Abstract
BackgroundEmergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement.MethodsThe top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement.ResultsThe included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately. Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence (mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions (mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001).ConclusionThere is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting.
Highlights
IntroductionThe evidence base that is provided by systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) is often considered to be of the highest level
Emergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice
Sixty-seven reviews mentioned to be written in adherence to the PRISMA statement (60%), the other 45 reviews had no such mention of the PRISMA statement (40%)
Summary
The evidence base that is provided by systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) is often considered to be of the highest level They facilitate an Nawijn et al BMC Emergency Medicine (2019) 19:19 publish SRs and MAs that are more complete and of higher quality [12,13,14]. Given the increased necessity and demand for emergency medicine research, it is of the utmost importance that the quality of reporting of the available reviews is high to facilitate the providence of high-level evidence. Evaluating the quality of reporting enables interpretation of the current quality of evidence and the current state and clinical relevancy This insight helps to draft a research agenda for the near future within the highly demanding field of emergency medicine. This resulted in our objective to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have