Systematic reviews of surgical procedures in children: quantity, coverage and quality

Ref ID 166
First Author R. G. McGee
Year Of Publishing 2013
Keywords Reproducibility
Risk of bias
Low reporting quality
Problem(s) Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Methods not described to enable replication
Intervention not described / defined
Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality
Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes
Individual study characteristics not reported sufficiently
Number of systematic reviews included 15
Summary of Findings Reporting and methodological quality, as assessed by PRISMA and AMSTAR respectively, was generally adequate although there were several omissions, particularly around completeness of reporting of statistical methods used, and use of quality assessments in analyses. Descriptions of procedures often lacked specific details, which would enhance their reproduction, for example, highlighting similarities and differences between the surgical procedures used in the trials included in the review. Reported outcomes were diverse and loosely defined. Less than a third of reviews assessed outcomes important to patients and clinicians such as adverse events.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No