Reporting and methodologic evaluation of meta-analyses published in the anesthesia literature according to AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists: a preliminary study

• Published in: Korean journal of anesthesiology Vol. 70; no. 4; pp. 446 - 455
• Main Authors: Oh, Jae Hoon, Shin, Woo Jong, Park, Suin, Chung, Jae Soon
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Korea (South) The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists 01.08.2017; Korean Society of Anesthesiologists; 대한마취통증의학회
• Subjects: anesthetic literature; Clinical; meta-analysis; quality; systematic review; 마취과학; Systematic review; Anesthetic literature; Quality; Meta-analysis
• ISSN: 2005-6419; 2005-7563
• DOI: 10.4097/kjae.2017.70.4.446

There have been few recent reports on the methodological quality of meta-analysis, despite the enormous number of studies using meta-analytic techniques in the field of anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of meta-analyses and systematic reviews according to the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines in the anesthesia literature. A search was conducted to identify all meta-analyses ever been published in the ( ), , and ( ) between Jan. 01, 2004 and Nov. 31, 2016. We aimed to apply the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists to all published meta-analyses. We identified 121 meta-analyses in the anesthesia literature from January 2004 through the end of November 2016 ( ; 75, ; 43, ; 3). The number of studies published and percentage of 'Yes' responses for meta-analysis articles published after the year 2010 was significantly increased compared to that of studies published before the year 2009 (P = 0.014 for ). In the anesthesia literature as a whole, participation of statisticians as authors statistically improved average scores of PRISMA items (P = 0.004) especially in the (P = 0.003). Even though there is little variability in the reporting and methodology of meta-analysis in the anesthesia literature, significant quality improvement in the reporting was observed in the by applying the PRISMA checklist. Participation of a statistician as an author improved the reporting quality of the meta-analysis.