Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A systematic evaluation of methodological and reporting quality of meta-analysis published in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of published meta-analyses (MAs) in four major gastrointestinal endoscopic journals, and identify the predicted factors for high quality.

Methods

A systematic search was performed in PubMed to identify MAs from 1, January, 2016 to 31, December, 2020 in four major gastrointestinal endoscopic journals (including Digestive Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Surgical Endoscopy, and Endoscopy). We collected the characteristics of MAs after filtering unqualified articles, and assessed methodological and reporting qualities for eligible articles by AMSTAR tool and PRISMA checklist, respectively. Logistic regression was used for identifying predictive factors for high quality.

Results

A total of 289 MAs were identified after screening by predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The scores (mean ± SD) of AMSTAR and PRISMA were 7.73 ± 1.11 and 22.90 ± 1.85, respectively. In PRISMA checklist, some items had less than 50% complete adherence, including item 2 (structured summary), items 5 (protocol and registration), items 12 and 19 (risk of bias in studies), item 27 (funding support). Item 1 (a priori design), item 4 (gray literature research), item 5 (list of included and excluded) were inferior to 50% adherence in AMSTAR tool. We found the predictive factors for high quality through logistic regression analysis: a priori design and funding support were associated with methodological quality. Protocol and registration influenced the methodological and reporting quality closely.

Conclusion

In general, qualities on the methodology and the reporting of MAs published in the gastrointestinal endoscopic journals are good, but both of which still potentially need further improvement.

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

References

  1. Lee YH (2018) An overview of meta-analysis for clinicians. Korean J Intern Med 33:277–283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ et al (2019) Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Smires S, Afach S, Mazaud C et al (2021) Quality and reporting completeness of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology. J Invest Dermatol 141:64–71

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Berlin JA, Golub RM (2014) Meta-analysis as evidence: building a better pyramid. JAMA 312:603–605

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hernandez AV, Marti KM, Roman YM (2020) Meta-analysis. Chest 158:S97-s102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lin L, Chu H (2018) Quantifying publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 74:785–794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yang F, Wang H, Zou J et al (2018) Assessing the methodological and reporting quality of network meta-analyses in Chinese medicine. Medicine (Baltimore) 97:e13052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Puga M, Atallah AN (2020) What editors, reviewers, researchers and librarians need to know about the PRESS, MECIR, PRISMA and AMSTAR instruments with regard to improving the methodological quality of searches for information for articles. Sao Paulo Med J 138:459–464

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Cullis PS, Gudlaugsdottir K, Andrews J (2017) A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery. PLoS ONE 12:e0175213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Jiang Q, Liu Q, Chen F et al (2019) Reporting quality and statistical analysis of published dose-response meta-analyses was suboptimal: a cross-sectional literature survey. J Clin Epidemiol 115:133–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Li X, Wang R, Shi X et al (2017) Reporting characteristics and quality of Systematic reviews of acupuncture analgesia. Pain Pract 17:1066–1074

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Moletta L, Pierobon ES, Capovilla G et al (2020) International guidelines and recommendations for surgery during covid-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Int J Surg 79:180–188

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Liang M, Yan L, Mei Z et al (2020) Methodological and reporting quality evaluation of meta-analyses on the Chinese herbal preparation Zheng Qing Feng Tong Ning for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. BMC Complement Med Ther 20:195

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Sun X, Zhou X, Zhang Y et al (2019) Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: general implications of the findings. J Nurs Scholarsh 51:308–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sun X, Wang D, Wang M et al (2021) The reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—a systematic review. Nurs Open 8:1489–1500

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA et al (2007) Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:10

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6:e1000100

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R et al (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 269:413–426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhang H, Han J, Zhu YB et al (2016) Reporting and methodological qualities of published surgical meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 70:4–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Xia L, Xu J, Guzzo TJ (2017) Reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses in urological literature. PeerJ 5:e3129

