Longitudinal analysis of reporting and quality of systematic reviews in high‐impact surgical journals

Ref ID 260
First Author S. Chapman
Journal BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Year Of Publishing 2017
URL https://watermark.silverchair.com/bjs10423.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAArMwggKvBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKgMIICnAIBADCCApUGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMDZEEwTnrSubDSeOQAgEQgIICZsQwfMZSPNkJ2R4T8FAhtLFZyKCekuCeL0q_MncSn5OK5zY5mqrf-fmyo1A7YqA-YhIMVVhxmgfNC53ZcdS4hEDblEIJWAOpODZ5t3vYO7xkJQaLwGW7Mc0eeMS7GD-frG5T-WWDRZBQpF_uj5UwT0M2vTahXkGYfYA9ZsFMkWgJ1-5yhQyzdOx075opaaKCB596TA2AXRrXVqTWD5Akx4P4i-zoZQKI7yniTTOGbL6n3tBQ_4IOXwQalJlpJ1nmQ69_Hi2L_3jyiQckxcQ3LDs6KXS2qJ0H_UqLjkTz4T7czvro3Y1061utOwDqR3hlCdlXy3h9uUHuuebt9S8LLP4K6HhK24kieCFls3aUkIrSbdm8kqEp786F7poC9YyIEiO8Qh53zPOsr61MNqdzwp7Rt5Ese1RwL6D05zEaQJSf2KPzgIIIa6i44RLLsvCwXzrLSNUk72ztzSH3yIB30T1XnYJGBDNGk__4pPH_5Pey6DmGbMBgaW_Zio4C0LFvZFQuhC2oHJY3PqWYX12S-qKJ-pMFvdjgKNBH7uaT9uDJFYhiHJ2LtqAAlCo8s1fE1I7pUy4Mr_nHDUbWv44XrVFgM-2TPqFHeUWDFEw3LWeRwMP6EQk5iESdChB0vSWbu4cbwwE_kVofwXp0XljAt55c_tNmVE5xZYNuFXIM8tyk4sTJO-UqwXNrgTrxJyuyqd6rh7ea_1HVIodg4bhWlk8ysTzVKMyn-wuYJWu_2kOmwOr3k8UmYna4aSY1kWDZvlaMeOGn-pT5JksIulsVEbMR5UGeefusv5g2FZY7QFvmlV1jx9J3
Keywords Surgery
Problem(s) Following guidelines is no guarantee of a rigorous systematic review
Number of systematic reviews included 281
Summary of Findings There was no meaningful change in median compliance with the PRISMA Statement before or after introduction of PRISMA. Overall methodological quality of systematic reviews increased after publication of the PRISMA Statement from a median AMSTAR score of 6 (i.q.r. range 4–7) to 8 (7–9) of 11 (P <0⋅001). Better reporting compliance (PRISMA) was associated with higher methodological quality (AMSTAR).
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