Registration and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews on Surgical Intervention: A Meta-epidemiological Study

• Published in: The Journal of surgical research Vol. 277; pp. 200 - 210
• Main Authors: Mei, Fan, Chen, Fei, Hu, Kaiyan, Gao, Qianqian, Zhao, Li, Shang, Yi, Zhao, Bing, Ma, Bin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-09-2022
• Subjects: Epidemiology; Meta-Analysis; Protocol; Reporting; Surgery; Systematic review; Systematic review; Meta-Analysis; Protocol; Reporting; Epidemiology; Surgery
• ISSN: 0022-4804; 1095-8673
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2022.04.026

The prospective registration of systematic reviews represent an effective strategy for reducing the selective reporting of outcomes. However, the relationship between registration and the reporting quality of systematic reviews on surgical interventions remains unclear.
MEDLINE was searched for relevant systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials investigating surgical interventions published in 2020. Data concerning general characteristics and registration information were independently extracted. The reporting quality was evaluated in accordance with pre-established evaluation criteria. Univariate and multivariate linear regression were performed to identify factors associated with improved reporting quality.
A total of 135 systematic reviews were analyzed, of which 50 (37%) were registered. Registered systematic reviews achieved a significantly higher compliance rate on all items compared with non-registered reviews. Registered reviews also demonstrated significantly higher proportions of the reporting of seven items. Multivariate regression analysis showed that registration status and funding support were associated with better reporting quality.
Although prospective registration associates with higher reporting quality in systematic reviews, the number of prospective registrations remains low. Therefore, prospective registration should be encouraged among authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors, as well as institutions, to enhance the value of systematic reviews in evidence-based surgical practice.