A comprehensive appraisal of meta-analyses focusing on nonsurgical treatments aimed at decreasing perioperative mortality or major cardiac complications
- 157 Downloads
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.
KeywordsAnesthesia Meta-analysis Mortality Myocardial infarction Overview Surgery Systematic review
- 2.Glass G. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res. 1976;5:3–8.Google Scholar
- 4.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.Google Scholar
- 8.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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Katz MH. Multivariable analysis: a practical guide for clinicians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
- 15.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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.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.Google Scholar