Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 299, Issue 3, pp 689–694 | Cite as

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

  • Ioannis TsakiridisEmail author
  • Alexandra Arvanitaki
  • Elias Zintzaras
Maternal-Fetal Medicine



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.


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.


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.


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.


MOOSE Systematic reviews Observational studies Reporting quality Preeclampsia 


Author contribution

All the authors contributed equally to this work.


This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

404_2018_5023_MOESM1_ESM.docx (126 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 126 kb)


  1. 1.
    Arulkumaran N, Lightstone L (2013) Severe pre-eclampsia and hypertensive crises. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 27(6):877–884. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eiland E, Nzerue C, Faulkner M (2012) Preeclampsia 2012. J Pregnancy 2012:586578. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glasziou P, Vandenbroucke JP, Chalmers I (2004) Assessing the quality of research. BMJ 328(7430):39–41. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Centre for evidence-based medicine. Levels of evidence. Assessed 20 June 2018
  5. 5.
    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. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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):2008–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Papathanasiou AA, Zintzaras E (2010) Assessing the quality of reporting of observational studies in cancer. Ann Epidemiol 20(1):67–73. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 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. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grimes DA, Schulz KF (2002) Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet 359(9302):248–252. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of BiomathematicsUniversity of Thessaly School of MedicineLarissaGreece
  2. 2.Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical CenterTufts University School of MedicineBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations