Assessing the reporting quality of systematic reviews of observational studies in preeclampsia
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.
KeywordsMOOSE Systematic reviews Observational studies Reporting quality Preeclampsia
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.
- 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
- 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):2008–2012CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar