描述系统评价疼痛的会议摘要存在选择性发表、不可靠且报告质量差的问题。

Conference abstracts describing systematic reviews on pain were selectively published, not reliable, and poorly reported.

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Split, Split, Croatia.

Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island, USA.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jan;117:1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.011. Epub 2019 Sep 15.

DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.011

PMID:31533073

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to determine the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts presented at World Congresses on Pain (WCPs) and to quantify agreement in results presented in those abstracts with their corresponding full-length publications.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We screened abstracts of five WCPs held from 2008 to 2016 to find abstracts describing SRs. Two authors searched for corresponding full publications using PubMed and Google Scholar in April 2018. Methods and outcomes extracted from abstracts were compared with their corresponding full publications. The reporting quality of abstracts was evaluated against the PRISMA for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) checklist.

RESULTS

We identified 143 conference abstracts describing SRs. Of these, 90 (63%) were published as full-length articles in peer-reviewed journals by April 2018, with a median time from conference presentation to publication of 5 months (interquartile range: -0.25 to 14 months). Among 79 abstract-publication pairs evaluable for discordance, there was some form of discordance in 40% of pairs. Qualitative discordance (different direction of the effect) was found in 13 analyzed pairs (16%). The median adherence by abstracts to each PRISMA-A checklist item was 33% (interquartile range: 29% to 42%).

CONCLUSION

Conference abstracts of pain SRs are selectively published, not reliable, and poorly reported.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估世界疼痛大会（WCP）上发表的系统评价（SR）摘要的报告质量，并量化这些摘要与相应全文出版物中呈现的结果的一致性。

研究设计与设置

我们筛选了 2008 年至 2016 年举行的五届 WCP 的摘要，以查找描述 SR 的摘要。两名作者于 2018 年 4 月使用 PubMed 和 Google Scholar 搜索相应的全文出版物。从摘要中提取的方法和结果与相应的全文出版物进行比较。摘要的报告质量根据 PRISMA 摘要（PRISMA-A）清单进行评估。

结果

我们确定了 143 篇描述 SR 的会议摘要。其中，90 篇（63%）于 2018 年 4 月前在同行评议期刊上发表为全文文章，从会议发表到出版的中位数时间为 5 个月（四分位距：-0.25 至 14 个月）。在 79 对可评估不一致性的摘要-出版物对中，有 40%的对存在某种形式的不一致性。在分析的 13 对中发现了 13 对（16%）存在定性不一致性（效果的方向不同）。摘要对每个 PRISMA-A 清单条目的平均依从性为 33%（四分位距：29%至 42%）。