Top

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

Published in:

01-03-2019 | Pre-Eclampsia | Maternal-Fetal Medicine

Assessing the reporting quality of systematic reviews of observational studies in preeclampsia

Authors: Ioannis Tsakiridis, Alexandra Arvanitaki, Elias Zintzaras

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 3/2019

Abstract

Purpose

The majority of epidemiological studies in preeclampsia are observational and the overview of these studies is expressed by systematic reviews (SRs). The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of published SRs of observational studies (OS) in preeclampsia based on Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) statement.

Methods

PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched for SRs of OS in preeclampsia published from 1st January 2011 through 10th December 2017. The SRs were evaluated for their reporting quality according to the MOOSE statement, an evidence-based tool which consists of a checklist of 35 items, overall and according to the ranking of journals.

Results

The search identified 93 eligible SRs. Six items were reported in all the studies. Ninety percent (90%) and 70% of the studies complied with 13 (37%) and 20 (57%) items of MOOSE, respectively. Two items concerning search strategy were under-reported (< 10% of studies). High-ranked journals (impact factor ≥ 5) presented a better reporting quality (p < 0.05) of the MOOSE items, while no significant differences were identified in individual items.

Conclusions

The quality of reporting of SRs for OS in preeclampsia was considered satisfactory; though, ranking of journals may have an effect in reporting. Further improvement of reporting is necessary to enhance the validity of SRs.

Available only for authorised users

Arulkumaran N, Lightstone L (2013) Severe pre-eclampsia and hypertensive crises. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 27(6):877–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2013.07.003 CrossRefPubMed

Eiland E, Nzerue C, Faulkner M (2012) Preeclampsia 2012. J Pregnancy 2012:586578. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/586578 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Glasziou P, Vandenbroucke JP, Chalmers I (2004) Assessing the quality of research. BMJ 328(7430):39–41. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7430.39 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Centre for evidence-based medicine. Levels of evidence. https://www.cebm.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/CEBM-Levels-of-Evidence-2.1.pdf. Assessed 20 June 2018

Simunovic N, Sprague S, Bhandari M (2009) Methodological issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies in orthopaedic research. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl 3):87–94. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01576 CrossRefPubMed

Vandenbroucke JP (2009) STREGA, STROBE, STARD, SQUIRE, MOOSE, PRISMA, GNOSIS, TREND, ORION, COREQ, QUOROM, REMARK… and CONSORT: for whom does the guideline toll? J Clin Epidemiol 62(6):594–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.003 CrossRefPubMed

Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB, Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 283(15):2008–2012CrossRef

Ziogas DC, Zintzaras E (2009) Analysis of the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in acute and chronic myeloid leukemia, and myelodysplastic syndromes as governed by the CONSORT statement. Ann Epidemiol 19(7):494–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.03.018 CrossRefPubMed

Papathanasiou AA, Zintzaras E (2010) Assessing the quality of reporting of observational studies in cancer. Ann Epidemiol 20(1):67–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.09.007 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Fleming PS, Koletsi D, Pandis N (2014) Blinded by PRISMA: are systematic reviewers focusing on PRISMA and ignoring other guidelines? PLoS One 9(5):e96407. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096407 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Hirst A, Altman DG (2012) Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PLoS One 7(4):e35621. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035621 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Zhang ZW, Cheng J, Liu Z, Ma JC, Li JL, Wang J, Yang KH (2015) Epidemiology, quality and reporting characteristics of meta-analyses of observational studies published in Chinese journals. BMJ Open 5(12):e008066. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008066 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S (2013) 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083138 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2002) Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet 359(9302):248–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07451-2 CrossRef

Title: Assessing the reporting quality of systematic reviews of observational studies in preeclampsia
Authors: Ioannis Tsakiridis
Alexandra Arvanitaki
Elias Zintzaras
Publication date: 01-03-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Pre-Eclampsia
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 3/2019
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-5023-y

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Assessing the reporting quality of systematic reviews of observational studies in preeclampsia

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis and the classification of congenital uterine anomalies using the ESHRE/ESGE classification: a diagnostic accuracy study

Introduction of a learning model for type 1 loop excision of the transformation zone of the uterine cervix in undergraduate medical students: a prospective cohort study

Rates of regression of cervical dysplasia between initial biopsy and excisional procedure in routine clinical practice

The increasing role of a retained placenta in postpartum blood loss: a cohort study

Does prenatal identification of fetal macrosomia change management and outcome?

Maternal serum screening marker levels in twin pregnancies affected by gestational diabetes