The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vascular surgery needs improvement: a systematic review

Ref ID	212
First Author	W. K. Tan
Journal	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Year Of Publishing	2014
URL	https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25448643/
Keywords	• Risk of bias • Low reporting quality • Reproducibility • Surgery
Problem(s)	• Low reporting (PRISMA) quality • Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review • Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported • Methods not described to enable replication
Number of systematic reviews included	74
Summary of Findings	The average percentage of PRISMA items reported in the 74 included systematic reviews of general and vascular surgical journals in 2012 was 73%, compared to 65% in 2008, indicating some improvement in the quality of reporting (p < 0.01). However some areas of reporting remained deficient in 2012 including: protocol and registration (3%); describing results of subgroup analyses (35%); assessing risk of bias across studies (38%); describing methods of data extraction (57%), describing methods of synthesising results (65%); funding of systematic review (59%).
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	No