Cargando…

Systematic reviews of prognosis studies: a critical appraisal of five core clinical journals

BACKGROUND: Prognosis research refers to the investigation of association between a baseline health state, patient characteristic and future outcomes. The findings of several prognostic studies can be summarized in systematic reviews (SRs), but some characteristics of prognostic studies may result i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Matino, Davide, Chai-Adisaksopha, Chatree, Iorio, Alfonso
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6460771/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31093540
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-017-0008-z
_version_ 1783410378281058304
author Matino, Davide
Chai-Adisaksopha, Chatree
Iorio, Alfonso
author_facet Matino, Davide
Chai-Adisaksopha, Chatree
Iorio, Alfonso
author_sort Matino, Davide
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Prognosis research refers to the investigation of association between a baseline health state, patient characteristic and future outcomes. The findings of several prognostic studies can be summarized in systematic reviews (SRs), but some characteristics of prognostic studies may result in difficulties when performing the analyses. This study aimed to investigate trends in the volume and quality of SRs of prognostic studies in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review in five high-impact clinical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Circulation, JAMA, and Stroke) to identify SRs of prognosis studies focused on fundamental prognosis research and prognostic factor research published between 2000 and 2012. We excluded studies of clinical prediction guides or implementation studies. The quality of the SRs was rated based on the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and the PRISMA checklists. RESULTS: Over the 13-year period, 1065 SRs were published. Of these, 198 were SRs of prognosis studies. The proportion of all SRs to published articles increased from 0.86% in 2000 to 4.2% in 2012. Likewise, the proportion of prognosis SRs to all SRs increased from 10.3% in 2000 to 17.7% in 2012. MOOSE and PRISMA mean summary scores consistently increased over time for all journals, indicating that the quality of reporting in these SRs has steadily improved. However, several items were not consistently well reported by investigators. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that there is a growing number of SRs of prognosis studies. However, the quality is suboptimal when assessed with the generic reporting guidelines for observational studies. New reporting guidelines and risk of bias tools for prognosis studies are needed to improve the quality of future research in this field. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41512-017-0008-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6460771
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64607712019-05-15 Systematic reviews of prognosis studies: a critical appraisal of five core clinical journals Matino, Davide Chai-Adisaksopha, Chatree Iorio, Alfonso Diagn Progn Res Review BACKGROUND: Prognosis research refers to the investigation of association between a baseline health state, patient characteristic and future outcomes. The findings of several prognostic studies can be summarized in systematic reviews (SRs), but some characteristics of prognostic studies may result in difficulties when performing the analyses. This study aimed to investigate trends in the volume and quality of SRs of prognostic studies in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review in five high-impact clinical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Circulation, JAMA, and Stroke) to identify SRs of prognosis studies focused on fundamental prognosis research and prognostic factor research published between 2000 and 2012. We excluded studies of clinical prediction guides or implementation studies. The quality of the SRs was rated based on the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and the PRISMA checklists. RESULTS: Over the 13-year period, 1065 SRs were published. Of these, 198 were SRs of prognosis studies. The proportion of all SRs to published articles increased from 0.86% in 2000 to 4.2% in 2012. Likewise, the proportion of prognosis SRs to all SRs increased from 10.3% in 2000 to 17.7% in 2012. MOOSE and PRISMA mean summary scores consistently increased over time for all journals, indicating that the quality of reporting in these SRs has steadily improved. However, several items were not consistently well reported by investigators. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that there is a growing number of SRs of prognosis studies. However, the quality is suboptimal when assessed with the generic reporting guidelines for observational studies. New reporting guidelines and risk of bias tools for prognosis studies are needed to improve the quality of future research in this field. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41512-017-0008-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC6460771/ /pubmed/31093540 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-017-0008-z Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
Matino, Davide
Chai-Adisaksopha, Chatree
Iorio, Alfonso
Systematic reviews of prognosis studies: a critical appraisal of five core clinical journals
title Systematic reviews of prognosis studies: a critical appraisal of five core clinical journals
title_full Systematic reviews of prognosis studies: a critical appraisal of five core clinical journals
title_fullStr Systematic reviews of prognosis studies: a critical appraisal of five core clinical journals
title_full_unstemmed Systematic reviews of prognosis studies: a critical appraisal of five core clinical journals
title_short Systematic reviews of prognosis studies: a critical appraisal of five core clinical journals
title_sort systematic reviews of prognosis studies: a critical appraisal of five core clinical journals
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6460771/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31093540
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41512-017-0008-z
work_keys_str_mv AT matinodavide systematicreviewsofprognosisstudiesacriticalappraisaloffivecoreclinicaljournals
AT chaiadisaksophachatree systematicreviewsofprognosisstudiesacriticalappraisaloffivecoreclinicaljournals
AT iorioalfonso systematicreviewsofprognosisstudiesacriticalappraisaloffivecoreclinicaljournals