Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Replicate systematic review and meta-analyses on robotic surgery: a quality appraisal and overlap investigation

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The number of publications of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (MAs) on robotic surgery have been increasing, including many investigating the same topic. Their quality and extent of overlap remains unclear. We assessed the quality of the MAs in this area and investigated the extent of their overlap.

Methods

Relevant studies were identified by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases up to August 1, 2017. Reporting and methodological quality levels were assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklists. A thorough investigation of the extent of overlap was performed.

Results

In total, 90 MAs in 5 surgical subspecialties were included after full-text review. The mean reporting and methodological quality scores were 22.5 (83.2%) and 7.6 (69.2%), respectively. Authors from university-affiliated institutions and the presence of statistician or epidemiologist coauthors were associated with better-reporting quality scores. The topics with the most overlapping MAs (all ≥ 6) were robot-assisted thyroidectomy, prostatectomy, gastrectomy, colectomy, and fundoplication. 36 (40%) of the included MAs cited previous MAs on the same topic. Among the 7 MAs comparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy to the open procedure, most (6/7) drew the same conclusion. 50 to 86% of MAs on this topic included the same trials as primary studies.

Conclusion

Conducting multiple overlapping MAs with identical conclusions on the same topic that are of suboptimal quality may be a waste of resource and effort. Authors from university-affiliated institutes and experts in epidemiology and statistics are more likely to conduct MAs that have better quality. More guidelines and registries are needed to avoid overlapping MAs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data are available in the manuscript and the supplementary files.

Abbreviations

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

AMSTAR:

Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews

MA:

Meta-analysis

dVSS:

Da Vinci surgical system

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

References

  1. Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Annual Reports 2015. http://www.annualreports.com/Company/intuitive-surgical-inc. Accessed 1 Aug 2018

  2. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC (1987) Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 316(8):450–455

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cook DJ (1997) Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 126(5):376

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP (1997) A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ 156(10):1411–1416

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Siontis KC, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JP (2013) Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ 347:f4501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I (2010) Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 7(9):e1000326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tan A, Ashrafian H, Scott AJ, Mason SE, Harling L, Athanasiou T, Darzi A (2016) Robotic surgery: disruptive innovation or unfulfilled promise? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the first 30 years. Surg Endosc 30(10):4330–4352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jüni P, Egger M (2009) PRISMAtic reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet 374(9697):1221–1223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Moher D (1994) Statistical power, sample size, and their reporting in randomized controlled trials. J Am Med Assoc 272(2):122

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM (2007) Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Higgins JPT, Green S, Cochrane Collaboration (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, p 649

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang H, Han J, Zhu YB, Lau WY, Schwartz ME, Xie GQ, Dai SY, Shen YN, Wu MC, Shen F et al (2016) Reporting and methodological qualities of published surgical meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 70:4–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Thomson Reuters. 2016 Journal Citation Reports, Thomson Reuters. http://scientific.thomsonreuters.com/imgblast/JCRFullCovlist-2016.pdf. Accessed 1 Aug 2018

  15. The Thomson Reuters Links Open Access Journal Title List. http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/linksj/opensearch.cgi. Accessed 1 Aug 2018

  16. Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L (2011) An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet 377(9760):108–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, Esmail K (2013) Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? Radiology 269(2):413–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Adie S, Ma D, Harris IA, Naylor JM, Craig JC (2015) Quality of conduct and reporting of meta-analyses of surgical interventions. Ann Surg 261(4):685–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gagnier JJ, Kellam PJ (2013) Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature. J Bone Jt Surg Am 95(11):e771–e777

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. van den Berg T, Heymans MW, Leone SS, Vergouw D, Hayden JA, Verhagen AP, de Vet HC (2013) Overview of data-synthesis in systematic reviews of studies on outcome prediction models. BMC Med Res Methodol 13:42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lakens D, Hilgard J, Staaks J (2016) On the reproducibility of meta-analyses: six practical recommendations. BMC Psychol 4(1):24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316(5827):1036–1039

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Faggion CM Jr (2015) Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor. BMC Med Res Methodol 15:63

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the contributions of Drs. Lin Zhao, Ya-Sheng Zhu, Zhe-Xu Cao, and Chen Ye from the Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University (Second Military Medical University) during literature search and full-text retrieval process.

Funding

This study received no external funding.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jin Ji, Han Zhang, and Da Xu have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University (Second Military Medical University), 125 Changhai Road, Shanghai, 200433, China

    Jin Ji, Depei Kong, Guang’an Xiao, Zhi Cao, Fubo Wang, Xu Gao & Ying-Hao Sun

  2. Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Naval Medical University (Second Military Medical University), Shanghai, China

    Han Zhang

  3. Department of Urology, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Naval Medical University (Second Military Medical University), Shanghai, China

    Da Xu

  4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Statistics, Naval Medical University (Second Military Medical University), Shanghai, China

    Tianyi Zhang

Authors
  1. Jin Ji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Han Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Da Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tianyi Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Depei Kong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Guang’an Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Zhi Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Fubo Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Xu Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ying-Hao Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JJ, HZ, and DX wrote the manuscript. JJ, DX, DPK, GAX, ZC, and FBW acquired and analyzed the data, and HZ, TYZ, and XG interpreted the data. XG and YHS designed and supervised the study. JJ, HZ, and DX participated in assessing the quality of the included reviews. All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study and read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ying-Hao Sun.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Drs. Jin Ji, Han Zhang, Da Xu, Tianyi Zhang, Depei Kong, Guang’an Xiao, Zhi Cao, Fubo Wang, Xu Gao, and Ying-Hao Sun have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Ethical approval

Not applicable for this study because of the lack of human and animal participants.

Informed consent

All authors approved the final manuscript and agree to publish it.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 26 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 20 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ji, J., Zhang, H., Xu, D. et al. Replicate systematic review and meta-analyses on robotic surgery: a quality appraisal and overlap investigation. Surg Endosc 34, 384–395 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06780-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06780-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation