Korean Journal of Radiology

  • 제23권3호
  • /
  • Pages.355-369
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1229-6929(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-8330(eISSN)
대한영상의학회 (The Korean Society of Radiology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Quality Reporting of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis According to PRISMA 2020 Guidelines: Results from Recently Published Papers in the Korean Journal of Radiology

  • Ho Young Park (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Chong Hyun Suh (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Sungmin Woo (Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center) ;
  • Pyeong Hwa Kim (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Kyung Won Kim (Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2021.10.20
  • 심사 : 2021.12.21
  • 발행 : 2022.03.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: To evaluate the completeness of the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in a general radiology journal using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four articles (systematic review and meta-analysis, n = 18; systematic review only, n = 6) published between August 2009 and September 2021 in the Korean Journal of Radiology were analyzed. Completeness of the reporting of main texts and abstracts were evaluated using the PRISMA 2020 statement. For each item in the statement, the proportion of studies that met the guidelines' recommendation was calculated and items that were satisfied by fewer than 80% of the studies were identified. The review process was conducted by two independent reviewers. Results: Of the 42 items (including sub-items) in the PRISMA 2020 statement for main text, 24 were satisfied by fewer than 80% of the included articles. The 24 items were grouped into eight domains: 1) assessment of the eligibility of potential articles, 2) assessment of the risk of bias, 3) synthesis of results, 4) additional analysis of study heterogeneity, 5) assessment of non-reporting bias, 6) assessment of the certainty of evidence, 7) provision of limitations of the study, and 8) additional information, such as protocol registration. Of the 12 items in the abstract checklists, eight were incorporated in fewer than 80% of the included publications. Conclusion: Several items included in the PRISMA 2020 checklist were overlooked in systematic review and meta-analysis articles published in the Korean Journal of Radiology. Based on these results, we suggest a double-check list for improving the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors and reviewers should familiarize themselves with the PRISMA 2020 statement and check whether the recommended items are fully satisfied prior to publication.

키워드

과제정보

This research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI18C2383).

