Reporting and methodological qualities of published surgical meta-analyses

Abstract Objectives To assess the overall qualities of published surgical meta-analysis and predictive factors for high qualities. Study Design and Setting All meta-analyses pertinent to surgical procedures published in year 2013 were selected from PubMed and EMBASE. The characteristics of the included meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting and methodologic qualities were assessed by the PRISMA (27 items) and AMSTAR (11 items) checklists, respectively. Independent predictive factors associated with these two qualities were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses. Results Hundred ninety-seven meta-analyses representing 10 surgical subspecialties were included. The mean PRISMA and AMSTAR adherences (by items) were 22.2 ± 2.4 and 7.8 ± 1.2, respectively, and a positive linear correlation was found between them with an R 2 of 0.793. Those meta-analyses conducted by the first authors having meta-analysis publication previously had significantly higher reporting and methodologic qualities than those who did not ( P  = 0.002 and P  = 0.001). Meanwhile, there were also significant differences in these two qualities between studies published in Q1-ranked and (Q2 + Q3)-ranked journals as rated by the SCImago indicator ( P P Conclusions The reporting and methodologic qualities of current surgical meta-analyses remained suboptimal, and first authors' experience and ranking of publishing journals were independently associated with both qualities. Preregistration might be an effective measure to improve the quality of meta-analyses, which deserves more attention from future study conductors.