Harms reporting by systematic reviews for functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a cross-sectional analysis

Ref ID 878
First Author G. Jones
Journal EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2023
URL https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00405-022-07803-y
Keywords Harms
Protocols
Surgery
Risk of bias
Low methodological quality
Problem(s) Selective reporting of harms / safety / adverse events / side effects
Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias
Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
No registered or published protocol
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Number of systematic reviews included 55
Summary of Findings From 55 included systematic reviews of functional endoscopic sinus surgery indexed across MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on May 15th, 2022. Of the included systematic reviews, 19 (19/55, 34.5%) did not report harms and 39 (39/55, 70.9%) reported half of the harms items or fewer. The study found that 23 (23/55, 41.8%) of Systematic Reviews demonstrated a method of harms data collection, 26 (26/55, 47.3%) had patients available for harms analysis in their results, and 25 (25/55, 45.5%) had a balanced discussion of harms and benefits of the surgery. Over half of the Systematic Reviews were appraised as “critically low” quality using AMSTAR-2.
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? Yes