Cargando…

Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews (SRs) often poorly report key information, thereby diminishing their usefulness. Previous studies evaluated published SRs and determined that they failed to meet explicit criteria or characteristics. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tam, Wilson W S, Lo, Kenneth K H, Khalechelvam, Parames
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5306529/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28174224
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013905
_version_ 1782507208831926272
author Tam, Wilson W S
Lo, Kenneth K H
Khalechelvam, Parames
author_facet Tam, Wilson W S
Lo, Kenneth K H
Khalechelvam, Parames
author_sort Tam, Wilson W S
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews (SRs) often poorly report key information, thereby diminishing their usefulness. Previous studies evaluated published SRs and determined that they failed to meet explicit criteria or characteristics. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was recommended as a reporting guideline for SR and meta-analysis (MA), but previous studies showed that adherence to the statement was not high for SRs published in different medical fields. Thus, the aims of this study are twofold: (1) to investigate the number of nursing journals that have required or recommended the use of the PRISMA statement for reporting SR, and (2) to examine the adherence of SRs and/or meta-analyses to the PRISMA statement published in nursing journals. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. METHODS: Nursing journals listed in the ISI journal citation report were divided into 2 groups based on the recommendation of PRISMA statement in their ‘Instruction for Authors’. SRs and meta-analyses published in 2014 were searched in 3 databases. 37 SRs and meta-analyses were randomly selected in each group. The adherence of each item to the PRISMA was examined and summarised using descriptive statistics. The quality of the SRs was assessed by Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews. The differences between the 2 groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Out of 107 nursing journals, 30 (28.0%) recommended or required authors to follow the PRISMA statement when they submit SRs or meta-analyses. The median rates of adherence to the PRISMA statement for reviews published in journals with and without PRISMA endorsement were 64.9% (IQR: 17.6–92.3%) and 73.0% (IQR: 59.5–94.6%), respectively. No significant difference was observed in any of the items between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The median adherence of SRs and meta-analyses in nursing journals to PRISMA is low at 64.9% and 73.0%, respectively. Nonetheless, the adherence level of nursing journals to the PRISMA statement does not significantly vary whether they endorse or recommend such a guideline.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5306529
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53065292017-02-27 Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study Tam, Wilson W S Lo, Kenneth K H Khalechelvam, Parames BMJ Open Nursing OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews (SRs) often poorly report key information, thereby diminishing their usefulness. Previous studies evaluated published SRs and determined that they failed to meet explicit criteria or characteristics. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was recommended as a reporting guideline for SR and meta-analysis (MA), but previous studies showed that adherence to the statement was not high for SRs published in different medical fields. Thus, the aims of this study are twofold: (1) to investigate the number of nursing journals that have required or recommended the use of the PRISMA statement for reporting SR, and (2) to examine the adherence of SRs and/or meta-analyses to the PRISMA statement published in nursing journals. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. METHODS: Nursing journals listed in the ISI journal citation report were divided into 2 groups based on the recommendation of PRISMA statement in their ‘Instruction for Authors’. SRs and meta-analyses published in 2014 were searched in 3 databases. 37 SRs and meta-analyses were randomly selected in each group. The adherence of each item to the PRISMA was examined and summarised using descriptive statistics. The quality of the SRs was assessed by Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews. The differences between the 2 groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Out of 107 nursing journals, 30 (28.0%) recommended or required authors to follow the PRISMA statement when they submit SRs or meta-analyses. The median rates of adherence to the PRISMA statement for reviews published in journals with and without PRISMA endorsement were 64.9% (IQR: 17.6–92.3%) and 73.0% (IQR: 59.5–94.6%), respectively. No significant difference was observed in any of the items between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The median adherence of SRs and meta-analyses in nursing journals to PRISMA is low at 64.9% and 73.0%, respectively. Nonetheless, the adherence level of nursing journals to the PRISMA statement does not significantly vary whether they endorse or recommend such a guideline. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-02-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5306529/ /pubmed/28174224 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013905 Text en © 2017 Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Nursing
Tam, Wilson W S
Lo, Kenneth K H
Khalechelvam, Parames
Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study
title Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study
title_full Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study
title_fullStr Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study
title_full_unstemmed Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study
title_short Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study
title_sort endorsement of prisma statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study
topic Nursing
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5306529/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28174224
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013905
work_keys_str_mv AT tamwilsonws endorsementofprismastatementandqualityofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysespublishedinnursingjournalsacrosssectionalstudy
AT lokennethkh endorsementofprismastatementandqualityofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysespublishedinnursingjournalsacrosssectionalstudy
AT khalechelvamparames endorsementofprismastatementandqualityofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysespublishedinnursingjournalsacrosssectionalstudy