese young and elderly population: does age influence the differences between the two positions?

Correction to: Association of vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms with disc degeneration

Age-based normal sagittal alignment in Chinese asymptomatic adults: establishment of the relationships between pelvic incidence and other parameters