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Nagendrababu V, Pulikkotil SJ, Sultan OS et al (2018) Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in endodontics. J Endod 44:903–913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yu Y, Zeng D, Ou Q et al (2019) Association of survival and immune-related biomarkers with immunotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis and individual patient-level analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2:e196879

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Li Z, Lin F, Thalib L et al (2020) Global prevalence and incidence of pressure injuries in hospitalised adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud 105:103546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chao X, Chen K, Zeng J et al (2019) Adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy for patients with breast phyllodes tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 19:372

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Bang JY, Hawes R, Varadarajulu S (2016) A meta-analysis comparing ProCore and standard fine-needle aspiration needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. Endoscopy 48:339–349

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mohan BP, Shakhatreh M, Garg R et al (2019) Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 89:238-246.e3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sun K, Chen S, Ye J et al (2016) Endoscopic resection versus surgery for early gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Endosc 28:513–525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ciria R, Ocaña S, Gomez-Luque I et al (2020) A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes for laparoscopic and open liver resections for liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc 34:349–360

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Djinbachian R, Dubé AJ, Durand M et al (2019) Adherence to post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 51:673–683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jaruvongvanich V, Assavapongpaiboon B, Wijarnpreecha K et al (2017) Heparin-bridging therapy and risk of post-polypectomy bleeding: meta-analysis of data reported by Japanese colonoscopists. Dig Endosc 29:743–748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Soffer S, Klang E, Shimon O et al (2020) Deep learning for wireless capsule endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 92:831-839.e8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Oh JH, Shin WJ, Park S et al (2017) Reporting and methodologic evaluation of meta-analyses published in the anesthesia literature according to AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists: a preliminary study. Korean J Anesthesiol 70:446–455

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Doleman B, Freeman SC, Lund JN et al (2020) Funnel plots may show asymmetry in the absence of publication bias with continuous outcomes dependent on baseline risk: presentation of a new publication bias test. Res Synth Methods 11:522–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pustejovsky JE, Rodgers MA (2019) Testing for funnel plot asymmetry of standardized mean differences. Res Synth Methods 10:57–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is independent research funded by the following grants: Youth Foundation of Southwest Medical University (No. 0903-00031099), Doctoral Research Start-Up Funding Project of the Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University (No. 16229), and the Cooperation Project of Southwest Medical University and Luzhou Government (No. 2019LZXNYDJ24).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Huifang Xia, Shicheng Peng and Shu Huang have contributed equally to this study.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Street Taiping No.25, Region Jiangyang, Luzhou, 646099, Sichuan Province, China

    Huifang Xia, Shicheng Peng, Jiao Jiang, Xinyi Zeng, Han Zhang, Xinxin Pu, Kang Zou, Yingqin Lü, Huan Xu, Yan Peng, Muhan Lü & Xiaowei Tang

  2. Department of Gastroenterology, The People’s Hospital of Lianshui, Huaian, China

    Shu Huang

Authors
  1. Huifang Xia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shicheng Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shu Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jiao Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xinyi Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Han Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xinxin Pu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kang Zou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yingqin Lü
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Huan Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Yan Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Muhan Lü
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Xiaowei Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design: Xiaowei Tang, Yan Peng; analysis and interpretation of the data: Huifang Xia, Shicheng Peng, Shu Huang, Xinyi Zeng; drafting of the article: Huifang Xia, Shicheng Peng, Shu Huang, Jiao Jiang; critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: Han Zhang, Xinxin Pu, Kang Zou, Yingqin Lü, Huan Xu; final approval of the article: Yan Peng, Muhan Lü, Xiaowei Tang.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaowei Tang.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

Huifang Xia, Shicheng Peng, Shu Huang, Jiao Jiang, Xinyi Zeng, Han Zhang, Xinxin Pu, Kang Zou, Yingqin Lü, Huan Xu, Yan Peng, Muhan Lü, Xiaowei Tang have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xia, H., Peng, S., Huang, S. et al. A systematic evaluation of methodological and reporting quality of meta-analysis published in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy. Surg Endosc 37, 807–816 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09570-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09570-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation