Assessment of the abstract reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analysis: a literature survey
Abstract Background There is an increasing number of published systematic reviews (SR) of dose-response meta-analyses (DRMAs) over the past decades. However, the quality of abstract reporting of these SR-DRMAs remains to be understood. We conducted a literature survey to investigate the abstract rep...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2019-07-01
|
| Series: | BMC Medical Research Methodology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-019-0798-5 |
| _version_ | 1811341486779793408 |
|---|---|
| author | Peng-Li Jia Bin Xu Jing-Min Cheng Xi-Hao Huang Joey S. W. Kwong Yu Liu Chao Zhang Ying Han Chang Xu |
| author_facet | Peng-Li Jia Bin Xu Jing-Min Cheng Xi-Hao Huang Joey S. W. Kwong Yu Liu Chao Zhang Ying Han Chang Xu |
| author_sort | Peng-Li Jia |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background There is an increasing number of published systematic reviews (SR) of dose-response meta-analyses (DRMAs) over the past decades. However, the quality of abstract reporting of these SR-DRMAs remains to be understood. We conducted a literature survey to investigate the abstract reporting of SR-DRMAs. Methods Medline, Embase, and Wiley online Library were searched for eligible SR-DRMAs. The reporting quality of SR-DRMAs was assessed by the modified PRISMA-for-Abstract checklist (14 items). We summarized the adherence rate of each item and categorized them as well complied (adhered by 80% or above), moderately complied (50 to 79%), and poorly complied (less than 50%). We used total score to reflect the abstract quality and regression analysis was employed to explore the potential influence factors for it. Results We included 529 SR-DRMAs. Eight of 14 items were moderately (3 items) or poorly complied (5 items) while only 6 were well complied by these SR-DRMAs. Most of the SR-DRMAs failed to describe the methods for risk of bias assessment (30.2, 95% CI: 26.4, 34.4%) and the results of bias assessment (48.8, 95% CI: 44.4, 53.1%). Few SR-DRMAs reported the funding (2.3, 95% CI: 1.2, 3.9%) and registration (0.6, 95% CI: 0.1, 1.6%) information in the abstract. Multivariable regression analysis suggested word number of abstracts [> 250 vs. ≤ 250 (estimated ß = 0.31; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.61; P = 0.039)] was positively associated with the abstract reporting quality. Conclusion The abstract reporting of SR-DRMAs is suboptimal, substantial effort is needed to improve the reporting. More word number may benefit for the abstract reporting. Given that reporting of abstract largely depends on the reporting and conduct of the SR-DRMA, review authors should also focus on the completeness of SR-DRMA itself. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T18:56:53Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-f922322225d64a2db5028c548135ab41 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1471-2288 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T18:56:53Z |
| publishDate | 2019-07-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Medical Research Methodology |
| spelling | doaj.art-f922322225d64a2db5028c548135ab412022-12-22T02:34:14ZengBMCBMC Medical Research Methodology1471-22882019-07-011911810.1186/s12874-019-0798-5Assessment of the abstract reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analysis: a literature surveyPeng-Li Jia0Bin Xu1Jing-Min Cheng2Xi-Hao Huang3Joey S. W. Kwong4Yu Liu5Chao Zhang6Ying Han7Chang Xu8School of Management, Shanxi Medical UniversityWest China School of Public Health, NO.4 West China Hospital, Sichuan UniversitySchool of Management, Shanxi Medical UniversityWest China School of Medicine, West China Hospital, Sichuan UniversityJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong KongGansu Provincial Maternity and Child-care HospitalCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Research, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of MedicineSchool of Management, Shanxi Medical UniversityChinese Evidence-based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan UniversityAbstract Background There is an increasing number of published systematic reviews (SR) of dose-response meta-analyses (DRMAs) over the past decades. However, the quality of abstract reporting of these SR-DRMAs remains to be understood. We conducted a literature survey to investigate the abstract reporting of SR-DRMAs. Methods Medline, Embase, and Wiley online Library were searched for eligible SR-DRMAs. The reporting quality of SR-DRMAs was assessed by the modified PRISMA-for-Abstract checklist (14 items). We summarized the adherence rate of each item and categorized them as well complied (adhered by 80% or above), moderately complied (50 to 79%), and poorly complied (less than 50%). We used total score to reflect the abstract quality and regression analysis was employed to explore the potential influence factors for it. Results We included 529 SR-DRMAs. Eight of 14 items were moderately (3 items) or poorly complied (5 items) while only 6 were well complied by these SR-DRMAs. Most of the SR-DRMAs failed to describe the methods for risk of bias assessment (30.2, 95% CI: 26.4, 34.4%) and the results of bias assessment (48.8, 95% CI: 44.4, 53.1%). Few SR-DRMAs reported the funding (2.3, 95% CI: 1.2, 3.9%) and registration (0.6, 95% CI: 0.1, 1.6%) information in the abstract. Multivariable regression analysis suggested word number of abstracts [> 250 vs. ≤ 250 (estimated ß = 0.31; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.61; P = 0.039)] was positively associated with the abstract reporting quality. Conclusion The abstract reporting of SR-DRMAs is suboptimal, substantial effort is needed to improve the reporting. More word number may benefit for the abstract reporting. Given that reporting of abstract largely depends on the reporting and conduct of the SR-DRMA, review authors should also focus on the completeness of SR-DRMA itself.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-019-0798-5Systematic reviewDose-response meta-analysisAbstract reportingLiterature survey |
| spellingShingle | Peng-Li Jia Bin Xu Jing-Min Cheng Xi-Hao Huang Joey S. W. Kwong Yu Liu Chao Zhang Ying Han Chang Xu Assessment of the abstract reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analysis: a literature survey BMC Medical Research Methodology Systematic review Dose-response meta-analysis Abstract reporting Literature survey |
| title | Assessment of the abstract reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analysis: a literature survey |
| title_full | Assessment of the abstract reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analysis: a literature survey |
| title_fullStr | Assessment of the abstract reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analysis: a literature survey |
| title_full_unstemmed | Assessment of the abstract reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analysis: a literature survey |
| title_short | Assessment of the abstract reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analysis: a literature survey |
| title_sort | assessment of the abstract reporting of systematic reviews of dose response meta analysis a literature survey |
| topic | Systematic review Dose-response meta-analysis Abstract reporting Literature survey |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-019-0798-5 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT penglijia assessmentoftheabstractreportingofsystematicreviewsofdoseresponsemetaanalysisaliteraturesurvey AT binxu assessmentoftheabstractreportingofsystematicreviewsofdoseresponsemetaanalysisaliteraturesurvey AT jingmincheng assessmentoftheabstractreportingofsystematicreviewsofdoseresponsemetaanalysisaliteraturesurvey AT xihaohuang assessmentoftheabstractreportingofsystematicreviewsofdoseresponsemetaanalysisaliteraturesurvey AT joeyswkwong assessmentoftheabstractreportingofsystematicreviewsofdoseresponsemetaanalysisaliteraturesurvey AT yuliu assessmentoftheabstractreportingofsystematicreviewsofdoseresponsemetaanalysisaliteraturesurvey AT chaozhang assessmentoftheabstractreportingofsystematicreviewsofdoseresponsemetaanalysisaliteraturesurvey AT yinghan assessmentoftheabstractreportingofsystematicreviewsofdoseresponsemetaanalysisaliteraturesurvey AT changxu assessmentoftheabstractreportingofsystematicreviewsofdoseresponsemetaanalysisaliteraturesurvey |