Assessing the reporting quality of systematic reviews of observational studies in preeclampsia.

PURPOSE

The majority of epidemiological studies in preeclampsia are observational and the overview of these studies is expressed by systematic reviews (SRs). The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of published SRs of observational studies (OS) in preeclampsia based on Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) statement.

METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched for SRs of OS in preeclampsia published from 1st January 2011 through 10th December 2017. The SRs were evaluated for their reporting quality according to the MOOSE statement, an evidence-based tool which consists of a checklist of 35 items, overall and according to the ranking of journals.

RESULTS

The search identified 93 eligible SRs. Six items were reported in all the studies. Ninety percent (90%) and 70% of the studies complied with 13 (37%) and 20 (57%) items of MOOSE, respectively. Two items concerning search strategy were under-reported (< 10% of studies). High-ranked journals (impact factor ≥ 5) presented a better reporting quality (p < 0.05) of the MOOSE items, while no significant differences were identified in individual items.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of reporting of SRs for OS in preeclampsia was considered satisfactory; though, ranking of journals may have an effect in reporting. Further improvement of reporting is necessary to enhance the validity of SRs.