- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Errors or omissions in search strategy
- Assessing the Reporting and Frequency of Harms in Systematic Reviews Focused on Minimally Invasive Hysterectomies: A Cross-sectional Analysis
Ref ID | 841 |
First Author | J. Autaubo |
Journal | JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE GYNECOLOGY |
Year Of Publishing | 2023 |
URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36442755/ |
Keywords |
Harms Surgery Low reporting quality |
Problem(s) |
Low reporting (PRISMA) quality Errors or omissions in search strategy Selective reporting of harms / safety / adverse events / side effects |
Number of systematic reviews included | 52 |
Summary of Findings | From 52 systematic reviews of minimally invasive hysterectomies indexed in MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), Embase, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on May 15 2022. Harms reporting was more complete than hypothesized, but still had deficiencies throughout, such as inconsistent use of severity scales to classify harms. The study found that >44 of included systematic reviews (of 52; 84.6%) reported >50% of the harms items. Completeness of harms reporting was significantly associated with harms specification as a primary outcome (p <.05). The corrected covered area was 0.60%. Harms were stated in the title or abstract in 27 systematic reviews (of 52; 51.9%). Harms were listed and separately defined within the Methods section in 46 systematic reviews (of 52; 88.5%). Harms language was not reported in the search strategy for 40 systematic reviews (of 52; 76.9%). |
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | No |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? |