A comprehensive appraisal of meta-analyses focusing on nonsurgical treatments aimed at decreasing perioperative mortality or major cardiac complications
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Millions of patients worldwide who undergo surgical procedures face significant morbidity and mortality risks. Several systematic reviews have been performed on ancillary treatments aimed at improving surgical outcomes, but their features and scholarly impact are unclear. We describe characteristics of meta-analyses on ancillary treatments aimed at improving surgical outcomes and explore factors associated with scholarly citations.
Systematic reviews published up to 2008 were searched without language restrictions in MEDLINE/PubMed. Reviews focusing on nonsurgical treatments aimed at decreasing mortality or major cardiac complications were included. Associations between content, quality, and bibliometric details and scholarly citations in several indexes were systematically appraised.
From 2,239 citations, 84 systematic reviews were identified. Patients most commonly underwent cardiovascular surgery (40.2 %), and were tested for cardiovascular drugs (25.8 %), with placebo acting as control (38.1 %). Internal validity appeared largely robust, as most (50.5 %) reviews were at low risk of bias. Normalized yearly citations for the included reviews ranged between 5.6 in Google Scholar and 4.3 in Web of Science. Multivariable analysis showed that citations were significantly and positively associated with number of authors, North American corresponding author, number of studies included, number of patients included, noncardiothoracic surgical scope, explicit funding, and lack of competing interests (all p < 0.05).
Systematic reviews currently represent a key element in defining state of the art ancillary treatments of patients undergoing surgery. However, the citation success of available meta-analyses is not significantly associated with prognostically relevant findings or quality features.
- Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001. CrossRef
- Glass G. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res. 1976;5:3–8.
- Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, Cook DJ, Doig C. Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal. Ann Surg. 2005;241:450–9. CrossRef
- Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade M, Cook D. Users’ guides to the medical literature. A manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago: AMA Press; 2002.
- Biondi-Zoccai GG, Agostoni P, Abbate A. Parallel hierarchy of scientific studies in cardiovascular medicine. Ital Heart J. 2003;4:819–20.
- Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP. Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA. 2005;293:2362–6. CrossRef
- Glasziou P, Djulbegovic B, Burls A. Are systematic reviews more cost-effective than randomised trials? Lancet. 2006;367:2057–8. CrossRef
- Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, Testa L, Remigi E, Burzotta F, Valgimigli M, Romagnoli E, Crea F, Agostoni P. Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ. 2006;332:202–9. CrossRef
- Biondi-Zoccai G. Duplicate meta-analyses on coronary bifurcation strategies: when more is less? EuroIntervention. 2010;6:181–3. CrossRef
- Katz MH. Multivariable analysis: a practical guide for clinicians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996.
- Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JD. Stepwise selection in small data sets: a simulation study of bias in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52:935–42. CrossRef
- Biondi-Zoccai G, Romagnoli E, Agostoni P, Capodanno D, Castagno D, D’Ascenzo F, Sangiorgi G, Modena MG. Are propensity scores really superior to standard multivariable analysis? Contemp Clin Trials. 2011;32:731–40. CrossRef
- Guyatt GH, Mills EJ, Elbourne D. In the era of systematic reviews, does the size of an individual trial still matter? PLoS Med. 2008;5:e4. CrossRef
- Levi M, Cromheecke ME, de Jonge E, Prins MH, de Mol BJ, Briët E, Büller HR. Pharmacological strategies to decrease excessive blood loss in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of clinically relevant endpoints. Lancet. 1999;354:1940–7. CrossRef
- Fergusson DA, Hébert PC, Mazer CD, Fremes S, MacAdams C, Murkin JM, Teoh K, Duke PC, Arellano R, Blajchman MA, Bussières JS, Côté D, Karski J, Martineau R, Robblee JA, Rodger M, Wells G, Clinch J. BART Investigators. A comparison of aprotinin and lysine analogues in high-risk cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2319–31. CrossRef
- Paladugu R, Schein M, Gardezi S, Wise L. One hundred citation classics in general surgical journals. World J Surg. 2002;26:1099–105. CrossRef
- Auerbach AD, Goldman L. Beta-blockers and reduction of cardiac events in noncardiac surgery: scientific review. JAMA. 2002;287:1435–44. CrossRef
- Crystal E, Connolly SJ, Sleik K, Ginger TJ, Yusuf S. Interventions on prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing heart surgery: a meta-analysis. Circulation. 2002;106:75–80. CrossRef
- Crystal E, Garfinkle MS, Connolly SS, Ginger TT, Sleik K, Yusuf SS. Interventions for preventing post-operative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing heart surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;4:CD003611.
- A comprehensive appraisal of meta-analyses focusing on nonsurgical treatments aimed at decreasing perioperative mortality or major cardiac complications
Journal of Anesthesia
Volume 26, Issue 4 , pp 509-515
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Japan
- Additional Links
- Myocardial infarction
- Systematic review
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
- 2. Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy
- 3. Department of Cardiothoracic Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Istituto Scientifico San Raffaele, Via Olgettina 60, Milan, 20132, Italy