To assess the reporting (PRISMA) and methodological (AMSTAR) quality of systematic reviews published in five high-impact surgical journals between 2007 and 2015.
Level of Investigation
Descriptive
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).
Number of systematic reviews included
281
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed
16805
Treatment impacted
No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted
Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description
Does the article have a publicly available protocol?
No
Did the review team include both methodological and clinical experts?
Not Applicable
Sampling strategy for obtaining the systematic reviews under assessment
Comprehensive searches on a particular topic (clinical or methodological)
Was the sample size of systematic reviews subject to any formal sample size or power calculation?
No
Were any or all of the study selection and data extraction performed in duplicate?
No
Were any statistical adjustments made to correct for confounding?
Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?
