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

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSIONS

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.