Skip to main content

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

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics volume 299, pages 689–694 (2019)Cite this article

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

  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. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):2008–2012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.03.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

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

Author information

Author notes

    Affiliations

    1. Laboratory of Biomathematics, University of Thessaly School of Medicine, Papakyriazi 22, Building “Katsigra”, Larissa, Greece

      Ioannis Tsakiridis, Alexandra Arvanitaki & Elias Zintzaras

    2. Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, USA

      Elias Zintzaras

    Authors
    1. Ioannis Tsakiridis
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Alexandra Arvanitaki
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Elias Zintzaras
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Contributions

    All the authors contributed equally to this work.

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Ioannis Tsakiridis.

    Ethics declarations

    Conflict of interest

    The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

    Electronic supplementary material

    Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

    Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 126 kb)

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and Permissions

    About this article

    Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Tsakiridis, I., Arvanitaki, A. & Zintzaras, E. Assessing the reporting quality of systematic reviews of observational studies in preeclampsia. Arch Gynecol Obstet 299, 689–694 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-5023-y

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-5023-y

    Keywords

    • MOOSE
    • Systematic reviews
    • Observational studies
    • Reporting quality
    • Preeclampsia