成人人群患病率研究系统评价的报告特征与完整性：一项元研究
Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a metaresearch study.
作者信息
Buitrago-Garcia Diana, Robles-Rodriguez William Gildardo, Eslava-Schmalbach Javier, Salanti Georgia, Low Nicola
机构信息
Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012 Bern, Switzerland; Graduate School of Health Sciences, University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
Department of Epidemiology, Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud-FUCS, Cr 49 No 95 - 79, Bogotá, Colombia.
出版信息
J Clin Epidemiol. 2024 Oct;174:111489. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111489. Epub 2024 Jul 30.
OBJECTIVES
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, first published in 2009, has been widely endorsed and compliance is high in systematic reviews (SRs) of intervention studies. SRs of prevalence studies are increasing in frequency, but their characteristics and reporting quality have not been examined in large studies. Our objectives were to describe the characteristics of SRs of prevalence studies in adults, evaluate the completeness of reporting, and explore study-level characteristics associated with the completeness of reporting.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
We did a metaresearch study. We searched 5 databases from January 2010 to December 2020 to identify SRs of prevalence studies in adult populations. We used the PRISMA 2009 checklist to assess completeness of reporting and recorded additional characteristics. We conducted a descriptive analysis of review characteristics and linear regression to assess the relationship between compliance with PRISMA and publication characteristics.
RESULTS
We included 1172 SRs of prevalence studies. The number of reviews increased from 25 in 2010 to 273 in 2020. The median PRISMA score for SRs without meta-analysis was 17.5 of a maximum of 23, and for SRs with meta-analysis, 22 of a maximum of 25. Completeness of reporting, particularly for key items in the methods section, was suboptimal. SRs that included a meta-analysis or reported using a reporting or conduct guideline were the factors most strongly associated with increased compliance with PRISMA 2009.
CONCLUSION
Reporting of SRs of prevalence was adequate for many PRISMA items. Nonetheless, this study highlights aspects for which special attention is needed. Development of a specific tool to assess the risk of bias in prevalence studies and an extension to the PRISMA statement could improve the conduct and reporting of SRs of prevalence studies.
目的
系统评价与Meta分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）声明于2009年首次发表，已得到广泛认可，干预性研究的系统评价（SR）对其依从性较高。患病率研究的SR数量日益增加，但其特征和报告质量尚未在大型研究中得到检验。我们的目的是描述成人患病率研究SR的特征，评估报告的完整性，并探讨与报告完整性相关的研究层面特征。
研究设计与背景
我们进行了一项元研究。我们在2010年1月至2020年12月期间检索了5个数据库，以识别成人患病率研究的SR。我们使用PRISMA 2009清单评估报告的完整性，并记录其他特征。我们对综述特征进行了描述性分析，并进行线性回归以评估PRISMA依从性与发表特征之间的关系。
结果
我们纳入了1172项患病率研究的SR。综述数量从2010年的25项增加到2020年的273项。未进行Meta分析的SR的PRISMA得分中位数为17.5（满分23分），进行Meta分析的SR的PRISMA得分中位数为22（满分25分）。报告的完整性，特别是方法部分的关键项目，并不理想。纳入Meta分析或报告使用报告或实施指南的SR是与PRISMA 2009依从性增加最密切相关的因素。
结论
对于许多PRISMA项目，患病率研究SR的报告是足够的。尽管如此，本研究突出了需要特别关注的方面。开发一种评估患病率研究偏倚风险的特定工具以及对PRISMA声明的扩展可能会改善患病率研究SR的实施和报告。
Zotero 插件