Quality of meta-analyses in major leading gastroenterology and hepatology journals: A systematic review

Abstract

Background and aim: To appraise the current reporting methodological quality of meta-analyses in five leading gastroenterology and hepatology journals, and to identify the variables associated with the reporting quality.

Methods: We systematically searched the literature of meta-analyses in Gastroenterology, Gut, Hepatology, Journal of Hepatology (J HEPATOL) and American Journal of Gastroenterology (AM J GASTROENTEROL) from 2006 to 2008 and from 2012 to 2014. Characteristics were extracted based on the PRISMA statement and the AMSTAR tool. Country, number of patients, funding source were also revealed and descriptively reported.

Results: A total of 127 meta-analyses were enrolled in this study and were compared among journals, study years, and other characters. Compliances with the PRISMA statement and the AMSTAR checklist were 20.8 ± 4.2 out of a maximum of 27 and 7.6 ± 2.4 out of a maximum of 11, respectively. Some domains were poorly reported including describing a protocol and/or registration (item 5, 0.0%), describing methods, and giving results of additional analyses (item 16, 45.7% and item 23, 48.0%) for PRISMA and duplicating study selection and data extraction (item 2, 53.5%), and providing a list of included and excluded studies (item 5, 14.2%) for AMSTAR. Publication in recent years showed a significantly better methodological quality than those published in previous years.

Conclusions: This study shows that methodological reporting quality of MAs in the major gastroenterology and hepatology journals has improved in recent years after the publication of the developed PRISMA statement, and it can be further improved.

Keywords: assessing the methodological quality of systematic review; gastroenterology and hepatology; meta-analysis; methodological quality; preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.