Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Dec 28;17(1):178.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0450-1.

Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement

Affiliations

Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement

Seon-Young Lee et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are becoming increasingly important methods to summarize published research. Studies of ophthalmology may present additional challenges because of their potentially complex study designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on topics in ophthalmology to determine compliance with the PRISMA guidelines. We assessed articles published between 2010 and 2015 in the five major relevant journals with the highest impact factors.

Methods: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify systematic reviews published between January 2010 and December 2015 in the following 5 major ophthalmology journals: Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology, and Survey of Ophthalmology. The screening, identification, and scoring of articles were independently performed by two teams, and the results were submitted to statistical analysis to determine medians, ranges, and 95% CIs.

Results: A total of 115 articles were included. The median compliance was 15 out of 27 items (56%), the range was 5-26 (26-96%), and the inter-quartile range was 10 (37%). Compliance was highest in items related to the 'description of rationale' (item 3, 100%) and sequentially lower in 'the general interpretation of results' (item 26, 96%) and 'the inclusion of a structured summary in the abstract' (item 2, 90%). Compliance was poorest in the items 'indication of review protocol and registration' (item 5, 9%), 'specification of risk of biases that may affect the cumulative evidence' (item 15, 24%), and 'description of clear objectives in the introduction' (item 4, 26%).

Conclusion: The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology should be significantly improved. While we recommend the use of the PRISMA criteria as a guideline before journal submission, additional research aimed at identifying potential barriers to compliance may be required to improve compliance with PRISMA guidelines.

Keywords: Meta-analysis; Ophthalmology; PRISMA; Reporting quality; Research methodology; Systematic reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable. This study does not involve human participants, human data or human tissue.

Consent for publication

Not applicable. This study does not involve individual data.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram describing process of articles being reviewed and selected
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The number of articles according to their compliance range with the PRISMA criteria

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Hemingway P, What is a systematic review? http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/syst-revi... (accessed 2 Sep 2016).
    1. Haidich AB. Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia. 2010;14(Suppl 1):29–37. - PMC - PubMed
    1. BMJ. 13. Study design and choosing a statistical test. http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-readers/publications/statistics-s.... Accessed 15 Dec 2017.
    1. Li T. Publishing systematic reviews in ophthalmology: new guidance for authors. Ophthalmology. 2014;121(2):438–439. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.10.003. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources