Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

Assessment of the abstract reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analysis: a literature survey

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There is an increasing number of published systematic reviews (SR) of dose-response meta-analyses (DRMAs) over the past decades. However, the quality of abstract reporting of these SR-DRMAs remains to be understood. We conducted a literature survey to investigate the abstract reporting of SR-DRMAs.

Methods

Medline, Embase, and Wiley online Library were searched for eligible SR-DRMAs. The reporting quality of SR-DRMAs was assessed by the modified PRISMA-for-Abstract checklist (14 items). We summarized the adherence rate of each item and categorized them as well complied (adhered by 80% or above), moderately complied (50 to 79%), and poorly complied (less than 50%). We used total score to reflect the abstract quality and regression analysis was employed to explore the potential influence factors for it.

Results

We included 529 SR-DRMAs. Eight of 14 items were moderately (3 items) or poorly complied (5 items) while only 6 were well complied by these SR-DRMAs. Most of the SR-DRMAs failed to describe the methods for risk of bias assessment (30.2, 95% CI: 26.4, 34.4%) and the results of bias assessment (48.8, 95% CI: 44.4, 53.1%). Few SR-DRMAs reported the funding (2.3, 95% CI: 1.2, 3.9%) and registration (0.6, 95% CI: 0.1, 1.6%) information in the abstract. Multivariable regression analysis suggested word number of abstracts [> 250 vs. ≤ 250 (estimated ß = 0.31; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.61; P = 0.039)] was positively associated with the abstract reporting quality.

Conclusion

The abstract reporting of SR-DRMAs is suboptimal, substantial effort is needed to improve the reporting. More word number may benefit for the abstract reporting. Given that reporting of abstract largely depends on the reporting and conduct of the SR-DRMA, review authors should also focus on the completeness of SR-DRMA itself.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Murad MH, Montori VM. Synthesizing evidence: shifting the focus from individual studies to the body of evidence. JAMA. 2013;309(21):2217–8.PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
Dijkman BG, Abouali JA, Kooistra BW, et al. Twenty years of meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: has quality kept up with quantity? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(1):48–57.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Epidemiol Biostatistics Public Health. 2009;6(4):e1–e34.
5.
Gómez-García F, Ruano J, Aguilar-Luque M, et al. Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):180.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Ruano J, Aguilar-Luque M, Isla-Tejera B, et al. Relationships between abstract features and methodological quality explained variations of social media activity derived from systematic reviews about psoriasis interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;101:35–43.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Beller EM, Glasziou P, Altman DG, et al. PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013;10(4):e1001419.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Hopewell S, et al. Reporting of effect direction and size in abstracts of systematic reviews. JAMA. 2011;306(18):1981–2.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Xu C, Doi SA. The robust-error meta-regression method for dose-response meta-analysis. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2018;16(3):138–44.PubMed
10.
Bougioukas KI, Bouras E, Apostolidou-Kiouti F, et al. Reporting guidelines on how to write a complete and transparent abstract for overviews of systematic reviews of health care interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;106:70–9.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLOS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
12.
Zhang C, Jia P, Yu L, Xu C. Introduction to methodology of dose-response meta-analysis for binary outcome: with application on software. J Evid Based Med. 2018;11(2):125–9.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273(5):408–12.PubMedCrossRef
14.
15.
Xu C, Liu Y, Jia PL, et al. The methodological quality of dose-response meta-analyses needed substantial improvement: a cross-sectional survey and proposed recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;107:1–11.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Wasiak J, Tyack Z, Ware R, et al. Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management. Int Wound J. 2016;14(5):754–63.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Fleming PS, Seehra J, Polychronopoulou A, et al. A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(1):158–63.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Seehra J, Fleming PS, Polychronopoulou A, et al. Reporting completeness of abstracts of systematic reviews published in leading dental specialty journals. Eur J Oral Sci. 2013;121(2):57–62.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Kiriakou J, Pandis N, Fleming PS, et al. Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in leading oral implantology journals. J Dent. 2013;41(12):1181–7.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Eisenhauer JG. Regression through the origin. Teach Stat. 2010;25(3):76–80.CrossRef
21.
Xu C, Liu TZ, Jia PL, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analyses: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:157.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Daniele M, Kearns CE, Bero LA. Relationship between research outcomes and risk of Bias, study sponsorship, and author financial conflicts of interest in reviews of the effects of artificially sweetened beverages on weight outcomes: a systematic review of reviews. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0162198.CrossRef
23.
Chhapola V, Tiwari S, Brar R, et al. Reporting quality of trial abstracts—improved yet suboptimal: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med. 2018;11(2):89–94.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Assessment of the abstract reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analysis: a literature survey
Publication date
01-12-2019
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0798-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

Multi-cohort modeling strategies for scalable globally accessible prostate cancer risk tools

Research article

A scoping review of the problems and solutions associated with contamination in trials of complex interventions in mental health

Software

Development of an interactive web-based tool to conduct and interrogate meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: MetaDTA

Research article

Comparison of reproductive history gathered by interview and by vital records linkage after 40 years of follow-up: Bogalusa Babies

Research article

Understanding the importance of key risk factors in predicting chronic bronchitic symptoms using a machine learning approach

Technical advance

Methods of sample size calculation in descriptive retrospective burden of illness studies