참고문헌

  1. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Training. cochrane.org Web site. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook. Accessed August 8, 2021
  2. Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet 2010;377:108-109
  3. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097
  4. Nawijn F, Ham WHW, Houwert RM, Groenwold RHH, Hietbrink F, Smeeing DPJ. Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in emergency medicine based on the PRISMA statement. BMC Emerg Med 2019;19:19
  5. Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n160
  6. Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, Esmail K. Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? Radiology 2013;269:413-426
  7. Wang P, Guo YM, Liu M, Qiang YQ, Guo XJ, Zhang YL, et al. A meta-analysis of the accuracy of prostate cancer studies which use magnetic resonance spectroscopy as a diagnostic tool. Korean J Radiol 2008;9:432-438
  8. Yu SH, Kim CB, Park JW, Kim MS, Radosevich DM. Ultrasonography in the diagnosis of appendicitis: evaluation by meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2005;6:267-277
  9. Kim KW, Lee J, Choi SH, Huh J, Park SH. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers-part I. general guidance and tips. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:1175-1187
  10. Lee J, Kim KW, Choi SH, Huh J, Park SH. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers-part II. statistical methods of meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:1188-1196
  11. Suh CH, Park SH. Successful publication of systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:5-6
  12. Kim SY, Chung HW, Oh TS, Lee JS. Practical guidelines for ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy of soft-tissue lesions: transformation from beginner to specialist. Korean J Radiol 2017;18:361-369
  13. Oh SW, Cheon GJ. Prostate-specific membrane antigen PET imaging in prostate cancer: opportunities and challenges. Korean J Radiol 2018;19:819-831
  14. Cho SJ, Kim HS, Suh CH, Park JE. Radiological recurrence patterns after bevacizumab treatment of recurrent high-grade glioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2020;21:908-918
  15. Choi SH, Kim JW, Kim JH, Kim KW. Efficacy and safety of microwave ablation for malignant renal tumors: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature since 2012. Korean J Radiol 2018;19:938-949
  16. Chung SR, Choi YJ, Suh CH, Lee JH, Baek JH. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for predicting response to chemoradiation therapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review. Korean J Radiol 2019;20:649-661
  17. Kang D, Shim S, Cho J, Lim HK. Systematic review of studies assessing the health-related quality of life of hepatocellular carcinoma patients from 2009 to 2018. Korean J Radiol 2020;21:633-646
  18. Kim DW, Jang HY, Kim KW, Shin Y, Park SH. Design characteristics of studies reporting the performance of artificial intelligence algorithms for diagnostic analysis of medical images: results from recently published papers. Korean J Radiol 2019;20:405-410
  19. Kim DW, Suh CH, Kim KW, Pyo J, Park C, Jung SC. Technical performance of two-dimensional shear wave elastography for measuring liver stiffness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2019;20:880-893
  20. Kim JY, Suh YJ, Han K, Choi BW. Reliability of coronary artery calcium severity assessment on non-electrocardiogram-gated CT: a meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2021;22:1034-1043
  21. Kim JY, Suh YJ, Han K, Kim YJ, Choi BW. Cardiac CT for measurement of right ventricular volume and function in comparison with cardiac MRI: a meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2020;21:450-461
  22. Kim PH, Choi SH, Kim JH, Park SH. Comparison of radioembolization and sorafenib for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety and efficacy. Korean J Radiol 2019;20:385-398
  23. Kim PH, Kim M, Suh CH, Chung SR, Park JE, Kim SC, et al. Neuroimaging findings in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2021;22:1875-1885
  24. Kim PH, Suh CH, Kim HS, Kim KW, Kim DY, Lee EQ, et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitor with or without radiotherapy in melanoma patients with brain metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2021;22:584-595
  25. Kim TH, Woo S, Han S, Suh CH, Ghafoor S, Hricak H, et al. The diagnostic performance of the length of tumor capsular contact on MRI for detecting prostate cancer extraprostatic extension: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2020;21:684-694
  26. Ko MJ, Park DA, Kim SH, Ko ES, Shin KH, Lim W, et al. Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for detecting breast cancer in the diagnostic setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2021;22:1240-1252
  27. Liao XL, Wei JB, Li YQ, Zhong JH, Liao CC, Wei CY. Functional magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of locally recurrent prostate cancer: are all pulse sequences helpful? Korean J Radiol 2018;19:1110-1118
  28. Lim SJ, Kim M, Suh CH, Kim SY, Shim WH, Kim SJ. Diagnostic yield of diffusion-weighted brain magnetic resonance imaging in patients with transient global amnesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2021;22:1680-1689
  29. Park SH, Cho SH, Choi SH, Jang JK, Kim MJ, Kim SH, et al. MRI assessment of complete response to preoperative chemoradiation therapy for rectal cancer: 2020 guide for practice from the Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology. Korean J Radiol 2020;21:812-828
  30. Suh CH, Jung SC, Kim B, Cho SJ, Woo DC, Oh WY, et al. Neuroimaging in randomized, multi-center clinical trials of endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review. Korean J Radiol 2020;21:42-57
  31. Suh CH, Kim HS, Jung SC, Choi CG, Kim SJ, Kim KW. Optimized image-based surrogate endpoints in targeted therapies for glioblastoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of phase III randomized controlled trials. Korean J Radiol 2020;21:471-482
  32. Wang WD, Zhang LH, Ni JY, Jiang XY, Chen D, Chen YT, et al. Radiofrequency ablation combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization therapy versus surgical resection for hepatocellular carcinoma within the Milan criteria: a meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2018;19:613-622
  33. Wang X, Hu Y, Ren M, Lu X, Lu G, He S. Efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinomas compared with radiofrequency ablation alone: a time-to-event meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:93-102
  34. Zhu ZX, Liao MH, Wang XX, Huang JW. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization plus 131I-labelled metuximab versus transcatheter arterial chemoembolization alone in intermediate/advanced stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2016;17:882-892
  35. Kim HJ, Cho SJ, Baek JH. Comparison of thermal ablation and surgery for low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 2021;22:1730-1741
  36. Kang TW, Rhim H, Lee MW, Kim YS, Choi D, Lim HK. Terminology and reporting criteria for radiofrequency ablation of tumors in the scientific literature: systematic review of compliance with reporting standards. Korean J Radiol 2014;15:95-107
  37. Kim G, Cho YZ, Baik SK, Kim MY, Hong WK, Kwon SO. The accuracy of ultrasonography for the evaluation of portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis: a systematic review. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:314-324
  38. Ma LL, Wang YY, Yang ZH, Huang D, Weng H, Zeng XT. Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better? Mil Med Res 2020;7:7
  39. Efthimiou O. Practical guide to the meta-analysis of rare events. Evid Based Ment Health 2018;21:72-76
  40. Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, Awad T, Thabane L, Gluud C. Comparison of statistical inferences from the DerSimonian-Laird and alternative random-effects model meta-analyses - an empirical assessment of 920 Cochrane primary outcome meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods 2011;2:238-253
  41. Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Berlin JA, Russell Localio A. Much ado about nothing: a comparison of the performance of meta-analytical methods with rare events. Stat Med 2007;26:53-77
  42. Stijnen T, Hamza TH, Ozdemir P. Random effects meta-analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications in sparse data. Stat Med 2010;29:3046-3067
  43. Lopez-Lopez JA, Page MJ, Lipsey MW, Higgins JPT. Dealing with effect size multiplicity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods 2018;9:336-351
  44. McGauran N, Wieseler B, Kreis J, Schuler YB, Kolsch H, Kaiser T. Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review. Trials 2010;11:37
  45. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629-634
  46. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011;343:d4002
  47. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:991-996
  48. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924-926
  49. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:401-406
  50. Gopalakrishna G, Mustafa RA, Davenport C, Scholten RJ, Hyde C, Brozek J, et al. Applying grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) to diagnostic tests was challenging but doable. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:760-768
  51. Schunemann HJ, Mustafa R, Brozek J, Santesso N, Alonso-Coello P, Guyatt G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 16. GRADE evidence to decision frameworks for tests in clinical practice and public health. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;76:89-98
  52. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2012;1:2
  53. Naudet F, Sakarovitch C, Janiaud P, Cristea I, Fanelli D, Moher D, et al. Data sharing and reanalysis of randomized controlled trials in leading biomedical journals with a full data sharing policy: survey of studies published in the BMJ and PLOS Medicine. BMJ 2018;360:k400
  54. McGrath TA, Alabousi M, Skidmore B, Korevaar DA, Bossuyt PMM, Moher D, et al. Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review. Syst Rev 2017;6:194
  55. McGrath TA, McInnes MD, Korevaar DA, Bossuyt PM. Meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy in imaging journals: analysis of pooling techniques and their effect on summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 2016;281:78-85
  56. Takwoingi Y, Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ. Empirical evidence of the importance of comparative studies of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:544-554
  57. McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM, Clifford T, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA 2018;319:388-396
  58. Owen RK, Cooper NJ, Quinn TJ, Lees R, Sutton AJ. Network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies identifies and ranks the optimal diagnostic tests and thresholds for health care policy and decision-making. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;99:64-74
  59. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ 2010;340:c221