Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis with protocols in Diabetes Mellitus Type II: A systematic review.
Author | Rainkie, Daniel Christopher |
Author | Abedini, Zeinab Salman |
Author | Abdelkader, Nada Nabil |
Available date | 2021-03-02T05:34:33Z |
Publication Date | 2020-12-12 |
Publication Name | PLoS ONE |
Identifier | http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243091 |
Citation | Rainkie DC, Abedini ZS, Abdelkader NN (2020) Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis with protocols in Diabetes Mellitus Type II: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 15(12): e0243091. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243091 |
Abstract | Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are strongly encouraged to work from a protocol to facilitate high quality, transparent methodology. The completeness of reporting of a protocol (PRISMA-P) and manuscript (PRISMA) is essential to the quality appraisal (AMSTAR-2) and appropriate use of SR/MAs in making treatment decisions. The objectives of this study were to describe the completeness of reporting and quality of SR/MAs, assess the correlations between PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2, and to identify reporting characteristics between similar items of PRISMA-P and PRISMA. We performed a systematic review of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus SR/MAs of hypoglycemic agents with publicly available protocols. Cochrane reviews, guidelines, and specific types of MA were excluded. Two reviewers independently, (i) searched PubMed and Embase between 1/1/2015 to 20/3/2019; (ii) identified protocols of included studies by searching the manuscript bibliography, supplementary material, PROSPERO, and Google; (iii) completed PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2 tools. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multivariable linear regression. Of 357 relevant SR/MAs, 51 had available protocols and were included. The average score for PRISMA-P was 15.8±3.3 (66%; maximum 24) and 25.2±1.1 (93%; maximum 27) for PRISMA. The quality of SR/MAs assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool identified an overall poor quality (63% critically low, 18% low, 8% moderate, 12% high). The correlation between the PRISMA-P and PRISMA was not significant (r = 0.264; p = 0.06). Correlation was significant between PRISMA-P and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.333; p = 0.02) and PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.555; p<0.01). Discrepancies in reporting were common between similar PRISMA-P and PRISMA items. Adherence to protocol reporting guidance was poor while manuscript reporting was comprehensive. Protocol completeness is not associated with a completely reported manuscript. Independently, PRISMA-P and PRISMA scores were weakly associated with higher quality assessments but insufficient as a surrogate for quality. Critical areas for quality improvement include protocol description, investigating causes of heterogeneity, and the impact of risk of bias on the evidence synthesis. |
Sponsor | This project is funded by Qatar University Undergraduate Student Grant number QUST-1-CPH2020-17. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. |
Language | en |
Publisher | Public Library of Science |
Subject | bias type 2 diabetes reporting standards systematic review |
Type | Article |
Issue Number | 12 |
Volume Number | 15 |
ESSN | 1932-6203 |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
-
Pharmacy Research [1234 items ]